- #1
- 8,143
- 1,761
http://www.sfexaminer.com/headlines/default.jsp?story=n.predator.0625w
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by russ_watters
It is well known that Clinton had a lot of info about Bin Laden including strategy and suggestions for how to deal with him and presented a report on it in a turnover briefing. But I find it odd that people would suggest Bush implement a plan from Clinton IMMEDIATELY to solve a problem that Clinton did little more than study for 7 years.
And let's please not forget - before 9/11 we were not at war with Afghanistan. It *IS* an overt act of war to start firing missiles in other countries. Thats not an action to be taken lightly. A year or so of settling into his job as president and conducting his own study would not have been unreasonable. Considering Kennedy's mistake with the Bay of Pigs, it would be quite prudent.
Originally posted by Zero
Bush was too busy on vacation, remember? It is a fact that he spent less time in teh White house, and less time working while in the White house, than any other recent president, pre-9-11
Clinton took some shots, but AFAIK, they were shots at nothing in particular designed to look like he was taking action without actually taking action. I have never heard that he actually tried to take out Osama.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
russ, what a surprise to see you answer here.
You are forgetting however that Clinton took a couple of shots at Bin Laden with Cruise missiles. Unfortunately he missed. It would seem that Clinton had bad aim in more than one way. Oh god I'm cracking myself up again.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Clinton took some shots, but AFAIK, they were shots at nothing in particular designed to look like he was taking action without actually taking action. I have never heard that he actually tried to take out Osama.
And why are you surprised? Its a pretty important topic and a reasonable discussion - I actually prefer high level discussion to the other kind. Its not as entertaining, but its much more intellectually stimulating.
I only read the USA Today link, but judging from that link, would you suggest no? I find it very telling (not about you, about the media in general) that that timeline doesn't list the Al Qaeda attacks that occurred during Clinton's term. I think a blown up embasssy (or two...) and a car bomb in the WTC qualifies as a "sign of possible terrorism." Then there were the foiled attacks such as the Y2K party planned for Seattle...Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
"Do both the Clinton and the Bush administrations share the blame for not taking earlier action against al Qaeda? [Quoted from another web page].
http://www.usatoday.com/news/attack/index/missed-clues-timeline.htm
Originally posted by russ_watters
I only read the USA Today link, but judging from that link, would you suggest no? I find it very telling (not about you, about the media in general) that that timeline doesn't list the Al Qaeda attacks that occurred during Clinton's term. I think a blown up embasssy (or two...) and a car bomb in the WTC qualifies as a "sign of possible terrorism." Then there were the foiled attacks such as the Y2K party planned for Seattle...
What a terrible timeline.
edit: read a couple more and now I'm not sure of your position. But that first one is still pretty awful.
Fair enough.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Honestly I was taking no position with this post; other than to open up the possibility that both administrations could have done much better. I had intended to post links for both sides of the argument.
The Clinton administration had been actively pursuing and monitoring Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organization, Al-Qaeda, for years prior to the 9/11 attacks. In 1998, they even launched a missile strike on a suspected Al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. Therefore, they had significant knowledge and intelligence about the threat posed by bin Laden and his group.
The warning from the Clinton administration about Osama bin Laden to Bush took place in late 2000 and early 2001, during the presidential transition period. This was when the outgoing Clinton administration was briefing the incoming Bush administration on various national security matters.
Yes, the Clinton administration did mention the possibility of a terrorist attack on US soil in their warning to the Bush administration. They warned that Al-Qaeda was actively planning and preparing for attacks against the United States and that bin Laden was determined to strike within the country.
It is unclear if the Bush administration took any specific action based on the warning from the Clinton administration about Osama bin Laden. Some sources claim that the incoming administration did not take the threat seriously enough and did not prioritize efforts to dismantle Al-Qaeda. However, others argue that the Bush administration did take some measures to combat terrorism, such as increasing funding for counterterrorism efforts.
This is a highly debated question and there is no definitive answer. Some argue that if the Bush administration had taken stronger action against Al-Qaeda before 9/11, the attacks could have been prevented. Others argue that the intelligence at the time was not specific enough to warrant such drastic measures and that the attacks were ultimately the result of larger systemic failures in the US government's approach to counterterrorism.