Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,449 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,780 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Medrosje said:
there are always two sides to the coin. read this:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/03/17/predator.video/index.html

especially the part about the predators, at that time, not being equipped with missles. i strike would have taken 3-7hrs.
No, the issue has nothing to do with predators being armed or not. Even if a strike took 3 - 7 hours, why wasn't it attempted? It has much more to do with the administration's goofy view that it was a law enforcement issue.

Spirare:
Is it news? Maybe for some.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,449 Posts
from what i've read and heard, clinton was talking one story about trying to find and kill bin laden and other known terrorists and acting another. it's similar with what happened in somali...they were too timid to act.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
902 Posts
MSNBC Article said:
In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.
Much easier to go into a country unannounced and take someone out now, than it was then. So it begs the question, our we better off because 9/11 happened?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
696 Posts
WOW!! Its amazing what little press this is getting :suspicio: :suspicio:

Can you imagine the "FIRESTORM" or controversy if this had been recorded after Bush had been elected?? DN(CNN) would have their talking heads saying "some say this is proof that Bush planned 9/11 and didnt want to hurt his best friend Bin Laden (soon to be a movie by M.Moore).....back to you comrade Blitzer" :thumbup: :sleep: :roll:
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top