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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (450714)	1/25/2009 10:36:09 PM
From: d[-_-]b	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573850

So why did he let Osama go after the first WTC attack?

To: tejek who wrote (450714)	1/25/2009 11:52:21 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573850

>> Except Clinton didn't ignore the threat Then why did he pass up multiple opportunities to take bin Laden out? In the most serious incident, the Sudanese -- who had had it "up to here" with bin Laden in '96, specifically offered him to CIA. This was denied by Berger & Clinton, but they were lying through their teeth -- it happened, and the credible sources on the subject agree it happened. The truth is that it stems from Clinton having considered WTC I as a criminal matter rather than as a war. As a criminal matter, we simply did not have the evidence to prosecute bin Laden in a court of law. Bin Laden was in a position, WRT to the '93 bombing, to make it happen or not happen, and he made it happen. But we could not have proven in it a court. So Clinton decided not to "charge" him -- undoubtedly, thinking the concept of "double jeopardy" would apply should be be acquitted. Clinton passed on it because he thought it was a criminal act, not an Act of War. Bush immediately recognized it was a war, not a criminal matter. And now, Obama, appears to be trying to return it to the status of a criminal matter. Huge mistake.