W
wkfan
Posts: 1,641
Aug 1, 2014 11:22am
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/31/bill-clinton-i-could-have-killed-osama-bin-laden/?hpt=hp_t2
Should he have or not?
discuss.
Should he have or not?
discuss.
TedSheckler
Posts: 3,974
Aug 1, 2014 1:20pm
Hindsight 20/20?
Ummm, YES!
Ummm, YES!
Dr Winston O'Boogie
Posts: 1,799
Aug 1, 2014 2:41pm
I have never bought into Bin Laden's image. I think he was more figurehead than plotting genius. There is still an excellent chance 9/11 happens with him dead years before. He played zero part in the actual planning or execution.
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Aug 1, 2014 2:41pm
IQOTW nice fail
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Aug 1, 2014 5:26pm
old news
T
Tiernan
Posts: 13,021
Aug 1, 2014 6:23pm
Unless Bin Laden was gonna give Bubba a hummer Clinton would never got near him.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Aug 2, 2014 9:38am
Very old news.
Best book on the subject is Steve Coll's Ghost Wars:
http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/1594200076/ref=la_B001H6OLII_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406987814&sr=1-2
Best book on the subject is Steve Coll's Ghost Wars:
http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/1594200076/ref=la_B001H6OLII_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406987814&sr=1-2
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Aug 3, 2014 4:14pm
Old news...but is Clinton's logic/justification accurate or is he trying to spin and get aheaad of this resurfacing?
I'd heard Clinton could have gotten him, but never really why he didn't. I always assumed it was simply that pre-9/11 we didn't run around assasinating terrorists.
I'd heard Clinton could have gotten him, but never really why he didn't. I always assumed it was simply that pre-9/11 we didn't run around assasinating terrorists.
H
HelloAgain
Posts: 537
Aug 3, 2014 7:14pm
"He [Osama bin Laden] is a very smart guy, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about him – and I nearly got him once," Clinton said. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.”
That could be revisionist history, but if not then it's tough for any thoughtful individual to disagree with the decision.
That could be revisionist history, but if not then it's tough for any thoughtful individual to disagree with the decision.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Aug 3, 2014 8:53pm
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:HelloAgain;1641128 wrote:
That could be revisionist history, but if not then it's tough for any thoughtful individual to disagree with the decision.
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."
S
steubbigred
Posts: 1,392
Aug 4, 2014 4:53am
There ya go 100%ccrunner609;1640721 wrote:everyone has known this for years......the right is drumming up dirt about the clintons. The dirt will be more like mud come 2016