re: #602 sattv4u2

Clinton, who already had good PR, would have erased the ONE perceived “negative” about him (not tough on terror ,, not willing to engage militarily)

That perceived negative, was one solely perceived by more ‘right leaning’ Americans. Clinton made a ton of campaign promises to his far left constituency and then reneged on almost everything. Weak militarily is a positive quality to that crowd.

Regardless, a state-sponsored terror attack would have only further condemned him among the side of the aisle that said his lack of military action invited naked aggression from our enemies. It would have been ammo for partisans, and proof of their hypothesis that the FBI can’t fight terrorism.

It would also have potentially forced his hand into military intervention in Iraq, which would have only inflamed his most ardent supporters in the anti-war left. That is a no win situation.