Would killing Bin Laden end terrorism?

[fintstone]

Would killing Bin Laden end terrorism? Would he have been a more important issue if he had worn a "blue dress" (or at least thing underwear) during the Clintin administration?

IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD A STAINED BLUE DRESS ...
September 13, 2006

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy, consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC movie that relies on the 9/11 Commission Report, which whitewashed only 90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of terrorism, rather than 100 percent.

Islamic jihadists attacked America year after year throughout the Clinton administration. They did everything but blow up his proverbial "bridge to the 21st century." Every year but one, Clinton found an excuse not to fight back.

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center.

For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation of dangerous lunatics.)

In 1995 and 1996, various branches of the Religion of Peace — al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Iranian "Party of God" — staged car bomb attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, killing 24 members of our military in all. Each time, the Clinton administration came up with an excuse to do nothing.

Despite the Democrats' current claim that only the capture of Osama bin Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan's offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996. That year, Mohammed Atta proposed the 9/11 attack to bin Laden.

Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because — he said in taped remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 — "(bin Laden) had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him." Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that trespassing charge.

Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S. counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000). Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.

Only in 1998 did the Clinton-haters ("normal people") force Clinton into a military response. Solely because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton finally lobbed a few bombs in the general direction of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

In August 1998, three days after Clinton admitted to the nation that he did in fact have "sex with that woman," he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, doing about as much damage as another Clinton fusillade did to a blue Gap dress.

The day of Clinton's scheduled impeachment, Dec. 18, 1998, he bombed Iraq. This accomplished two things: (1) It delayed his impeachment for one day, and (2) it got a lot of Democrats on record about the monumental danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

So don't tell me impeachment "distracted" Clinton from his aggressive pursuit of terrorists. He never would have bombed anyone if it weren't for the Clinton-haters.

As soon as Clinton was no longer "distracted" by impeachment, he went right back to doing nothing in response to terrorism. In October 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the ship.

Clinton did nothing.

According to Rich Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden," Clinton's top national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:

— Attorney General Janet Reno "thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it."

— CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."

— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process." (How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody over there all friendly with one another?)

— Secretary of Defense William Cohen "did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."

This is only an abbreviated list of Clinton's surrender to Islamic savagery. For a president who supposedly stayed up all night "working" and hated vacations, Clinton sure spent a lot of time sitting around on his butt while America was being attacked.

Less than a year after Clinton's final capitulation to Islamic terrorists, they staged the largest terrorist attack in history on U.S. soil. The Sept. 11 attack, planning for which began in the '90s, followed eight months of President Bush — but eight years of Bill Clinton.

Clinton's own campaign adviser on Iraq, Laurie Mylroie, says Clinton and his advisers are "most culpable" for the intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen.

Now, after five years of no terrorist attacks in America, Democrats are hoping we'll forget the consequences of the Democrat strategy of doing nothing in response to terrorism and abandon the Bush policies that have kept this nation safe since 9/11. But first, they need to rewrite history.
ANN COULTER

[widebody911]

NeoCon defense tactic numero uno - when you're ass is up against the wall, blame Clinton.

[nostatic]

killing Bin Laden would end Bin Laden.

Well, that cleared things up. Now I'm off to deal with Hammas. Or Hummus. Or get a hummer. I'm not sure which. I sure hope its the last one, as long as Tabs isn't involved...

[dd74]

No, killing Bin Laden will not end terrorism. Terrorism is an ideology, as Bush has been lately calling it. And unless he's just bantering around words, he'd know that ideologies can never be eradicated by killing off one or more figureheads of that ideology.

The Final Solution didn't kill off Judiasm.
The fall of the Soviet Union didn't kill off Communism.

Therefore it would seem killing Bin Laden won't end terrorism.

If anything, it will galvanize terrorism to an even stronger extent than it is now.

[Halm]

Flint,

To put all of this into proper perspective, you have to:

1.) Blame Carter for killing the “human intelligence,” or spies, within the CIA. This continued under every president since. With no solid intel, we really didn’t / don’t know what is going on with these characters.

