Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Clinton could have taken out Bin Laden

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Clinton could have taken out Bin Laden
TedSheckler's avatar

TedSheckler

Emporium Entrepreneur

3,974 posts
Aug 1, 2014 1:20 PM
Hindsight 20/20?

Ummm, YES!
Aug 1, 2014 1:20pm
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Aug 1, 2014 2:41 PM
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.
Aug 1, 2014 2:41pm
Commander of Awesome's avatar

Commander of Awesome

Senior Pwner

23,151 posts
Aug 1, 2014 2:41 PM
IQOTW nice fail
Aug 1, 2014 2:41pm
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Aug 1, 2014 5:26 PM
old news
Aug 1, 2014 5:26pm
T

Tiernan

Senior Member

13,021 posts
Aug 1, 2014 6:23 PM
Unless Bin Laden was gonna give Bubba a hummer Clinton would never got near him.
Aug 1, 2014 6:23pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Aug 3, 2014 4:14 PM
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.
Aug 3, 2014 4:14pm
H

HelloAgain

Banned

537 posts
Aug 3, 2014 7:14 PM
"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.
Aug 3, 2014 7:14pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Aug 3, 2014 8:53 PM
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."
Aug 3, 2014 8:53pm
S

steubbigred

Senior Member

1,392 posts
Aug 4, 2014 4:53 AM
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
There ya go 100%
Aug 4, 2014 4:53am