Quote:
Originally Posted by wendybeth
Not only absurd, but also incorrect. Again, Scaeagles- I beg of you to actually read the damned report (which is co-authored by many of your con pols) and then write about it. They were actually pretty fair in their assessment that Clinton's hands were tied- the Repubs had him on the ropes about the Tripoli shelling and were accusing him of using that as a distraction from his domestic 'affairs'- to go after Bin Laden would have been (and was) not only a bit illegal at that point, but misconstrued purposefully by the very people that are now using terrorism as a threat against their own citizens. (Vote for us or you'll die!) Besides, there are no guarantees he could have been taken out- Sudan is notorious for lying to us and subsequent events in that region have not born out any better reason to trust them. Bush has had ample time, resources and the go- ahead from the world community, and he's failed.
Sheesh.
|
Exactly. It wasn't until the investigation into the Cole attack that we had the evidence that would have made going after bin Laden in earnest acceptable and legal.