2.) Blame Regan –my hero- for cutting and running in Afghanistan after helping drive the Russians out in the mid 80’s. This power vacuum is what OBL filled and how he got his foothold into the Islamic world. Consider that fact the next time someone says we need to pull out of Iraq!

3.) Blame George the First for no allowing the Middle-East, much less Afghanistan, to be on his foreign policy radar.

4.) Now you can blame Clinton for his ineptitude / lack of courage / distraction, etc.

George W was left in a bad position by all of the above, and candidly, one has to wonder if he made the same decision you or I would have made. At the very least, he didn’t pass it on the next administration.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Halm
At the very least, he didn’t pass it on the next administration.

Unless the war ends before his second term, Bush will pass it on to the next administration. And the war doesn't look like it will end anytime soon. Unless we pull out.

[Halm]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was trying to say he made a decision for action and didn't allow the attacks to continue without reaction.

As for pulling out, that would ultimately be more disastrous than Regan's blunder of doing just that in Afghanistan in the 80's. Note that I am not endorsing how we got there, just my opinion of what would happen if we unilaterally pulled out.

[tabs]

AL Zahwari is more important....Bin Laden is an Operations man, Zahwari is an ideolog.

U gotta hit the guys with the fire in the bellies. Silence their voices. or co-opt them so that they don't spread their virulance.

[Dottore]

Would killing OBL end terrorism?

That's not a serious question, is it?

[Jims5543]

Bin laden attacked the USA and I think thats kind of why the USA is in the ME to get Bin Laden.... No????

[techweenie]

Originally posted by dd74
No, killing Bin Laden will not end terrorism. Terrorism is an ideology

Terrorism is a tactic.

That's why it's been used by people at every point on the political compass.

Not killing people who kill 3,000 American citizens sends a message to every potential terrorist that they have a fair chance of getting away with it and that our collective will is less than theirs.

Republicans, it seems, have been against killing bin Laden from the beginning -- mocking Clinton's attempts to kill him, fighting Clinton's anti-terrorism bill, and ignoring the Cole attack and warnings of his intent to attack on US soil. Even after 9/11 bin Laden's escape from Tora Bora was so unhindered as to have looked sanctioned.

If there is any point in having a death penalty, isn't killing 3,000 Americans pretty good justification?

[ruf-porsche]

Would killing OBL end terrorism? Nope

However killing OBL would probably result in more bloodshed on US soil. Remember their code over there is an eye for an eye.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by ruf-porsche
Would killing OBL end terrorism? Nope

However killing OBL would probably result in more bloodshed on US soil.

And not killing OBL will certainly result in more bloodshed in the west. Have we turned into snivelling appeasers? What happened to our pride and our will? Tough talk and ineffective action is endangering us.

[Moneyguy1]

An excellent question without a definitive answer. Does the death of ANY leader weaken the organization? Would the elimination of top Al Queda leaders reduce their effectiveness? With the capture and killing of some leadership being touted in the news as "great victories", apparently there are those who think this is true sometimes, and think it isn't at other times, whatever suits their purposes at the moment. No wonder we cannot seem to "get it together" when even our internal mesages are mixed and inconsistent.

I get tired of the blame game and the rethinking of history as if those making decisions years ago knew then what we know now. Now who is trying to rewrite history to fit their preconceived notions?

Sounds like some who are so ready to rattle sabres and talk tough are the first to say "Leave them alone or they will come and get us".

Time to end the armchair quarterbacking, accept the fact that what has happened happened, and start thinking like Americans have in the past...If we have to adapt their methods to some extent, do so.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
...
Republicans, it seems, have been against killing bin Laden from the beginning -- mocking Clinton's attempts to kill him, fighting Clinton's anti-terrorism bill, and ignoring the Cole attack and warnings of his intent to attack on US soil. Even after 9/11 bin Laden's escape from Tora Bora was so unhindered as to have looked sanctioned....

If Clinton really attempted to kill Bin Laden...he sure did a pitiful job. He was not even in hiding then. The Cole attack like so many others was planned and executed on Clintoin's watch...without any reprisal. As far as Tora Bora, if you knew where he was then...or now; why didn't you pass the information on to the CIA or the Army...or try to collect the $25M yourself?

