To Regressives: Did Clinton do Too Much OR Nothing against Al Qaeda?

[ck4829]

"Osama bin Laden’s camp in Afghanistan consisted of shacks and tents, hardly a fit target for a missile that costs nearly a million dollars per copy"
http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/1999/04/02.htm

"Afgahnistan ought to be our ally"
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a530320.htm

"This brash act by a brash child-man is a direct threat to the security of every citizen inside our own borders for the people against whom he acted are non-forgiving and have no fear of death."
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a530320.htm

"Joe Farah points out in his Between the Lines (12/18/98) that "As president, Bill Clinton has...squandered $5.5 billion (How much has Bush spent?) in U.S. taxpayer dollars on containing the Iraqi threat — and that's before the costly Desert Fox operation launched Wednesday. On Wednesday alone, some 200 cruise missiles were fired by the Navy at Iraqi targets. Each one of those high-tech bombs cost about $1 million. that's $200 million right there, just on ordnance, in one day...."
http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm

And then there is the other side:

"The president wasn't doing too much in combating bin Laden because of his sex scandals — he was doing too little."
http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp

You can also find various posts all over the internet, after 9/11, declaring that Clinton had done nothing against Al Qaeda.

[Bridget Burke]

1. Post this on FreeRepublic....

See what they have to say.

[Elise]

2. Have a looksee:

Republicans at the 9/11 hearings have pounded away relentlessly at the Clintons for not going after Bin Laden in the wake of the bombing of the USS Cole. This is a joke. For one thing it was not until 2 or 3 months later that any consensus emerged about Bin Laden's involvement. There was supposition, circumstantial evidence, but that's all. And he hung with the Sauds, was in fact, major family with our old 'friends' and main man for oil. This is the price of our dependence on oil... an obligation to share a bed with unseemly characters.

But more significantly, at that time the public was so consumed with something else that the Cole bombing was barely covered by the media. And what was that? Why the Starr report, of course! That excellent $100 million, very detailed porn adventure by the gutter-minded 'Peeping Ken'. The other Kenny Boy. What better time for a terrorist attack, when an entire nation is so distracted by rooting around in its leaders' jockey shorts that it barely comes up for air? Starr couldn't have done Bin Ladin a bigger favor if he was on his payroll.

And of course Clinton did try to retaliate for the embassy bombings in 1998 and what did he get for it?


continuing:http://claudialong.com/blog/2004/03/23/how_gop_aided_al_queda.html

[AllyCat]

4. Supposition? Circumstantial evidence? No evidence?

Meh! That never stopped ShrubCo! Bombs away! he would have said.

[TWiley]

3. Hmmm

<<"Osama bin Laden’s camp in Afghanistan consisted of shacks and tents, hardly a fit target for a missile that costs nearly a million dollars per copy">>

Bin Laden was the target, not the tents. A direct hit may have cost a million dollars, but it could also have saved $200 billion on the resulting wars.

<"Afghanistan ought to be our ally">

Yes .... And, the President of the United States should be a sane, intelligent, and balanced individual who is void of all religious and ethnic prejudice as well

<<"This brash act by a brash child-man is a direct threat to the security of every citizen inside our own borders for the people against whom he acted are non-forgiving and have no fear of death.">>

I agree. This pretty much sums up my opinions of the bushwad administration and its supporters as well. They sincerely have no fear of causing the death of anyone.

<<Why is it that this new crop of republithugs is so logically dense and stubbornly resistant to the simple truth?>>

I have no earthly idea why. I am stumped.