HelloAgain;1641128 wrote:
That could be revisionist history, but if not then it's tough for any thoughtful individual to disagree with the decision.
Wouldn't disagree, but I am suspicious of the reason he gave - since when do we destroy an entire town to get 1 person? This is the same Bill Clinton that literally sent a cruise missle thru Gaddafi's front door. And based on the below, I'm going with Bill engaging in some revisionist history:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/25/cruise-missiles-missile_n_840365.html
The Tomahawk, which is guided to its target by GPS, has tended to work well for fixed sites, like air defense systems, but perhaps less well for so-called fleeing targets, which depends on precise and up-to-date intelligence. In August 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered U.S. Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea to strike suspected Al Qaeda sites in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for the Africa embassy bombings.
"Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed," the 9/11 Commission wrote in its final report. "[Former National Security Advisor Sandy] Berger told us that an after-action review by [CIA] Director [George] Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20-30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours."
