Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Clinton failed to stop bin Laden
USA Today Front Page ^ | 2-11-02 | Susan Page

Posted on 05/19/2002 1:37:38 PM PDT by Kay Soze

Edited on 04/13/2004 1:39:35 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Osama bin Laden was emerging as a terrorist as Bill Clinton was inaugurated as president.

The Saudi exile would be implicated in the first World Trade Center bombing, which occurred a month after Clinton took office. Bin Laden would contribute to the Somali debacle that scarred the president's first use of military force abroad. His al-Qa'eda network would kill more Americans in two bombings in Saudi Arabia and at two U.S. embassies in East Africa, and nearly sink a Navy warship in the final months of Clinton's term.


(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alqeda; bushknew; osamabinladen; sept11attacks; terrorwar; worldtradecenter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last
To: ohmage
Maybe it was because US security wasn't at stake.

In the sense that Yugoslavia never attacked us nor threatened to attack us.

The KLA had/have quite a drug business going. That might have impressed clinton.

21 posted on 05/19/2002 8:50:16 PM PDT by ohmage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
But the president's inner circle -- Albright, Berger and Defense Secretary William Cohen among them -- agreed that basic question was never answered with enough certainty to order special operations forces deployed or missiles launched.

clinton's inner circle, like himself, had no military experience.

22 posted on 05/19/2002 9:06:26 PM PDT by Travelgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
Albright is lying, as is everyone from the former administration who tries to pretend that terrorism was a priority. Too much information has been out there saying the opposite by insiders. Clinton was not interested in the subject, unless of course, they were the ones carrying it out against their enemies.
23 posted on 05/19/2002 9:16:30 PM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
Some Clinton partisans say any criticism that not enough was done before Sept. 11 should be shared with President Bush, who had been in office for 8 months when the attacks took place. Bush also didn't order retaliation for the Cole bombing, although the investigation in Yemen continued on his watch. The argument for retaliation presumably grew stronger as evidence mounted of bin Laden's involvement, they say.

"We started the investigation in October," Albright says. "We arranged the diplomatic aspects of it. The election was in November. We did what we could with the time we had. What has happened since?"

Oh gag me!

24 posted on 05/19/2002 9:19:19 PM PDT by PogySailor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PogySailor
Oop's. Left off the rest of my post!

What has happened since? Let's see:

Just to name a few....
25 posted on 05/19/2002 9:24:05 PM PDT by PogySailor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
It was BORTAC, the Border Patrol's equivelent to a SWAT team theat ended up going isnide the house to get Elian Gonzales. I'm not exactly a big fan of BORTAC or SWAT teams, however I'm interested in knowing how you would have handled the situation. Imagine yourself prior to the event. You get a page to meet in a certain area. You are told that your are going to have to go into a hostile situation that may erupt into violence involving firearms and numerous demonstrators. Your mission is to extract a Cuban illegal immigrant who's father is still in Cuba. What are you going to do?
26 posted on 05/19/2002 10:26:48 PM PDT by Ajnin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Trueblackman
This in USA Today, no less!
27 posted on 05/19/2002 10:31:13 PM PDT by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matamoros
BUMP!!!!!
28 posted on 05/19/2002 11:55:26 PM PDT by NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
Darn, you took the words right out of my mouth!
29 posted on 05/20/2002 1:04:27 AM PDT by wingnuts'nbolts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ajnin
"It was BORTAC, the Border Patrol's equivelent to a SWAT team theat ended up going isnide the house to get Elian Gonzales. I'm not exactly a big fan of BORTAC or SWAT teams, however I'm interested in knowing how you would have handled the situation. Imagine yourself prior to the event. You get a page to meet in a certain area. You are told that your are going to have to go into a hostile situation that may erupt into violence involving firearms and numerous demonstrators. Your mission is to extract a Cuban illegal immigrant who's father is still in Cuba. What are you going to do?

You have essentially posed two questions in your hypothetical. You start out by asking how I would have handled the situation, indicating that I have input and choice. But since there is no choice in what follows, then I follow my orders and go in.

30 posted on 05/20/2002 7:24:25 AM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ajnin; Enterprise
How about allowing the one year time span called for in the 1996 Cuban Immigration Act?
31 posted on 05/20/2002 7:33:47 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
bttt
32 posted on 05/20/2002 7:35:12 AM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 1/1,000,000th%
The one year time span should have been adhered to, but that was a decision which had to be made at higher political levels. It was disregarded in favor of an expedient abuse of police powers, and I still believe the raid was disgusting. Admittedly, the officers at the lower ranks could not have raised such an issue, as their role was limited to "only following orders."
33 posted on 05/20/2002 7:42:29 AM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
... the officers at the lower ranks could not have raised such an issue, as their role was limited to "only following orders."

Surely you jest!

Refusal/resignation was certainly an option.

Remember Nuremburg?

34 posted on 05/20/2002 7:49:32 AM PDT by DuncanWaring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ajnin
It's interesting how the Clinton Administration could muster a virtual army of Federal Agents and military personnel complete with tanks and aircraft to totally destroy the lives of 80 men, women and children in Waco, yet couldn't give the Rangers one tank or other badly needed support in Somalia.

You've answered your own question.

Tanks and other support weren't available in Somalia because they were all in Waco.

35 posted on 05/20/2002 7:52:00 AM PDT by DuncanWaring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
Bring on the investigation, Hillary!
36 posted on 05/20/2002 7:52:22 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
Please note the date on the USA Today article. It predates the current Bush attack; consequently, altering its relevance to the position the paper might be taking on this issue today (and the objectivity with which it would be presented).
37 posted on 05/20/2002 7:57:59 AM PDT by windchime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
When we list the terrorist attacks on USA why do we always eliminate OKCity? WE KNOW, and so does the FBI, that this was with the help or Arabs. I suggest we add OKCity to the list.
38 posted on 05/20/2002 8:07:27 AM PDT by Elkiejg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
I raised the "only following orders" in response to the option of the one year rule. The officers had no option to bring up immigration rules in the context of serving a search warrant. Could they have refused? Certainly! But, they didn't.
39 posted on 05/20/2002 8:13:58 AM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
"We can look back and say Osama Bin Laden didn't get weaker, he got stronger," during Clinton's tenure says Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican of the Senate Intelligence Committee... [Under Clinton] We felt we had to fight him [Bin Laden] with Marquess of Queensberry rules," said Bob Graham, D-Fla., Chairman of the Armed Intelligence Committee.

'Nuff said about Clinton's penchant for making the U.S. vulnerable to terrorism during his administration. Only the usual cowardice, lack of resolve, and aiding and abetting of America's enemies can be expected from any Democratic leadership.

And who can forget Jimmy Carter, who besides his role as "useful idiot" recently in Cuba, managed to give the Panama Canal away, hence giving Red China a foothold in North America.

40 posted on 05/20/2002 8:18:33 AM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson