Your e-mails: 'Should have recognized the threat'

Adjust font size:

(CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had sharply different views this week on whether the Clinton or Bush administrations were more aggressive in pursuing Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network. We asked our readers who they think is right and why.

Here is a selection of the responses, some of which have been edited.

To answer your question "Which administration did more?" the records would have to support the current administration for actually sending troops to find bin Laden. BUT that was only after 9/11. In response to the Cole attack and other terrorist acts against the U.S. prior to 9/11 and the efforts to get bin Laden, both administrations failed to respond adequately. The fact that those events happened on Clinton's watch should NOT have affected Bush's response when he took office. He should have recognized the threat and acted immediately, ESPECIALLY when Clinton did not.
Stan Giza, San Diego, California

I think that the Bush administration came into office with such hubris, arrogance and an excessive sense of righteousness that they wouldn't/couldn't listen to anyone that had come before. I also believe that they already had a plan in place to somehow "finish" the job in Iraq. This administration has not done very much good for our country in the last six years and may have done us irreparable harm in the years to come.
Linda Altland, Newtown, Pennsylvania

Rice Says "I think this is not a very fruitful discussion", huh is that not the same thing The Bush Administration said about the 9/11 commission. I think the fact that Bush and company fought tooth and nail against even having an investigation speaks volumes.
Tom Gardner, Bradford, Vermont

It doesn't really matter anymore who did what or didn't. As we wrangle about the issue repeatedly, bin Laden is out there watching American television treating his Typhoid w/ laughter, the best medicine.
Ed Cuevo, Mohegan Lake, New York

Bill Clinton is right. It's good to see him stand up and quit taking the abuse and blame for everything that is wrong with the U.S. It is high time that the Republicans take responsibility for what happens on their watch and quit hiding the truth behind national security and classified documents. There is a reason why so much has become classified and it has little to do with national security. It has much to do with not being able to withstand the light of day. What kind of democracy can survive being ignorant to truth? I suggest none and that would include the United States. Sadly, that is the state of affairs with our Federal Government at this time.
David Dungan, Lutz, Florida

Either party can say what they say, but neither party can say they were successful. The United States and the rest of the world needs leadership that can successful confront issues with a positive result. The truth is neither Clinton nor Rice has accomplished what they have brought up as an issue.
James Lyles, Denver, Colorado

I think that Clinton's comments during the abrasive interview were dead on. When Bush took office, catching Osama was not on his agenda -- despite a PDB that warned of the clear threat. I'm still not certain that catching Osama is actually on the agenda.
Val Hastings, Chicago

Directing attention to Clinton's pre-9/11 anti-al Qaeda actions was a political mistake because it opened the door to public inquiry into the Bush administration's pre-9/11 anti-al Qaeda actions. So far, that non-descript period had lain quietly in the shadow of 9/11. The public largely accepted the administration's line: "who could have foreseen?"

Now, by allowing critics to insist that, indeed, Clinton should have foreseen, the searchlights will fall on those who inherited Richard Clark and his al Qaeda portfolio yet failed to act on them in the immediate months preceding 9/11.
Roger Robins, Torrance, California

They're both wrong. We desperately need an administration with the will to pursue those who murder Americans here and abroad. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda should be relentlessly pursued, wherever the trail leads.
Joe Schwind, Fort Collins, Colorado

Condoleezza Rice, in previous statements to Congress explaining why the Bush administration had not been able to prevent 9/11, said that they had no idea bin Laden posed such a great threat, and that they were not worried about him before 9/11. Now she is saying that she and the Bush administration were aggressive at pursuing bin Laden. She is lying about one or both of these statements.
Mauro Nobre, Lawrence, Kansas

Who does Clinton think he's kidding? He did something close to nothing to capture bin Laden. In defense of himself, he mentions no specifics other than to say that the U.S. couldn't negotiate landing rights with neighboring countries. So, 3000 Americans died on 9/11 because your administration's diplomacy failed and you were unwilling to violate Iran's airspace. Good job Bill.
Dan Costantino, New York City

Am I the only one who remembers how the Republicans criticized Clinton for bombing an "aspirin factory"? Am I the only one who remembers Republican Congressmen criticizing Clinton for "wagging the dog?" But the real question is this: Bush has had 5 years of Republican and Democratic unlimited financial and political support to catch Osama. Where is Osama?
Elizabeth Johansen, Scotts Valley, California

I would like to think that both parties tried their best. Wouldn't it be great if both parties worked together to strive for what is best for all of us? I thought it so comforting to see former Presidents Bush and Clinton collaborating after hurricanes Katrina and Rita to help EVERYONE!
Pam Wilson, Conroe, Texas

President Clinton is right. Bush/Cheney's "terrorism task force" did not meet once between January and September 2001. Bush did not react to the August 6 PDB. Rice did not go on "red alert" after the PDB. Clinton's people warned Bush's that OBL was the #1 threat and they focused on missile defense. As well, Rice was to deliver a speech on the major threats to the USA on September 11. She refuses to release the text of the speech she was going to give. Apparently, OBL is not part of it. This is easy to solve, only Richard Clarke worked with both. Ask him.
Cory Couts, Venice, California

First of all let me say, that it is too late to point the finger at anyone. Innocent people have died. However after listening to Mr. Clinton, it sadly reminded me of the last time he shook his finger and said "I did not have sex with that woman." I think the world knows who the liar is. I had a chance to watch the recent movie, what led up to 9-11, and I have to say if it is truly based on the commission, then this mess started with the Clinton administration, and should have been taken care of long before president bush was elected.
Lisa Schubert, St. Lucie, Florida

Who can blame Clinton for not enjoying being taken to task over the sum of his failures after eight years in office? Despite Clinton's self-defensive assertions, I think anyone would be hard pressed to say that the man did all he could have or should have to protect this country over the course of two terms of repeated attacks against us. He didn't. He couldn't see the future that awaited us, but he failed miserably in his capacity as our protector and guardian. Perhaps if he had pursued the terrorist threat gathering against us with the same zeal with which he pursued Monica Lewinski... perhaps then the history of the past five years might have been quite different. While nobody can argue that the Bush administration is free from its own deserved share of criticism, the Bush administration had eight months. Clinton had eight years. The storm gathered on his watch.
Rudy Garon, Warren, New Jersey

The primary goal of the President is to protect the American people. The Bush administration was in control for 8 months. September 11th did not happen overnight. Yet this administration takes credit that no other attacks have happened since. Shouldn't those who are willing to take credit for preventing attacks also be held liable for the attacks that have taken place? After all, weren't they the same people that were in office then? You can't have it both ways.
Dwayne Kiger, Pittsburg

Tools:
Save |
Print |
E-mail |
Most Popular |

Next story in Politics

Politics

Centenarian honored by Obama dies at 107

Ann Nixon Cooper, the Atlanta centenarian whose name Barack Obama invoked in his post-election speech as a symbol of America's struggles and progress, died ...