Monday, February 05, 2007

Who is to blame for 9/11

5 years on, Republicans still want to sell you on the idea that it was Clinton. I mean, yeah Bush was President (and had been four 8 months), but really, when you boil it down, it was Clintons fault we got attacked. Such is the subject of Dinesh D'Souza's latest article, and I suspect it won't be the last of its kind. His argument is that Clinton made us look weak, so al-Qaeda felt great about attacking us.
. . . in every case the Clinton administration reacted either by doing nothing, or with desultory counterattacks like a missile strike against largely unoccupied Afghan tents and the bombing of what was reported to be a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan. Clearly these responses inflicted little harm to Al Qaeda and actually made America look ridiculous in the eyes of the Muslim world. Consequently, Bin Laden became convinced that his theory of American irresolution and weakness was substantially correct. By his own account he became emboldened to conceive of a grander and more devastating strike on American shores, the strike that occurred on 9/11.
Six years into the Bush Presidency and Republicans would still like us to turn our lonely eyes to Clinton rather than the mess their guy made of it. I guess I can see why they would want that.

No comments: