Quote:
Originally posted by Rekna
so we have archer saying OBL attacked us because we didn't act and we have others saying OBL attacked us because we did act. So which is it?
|
Obviously, I'm going to side with my argument here. (Well duh ya know?) Anyways... I'm saying that Bill Clinton had plenty of time to take out OBL before the end of is term. There was even a chance when bin Laden attacked those two hotels in Yemen (which are incidentally on the same bay that the USS Cole was docked when it was bombed) to stop him, the Yemeni Intelligence Service asked for several nations to help track OBL down and bring him in. No help came. Bin Laden wasn't identified as a "major threat" by the United States until 1994 when Bill Clinton was identified as one of the targets in "Project Bojinka" he took it personal, but not personal enough and continued to work terrorists as a legal problem, not a threat to National Security. Clinton did some good things in fighting terrorists, but it wasn't enough, as evidenced on the morning of September 11th. That's what I believe, and there are plenty of facts to back that up, with documents from the CIA, Middle East Intelligence Services, and Filipino Intel Services and officials high up in each of the governments have commented on Osama bin Laden and the efforts to capture him pre-9/11.