|
I was listening to CBS's new co-anchor of the evening news, Rush Limbaugh, reading an op-ed piece by an author whose name I missed the one time it was mentioned. Rush never tells you who or what he is reading more than once lest you might want to read it for yourself you see. Anyway this writer was extremely critical of Clinton and Richard Clarke and their FAILED attempts to kill Bin Laden. Rest assured, loyal listeners, this writer is a favorite guest of Chris Mathews so we are not talking about some partisan hack (the voice from my car told me).
Well in this piece the writer states that Clinton failed in all of the 8-10 chances he had to kill Bin Laden (to all degrees that that could be true I guess) but remember..... Bush never had a chance to kill Bin Laden before 9/11.....
:shrug: Hold it, how can that be? :shrug:
Having actually read both the 9/11 Commission report and Richard Clarke's book I know that we didn't know that alQaeda existed until 1996. We now attribute the 1993 WTC bombing, that "middle America" was just so heartsick about, to alQaeda -- this is a rather new development in and of itself. So if in the last 4 years of his presidency Clinton (personally I guess) had 8-10 chances to kill Bin Laden how could Bush have had NO chances in a full 8 months (233 days) before 9/11?
How can that be?
|