While Clinton is hardly a sympathetic character here, I will say in his defense that the country's mentality at the time was not prepared for the kind of wars we are fighting now. I don't think Clinton commanded enough respect, esp from the military, to wage the fight that Bush is. He also squandered the military on useless missions in Somalia and Bosnia. A fight against Afghanistan would have been seen as just another adventure in nation-building.
That said, his "law enforcement strategy" which the Dems still push, was a disaster and led directly to 9/11.
While I'm an ultra-conservative, politically speaking, and not a fan of Clinton (although I don't believe him the personal evil that some of the republican demagogues made him out to be), I agree with the Rabbi here in that (I think) what he's saying is that in hindsight
we (all of us, citizens, congress, and presidential administrations) were wrong in our thinking regarding islamo-facism for long before Clinton and up until 9/11 (and after). I think
that all of the presidential administrations at least from 1968 forward can be blamed equally.
None of our presidents are ever perfect, but Clinton stands out as an egregious example of gross negligence when it came to handling terrorism and national security. His conspicuous reluctance to defend the United States against repeated acts of war committed by bin Laden and Al Queda led very directly to the death of some 3,000 Americans on 9-11-06.
Many of us were NOT wrong about our thinking regarding islamo-fascism during the 1990's. Many of us demanded a response to the first attempt by bin Laden to bring down the WTC tower in 1993 - all Clinton did was arrest four clerics. Many of us were furious when Clinton sent troops into Somalia, then even more furious when he declared our weekness to the world by tucking tail between legs and fleeing at the first sign of opposition. Many of us demanded a response to the murder of our servicemen in 1996 in the Kobar Towers thing- Clinton did nothing. Many of us demanded a real response to bin Laden's attack on our embassies in 1998 - Clinton fired a cruise missile at an aspirin factory (and even that pathetic response looked more like a PR diversion from the the Lewinski mess than a like a true commitment to defend the US). Many of us demanded a response to bin Laden's attack against the USS Cole in 2000 - Clinton again chose to do nothing.
By the time Clinton left office, the message was clear: bin Laden or anyone else was free attack the United states with impunity. The message was heeded well by bin Laden and al Queda, who didn't hesitate to attack us over and over again throughout the '90s.
Bin Laden held his pattern of attacks after Clinton left office, unleashing yet another attack (9-11) less than a year after his previous attack (USS Cole). Yet this time there was a real man in the White House, George W Bush. Unlike Clinton, Bush DID respond properly to this act of war, by unleashing a massive counterattack against bin Laden and his allies/supporters/sponsers/harborers. This new messasge was equally clear: you may NOT attack the US with impunity. This message was also heeded well by bin Laden, who hasn't dared to attack the US again.
Do you really think it's a coincidence that bin Laden attacked bi-yearly while Clinton was in office, yet only attacked once while Bush was in office? Bin Laden may be a psychopath, but he's no fool...
