Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (68072)	5/23/2008 7:04:17 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542970

>>No thanks to Bill Clinton, who had several chances to get him.<< MM - Several? Really? I think not. I certainly place no stock in the ridiculous stories that some country or another Sudan, I think it was supposed to have been) offered to hand him over to Bill, but he declined the offer. It is true that what was probably the best shot we had at him, when his location at a training camp in Afghanistan, failed because he somehow got wind of the attack and skedaddled. Not that we know for certain he was informed of the impending attack. I know some people have said that we should not have taken the time to give the Pakistani government notice that we were about to fire missiles over their territory. I'd say such people are forgetting that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and is bordered by another nuclear nation, and that the two of them have been enemies for a long time. So firing the missiles without informing the Pakis could very possibly have led to a nuclear war between Pakistan and India. It's regrettable, since notifying Pakistan may well have resulted in bin Laden getting word, but there you are. Meanwhile, I will grant you that Clinton did not capture bin Laden. That doesn't really excuse Bush, though, does it? Those who excoriate Clinton for his failure to capture bin Laden before the end of his term are also forgetting something very important. The man wasn't the most notorious mass murderer ever at that time. You certainly didn't hear George Bush ever utter his name before 9/11. Republicans weren't all out calling for his capture, saying that here was a threat that Bill Clinton wasn't doing enough to eliminate. He really wasn't known to be as big a threat as he turned out to be. He was only one of many different terrorist leaders then. It was only after 9/11 (which Bush at first wnated to blame on Saddam Hussein) that everybody suddenly knew who bin Laden was, and Bush started to talk about not resting until he was caught dead or alive. To illustrate this point, I'd love to find a reference to somebody, I don't remember who, saying derisively of Clinton, some time in the late 90s, that he was "obsessed" with Osama bin Laden. - Allen