No, the US let Bin Laden go because there was no legal way to hold him. Do you think Clinton would have passed on an opportunity to make headlines? If you do, I think you give him too much credit.
But back to my point, has Bush stopped all terrorists from anything that can happen in 2006? Has he rounded up everyone who could be a problem?
Why aren't you ringing your hands over Bush Sr. not getting Sadaam? He had the chance.
And Nuke, is this the my guy sucks, but yours sucked worse argument? I was very unhappy with Clinton. Because of his extra marital affairs the GOP was able to tie his hands and basically he couldn't, and by extension, we couldn't, accomplish much his last two years.
And if Bin Laden was so obviously a threat why didn't the GOP Senators and Congressman make a bigger issue and demand we stop Bin Laden? They get briefings also. Where was the American public? Why wasn't there protests in the street saying we had to get him?
We are playing politics with a bigger issue. How to assure US safety when most of the world wants us harmed.
If you want to point out Clinton's shortcomings and problems, fire away. He's a very easy target. That doesn't make Bush better. That doesn't absolve all of our elected officials of blame for 9-11. Just like offering Rumsfeld as a sacrificial lamb absolves everyone else in the prisoner abuse.