Bill clinton in his own words admitted to not Bin Laden when he knew he was planning attacks against the homeland.


This is a case of credible intel and a means to do something about it. The problem was demonstorable in the doctrine of fighting terror as a legal extension of law enforcement for a general crime instead of treating the coonspirators as combatants in wae. This is playing out with the unilateral releasing if detainees from gitmo that we KNOW will kill americans.


In the case of 911, you have a situation where two dozen people hid in a population of 300 million and used unsophisticated tools that wouldnt have inherently led to the diagnosis of a terror plot.


Criticism of the administration that was still functionally in a state of transitioning to its full team being in place is based almost soley in hindsight.


As it relates to benghazi you had a singular threat to a location known to be a high value target with previous acts of terror in the region not to mention the fact that the administration had just initiated a policy of regime change and you would anricipate sectarian and terrorist activity in the vaccuum.


You also have verifiable common sense steps that could have been and should have been implimented. These common sense steps werent taken because an increase in security or the outright withdrawl of the ambassador would have undermined the administrations reelection bid based on the idea tgat al queda was decimated.


There is no reasonable objective comparison between 911 and benghazi

---