And which countries? Remember, al Queda didn't even exist yet.Perhaps the most sensational charge against Clinton to emerge in the months since Sept. 11 is the dubious claim that he somehow let an offer from Sudan to turn over bin Laden slip through his fingers. Sullivan blatantly misrepresents a definitive article that appeared in the Washington Post on Oct. 3, 2001, on this topic. "The Sudanese government offered to hand over bin Laden to the United States," Sullivan writes. "Astonishingly, the Clinton administration turned the offer down." But that phony accusation is exploded by the very first sentence of the Post article, which says only that Sudan offered to "arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody."
At the time, the idea of the U.S. intervening in the middle east with troops on the ground was unthinkable, even to most Republicans. The last time we had tried that, it was the Marines in Lebanon. That was the kind of experience we wanted to avoid.
Hindsight is 20/20, and it's really lame to go back in time and pretend you were smarter than everyone else.
Like I said, hindsight is 20/20. You're welcome to note what Clinton should have done, just don't try to lay all the blame on him or make this political, okay?Now, I don't think clinton did anything in this particual instance with malice, I think he simply took the wrong response, there was no way for him to know for sure, but actions and inactions have consequences. In this case, it emboldened OBL according to his right hand man, into 911.