Myway (and many others) news:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton, angrily defending his efforts to capture Osama bin Laden...OK, but know what? This shouldn't even be going on. Because, (and I know a tree will fall on me if I say this, or maybe a squirrel attack, or bears, yeah, bears will probably eat me for this, but I have to say:) Bill Clinton shouldn't have caught so much crap for not getting bin Laden in the first place. And sure, Bill will point out that George didn't get bin Laden either. Thing is, before 9-11, bin Laden wasn't nearly the big fish he was after 9-11. Period.
Sure, I'd like to say that Bill Clinton had the monster in his hands and let him go. I'd like to say it on a bumper sticker. But truth is, when Bill Clinton could have had bin Laden, we didn't know he was such a monster. (bin Laden that is, well, or Clinton either I guess) So much as it hurts to say it, ouch, we should cut Bill Clinton some slack on this.
Oh, but I do love watching BC get testy. And I guess my point is that you have to keep in mind what the situation was back when Clinton dropped the ball. It's judging based on what we now know that has some fools thinking that Andrew Sullivan would have done a better job of subduing Saddam. Hindsight, and all that.
Oh, he's in stern mode for sure. I think the last time we saw the finger point was back in the I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman interview.