Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Bill Clinton reminisces about that time he 'missed' eliminating Osama Bin Laden...on September 10, 2001. Cue the THIS IS AN OUTRAGE.jpeg   (nbcnews.com ) divider line 123
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1299 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Aug 2014 at 8:52 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-01 08:02:49 AM  
I don't fault his logic based on what he knew at the time. Nobody knew what was coming on September 11.

Hell, Obama took an enormous risk sending special forces into Pakistan to get OBL, and that was after 9/11 and Afghanistan. If the intelligence had been wrong, the international and domestic backlash would have been huge. Back in '98, OBL still a high-value target, but not nearly as big as he became after 9/11.
 
2014-08-01 08:14:46 AM  

SmackLT: I don't fault his logic based on what he knew at the time. Nobody knew what was coming on September 11.

Hell, Obama took an enormous risk sending special forces into Pakistan to get OBL, and that was after 9/11 and Afghanistan. If the intelligence had been wrong, the international and domestic backlash would have been huge. Back in '98, OBL still a high-value target, but not nearly as big as he became after 9/11.


Exactly this.  Also killing bin laden the day before wouldn't have stopped the attacks which had been planned for a very long time.  If anything it would make the hijackers that much more likely to martyr themselves just like their leader.
 
2014-08-01 08:21:54 AM  

nekom: SmackLT: I don't fault his logic based on what he knew at the time. Nobody knew what was coming on September 11.

Hell, Obama took an enormous risk sending special forces into Pakistan to get OBL, and that was after 9/11 and Afghanistan. If the intelligence had been wrong, the international and domestic backlash would have been huge. Back in '98, OBL still a high-value target, but not nearly as big as he became after 9/11.

Exactly this.  Also killing bin laden the day before wouldn't have stopped the attacks which had been planned for a very long time.  If anything it would make the hijackers that much more likely to martyr themselves just like their leader.


Just to clarify, Clinton was speaking on September 10, 2001, but was referring to knowing that OBL was in Kandahar in 1998, when Clinton was still in office.
 
2014-08-01 08:26:10 AM  
Is this news because of the timing? I thought it was well known, and I kniw he had spoke of this before.
 
2014-08-01 08:27:09 AM  

PreMortem: Is this news because of the timing? I thought it was well known, and I kniw he had spoke of this before.


Ugh, I need more beer. Also, preview.
 
2014-08-01 08:34:29 AM  
SmackLT:
Just to clarify, Clinton was speaking on September 10, 2001, but was referring to knowing that OBL was in Kandahar in 1998, when Clinton was still in office.

Ah.  Well, even still he had plenty of "chances" at him, just didn't have enough to warrant risky operations.
 
2014-08-01 08:52:24 AM  

nekom: Ah.  Well, even still he had plenty of "chances" at him, just didn't have enough to warrant risky operations.


Agree. Actually, I think I was wrong about 1998 specifically, the article mentioned OBL being on the most-wanted list after the US Embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania, so it would be 1998 or later, but not necessarily that particular year.
 
2014-08-01 08:55:59 AM  
FARKING AUTOPLAY VIDEOS.  I am laying low at work on a Friday.  If people keep hearing noises like that, they'll know I am not working.
 
2014-08-01 08:58:52 AM  
And of course 300 women and children as well. Or what the GOP would have called a bonus.
 
2014-08-01 08:59:01 AM  
Clinton might have also gotten OBL back in 1998 with a cruise missile, but the missiles were drawing attention away from his blow job, so he had to call it quits.
 
2014-08-01 09:03:42 AM  

pueblonative: And of course 300 women and children as well. Or what the GOP would have called a bonus.


No. Sorry. I'm a conservative Republican and I don't find any fault with his decision. He couldn't knowingly risk killing innocents on the chance he might be successful in killing Bin Laden.
 
2014-08-01 09:04:16 AM  
You know who else had a shot at killing 300 innocent women and children?
 
