Gokul43201 said:
Sudan perhaps, not Afghanistan - even though al Qaeda did have camps/operations out of there. The Sudanese government was willingly harboring bin Laden; the Afghan "govt" (what later became popular as the Northern Alliance) was opposing the Taliban and al Qaeda and related networks that were gradually gaining power and populairty there. So, under this context you agree that invading Afghanistan would not be justifiable ?
In '93,
perhaps not - since there was still a significant presence there, a limited strike may have been better - but
something real needed to be done,
both in the Sudan and Afghanistan. In '96 (Khobar towers) or '98 (2 US embassies), certainly an invasion of Afghanistan would have been justified.
Good timeline of events/responses: http://www.disaster-timeline.com/TTLJune1204Irmak_smaller.pdf Please note, this does
not include acts against other countries (such as hijackings and bombings) that would have justified international action against Afghanistan.
Btw, if anyone is counting, its been more than 3 years since 9/11. For Clinton, major Al Qaeda terrorist actions came 3, 2, 2(0), and 2 years apart - and 9/11 was less than a year after the Cole bombing.
Chronos said:
We should have waited until they nuked a US target. If anything, the US ignored terrorist threats far too long. Even Clinton had a spark of awareness that Bin Laden might be a problem. And he was not exactly a geopolitical genius [not that I'm suggesting GWB is]. The ill conceived van bomb attack on the WTC should have set off all the alarms. But no, it only caused minor damage...
Agreed - that is the point I'm trying to convey here. The timeline shows a pattern of escalating activity that
started with a
major act that should have been responded to on a similar scale to how 9/11 was responded to.
But all that aside, isn't it amazing nearly all of the hijackers were Saudis? I think it would have made more sense to follow that trail of evidence.
Since Bin Laden is of Saudi descent, its not at all amazing that most of his most trusted followers were. And yes, that's a trail of evidence that
was followed.
#42 said:
Good point. Bush et al didn't react to prevent 9/11...
Is that a Freudian slip? Ya want to check the grammar there...?
...and when they did finally do something he followed the wrong trail.
Be specific. What should they have done differently? Are you suggesting Bush should have invaded Saudia Arabia? You are aware that Saudia Arabia kicked Bin Laden and his buddies out, right?
This is Classic Russ. I love the way you bring Clinton into these discussions, it like a political Tourettes or something. Clinton has nothing to do with the point I am making. You keep using him as a red herring; give it up.
Red herring? You seriously can't fathom why Clinton's actions would be relevant here? Clinton had
five Al Qadea bombings to react to. Perhaps Bush was just learning from Clinton?? Never
act, just
react - and only react strongly enough to avoid immediate criticism?
These positions are mutually exclusive? Please tell me how.
Easy:
A. Bush is wrong for be being pro-active (post-9/11) - and I'm not just talking about Iraq- Bush's entire
philosophy of pre-emptive action has been criticized.
B. Bush should have been more pro-active (prior to 9/11).
B directly contradicts A. You can't simultaneously be too pro-active and not pro-active enough.
Clinton: far from being a red-herring, Clinton goes a step further:
C. Clinton was right in being
reactive.
If Clinton was right for being re-active wrt the
five Al Qaeda acts under his watch, then Bush must have been right for being re-active wrt 9/11 (and that's where the "unless" part from before came in). If Bush is wrong for not acting prior to 9/11, then Clinton must also be wrong for not acting prior to the last 4 of the 5.
Finally, I say that nobody can 100% prove their position due to information being suppressed, and you say that's my problem?
Yes. That's a cop-out (for two reasons: 100%?? c'mon, you know such a thing doesn't exist) and you know it. You already have a fully-formed opinion. If the information available (and that includes evidence of suppression of information) doesn't support your opinion, you shouldn't have that opinion. If you want to base your opinion on the
lack of evidnce, just say so. I suspect that makes you uncomfortable though, because you know what that sounds like, even though you want to believe it.
It sounds as if the Bush Administration didn't act to prevent 9/11 when to others the case for action was beyond doubt...
That's a big assertion. Substantiate it: first,
what, specifically, should have been done pre-9/11, second
could it have been done in the pre-9/11 politicial climate, and third, who said we should do it and what exactly did they say? If you're talking about the memos linked in the OP, did you
read them? They do
not call for direct, immediate action.
...invaded Iraq when the case for it was entirely in doubt.
It was a judgement call. You disagree with Bush's judgement. Fine. Tell me this: if the US had invaded Afghanistan in August of 2001 and 9/11 had
not happened, would the world have supported the invasion? Even
after 9/11, Bush doesn't get the benefit of the doubt after a judgement call - pre-9/11 I can't imagine that he would get it then. Remember, conspiracy theorists today are still talking like Afghanistan was invaded for an oil pipeline
and they use pre-9/11 discussions about invading Afghanistan to show it.
To be quite clear, it is my opinion that pre-emptive action is often the right thing to do, but only
reactions are sure to be supported by the public and the world community: Had Bush invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11 (thus preventing 9/11), he would have been
crucified. Had Clinton done it as a
reaction to one of his terrorist bombings, (thus preventing 9/11, and maybe also the Cole bombing, etc...), he'd have been lauded as a hero.