[hytem]

I remember when Clinton was President, the Republicans were after him every minute, like a rabid dog who won't let go of your pantleg. In the days when special prosecutors were making big bucks investigating cabinet members about Super Bowl tickets. All the paranoia about Vince Foster, the Whitewater non-scandal, and then the sex soap opera.

Has anybody ever tallied up what all this cost the American taxpayer? And how it must have looked to the rest of the World?

Policy-wise, Clinton was a good President. Times were much better than they are today. My stocks were doing better. His problem was that he's a dumb politician, and underestimated how far his opponents would go to get him. Smart and stupid--that's how I've heard him characterized in my travels abroad. Sounds about right.

Bush is damn lucky they got rid of those special prosecutors.
We can't afford them anymore, anyways, fighting wars.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by hytem
I remember when Clinton was President, the Republicans were after him every minute, like a rabid dog who won't let go of your pantleg. In the days when special prosecutors were making big bucks investigating cabinet members about Super Bowl tickets. All the paranoia about Vince Foster, the Whitewater non-scandal, and then the sex soap opera.

Has anybody ever tallied up what all this cost the American taxpayer?

Just the whitewater investigation alone cost about $60 million and employed 200 FBI agents. I wonder if those FBI agents could have been doing something else...

Speaking of which, want to guess what was spent, just for comparison, on the 9/11 Commission?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by hytem
I remember when Clinton was President, the Republicans were after him every minute, like a rabid dog who won't let go of your pantleg. In the days when special prosecutors were making big bucks investigating cabinet members about Super Bowl tickets. All the paranoia about Vince Foster, the Whitewater non-scandal, and then the sex soap opera.

Has anybody ever tallied up what all this cost the American taxpayer? And how it must have looked to the rest of the World?

Policy-wise, Clinton was a good President. Times were much better than they are today. My stocks were doing better. His problem was that he's a dumb politician, and underestimated how far his opponents would go to get him. Smart and stupid--that's how I've heard him characterized in my travels abroad. Sounds about right.


Bush is damn lucky they got rid of those special prosecutors.
We can't afford them anymore, anyways, fighting wars.

Special Prosecutors were appointed because Clinton broke the same laws he was elected to enforce.

If your stocks were doing better before, it is because of your skill in playing the market. the Dow is near an all-time high and if you had used the drop after 9-11 as a buying opportunity, you would have done very well as I have. As far as times being better...employment is up, home ownership is up, interest rates are down, the national debt is lower in respect top GNP....what exactly do you want?

[red-beard]

#1. The war is over. The Iraq "WAR" ended in 2003. What we see today is an occupation and "Nation Building". So stop calling it a war.

#2. The economy is stronger and better today and for the past several years, than during the entire Clinton Administration. Unless you want to research the information, you will never know this.

#3. We are safer today that we were 5 years ago. As silly as some of the proceedures we go through on the air planes may seem, they are a vast improvement over the security we had before. We have not had any attacks on US soil since 9/11. We have helped foil many plots, including the recent planned attacks on US airliners.

#4. Have you been through immigration control recently? Do you know what a non-resident goes through coming into the US? Every one of them is photographed by an electronic camera, 2 finger prints are electronically scanned and these biometrics are compared against the known terrorist lists. We are doing a much better job than we ever have in the past.

#5. We _are_ fighting the wrong war. We need to call it what it is. A war against Militant Islamic Fanatics. I don't like the term "Islamo-Facist", since Facism is usually centered around a Dictator (Hitler, Moussolina, Stalin). Terrorism is a technique, not a philosophy. There was plenty of terrorism world wide before and there will be forms later. Militant Islamic Fanatics use terror tactics and the world media because it is a cheap way to sway world opinion. They do not have the resources to mount a real classic Military campaign.

#6. The rules of war. Virutally every major military upset occurs when one side doesn't follow the "Rules". Braveheart in Scotland. Colonial sharpshooters picking off the English officiers, etc. The only way to fight this fight, is to get as dirty as we need, to finish it.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by fintstone
Would killing Bin Laden end terrorism?

This is an argument that a bank robber might make. Will arresting me end bank robbery? Will arresting a rapist end rape?

It is, of course, a question that has absolutely no moral value, and is only asked of people with no moral values.