2014-08-01 09:08:59 AM  

acad1228: pueblonative: And of course 300 women and children as well. Or what the GOP would have called a bonus.

No. Sorry. I'm a conservative Republican and I don't find any fault with his decision. He couldn't knowingly risk killing innocents on the chance he might be successful in killing Bin Laden.


Slight correction: he couldn't knowingly kill innocents on the chance that he might be successful in killing bin Laden.  If you lob a cruise missile into a town there's no "risk" that you'll kill somebody you didn't mean to - it's a certainty.
 
2014-08-01 09:10:30 AM  

pueblonative: And of course 300 women and children as well. Or what the GOP would have called a bonus.


I don't care for the current crop of blowhards in the Republican party, but that's a pretty farking harsh statement right there. I don't see eye to eye with their policies, but saying that they look forward to bombing women and children is a bullshiat statement.
 
2014-08-01 09:10:33 AM  
Yeah, can't fault Clinton here.

This is one of those "Captain Hindsight" moments
 
2014-08-01 09:10:42 AM  
"I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I just didn't do it."

With 20/20 hindsight it looks like a bad call, maybe, at the time it made sense.
 
2014-08-01 09:11:24 AM  

FourDirections: pueblonative: And of course 300 women and children as well. Or what the GOP would have called a bonus.

I don't care for the current crop of blowhards in the Republican party, but that's a pretty farking harsh statement right there. I don't see eye to eye with their policies, but saying that they look forward to bombing women and children is a bullshiat statement.


c2.staticflickr.com

/Kidding, I agree with you
 
2014-08-01 09:12:09 AM  
This was a stupid statement on Bill Clinton's part. It boils down to "I could have killed him if I didn't care about civilian casualties." Of course, as president you have enough conventional weapons to carpet bomb the middle east a dozen times over, you could have killed any and everybody, if you were a soulless piece of human garbage. Do you want a cookie for not being a soulless piece of garbage.
 
2014-08-01 09:12:26 AM  
Fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd:  fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd:  fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd:  fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd:  fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd:  fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd:  fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd:  fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd:    DO YOU REMEMBER???!!!

It was 1987!
At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt. Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator; 'Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?'
Ollie replied, 'Yes, I did, Sir.'
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience,
'Isn't that just a little excessive?'
'No, sir,' continued Ollie.
'No? And why not?' the senator asked.
'Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir.'
'Threatened? By whom?' the senator questioned.
'By a terrorist, sir' Ollie answered.
'Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?'
'His name is Osama bin Laden, sir' Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't.
A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued.
'Why are you so afraid of this man?' the senator asked.
'Because, sir, he is the most  evil person alive that I know of '
Ollie answered..
'And what do you recommend we do about him?' asked the senator.
'Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.'
The senator disagreed with this approach. And, that was all that was shown of the clip.
By the way, that senator was Al Gore..
. . .
Also:
Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in
Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and
imprisoned him. As part of the
Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993,
Israel had to agree to release
so-called 'political prisoners.'
However, the Israelis would not release
any with blood on their hands. The American
President at the time, Bill Clinton,
and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher,
'insisted' that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us
 by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center
This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time
that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports.

If you agree that the American public should be made
aware of this fact, pass this on.
...
This has not been broken since 9/11/01, please keep it going...
This has been kept alive and moving since 9/11. In memory of
all those who perished this morning; th e passengers and the pilots on the
United Air and AA flights, the workers in the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon, and all the innocent bystanders.
Our prayers go out to the friends and families of the deceased.
Send this to at least 10 people to show your support
PLEASE DON'T BREAK IT !!!!!!
 
2014-08-01 09:15:37 AM  

SmackLT: I don't fault his logic based on what he knew at the time. Nobody knew what was coming on September 11.

Hell, Obama took an enormous risk sending special forces into Pakistan to get OBL, and that was after 9/11 and Afghanistan. If the intelligence had been wrong, the international and domestic backlash would have been huge. Back in '98, OBL still a high-value target, but not nearly as big as he became after 9/11.


