9/11 Commission Clinton Missed Opportunity

[Dreadsox]

[Q]NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.[/Q]

and Commission member Democrat Bob Kerry had this to say:

[Q]A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, ?The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.?
[/Q]

Read the whole article....

it says that Clinton did not want to Kill him, the orders were to Capture ......

The concern I have is that Senator Kerry wants to return to treating al-Qaeda like a police operation....Ala Clinton.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

And yes I know there are other issues, but we, in my opinion are at war.

 

[Dreadsox]

Screaming Flower says watch the video.....

http://msnvideo.msn.com/video/defau...a5920-f27c-4cb2-a058-fe9853a60f10&undock=true

 

[Screaming Flower]

if it's true that the man in the video is bin laden, we really blew it. even pre-9/11, bin laden was a huge threat. it's pretty chilling to see...

 

[A_Wanderer]

One of many though, thats the problem with international relations you can never pick your enemies before the events begin.
*I know Kenya and Tanzania bombings, First WTC attack and USS Cole which was afterwards are events that were not dealt with properly. But with some slight modification the concept is right. Maybe ignoring your enemies doesnt make them go away?

 

[Tizer]

'chilling'...are you sure?

Makes me smile when they say that the camp is where Osama was believed to live. Always a chance, eh!

 

[BVS]

Well hindsight is 20/20. I would think at this point in time capturing Bin Laden would have been the desired move to make. After 9/11 things changed people wanted him removed. I would think the process of going in and capturing even though knowing where he may have been would still prove to be extremely difficult. We've waged war and apparently combed the desserts for over 2 years now and still haven't found him and still haven't apparently halted Al Queida.

I'm pleased to find out there was significant moves made to track him down, I'm dissapointed more wasn't done. But no one can prove to me that even if he had been killed or captured that 9/11 still would not have happened.

 

[BostonAnne]

Read the whole article....

it says that Clinton did not want to Kill him, the orders were to Capture ......

The concern I have is that Senator Kerry wants to return to treating al-Qaeda like a police operation....Ala Clinton.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

And yes I know there are other issues, but we, in my opinion are at war.

Dread - if this editorial I found is accurate, then I would say sending missile attacks isn't just "capturing"

Clinton?s most public response, of course, were the cruise missile attacks of 1998, directed against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and the Sudan, following the terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Operating on limited intelligence -- at that time, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tazikistan refused to share information on the terrorists whereabouts inside Afghanistan -- U. S. strikes missed bin Laden by only a couple of hours.

Even so, Clinton was accused of only firing missiles in order to divert media attention from the Lewinsky hearings. A longer campaign would have stirred up even more criticism

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/column.billpress/

 

[verte76]

I went to a dance performance the day of the 1998 strike. Someone there asked me if I'd been to a demonstration protesting the strike. I didn't even know that there had been a demonstration, to be honest. But yes, there was criticism of the Clinton action from both the left and the right.

 

[Dreadsox]

Boston Anne....good editorial....and being an editorial he proves something that I believed all along....the missle strikes had NOTHING to do with Bin Laden. The missile strikes were also launched into the Asprin Factory that same day. I have two books on my shelf which also claim that there were officers threatened with courtmarshalls over this incident. The officers did not want to launch because there was ZERO intelligence that the factory was nothing more than what it was. One other point, some of what I have read indicates they knew he was not there and they launched anyway.

But here are the words of the CIA station chief at that time:

[Q]Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA?s ability to get bin Laden? ?It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,? said Schroen.[/Q]

 

[BostonAnne]

Boston Anne....good editorial....and being an editorial he proves something that I believed all along....the missle strikes had NOTHING to do with Bin Laden. The missile strikes were also launched into the Asprin Factory that same day. I have two books on my shelf which also claim that there were officers threatened with courtmarshalls over this incident. The officers did not want to launch because there was ZERO intelligence that the factory was nothing more than what it was. One other point, some of what I have read indicates they knew he was not there and they launched anyway.

But here are the words of the CIA station chief at that time:

[Q]Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA?s ability to get bin Laden? ?It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,? said Schroen.[/Q]

Dread - how does being an editorial prove anything? I'm confused.

 

[Dreadsox]

It is the person who wrote its opinion verses statements made by an actual official.

 

[BostonAnne]

I had a hard time finding anything but opinions.

 

[Dreadsox]

now I am confused...lol

 

[Screaming Flower]

who's on first?

 

[BostonAnne]

It all has to do with having no time.

 

[Rono]

Why does information like this always turn up in a election year ?

 

[nbcrusader]

Clinton isn't running for office....

 

[BVS]

No but it points the blame to the other side...

 

[Screaming Flower]

just in case anyone is interested, nbc has made this a multi-part story. they've also been critical of bush. i personally don't believe one side is more "guilty" than the other, but both have made some obvious errors.

this page has another story in addition to links to the other parts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4556388/

 

[BVS]

just in case anyone is interested, nbc has made this a multi-part story.

Ok that threw me off, I thought you were talking about Nbcrusader. I was confused...it's Friday.

 

[Screaming Flower]

maybe i did.

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm always causing trouble...

 

[Rono]

Clinton isn't running for office....

Why does information like this always turn up in a election year ?

 

[Dreadsox]

Please notice I quoted teh democrat on the committee. It is not a Republican witch hunt.