Gentlemen&Ladies: I have read the slanted and distorted article "US Slow on Bin Laden Drones.
The article, written by Ted Burdis and John Solomon is typical of AP hack jobs with an anti-administration slant. If the NYT was worried about its image, the AP has a distortion/slant problem that is over the top in spades!
The article makes it sound like Bush is culpable for letting Bin Laden off the hook because he didn't target him with drone. Little mention of the the fact that the drones were unarmed in the Clinton administration and didn't get armed until Bush did it - just prior to 9/11.
Certainly an armed drone wasn't the only option Clinton had - he could have sent; 1)Spec Ops troops; 2)F-16's, 3)CIA assassination teams....! He was not without options. It is well documented by reputable observers that Clinton was adverse to anti-terrorism actions and turned down several chances to "get" Bin Laden when offered him in captivity by the Sudanese.
This we know: 1) It was during Clinton's administration that the Predators supposedly spotted UBL.
2) It was during Clinton's administration that the plot for 9/11 was hatched and organized.
3) It was during Clinton's administration that the perps for 9/11 came into this country.
4) The Clinton administration failed to detect this plot and stop it.
I hold you responsible to portray a more balanced presentation of critical national events than the mere printing of scurleous articles like the one referenced above. You don'twant to become the NYT of the Net!
Sincerely:
Name and Address
PS: Please find a way to forward my comments to the authors and the AP.
SFS