Even after 9/11 it would not have been worth the deaths of 300 innocent civilians to kill one guy.
 
2014-08-01 09:18:49 AM  
Shaggy_C:
Even after 9/11 it would not have been worth the deaths of 300 innocent civilians to kill one guy.

I'm pretty sure we killed WAY more than that hunting him down.  And even more "liberating" Iraq for no good reason.
 
2014-08-01 09:19:23 AM  

Parthenogenetic: Fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd:  fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd:  fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd:  fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd:  fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd:  fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd:  fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd:  fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd:    DO YOU REMEMBER???!!!

It was 1987!
At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt. Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator; 'Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?'
Ollie replied, 'Yes, I did, Sir.'
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience,
'Isn't that just a little excessive?'
'No, sir,' continued Ollie.
'No? And why not?' the senator asked.
'Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir.'
'Threatened? By whom?' the senator questioned.
'By a terrorist, sir' Ollie answered.
'Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?'
'His name is Osama bin Laden, sir' Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't.
A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued.
'Why are you so afraid of this man?' the senator asked.
'Because, sir, he is the most  evil person alive that I know of '
Ollie answered..
'And what do you recommend we do about him?' asked the senator.
'Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.'
The senator disagreed with this approach. And, that was all that was shown of the clip.
By the way, that senator was Al Gore..
. . .
Also:
Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in
Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and
imprisoned him. As part of the
Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993,
Israel had to agree to release
so-called 'political prisoners.'
However, the Israelis would not release
any with blood on their hands. The American
President at the time, Bill Clinton,
and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher,
'insisted' that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us
 by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center
This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time
that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports.

If you agree that the American public should be made
aware of this fact, pass this on.
...
This has not been broken since 9/11/01, please keep it going...
This has been kept alive and moving since 9/11. In memory of
all those who perished this morning; th e passengers and the pilots on the
United Air and AA flights, the workers in the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon, and all the innocent bystanders.
Our prayers go out to the friends and families of the deceased.
Send this to at least 10 people to show your support
PLEASE DON'T BREAK IT !!!!!!


I like how it hasn't been broken since 9/11/01 when we still weren't sure if the identities of everyone involved.
 
2014-08-01 09:19:53 AM  
Shaggy_C:  Even after 9/11 it would not have been worth the deaths of 300 innocent civilians to kill one guy.

I agree with you. My point was that OBL wasn't as big an international target prior to 9/11, that's all.
 
2014-08-01 09:20:04 AM  
9/10/01?  You mean the day Donald Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon "couldn't account" for $2.3T?  And it was a huge scandal that drummed him and the administration out of office?
 
2014-08-01 09:20:05 AM  
Using cruise missles......what are the odds that Bin Laden would still be there after the missles multiple hours flight time.

Clinton also had a chance to kill him with a sniper but kept wanting to lob missles.

A bullets flight time would have been 2 seconds max.
 
2014-08-01 09:22:31 AM  

nekom: Shaggy_C:
Even after 9/11 it would not have been worth the deaths of 300 innocent civilians to kill one guy.

I'm pretty sure we killed WAY more than that hunting him down.  And even more "liberating" Iraq for no good reason.


Yeah, Iraq was like 300,000 civilians.  But hey, "you're either with us or you're against us" and "support the troops" and all that.
 
2014-08-01 09:23:11 AM  

nekom: Shaggy_C:
Even after 9/11 it would not have been worth the deaths of 300 innocent civilians to kill one guy.

I'm pretty sure we killed WAY more than that hunting him down.  And even more "liberating" Iraq for no good reason.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniver sa ry_n_4654825.html

480 innocent per year just by drone strikes alone.
 
