I clicked, anyway, since I can't resist torturing myself.

This line took my breath away:

--------------
"That in itself doesn't mean that they could have, or even should have, been prevented."
--------------

"Even should have"? I'm left speechless by the sheer amount of stupidity contained in those three words.

"And worries about such charges -- particularly the racism part -- clearly got in the way."

So... only if the government had been more racist, 9/11 would not have happened.

Or maybe, "Clinton's fears of causing civilian casualties," was the cause. If only the government had sacrificed more innocent live of poeple from other countries we would be safe.

What is the ratio these days? How many innocent people from other nations is it ok to kill in order to save one American?

Was Clinton more afraid of civilian casualties than Bush? Is not wanting to cause civilian casualties always a bad thing? Never mind, Clinton's a Democrat, Bush is a Republican. I shouldn't ask such questions.

Ummm, that tingly feeling? I read NRO once, and have even peeked under the bridge where freepers' live.

It's treatable.

I'm not even sure that Instapundit's statement about civilian casualties is correct. I seem to recall that Pakistan was advised shortly before the attack, as the cruise missiles would be in Pakistani airspace, and some sympathetic high-level officer warned bin Laden. I know, a real president would have damned the diplomatic consequences and fired away, but we learned how untrustworthy the Pakistani intelligence service is.

The jab at Clinton is just a wee bit of right-wing moral relativism, considering his criticism of Rice.