Reply #33: I guess you have not read anything about the trials of those [View All]

[sabrina 1]

responsible for the '93 bombing and how it was connected to 9/11 etc. I don't blame Clinton because he made every effort to STOP terror attacks and during his administration more attacks were stopped than under any other. And some of them, had they succeeded, would have been way worse than 9/11. But it was an issue that he cared about and paid attention to and he respected the intelligence community's reports and work. Unlike his successor.

Stopping an attack doesn't always mean stopping the suspects from getting into the country. Sometimes it means letting them in so that their connections etc can be discovered. But for such a tactic to work, the intelligence community must have the permission and cooperation of the administration and those higher up the chain of command to get warrants and to make arrests etc. which they had under Clinton and expected to continue under the next administration.

But it did not. Bush all but shut down the terror program and 9/11 happened even though he received 52 warnings of an impending attack. Do you think Clinton would have ignored those warnings and told the agents they had 'covered your ass' and sent them on their way?