8 months versus 8 years

Bill Clinton recently blew up at Chris Wallace when he was asked whether he did enough to get Bin Laden. His response was that Bush had 8 months and did not do anything. However, Bill Clinton had 8 years (don't forget the first World Trade Center attack happened within days of his inauguration) and had several attacks under his watch that did not receive a vigorous response. I am not saying attacks on Clinton's actions are necessarily justified (i.e. not with out some Monday morning quarterbacking) but it is ridiculous to suggest that it was Bush's inaction for those 8 months allowed 9/11 to happen or that he should be condemned for not being more proactive. Defending your record is understandable, but attacking your successor is highly irregular behavior for a former President.

--Joey