Commenting on my post about a possible Iraqi connection to OKC, fellow blogger John Hudnall makes an additional point that’s worth repeating.

After 911, Bill Clinton was whining to his toadies and sycophants about how cruel and unfair history was–he never had an opportunity to be a great president, because he didn’t get to preside over a war. That sum’bitch Bush just had all the luck.

But as I pointed out, there was a lot of evidence of international connections to the OKC bombing, which was the biggest terrorist attack on US soil up until that time (since the first WTC attempt in 1993 was unsuccessful). But the Administration actively avoided following the evidence trail.

I already pointed out one reason–they wanted to demonize their political enemies, and not dilute any of the blame. But the other reason is perhaps that, had they actually found hard evidence of Iraqi involvement, they would have had to do something about it, and the public would have likely been unimpressed with lobbing a few cruise missiles at aspirin factories. Particularly considering Mr. Clinton’s own history, and his cabinet picks, this was not an Administration with either the temperament or talent to fight a real war.

So Mr. Clinton potentially had his opportunity for a war against terrorism in Oklahoma City. He chose instead, as Mr. Hudnall says, to use it for crass domestic partisan advantage. Had he instead sought to find the full truth, and properly responded to it, what happened on September 11 might have been avoided.

And thus the legacy continues to build.