how about a link.........im curious what you use for reference material
2006-09-01 07:04:08 · 15 answers · asked by bush-deathgrip 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror.." by Richard Miniter. Available at Amazon.
2006-09-01 07:13:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
As an "independent" who has never voted Republican, here's the deal. Clinton was well aware of Osama bin Laden. However, he was concerned with international reaction if he simply snatched the guy (we "knew" he was behind the USS Cole, but probably couldn't "Prove" it with competent evidence.)
Carter DID send missiles into a training camp, where he believed OSAMA to be (missed by hours), causing the Bush statements during debates with Gore that he wouldn't shoot a $2 Million Dollar missile into a $10 tent. (but, apparently will do so for a cave).
In any event, the argument (from left) is that Clinton wanted to catch Osama, but do it pursuant to international law (an argument undermined by recent publications indicating that covert operations had been approved to kidnap bin Laden, ef we found him).
I believe that what really happened is that bin Laden did the same thing then as now -- he stays on the move, rarely in the same place for long, and keeps his head below the radar. He apparently also has (and has had) fierce loyalty, as the reward for information leading to his ... capture (??) has always been high, and now exceeds $25MM. Yet, nobody has turned him in.
The argument that people are frightened due to the retribution sure to follow doesn't wash, because Masaquoui (sp?) in Iraq got turned in by an insider, and certainly the threat there was also quite real.
2006-09-01 14:16:26 · answer #2 · answered by robert_dod 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Clinton did not ignore Osama, he just did not make a decent effort to go after him. He could have gotten him with some effort. But Osama was not quite the big name target he eventually became.... there will probably be facts that come to light that may make Clinton look better, or even worse, but it is going to take one hell of a shovel to uncover them.
He let little things get in the way.... Monica, wagging the dog, cigars, Waco, lying, his pompousness, his lack of leadership and ability.... among other things.... and his left leaning ideology.
Not all of what Clinton did was all bad, but that damn clintonian smirk on his face made him very untrustworthy and unbelieveable.
Have you noticed, Bush has wiped that damn clintonian smirk of his face? About time. Serious matters deserve a serious face when informing the public about them.
No blame for 9-11 can be put on Bush without first putting it on Clinton.
1993 or 1994, Intelligence from the Phillipenes showed that Muslim terrorists planned to train pilots, hi-jack airliners, then fly them into tall buildings.
2006-09-01 14:11:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Ever read Lt. Col David H. Hackworth's book "Hazardous Duty"? Interesting source -- Nine Purple Hearts, ten Silver Stars, and the Distinguished Service Medal.
2006-09-02 09:45:27 · answer #4 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He didn't ignore him but Clinton's problem was he don't do enough to catch or kill Osama which he had countless chances to get him and whenever he did do something, (like order a missile strike or something) he did it just to convert the public's attention from his scandal with that ugly woman. (some say)
It goes to show that Islamic Fascism is not for law enforcement but overwhelming military force, the cure to fanatical zealots who wants to take over the world.
2006-09-01 15:53:21 · answer #5 · answered by Lone solider 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Check with the country of Sudan.
They had bin Laden in custody. Clinton said to let him go because he didn't want to cause any bad feelings with Muslims.
2006-09-01 14:13:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Of course they don't have a source. They just parrot whatever Karl Rove says.
Most conservatives aren't interested in facts, otherwise they'd admit just how horrible the Bush "Presidency" has been.
It is far easier to blame Clinton (either Bill or Hillary) than to actually think.
2006-09-01 14:15:08 · answer #7 · answered by marianddoc 4 · 0⤊ 6⤋
You think Osama became what he is in the eight months that Bush was president at that time?
2006-09-01 14:11:44 · answer #8 · answered by freebird 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
ya like 5 trillion of them,
get off yer duff and do a simple google search.
2006-09-01 14:09:14 · answer #9 · answered by digital genius 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
http://www.americandaily.com/article/1002
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34942
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
Most of these are from left wing news sources even
2006-09-01 14:15:16 · answer #10 · answered by itsallover 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