Reply #40: I've read as much as is publicly available [View All]

[TeamsterDem]

but I think you're missing a key point: Allowing the '93 attackers in doesn't carry with it the same problem that does allowing the 9/11 hijackers in because in '93 the latter hadn't yet occurred. That is to say that in 1993 there wasn't a precedent for "what happens if we make a mistake?" in terms of terrorism on US soil like there was in 2000. Yes, ultimately both were bad decisions. But as the old saying (which Bush hilariously flubbed) goes: "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

I don't want the impression created that I think Bush was somehow "good" or even "adequate" at fighting terrorism (or doing anything else of note). I don't think that. In fact as a president he was a staggering failure (unless you're a rich person in which case he succeeded terrifically). But while I think he blew the August 6 PDB and other things, I'm similarly willing to admit that the plan was both hatched and in LARGE measure enacted during Clinton's presidency. According to reporting of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's "interrogation" he said the plan was formulated in 1996. If that's true (and not simply extracted under torture's duress) then that'd mean about 90% came under Clinton's presidency. How that makes it entirely Bush's fault I'm not certain, as even mathematically that doesn't add up. Bush bears blame there, no question. But to blame him entirely is stunningly blind.