- Joined
- Sep 15, 2011
- Messages
- 4,661
- Reaction score
- 3,252
- Location
- The New New Frontier
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
The day before the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, former President Bill Clinton told a group of businessmen in Australia that he "could have killed" the man behind those attacks, Osama bin Laden, in 1998, but he decided against launching a strike out of concern for civilian casualties.
It's a startling and tragic bit of irony that remained hidden until Wednesday, when Michael Kroger, the former head of the Liberal Party in Australia, released the audio during an interview on Sky News. Mr. Clinton knew he was being recorded, but the audio was never released because Kroger said he'd forgotten about it until last week.
Clinton was speaking to Kroger and about 30 other businessmen in Melbourne for a paid gig on September 10, 2001, when he was asked about international terrorism.
"I'm just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden - he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him - and I nearly got him once," said Clinton, who'd departed the White House earlier that year. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn't do it."
Nothing new here, anyone who read the 9-11 Commission Report already knows that Clinton had a chance to get Bin Laden but passed on it.
Clinton's anti-terrorist policy was that terrorism was not a national security issue but a law enforcement issue.
When G.W. Bush became POTUS he stuck with Clinton's failed terrorist polices. But after 9-11-01 Bush didn't spend eight years blaming Clinton failed couner terrorist policies.
What the article left out, while blowing up an aspirin factory Clinton also blew up the Chinese Embassy. :lamo
Never a good thing to kill innocent civilians. If that's the TRUE reason he declined, good on him.
That was no accident.Nothing new here, anyone who read the 9-11 Commission Report already knows that Clinton had a chance to get Bin Laden but passed on it.
Clinton's anti-terrorist policy was that terrorism was not a national security issue but a law enforcement issue.
When G.W. Bush became POTUS he stuck with Clinton's failed terrorist polices. But after 9-11-01 Bush didn't spend eight years blaming Clinton failed couner terrorist policies.
What the article left out, while blowing up an aspirin factory Clinton also blew up the Chinese Embassy. :lamo
Nothing new here, anyone who read the 9-11 Commission Report already knows that Clinton had a chance to get Bin Laden but passed on it.
Clinton's anti-terrorist policy was that terrorism was not a national security issue but a law enforcement issue.
When G.W. Bush became POTUS he stuck with Clinton's failed terrorist polices. But after 9-11-01 Bush didn't spend eight years blaming Clinton failed couner terrorist policies.
What the article left out, while blowing up an aspirin factory Clinton also blew up the Chinese Embassy. :lamo
You guys are so desperately partisan it's hilarious. I can't believe you guys are in here basically backing the slaughter of 300 innocent people in a single strike to preemptively take down Osama bin Laden when 9/11 would still have happened being that he didn't even orchestrate it. Osama's role in 9/11 was being in charge of al qaeda when 9/11 happened and gave it his approval to happen. He didn't make it up. So 9/11 would most likely still have happened.
You insane partisans for the laughs.
9/11 was a DECADE in the making, killing Osama wouldn't have prevented 9/11 Jesus with the hyperbole.
The objective way to look at this is that no one could possibly know what would have happened had Clinton killed bin Laden because he didn't. Speculating either way about the aftermath of historical events that never took place is little more than a circle jerk.You guys are so desperately partisan it's hilarious. I can't believe you guys are in here basically backing the slaughter of 300 innocent people in a single strike to preemptively take down Osama bin Laden when 9/11 would still have happened being that he didn't even orchestrate it. Osama's role in 9/11 was being in charge of al qaeda when 9/11 happened and gave it his approval to happen. He didn't make it up. So 9/11 would most likely still have happened.
You insane partisans for the laughs.
The objective way to look at this is that no one could possibly know what would have happened had Clinton killed bin Laden because he didn't. Speculating either way about the aftermath of historical events that never took place is little more than a circle jerk.
Being as I already posted it and it is in plain sight for all to see, is reposting it really necessary?What do you think this thread is about? Your right-wing buddies in here circle-jerking that Clinton should have killed 300 innocent people to get to Osama based on 9/11 not having happened yet. I'll wait for you to tell them what you just told me.
Being as I already posted it and it is in plain sight for all to see, is reposting it really necessary?
You guys are so desperately partisan it's hilarious. I can't believe you guys are in here basically backing the slaughter of 300 innocent people in a single strike to preemptively take down Osama bin Laden when 9/11 would still have happened being that he didn't even orchestrate it. Osama's role in 9/11 was being in charge of al qaeda when 9/11 happened and gave it his approval to happen. He didn't make it up. So 9/11 would most likely still have happened.
You insane partisans for the laughs.
You were the first one to call such speculations "insanely partisan". That's kind of an eye catcher given the fact that you also speculated about future events following non-events. Funny thing is that there is nothing partisan about what I said at all and you still got your butthurt on.Oh I see.. you were making a general statement to us all huh? I guess that's why you didn't reply to the thread but directly quoted me... so you can make the statement to all in the thread.
:lamo
Clinton didn't do anything from his office in the WH, funny you. Did you think that Clinton told the pentagon to target the Chinese embassy?
You were the first one to call such speculations "insanely partisan". That's kind of an eye catcher given the fact that you also speculated about future events following non-events. Funny thing is that there is nothing partisan about what I said at all and you still got your butthurt on.
What do you think this thread is about? Your right-wing buddies in here circle-jerking that Clinton should have killed 300 innocent people to get to Osama based on 9/11 not having happened yet. I'll wait for you to tell them what you just told me.
But, the embassy bombings HAD happened. AQ had already attacked us twice.
While I can understand why he didn't at the time, I doubt if knowing now what he did then if he'd pass up the opportunity.
And what exactly am I selling here? An observation that hyper partisans arguing about what would have happened in the aftermath of events that never took place is circle jerk? I wasn't "selling" that to anyone. It was free.Saying "partisan" is what caught your eye? lol
Funny because killing 300 innocent people is what first caught my eye. Different strokes I suppose.
I'm sure it's not that you are conservative and that my avatar is:
View attachment 67170503
Sorry bud but I kind of have a hard time buying what your selling.
Just let us know if you think Clinton should've killed 300 people then. Just say it. No need to beat around the bush.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?