2014-08-01 09:24:20 AM  
I think what galls me, and what a lot of people don't realize is that when W came into office, they pretty much rejected everything that could have been seen as a Clinton initiative. That includes the pursuit of terrorists like OBL.  For seven and a half months, they ignored the pleas from holdovers (like Richard Pearle) to continue trying to capture, try and convict terrorists who were hell-bent on attacking the US.

Remember the folks trying to sneak explosives into the US from Canada? Remember the threats to the Golden Gate and LAX? Hell, remember the Cole bombing? Those all happened within a year of 9/11.

And yet because "anything Clinton" was declared verbotten on 1/20/2001, this was all dropped on the floor. It was rejected not because it was bad policy, but because it didn't mesh ideologically with the new administration.

That's the real failure that brought on 9/11. Not the somewhat vague "Bin Laden Determined to Attack" memo (which was probably also ignored at the highest levels because ideology).
 
2014-08-01 09:27:20 AM  

Giltric: Using cruise missles......what are the odds that Bin Laden would still be there after the missles multiple hours flight time.


It's less than 500 miles from the Persian Gulf to Kandahar. A subsonic Tomahawk would be there in less than an hour.
 
2014-08-01 09:28:02 AM  
Hey guys, remember when the only unquestioned message, release very shortly after 9-11, from OBL said he had nothing to do with 9-11, and then a bunch of sketchy videos of guys that looked like OBL from years earlier, with bad dubbing was used to say he DID plan the attacks? Good times. Remember when everyone was pretty certain he was dead in 2003? Yeah. Fun times. But at least we can be sure the MIC didn't lie about all this shiat as a pretext for the Patriot Act(which was already to go, pre-9-11), and global upheaval!
 
MFK
2014-08-01 09:28:03 AM  

FourDirections: pueblonative: And of course 300 women and children as well. Or what the GOP would have called a bonus.

I don't care for the current crop of blowhards in the Republican party, but that's a pretty farking harsh statement right there. I don't see eye to eye with their policies, but saying that they look forward to bombing women and children is a bullshiat statement.


oh I dunno about that. These are the same people who want to send armed National Guardsmen to "take care" of the problem of 50,000 refugee CHILDREN at the southern border.
 
2014-08-01 09:28:07 AM  
You not only have had combat experience in Vietnam, but you were also a prisoner of war. When you look at terrorism right now, with people like Osama bin Laden, do you have any reservations about watching strikes like that?


You could say, Look, is this guy, Laden, really the bad guy that's depicted? Most of us have never heard of him before.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1998/11/john-mccain

Even after the African Embassy bombings, Bin Laden wasn't really on the radar for most American politicians, they were too busy rooting around in Clinton's pants.  That Clinton was even trying to kill him with limited strikes is remarkable, given how much lack of concern there was in Washington.
 
2014-08-01 09:28:35 AM  

acad1228: pueblonative: And of course 300 women and children as well. Or what the GOP would have called a bonus.

No. Sorry. I'm a conservative Republican and I don't find any fault with his decision. He couldn't knowingly risk killing innocents on the chance he might be successful in killing Bin Laden.


You aren't a real Republican, son, if you can successfully think like that.

You might not be a Democrat, but you aren't a conservative Republican.
 
2014-08-01 09:30:04 AM  

Delta1212: You know who else had a shot at killing 300 innocent women and children?


Yeah.  Obama.  Only he took it.

We tracked down Bin Laden, we had the compound under satellite surveillance, and then ran a fake immunization service to collect DNA to be sure.  By posing as civilian doctors, we put all vaccination workers in the wrong countries at risk.  People who have been involved with vaccination programs are being driven out of the countries they were working on, or killed.  Years of building up trust are gone, and Polio is making a comeback.

We knew where he was.  We had the place under surveillance.  Our method of getting confirmation made presumed combatants out of medical personal.

THAT was a red line that Obama should never have crossed.
 
2014-08-01 09:33:42 AM  

SurfaceTension: I think what galls me, and what a lot of people don't realize is that when W came into office, they pretty much rejected everything that could have been seen as a Clinton initiative. That includes the pursuit of terrorists like OBL.  For seven and a half months, they ignored the pleas from holdovers (like Richard Pearle) to continue trying to capture, try and convict terrorists who were hell-bent on attacking the US.

Remember the folks trying to sneak explosives into the US from Canada? Remember the threats to the Golden Gate and LAX? Hell, remember the Cole bombing? Those all happened within a year of 9/11.

And yet because "anything Clinton" was declared verbotten on 1/20/2001, this was all dropped on the floor. It was rejected not because it was bad policy, but because it didn't mesh ideologically with the new administration.

That's the real failure that brought on 9/11. Not the somewhat vague "Bin Laden Determined to Attack" memo (which was probably also ignored at the highest levels because ideology).


Yeah, for all the failed strikes by Clinton, by the Summer of 2001, after the Cole bombing was conclusively linked to al Qaeda,  we finally had the capability to use armed drones to search for and hit Osama and al Qaeda in their camps in Afghanistan.  Instead, we decided to stand down, because to continue to hunt and hit at Osama was too Clintonian.
 
2014-08-01 09:36:10 AM  
Can't wait for sarah palin to get a hold of this story, and to hear her version of it.
 
2014-08-01 09:36:30 AM  

MFK: oh I dunno about that. These are the same people who want to send armed National Guardsmen to "take care" of the problem of 50,000 refugee CHILDREN at the southern border.


Don't want to threadjack this thread, but even the border fear pants-wetting doesn't rise to the level of Republicans advocating happily for the direct wholesale slaughter of women and children, which is the statement I said was bullshiat. You can talk about the effects of Republican policies all day and I'll probably agree with you on all of it.
 
2014-08-01 09:44:13 AM  

Parthenogenetic: Fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd: DO YOU REMEMBER???!!!


Except that didn't happen.

And at the time of North's testimony, the US government still considered Bin Laden a freedom fighter. The terrorist he did name was Abu Nidal, who had no connection to Bin Laden.
 
2014-08-01 09:49:30 AM  

SmackLT: I don't fault his logic based on what he knew at the time. Nobody knew what was coming on September 11.

Hell, Obama took an enormous risk sending special forces into Pakistan to get OBL, and that was after 9/11 and Afghanistan. If the intelligence had been wrong, the international and domestic backlash would have been huge. Back in '98, OBL still a high-value target, but not nearly as big as he became after 9/11.


No he didn't.

He knew perfectly well that one of three things would happen.

They'd kill/capture Osama, they'd fail to find him, or they'd be killed themselves.

He knew perfectly well that in the event of second two things, it was top secret black ops mission that nobody would ever know about. It was a 'win-win' situation for him. They'd either succeed and he'd get to brag or they'd fail and nobody would know.

I am for once not faulting Obama specifically. Any politician of any stripe would have probably done the same thing.
 
2014-08-01 09:50:54 AM  

Delta1212: You know who else had a shot at killing 300 innocent women and children?


General Custer?
 
2014-08-01 09:53:15 AM  

nekom: Exactly this.  Also killing bin laden the day before wouldn't have stopped the attacks which had been planned for a very long time.  If anything it would make the hijackers that much more likely to martyr themselves just like their leader


The construction of the headline was a wonkey.  Bill Clinton did not say, "I could have killed him on 9/10/2001"... Rather, on 9/10/2001, Bill Clinton said, "I could have killed him".

Bill Clinton was very much an ex-president on 9/10/2001.
 
2014-08-01 09:53:45 AM  
I also remember Bush's AG didn't want to talk about Al-Qaeda or terrorism in the months before the attacks.
 
2014-08-01 09:55:53 AM  

Jairzinho: I also remember Bush's AG didn't want to talk about Al-Qaeda or terrorism in the months before the attacks.


