Bush Administration could've killed bin Ladin BEFORE 9-11

From Yahoo/AP

It's one thing for neo-cons to criticize the Clinton Administration for not taking him out, but when they're in charge of the White House and have the ability to take out the CIA and FBI's admitted #1 threat to the US, that's something else. His death would've dramatically shook up the al-Qaeda network and may have thrown the 9-11 attacks out of whack enough for the terrorists to be caught.

Agreed.

Agreed. But, I am not convinced that taking Bin Laden out in 2000 would have prevented 9/11 as the plan was years in the making and most certainly finalized as late as February, 2001.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/911/sto...

I believe it is without question that the attacks would not have occured had Clinton capitalized on the opportunity to get Bin Laden in 1996, but it''s pointless finger pointing.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column...

I must concede that the Bush Administration had all the intelligence information they would ever need that Bin Laden was a danger, and the man should have been killed by Groundhog day ''01.

I am pleased to hear you support preemptive strikes. Let''s give credit where credit is due. Bush recognized Hussein was a danger, had the opportunity to remove Saddam Hussein from power and succeeded. I hope we''ve learned from 9/11 and continue this policy.

Yup. That is a problem with Government and when you''re a new adminstration it is only worse.

Im all for taking out Osama when we had the chance, however that''s not preemptive. He was already a criminal at that point. I would be for taking out Hussien too, he was/is a criminal and should be punished. Preemptive means attacking someone before they do something. Attacking Iraq was preemptive because as a country they hadn''t attacked us yet. Attacking Osama wouldn''t be preemptive because he was a criminal at the time.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]Im all for taking out Osama when we had the chance, however that''s not preemptive. He was already a criminal at that point. I would be for taking out Hussien too, he was/is a criminal and should be punished. Preemptive means attacking someone before they do something. Attacking Iraq was preemptive because as a country they hadn''t attacked us yet. Attacking Osama wouldn''t be preemptive because he was a criminal at the time.

We cannot premptivly just one-shot kill Saddam. UBL is easier to kill because he isn''t the head of a nation-state.

"Ulairi" wrote:
"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]Im all for taking out Osama when we had the chance, however that''s not preemptive. He was already a criminal at that point. I would be for taking out Hussien too, he was/is a criminal and should be punished. Preemptive means attacking someone before they do something. Attacking Iraq was preemptive because as a country they hadn''t attacked us yet. Attacking Osama wouldn''t be preemptive because he was a criminal at the time.

We cannot premptivly just one-shot kill Saddam. UBL is easier to kill because he isn''t the head of a nation-state.

That was sorta my point. Killing Saddam and Osama is fine, but if you can''t get just them then it becomes different, because you''re taking out people who haven''t done anything yet. Rat Boy advocated killing Osama, not preemptive strikes.