re: #611 Scion9

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.

But a strong RESPONSE to that would have been the perfect antidote! So again, he had MUCH more to gain by exposing any link beteeen McViegh and Iarq (or whomever) and being strong than covering it up!
AND to that piont (covering it up) how many people/ agencies would have to have been involved? You’re telling me in all that time, all those people are to this day mum !?!?!?!