Anonymous wrote:Whenever it surfaced, reports say THE TAPE was withheld for 13 years, has Willy discussed this with us, or have we had to wait for the "blue dress"?

Please furnish links to all of Willy's treatment of this issue. I do want to keep up with you.

Are you incapable of reading the 9/11 commission report ?

Bill said he didn't want to do it because he would have killed 300 women and children. (I guess there weren't any men there)

Whenever it surfaced, reports say THE TAPE was withheld for 13 years, has Willy discussed this with us, or have we had to wait for the "blue dress"?

Please furnish links to all of Willy's treatment of this issue. I do want to keep up with you.

Anonymous wrote:Gee, did Bill tell us this or did we have to wait for 13 years for a tape to surface. The Clintons just love America and the truth don't they?

Uh, the tape is from years ago, and it is in the 9/11 commission report. Sorry you don't keep up.

Gee, did Bill tell us this or did we have to wait for 13 years for a tape to surface. The Clintons just love America and the truth don't they?

He did try, when the lobbed bombs at the empty pharma plants (that many suggested was a deflection from Lewinsky).

Sure, "Clinton" could have killed OBL. But on what basis at that time? The Embassy bombings or the first WTC attack? At the time (back when our policymakers still understood the difference between a criminal act and a military attack), the U.S. government didn;t hunt down its adversaries and kill them out of hand.

You forgot about the Cole!

Anonymous wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/31/clinton-on-sept-10-2001-could-have-killed-bin-laden-but-didnt/?intcmp=latestnews

How the heck do we blame Bush for this one?

Sure, "Clinton" could have killed OBL. But on what basis at that time? The Embassy bombings or the first WTC attack? At the time (back when our policymakers still understood the difference between a criminal act and a military attack), the U.S. government didn;t hunt down its adversaries and kill them out of hand.

I get that 9/11 changed the calculus, and I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the decision to take out OBL when we had the opportunity, but trying to blame Clinton for not pursuing what was at the time a truly unthinkable course of action is just ridiculous.

Yes if it would have prevented the embassy bombings in Africa and the events of 9/11!

Was it worth killing 300 civilians to capture one man? No.....

Well, he sure would never have said that on 9/10 if he had known what was coming the next day.

^^you can read the 9/11 commission report, where the same concern was documented.

Many of us knew this was the case, but to hear Clinton admit it is stunning.
I don’t know that the American people would have approved of such a move had it killed so many civilians. Look how people are reacting to what is happening in Gaza.....
I am also not sure that taking him out would have meant killing so many civilians. This is what Clinton says, but is it accurate? Perhaps killing 300 was the worst case scenario. Perhaps killing 300 was an exaggeration to justify his lack of non action. Our counter intelligence folks are pretty good at doing things like this without too much “collateral damage.”
Would it have changed the course of history? Maybe or maybe not - we will never know.

Did we have the moral right to destroy Kandahar to get a man who hadn't yet done 9/11?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/31/clinton-on-sept-10-2001-could-have-killed-bin-laden-but-didnt/?intcmp=latestnews

How the heck do we blame Bush for this one?