without knowing what 2 times you are talking about, I will just say there was reason for them. IN at least one case I know of, there was members of the Royal Family of the UAE in the same area, and they did not want to risk killing some Royalty in the strike. That said I wish he had got him, and Clinton has said he did as well. But when they did launch a attack to try to kill him, missing him by a hour, in that Cruise Missile attack , the Republicans Screamed wag the dog and cried about it. The Republican party has nothing to stand on in attacking Clinton over his role against OBL, as its not like they ever made it a issue, did anything about it, and attacked Bill when he did. In Power, they did nothing at all , until the towers fell.
Whether or not members of any royal family were "in the same area", on the two occasions I'm talking about, our snipers had him in their crosshairs, fingers on the triggers, and were denied permission to 'engage'. There was no threat to anyone in the vicinity, except for UBL, and if they'd been given the 'go', UBL would have been dead 3 seconds later and over 2000 Americans would still be alive. The cruise missile attacks were not directed at UBL, they were nothing but an attempt at distraction to divert peoples attention away from the Monica debocle.
Both made mistakes, but in my view Bush was far worse because he was told how big a threat obl was, but did zero about it. Clinton I can only say did not do enough.
PLEASE! President Bush had been in office for less than 9 months on 9-11, and while he had been "briefed" on UBL, the briefings were coming from Clintons people, you know, the same ones who refused to take him out when they had the chance, and severely downplayed the actual threat UBL posed.
Also Note that this "lefty" has been attacking people for those remarks about Saddam, and calling on the US to do more, and be more forceful in dealing with Terrorism since long before Sept 11. It has been the right that has brushed aside the facts, and pushed OBL off to the side, because they wanted Iraq, even though Iraq was contained, and we had bigger issues in the middle east.
Left, right, center, I don't care what political affiliation someone has as long as they're true to the Constitution (which is why I'll be holding my nose when I vote for the McCainiac in November). As far as doing more about dealing with terrorism, I've been screaming about it since the days of the Baader Meinhoff Gang, Red Brigade, Red Army Faction, Action Direct, Black September and Shining Path! If they'd implimented the steps we were talking about back in the mid 70's, it's entirely possible that 9-11 never would have happened, mainly because the people on those planes would have been able to carry their firearms just like they used to do back in the 60's, and would have shot the terrorists long before they were able to take control of the aircraft.
One point of order if I may, it was hardly "the right" who was pushing off dealing with terrorism in the 70's and 80's, and in fact, it was "the right" who was deliberately prevented from dealing with terrorists on many occasions. Perhaps you've forgotten the Kerry Commission? It was the Democrats in Congress who wrote an unconstitutional 'law' that allegedly prevented POTUS from supporting the Contras in their fight against the Communist Sandanistas, and when they got their little bluff called, they ruined many good mens careers by dragging them in front of Congress and persecuting them for doing their jobs. It was this same stripe of Democrat who turned their backs on our allies, the Vietnamese, and violated our Treaty with them by cutting off the funding that was specifically earmarked for them, and prevented President Ford from providing any further military assistance to them, which is what led directly to the fall of S. Vietnam just 2 years after we had won the war.
As far as who's pushing what off, look, it's LONG past time that people quit playing their little school-yard taunt games, and started looking at facts. It's not about which party one belongs to, it's what one chooses to do while IN that office. As far as Saddam, the simple fact is that he thumbed his nose at us for the entire 8 years of the Clinton administration, because Clinton lacked the intestinal fortitude to deal effectively with him and compel him to comply with the terms of surrender that he himself signed. The fact that Clinton is a Democrat has NOTHING to do with it, it was Clinton the man who decided to ignore the threat, and as a result his successor, GW Bush was forced to deal with Saddam. I'm not interested in getting into another long, drawn out discussion about it, mainly because I've wasted entirely too much time, presenting too much evidence, to too many people, who have already made up their minds,
regardless of the facts. What I
do know is that Saddam
had to be taken out, he was given every opportunity to leave of his own accord, he refused, and as a result, he and his sons drew the asshole ticket in the Wanka lottery, and paid for it with their lives. Too bad, so sad, it just sucks to be them.
[For the Left]...The word "NeoCon" swiftly became a slur referring to those on the Right, in much the same way "Uncle Tom" was used to debase Black Republicans... etc, etc.
