| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Clinton ’missed chance to get rid of bin Laden’ |
| 2003-09-02 |
| EFL In early leaks from Losing bin Laden, Richard Miniter, an investigative journalist, claims that Mr Clinton allowed the September 11 attacks to happen by squandering more than a dozen opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden. In two cases the terrorist leader’s exact location was known, the book says. [Just after the USS Cole attack,] Mr Clinton’s counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, urged an immediate strike on al-Qa’eda camps and Taliban buildings in Kabul and Kandahar. Such a strike would destroy terrorist infrastructure and with luck might kill bin Laden, Mr Clarke told senior colleagues. But he was overruled - first by the CIA and FBI, which wanted more investigation of the attack, and then by the Clinton cabinet. Janet Reno, then the attorney general, said an attack would break international law. Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state, is quoted as saying that "bombing Muslims wouldn’t be helpful at this time". Most controversially, the book quotes William Cohen, then the defence secretary, as saying the Cole attack "was not sufficiently provocative" and retaliation might cause trouble in Pakistan. What can I say but: Damn you. Damn you all (OK, at least Reno and Albright) to hell. |
| Posted by:someone |
| #6 But of course ya believe the liar in chief and the lobotomized Condi Rice's view What the current administration came up with was the correct response, instead of Bill "Perjury" Clinton's half-assed cruise missile campaign. Yeah, nothing like a little military action to distract people from that teensy little Monica problem.... |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-9-2 11:49:04 PM |
| #5 Whoa--remember the comments of the lunatic right when Clinton sent some cruise missiles--he was wagging the dog to distract from Monica! Ya can't have it both ways. But of course ya believe the liar in chief and the lobotomized Condi Rice's view |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2003-9-2 11:07:41 PM |
| #4 Tibor: a crack in the legacy? This is the legacy. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-9-2 11:00:29 PM |
| #3 I remember that day -- I remember the horror of once again watching the news... seeing the horrors, knowing the intense pain we all suffered with the death of our servicemen.... And knowing, deep down in my heart... as I watched the story unfold...... that nothing would be done... Yes, nothing.... As much as I could, I willed someway, somehow, we would do something.... but I knew.... deep down inside, where it really hurts.... that the words would come..... but the actions wouldn't be there... Why should they be? The 2000 year of the election was coming. Let those folks deal with this problem. History will tell -- and it won't be a pretty picture |
| Posted by: Sara 2003-9-2 10:48:55 PM |
| #2 This is par for the course for these clowns. It's just like bailing from Mogadishu after the Black Hawk Down episode and blowing up an asparin factory in Sudan after the 1998 embassy bombings. The most outrageous quote is Cohen's (and not just because he is a "republican"). That's just what the troops want to hear from their civilian leader -- the deaths of 17 and wounding of dozens more (not to mention the near sinking of an $800 million ship) is not worthy of a response. This is just another major crack in the vaunted Clinton legacy. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2003-9-2 9:21:49 PM |
| #1 ..senior members of the Clinton White House did confirm, in interviews for the book, that they shied away from an attack immediately after the Cole bombing for reasons of diplomacy and military caution. Or put simply, the U.S. military machine wasn't ready, and Bubba's administration was more concerned with being "liked" by everybody else that sending a clear message to the terror-meisters. Janet Reno, then the attorney general, said an attack would break international law. Isn't terrorism against "international law"? Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state, is quoted as saying that "bombing Muslims wouldn’t be helpful at this time". Wouldn't be helpful to what exactly? To her need to be liked by terrorist organization leaders? Most controversially, the book quotes William Cohen, then the defence secretary, as saying the Cole attack "was not sufficiently provocative" and retaliation might cause trouble in Pakistan. Well hell, how about attacking another couple of ships and killing a few more American service personnel? How many deaths would have been "provocative" enough to warrant a response? As far as I'm concerned, the answer is ONE. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-9-2 8:44:33 PM |