At the time we did not have enough evidence to convict Osama.
I don't know what evidence we had and what we didn't have, and what evidence we might have developed if we had arrested him and started the process of getting seach warrants, etc. Do you, really?
If not, I think you need to temper your statement.
My recollection of the time is that we had as much evidence against him as we had, say, against the PamAm bombers who were convicted. Certainly enough to try him. And if we had committed significant resources to investigating him, who knows what we would have come up with?
I'll agree that Clinton wasn't entirely to blame. It's possible, though I think unlikely, that if we had smashed, or at least seriously disrupted, the Al Quaeda network back then, that they could still have pulled off Sept. 11.
But Clinton's decision certainly was a significant factor.
And a very sad reflection on his priorities and his commitment to defending the US. |
