Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Did Clinton take Al Qaeda threat seriously?
Yes
46%
 46%  [ 7 ]
No
53%
 53%  [ 8 ]
Total Votes : 15

Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:34 am    Post subject: Did Clinton take Al Qaeda threat seriously? Reply with quote


Link
PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wish Wallace would ask him why he didn't take Bin Laden when Sudanese offered him to the US officials as a show of goodwill?
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think he took it seriously. Maybe not seriously enough, but then again who could have imagined the extent of the destruction and mayhem that this one man and group would cause?
palomino_pony





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 539
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Lower Mainland, BC

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is all hind sight. Why didn't Bush Senior take Bin Laden out either?
McGuire





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 369
Reputation: 20.2Reputation: 20.2
Location: Soviet Pictouwestistan

PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

B/c Bin Laden wasn't causing any real problems for the US when he was in power.
palomino_pony





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 539
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Lower Mainland, BC

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the same defence would hold true for Clinton... I guess Bin Laden did the bulk of planning during Clinton's presidency, but how it is debatable about the level of intelligence at his disposal. I am sure that Bin Laden was scheming up some plans during the Bush Senior presidency.

I would say that CIA failed, not an individual person. Presidents change, the people responsible for collecting information about incoming threats do not.
McGuire





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 369
Reputation: 20.2Reputation: 20.2
Location: Soviet Pictouwestistan

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really beg to differ. Bin Laden was behind the bombing of the WTC in 1993, the African embassy bombings in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 & the Khobar Towers bombing in 1995. And what was Clinton's response to these attacks?? Aside from the embassy bombings, nothing!.

As for the embassy bombings, the only reason why Williw Jeff fired off those missiles was b/c of all the problems he was having with the missile in his pants.
palomino_pony





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 539
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Lower Mainland, BC

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Point taken, but Bin Laden is a slippery individual to catch. Five years after 9/11 and he still around. To play the role of devil's advocate, one could argue that if/when Bin Laden strikes again, that G.W. Bush didn't do enough either and that invading Iraq distracted the US from the more important target.

Bin Laden was also linked to a 1992 bombing in Yemen (pre Clinton). No Americans died, but still...

Clinton did launch cruise missile attacks against Afghanistan in 1998 in response the bombings and I believe he also signed an assassination order. At the time, it was deemed to be an appropriate response. Had Clinton and the CIA known about the WTC 3 years later, maybe there would have been a stronger response perhaps with ground troop support. Hard to look into the crystal ball.

References below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1.....nite_Reach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.....es_targets
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/.....documents/
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

palomino_pony wrote:
This is all hind sight. Why didn't Bush Senior take Bin Laden out either?


Did the "Did" part of the thread title give it away that this thread was going to be about hindsight?

Screw history! It's nothing but hindsight :P

Clinton throught Iraq has WMDs. Perhaps if he hadn't been so pre-occupied with Iraq he would have captured Bin Laden :P

Oh. And by "Iraq" I mean oral sex.
palomino_pony





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 539
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Lower Mainland, BC

PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Clinton throught Iraq has WMDs. Perhaps if he hadn't been so pre-occupied with Iraq he would have captured Bin Laden :P


Are you talking about Bush not Clinton? :wink:

Did Clinton take the thread seriously with the information at hand? Yes
Knowing what we know in 2006? No

Let me ask this, if attacks on 9/11 did not happen and the only terrorist attacks against the US where happening offshore, would there be troops in Baghdad and Afghanistan?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Did Clinton take Al Qaeda threat seriously?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB