First of all, I'm a registered independent, that will probably go libertarian this election. I'm not a Republican, nor a democrat, though i must admit if there's a debate, I usually fall on the republican side after doing some digging on issues.
In light of this investiation into the failures of the Bush party to stop 9/11 I thought I'd raise a few questions.
First of all.......American interests were attacked twice while Clinton was in officer. The U.S.S. Cole, and an American Embassy. Yet he did nothing, knowing full well that Osama was a terrorist threat. Yet no one is investigating his inactions? Not only did he know he was a terrorist threat, he let him conduct actions against the US and did nothing about it. Why are we focusing on the man who had only been in office a few months, and pointing fingers saying he should have known it was coming, when our president for 8 years ignored Osama? The blame should be at least as much on Clinton for failing to step up to Osama in his term as well.
Second, he's being criticized for going to war with Iraq. First of all, Iraq is a terroristic threat. I never saw them launching WMD's, and invading our shores, but Saddam is a KNOWN terrorist threat, been on the CIA and FBI radar for years. He publicly supported 9/11,a nd asked his people to join in the fight. He also pays thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers that blow themselves up killing Israeli's. This is the war on TERROR, not Osama Bin Laden. I get very tired of people saying "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 we should be there". You may be correct, he probably didn't have anything to do with 9/11, yet he's still a leader that funds and supports terrorists. Therefore we should have gone in like we did.
Now.......chew on this. People are mad that bush sat on the 9/11 information. Osama has a history of attacking US interests, so he should have seen 9/11 coming right? Enter criticisim of the attack, and the blaming of the Bush administration for not doing their part.
What would have happened if we were attacked, or a US interest were attacked by Iraqi terrorists funded by Saddam? I'll tell you what would happen. We would point fingers at Bush again. Saddam is a known terrorist after all, he's attacked other countries before, and funded terroristic acts around the globe. He had a histrory of violent behavior. Oh wow, bush fumbled the ball on this one, he should have seen it coming from a mile away.
See? He was in a no win situation with this war. If he sits on it, and Saddam lashes out he gets ALL the blame. If he goes in, he gets blame for being a war monger.
Long story short, look at what has happened, and could happen before you judge his term, and this war. He was placed in a nno win situation to say the least. What would YOU have done? Protected your country from a possible terrorist attack? Or stayed out and just hoped that what you fear didn't come true?