“If the CIA was able to get that close, why did they let him go?”
- Posted by Beth on September 8th, 2006 filed in Afghanistan, General, Islamofascism, The War, WTF
Question for historical revisionists (Clintonistas): You knew where Osama bin Laden was before 9/11, you had him in your sights. There was every reason to go after him before 9/11 even happened. You certainly had no problem launching cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan on other occasions (nor did I have a problem with it).
Please explain why “If the CIA was able to get that close, why did they let him go?”
Use IE for the link–the video doesn’t work in Firefox and probably other browsers. If you can’t see the video, here’s the article/transcript.
It’s dynamite. It’s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn’t happen every day.
Some thoughts: Unlike the cynical assholes Democrats would do if this video were shot during the Bush administration, I don’t attribute this to malfeasance, just tragically bad policy and incompetent decision-making. “Law enforcement issue” vs. military action, and the Clintonistas chose “law enforcement.” How the hell they thought they were going to capture bin Laden, I don’t know–and I suspect they didn’t either.
I’ve saved a copy of the video to my hard drive. Just in case Harry Reid should suddenly find “irregularities” in NBC’s broadcasting license and the clip end up magically disappearing from their website.
Who needs teevee dramatizations when we’ve got actual video? You can run, Clintonistas, but you can’t hide from the historical record.
Tags: Clinton, al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, al Qaida, terrorists, terrorism, Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright, path to 9/11
a4g says:
Seriously, what conservative walks around blaming Clinton for 9/11? We’re not infantile leftists. Yes, he was a despicable man, but really, on balance, not worse than below-average as President. Unserious leadership for what we thought was an unserious time.
I suspect what might be dawning on the Clintonistas is not that they will be blamed by history– at least that would keep alive a conversation– but that they will be forgotten. Clinton has looked into the future and seen that as the years pass, the majority of the mentions of his name will be not in history books, but as the answers to trivia questions.
Legacy.
Lucca says:
I agree with Legacy. The Democratic “attack chickens” may be coming home to roost at exactly the wrong time.
Still Stacy-Now With Creme Filling » SPREADING SOME LOVE says:
[...] The Great One has posted what we all knew along anyway, DUH!! Bush was to blame for 9/11, right. The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them? [...]