Ugh. In (half hearted) defense of Clinton

The New York Times is reporting that the State Department warned the Clinton administration in 1996 that Osama bin Laden could become a greater threat to the United States with his relocation to Afghanistan. We will see this story discussed a lot in the blogosphere today, and I'm sure there will be ample criticism of Clinton. I'm not saying that the criticism won't be deserved, because it will be. The problem is you cannot lump all of this on Clinton's shoulders. Bill Clinton, if he had some strong political courage, could have been the guy with whom the buck stopped in regards to Islamic terror. He didn't, and in that he failed, but historically speaking, he inherited the lackadaisical policies towards Islamic terror that were in good measure born of the Carter administration and carried forward through the Reagan and Bush administrations (Reagan and Bush were solid at handling state sponsored terror, but not the more decentralized terrorism). And if Clinton had the juevos to do something about it in the 90's, it would have been through strong opposition, as I don't think the general public truly took Islamic terrorism seriously until they watched their TV's on September 11, 2001.