For those of you jumping on Clinton for not going after Bin Laden.....

Dback Jon · June 25th, 2003, 08:24 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90318,00.html

Looks like Bush had many chances before 9/11 to take him out.

I am not criticizing Bush on this - 9/11 changed everything for all leaders. But please back off your dumping on Clinton when you blame him for not going after Bin Laden more aggressively, unless you dump on Bush at the same time.
Until 9/11 actually happened, I don't think many people had a clue as to how dangerous to the U.S. this guy was (and still is).

SECTION 11 · June 25th, 2003, 08:30 AM

Clinton sent cruise missles to his camps after the two embassy bombings, no?

Dback Jon · June 25th, 2003, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SECTION 11
Clinton sent cruise missles to his camps after the two embassy bombings, no?

Yes, he did.

Brian in Mesa · June 25th, 2003, 08:48 AM

How many chances did he really have?

According to the article: Officials at the Sept. 4 meeting put off recommending the armed drone as a solution. Instead, they finalized a series of other measures to rout Al Qaeda from its base in Afghanistan, including re-arming the rebel Northern Alliance.

Those recommendations were being forwarded from Rice to Bush when the Sept. 11 hijackers struck, officials said.

For balance, here's one on Clinton/Reno passing up a chance to take out bin Laden: http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/G...aden_plan.html

Also, the Democratic Congress passed a genius law banning the FBI and CIA from sharing information - meaning the FBI couldn't tell the CIA what they knew about bin Laden.

Dback Jon · June 25th, 2003, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brian in Mesa
How many chances did he really have?

According to the article: Officials at the Sept. 4 meeting put off recommending the armed drone as a solution. Instead, they finalized a series of other measures to rout Al Qaeda from its base in Afghanistan, including re-arming the rebel Northern Alliance.

Those recommendations were being forwarded from Rice to Bush when the Sept. 11 hijackers struck, officials said.

For balance, here's one on Clinton/Reno passing up a chance to take out bin Laden: http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/G...aden_plan.html

Also, the Democratic Congress passed a genius law banning the FBI and CIA from sharing information - meaning the FBI couldn't tell the CIA what they knew about bin Laden.

When President Bush took office in January 2001, the White House was told that Predator drones (search) had recently spotted Usama bin Laden as many as [bold]three times[/bold] and officials were urged to arm the unmanned planes with missiles to kill the Al Qaeda (search) leader. But the administration failed to get drones back into the Afghan skies until after the Sept. 11 attacks later that year, current and former U.S. officials say.

And tell me more about this law you talk about, BIM?

Dback Jon · June 25th, 2003, 08:57 AM

And your missing the point, Brian. Before 9/11, Bin Laden was thought to be not considered worth risking a lot of lives over. Both Clinton and Bush came to that same conclusion.

Mike Olbinski · June 25th, 2003, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dback Jon
When President Bush took office in January 2001, the White House was told that Predator drones (search) had recently spotted Usama bin Laden as many as [bold]three times[/bold]

Is that Osama's brother?

Mike

Dback Jon · June 25th, 2003, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chandler Mike
Is that Osama's brother?

Mike

LOL - and don't forget their sister Joumama Bin Laden

Brian in Mesa · June 25th, 2003, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dback Jon
And tell me more about this law you talk about, BIM?

FISA: This created the environment for terrorists to thrive in, which the Patrot Act is trying to reverse.

http://www.loyola.edu/dept/politics/...A-Summary.html

It's hampered our intelligence community for decades.

Also - Once it came out that a bad guy like Manuel Noriega was on our (USA) payroll...agencies were told to stop dealing with such "bad guys." Imagine trying to infiltrate a group without the luxury of approaching somebody with a criminal record. "Sorry, send in a squeaky clean agent to infiltrate that band of thieves." :roleyes:

There are also many other factors.

In the past, we have sacrificed our safety for our privacy. Since 9/11, we are finally sacrificing more our privacy in the name of safety. There is a line that needs to remain between privacy and safety, but I'd rather we err on the side of safety if given a choice...

Dback Jon · June 26th, 2003, 06:31 AM

BIM - where does this law prevent the CIA and FBI from working together? Nowhere!!

To say that this created the environment for terrorists to work in is a major stretch. And the Patriot Act is one of the worst laws passed, ever. Right up there with the Alien and Sedation Acts as black marks on the principles of what this country is supposed to stand for.

If Reagan hadn't chosen to support a bad guy (Hussein) against other bad guys (Iran) we may not have had to invade Iraq every decade.

As Benjamin Franklin once said:
Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security.

Or Patrick Henry:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
--Patrick Henry

John Ashcroft and his merry band of SS Agents, assisted by Tom DeLay, are mounting the greatest assault on American Liberty, ever, with the laughably named "Patriot Act".

WaywardFan · June 26th, 2003, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dback Jon
John Ashcroft and his merry band of SS Agents, assisted by Tom DeLay, are mounting the greatest assault on American Liberty, ever, with the laughably named "Patriot Act".

And yet the courts have upheld EVERY SINGLE CHALLENGE to the Patriot Act.

So, every single judge in every level of the U.S. Court System must be in on this hideous plan.

Dback Jon · June 26th, 2003, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WaywardFan
And yet the courts have upheld EVERY SINGLE CHALLENGE to the Patriot Act.

So, every single judge in every level of the U.S. Court System must be in on this hideous plan.

Supreme Court upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans during WWII - which we now know was a horrible decision.

Krangthebrain · June 26th, 2003, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Supreme Court upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans during WWII - which we now know was a horrible decision.

The Supreme Court also upheld separate but equal.