Michael Scheuer, the CIA operative who was in charge of the Bin Laden unit was interviewed this week and was out-right emotional in his assertion that contrary to Bill Clinton's claims on Fox News last week, Clinton did have plenty of opportunities -- 10 actionable ones to be exact -- to kill Bin Laden but chose not to.

In each case, there was a plausible explaination (such as not wanting to risk damaging a Mosque).  But Clinton strenuously argued that he had done "everything in his power" to get Bin Laden whichi s just not true.

So that we're clear: I don't think Clinton really did anything worse than Bush did in his first 8 months.  The problem I have is Clinton's bald-faced attempt to rewrite history as someone who was aggressively fighting terrorists which is flatly untrue.  Bush wasn't aggressive pre-9/11 and neither was Clinton.

Clinton made 4 claims that were discussed on this weekend's news shows:

1) That he did everything in his power to get Bin Laden.  Not true at all. The CIA operatives involved came out this past week (with Michael Scheurer himself being the latest) to state emphatically that that was not true ("A flat out lie" said Scheuer).  "It is a question of fact" said Scheuer. He also was unhappy that the 9/11 commission wouldn't even allow operatives to testify.

2) That he had a "battle plan" drawn up in 1998 to take out the Taliban.   This came as real news to, well everyone. No such battle plan existed. Total on-the-fly fabrication.

3) Claimed that he left a "comprehensive anti-terror strategy". In another thread on JoeUser.com, left-wingers argue that the 14 page position pager that Richard Clarke provided Clinton in 1998 constitutes this comprehensive-anti-terror strategy document. While that demonstrates how far Clinton apologists will go to defend their guy, there was no such comprehensive strategy document or plan put together.  Incidentally, Clinton had rejected that 1998 strategy document.  And for left-wingers who aren't familiar with how this sort of thing works -- units provide the President with policy documents that are typically a dozen or so pages that give a summary of a strategy. If accepted, they are then turned into an actionable plan that typically is hundreds of pages long and outlines how exactly something would be done (THAT is what most knowledgeable people would consider a comprehensive anti-terror strategy).

Bush didn't take terrorism seriously. But Clinton didn't provide anything that a reasonable person would consider comprehensive on what the US should do regarding global-terrorism. 

4) Clinton claimed that Republicans complained that he was "obsessed" with Bin Laden.  Nobody can seem to find any Republicans (and certainly not congressional --read ELECTED Republicans) who said anything that could remotely be construed as Clinton being "obsessed".  Fighting terror was a relatively low priority during Clinton and Bush until 9/11.

I never have felt Clinton was somehow responsible for 9/11.  I didn't begrudge him not getting Bin Laden.  But I DO begrudge him trying to rewrite history to suit his political ends.  During the 9/11 commission I was very unhappy with the political nature of it with people like Sandy Berger (who got caught removing papers) seemingly trying to cover things up.

Clinton was no more responsible for 9/11 than Roosevelt was responsible for Pearl Harbor.  But Clinton apologists need to spare us with the reinvention of history here. Clinton was no terror warrior.