He was too busy setting up an anti-porn task force, making his staff pray and sing his stupid songs. Oh, and covering up those naughty naughty naked statues.
 
2014-08-01 09:56:33 AM  

FourDirections: I don't care for the current crop of blowhards in the Republican party, but that's a pretty farking harsh statement right there. I don't see eye to eye with their policies, but saying that they look forward to bombing women and children is a bullshiat statement.


did you miss all the comments about glass parking lots, letting god sort them all out, and "islam is the real enemy" memetic nonsense that flew around?

the whole war and the way it was carried out was couched in the assumption that the people in the middle east were less human than the american citizens being 'defended'
 
2014-08-01 09:58:17 AM  

SurfaceTension: And yet because "anything Clinton" was declared verbotten on 1/20/2001, this was all dropped on the floor. It was rejected not because it was bad policy, but because it didn't mesh ideologically with the new administration.

That's the real failure that brought on 9/11. Not the somewhat vague "Bin Laden Determined to Attack" memo (which was probably also ignored at the highest levels because ideology).


There were serious things that got dropped when GWB came into office. I am sure that some of them may have been a result of the staff aledgedly removing all the W's from the keyboards.  You can see how this would lead to confusion.

"Where's Osama Bin Laden?" became "Here's Osama Bin Laden?"  if they didn't pay attention to punctuation they would have thought they already had him.

And when I read that 'Clinton says he could have killed OBL on 9/10', I got an image of Clinton in fatigues bursting through a door after he was no longer president blasting away with an M-60 a la Rambo.  I would go see that movie.
 
2014-08-01 09:58:43 AM  

randomjsa: SmackLT: I don't fault his logic based on what he knew at the time. Nobody knew what was coming on September 11.

Hell, Obama took an enormous risk sending special forces into Pakistan to get OBL, and that was after 9/11 and Afghanistan. If the intelligence had been wrong, the international and domestic backlash would have been huge. Back in '98, OBL still a high-value target, but not nearly as big as he became after 9/11.

No he didn't.

He knew perfectly well that one of three things would happen.

They'd kill/capture Osama, they'd fail to find him, or they'd be killed themselves.

He knew perfectly well that in the event of second two things, it was top secret black ops mission that nobody would ever know about. It was a 'win-win' situation for him. They'd either succeed and he'd get to brag or they'd fail and nobody would know.

I am for once not faulting Obama specifically. Any politician of any stripe would have probably done the same thing.


The raid was tweeted as it unfolded.  It's highly unlikely that if they failed they would have been able to cover it up to the point where there would be no blowback.
 
2014-08-01 09:59:42 AM  
According to this story, the Clinton intelligence was faulty and would not have gotten Osama bin Laden.

Clinton made these statements in 2001. The 9/11 Commission report on that incident came out in 2004. Is he still making these claims?
 
2014-08-01 10:01:06 AM  

PreMortem: Is this news because of the timing? I thought it was well known, and I kniw he had spoke of this before.


This is news because the Republicans think Hillary is running for president.  Otherwise it would remain a forgotten footnote in history.
 
2014-08-01 10:05:06 AM  

magusdevil: This was a stupid statement on Bill Clinton's part. It boils down to "I could have killed him if I didn't care about civilian casualties." Of course, as president you have enough conventional weapons to carpet bomb the middle east a dozen times over, you could have killed any and everybody, if you were a soulless piece of human garbage. Do you want a cookie for not being a soulless piece of garbage.


Yes.

He deserves a whole farking bag of cookies.

Name brand, too. Not that store-brand garbage.
 
2014-08-01 10:05:50 AM  

PreMortem: Is this news because of the timing? I thought it was well known, and I kniw he had spoke of this before.


You'd be surprised the amount of folks who deny he had such an opportunity. Last time I mentioned it on fark, posters piled on me claiming I was wrong and misinterpreting his words.

Now that it's become an accepted fact it'll just be dismissed as not mattering. That's how the game is played.
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report