Replies

Clinton's biggest failure was not recognizing the first attack on the WTC in 1993 for what it was ...a terrorist attack on US soil. The Clintonistas never thought the bombings were anything more than routine police matters. The Path to 9-11 dramatizes this well as the goal was to bring these terror masterminds including Osama to trial in US federal courts. Had Clinton correctly treated the first WTC bombing as well subsequent bombings of the US embassies and the USS Cole as acts of global terrorism, there would have no question about killing Osama when the opportunity arose.--The Great RJ

I see it the other way around. The clintons didn't want to kill or capture bin Laden (think Nobel Peace Prize, cowardice and polls) ...

I M P E A C H M E N T
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t

by Mia T, 11.11.05

This legacy confab is in and of itself proof certain of clinton's deeply flawed character, and a demonstration in real time of the way in which the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency.
Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden.
According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war.
Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the 'accord' and the Peace Prize good-bye.
If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger.
READ MORE

so they ignored terrorism. And when they couldn't ignore it, they minimized it, mischaracterizing it as a series of discrete crimes rather than the war it was.
This ploy underscores the clintons' failure to understand that a terrorist war requires only one consenting player and that defining bin Laden's acts of war as "crimes'' is a dangerous, anachronistic, postmodern conceit--(it doesn't depend on what the meaning of the word "war" is)--and amounts to surrender.

bill clinton could not afford to capture or kill bin Laden. This information courtesy of none other than Madeleine Albright.
clinton's reaction--or should I say non-reaction-- to the USS Cole bombing in 2000--an unambiguous act of war--validates Albright's assertion.
clinton's refusal to take bin Laden in 1996--validates Albright's assertion.
That clinton summarily ignored and urged all of us to ignore the first attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, the 1993 WTC bombing--ignore the first major Islamofascist terrorist attack on the continental United States!!--validates Albright's assertion.
The fact that "our national mourner," bill "I feel your pain" clinton, never even visited the site--he was only 15 minutes away mere days after the 1993 WTC bombing--validates Albright's assertion like nothing else.
WHY THE CLINTONS FAILED "TO CAPTURE OR KILL THE TALLEST MAN IN AFGHANISTAN"
(DID THEY REALLY WANT TO TAKE HIM OUT ANYWAY?)
(Part One)
by Mia t, 2.15.06