So Clinton Dropped the ball....

No, not really. There's documented evidence that the Clinton Administration clearly warned the incoming Bush Administration of the threat and they completely threw it on the back burner. Hell, they gave them a set of instructions on what to do next. Bush and Co. completely ignored the threat until it was too late. Bush is also the one who didn't retaliate for the U.S.S. Cole, which is also usually pinned on Clinton. Bush had no grasp of the real threats that were out there when he got into office and neither did his administration. Even though they were warned, like always, they knew best. Hell, he was breifed on this crap before he even took office....Watch the video.

Clinton had a chance for Bin Laden, should of, could of, didn't history, works both ways. And each side can offer facts to support any claim.

Yeah, in exchange for stopping our sanctions against the Taliban. Not to mention he did order a bombing mission to kill him, but they missed...

Whose "lies" do we believe

They're not all lies....


The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.
    The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden.

    Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration's defense by saying there had been such contacts.
    In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Ok, but he didn't use this as justification for invading Iraq...He ws wrong too, but Bush Co. really screwed the pooch with the same incorrect info....


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

Yeah, he bombed him after that. He didn't send us into an extremely costly quagmire. Actually, if he did have WMDs back then, it seems that Clinton's actions worked...

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

He actually took the generals' advice....presidents are supposed to do that...

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

Ok. This would explain why Bush focused on idiotic missle defense plans, instead of the real threat. Doesn't make him any more correct in doing so...