| Submit your comments on this article |
| WaPo--Very interesting |
| 2004-02-21 |
| Below is the link--very interesting. Too long to post, but I think I’ll enjoy Rantburg’s take on it.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59775-2004Feb21.html |
| Posted by:cpm |
| #9 If we did find him, I suspect we would hole him up in a cave until he was wrung so dry that he lost 98% of his body weight (get it..we are 98% water...). Who knows...maybe we already have. |
| Posted by: B 2004-2-22 7:38:32 AM |
| #8 If they ever find out where he is, they should just destroy him (to use the Russian terminology). We don't need an OJ-like circus in the courts over this guy's atrocities. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-2-21 11:08:05 PM |
| #7 Raj, you don't get a cigar either. Clinton actually had 12 opportunities to get OBL and I don't think civilian casualties were the hindrance in the least. In fact, Clinton had no problem sending a cruise missile into the middle of Khartoum, Sudan even though the Sudanese government offered to hand Osama over without any kind of an attack. Clinton just wouldn't and couldn't make the decision to get him. At best, as this article relates, he gave conflicting orders (to kill him and round him up to bring him over for trial) that cancelled each other out. Bubba didn't want to make the decision for the reasons I gave above and so would put it off and put it off until the intell we had--which was very good BTW--indicated that the window of opportunity had passed. Read Richard Miniter's book "Losing Bin Laden," in which he describes our subs and planes awaiting Clinton's orders for hours, and Rich Lowry's book "Legacy," in which he reveals, among other things, that Billy Jeff couldn't make a move unless the polls told him the American people would approve, for all the pertinent details. I also hope that if OBL isn't already dead and our guys get him, that they kill him. But as they said below on another post, bring back his head, which we can have fun with. We don't need the agony of a trial for him here. Ever. (Look at Saddam's case--Best case scenario is that he won't come to trial for 2 years. And happy day! The Red Thingy has been to see him.) |
| Posted by: Jennie Taliaferro 2004-2-21 10:39:31 PM |
| #6 What I'm beginning to suspect, if you haven't already guessed... is that any successful attempt to "get" OBL in the pre-9/11 (or pre-cruise-missile-assasination-attempt) period would have been to have put people on the ground in the area who could have made the decision to kill him themselves. I suspect kidnapping him, getting away, and holing up in a cave for a month wouldn't have worked. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-2-21 10:29:39 PM |
| #5 Jennie - I thought it more balanced than that, depending on how much weight you put on the reliability of the TRODPINT 'weekend warriors' and the White House's stance on civilian casualties. In light of 9/11, I'm close to indifferent on that point as long as we got Binny but it sounds like the Clintonites would have freaked if even a couple of civilians were killed. I think the key point to account for is that we couldn't get an intel asset close to Binny; that's why we were always a day or two behind his actual movements. The broad brush stroke continues to indicate there was too much caution / legalities involved at both the CIA and the White House. Plus, ther's more tommorow about the CIA and No--um, er--cigar. I love a good double entendre, don't you? |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-2-21 7:12:12 PM |
| #4 how much money and effort would've been saved if he'd been killed where he stood rather than bring him back to Virginia for the lawyer-job production effort prior to killing his stupid sick ass? When they flee the US - kill them when/where found and make it known internationally |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-2-21 7:06:07 PM |
| #3 No, I just posted it b/c it needs analysis...of the sort you can only find here. |
| Posted by: cpm 2004-2-21 6:51:47 PM |
| #2 Guys, I blogged this, too. I think the WaPo--as usual--was trying to take the blame off their boy Bill Clinton and make it look as if losing Bin Laden were all the CIA's fault. Nice try. No--um, er--cigar. Bill's indecisiveness, obsession with American concepts of "legality" and terrorism as a "crime", overreliance on popularity polls and hatred of the military and its use led to his "do-nothing" strategy. Hello 9/11. |
| Posted by: Jennie Taliaferro 2004-2-21 6:44:15 PM |
| #1 Are you hoping the people here are going to be able to tell you if it's true or not? The things that bug me: It sounds like they were trying to decide whether to kidnap him (which at the time was probably an unrealistic goal) or whether to perform assasination by cruise missile, which as long as he kept moving, was also an unrealistic goal. If you believe that warfare is the art of the possible, ask yourself what was possible or likely to achieve success, as far as dealing with OBL went. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-2-21 6:03:55 PM |