That is absurd reasoning.m0002a wrote:
I am not saying that all these things are the underlying cause of 9/11, but they had to have happened in order for events to unfold they way they did.
The cruise missile attack on Bin Laden was in retaliation to the bombing of the US embassies, which was carried out less than 2 weeks before. Clinton may have ordered the attack on that particular day for the reasons you give, but the attack would have inevitably happened at some point very close to that time - they obviously had to wait for a suitable opportunity when they thought they knew Bin Ladens location.
Given that the embassy bombings and the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre happened before the attempted assassination of Bin Laden. it is not unreasonable to assume that 9/11 would have happened anyway and was therefore not a direct response to Clinton ordering the assassination attempt.