Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Bill Clinton Could Have Killed Osama bin Laden Before 9/11 -- Here’s Why He Didn’t

Posted by on Aug. 1, 2014 at 9:21 AM
  • 15 Replies

Bill Clinton Could Have Killed Osama bin Laden Before 9/11 -- Here’s Why He Didn’t

by Ericka Sóuter

bill clinton

Politicians have made some surprising admissions over the years, but perhaps none will startle Americans as much as the recent revelation about President Bill Clinton. Today, reports surfaced that just 10 hours before the first plane hit the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, he told a group of Australian businessmen that he had a chance to kill terrorist Osama bin Laden but declined to take it. Of course the immediate question that comes to mind is "Why?" For some, the explanation will be unsettling.

In a recording, the former President said:

I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden -- he’s a very smart guy, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about him -- and I nearly got him once. I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him ... And so I didn’t do it.

Of course he had no idea the weight those words would carry one day. Though now it's bone chilling to hear when you think about bin Laden's vicious attack on American soil. Some 2,753 souls were taken during the plane bombing of the Twin Towers. The attack on the Pentagon took 125 more.

world trade center attack

Living here in New York at the time was indescribable. I had been in the city just two years when it happened, and it was a terrifying place to be. We didn't know if more was to come in the days immediately following. We felt as though we were risking our lives just by hopping on the subway or walking near a landmark. And the rubble. The memory of that pile of twisted steel and debris still gives me nightmares. 

So to think that Clinton could have taken that monster out! How would our world have been different if he had? Would all of those lives have been spared? Would the old New York landscape still be intact? Would all of those devastated families still be whole?

Though, I must admit, Clinton was a very smart, adroit leader and I have every confidence he did what he felt was right. As he said, killing all those innocent people in Kandahar would have been its own form of terrorism I suppose.

Even if he had chosen to assassinate bin Laden, that was no guarantee that the 9/11 attacks would not have happened. As the saying goes in the world of terrorist cells, cut off the head and another one grows in its place.

What do you think about Clinton's admission?

 

Images via Splash News & Phil Penman/Splash News

by on Aug. 1, 2014 at 9:21 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
Ms.KitKat
by Gold Member on Aug. 1, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Hindsight is 20/20

Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Aug. 1, 2014 at 10:32 AM
2 moms liked this

This is hardly news.

And it is mis-leading and a typical distraction from the truth.

He is on tape saying that he was offered Bin Laden, by the Sudanese, and he choose not to take custody of him, because he wasn't sure that he had  broken US laws.

sad that any adult in a News and Politics group wouldn't know that information.

 

 

 

WatermelonP
by on Aug. 1, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Killing innocent people to prevent the deaths of innocent people is wrong. Sometimes it has to be justified, but killing 300 innocents to kill one man? With little evidence (at the time) that doing so would save any lives? It would have been way too far.

The fact that America is willing to put up with so many innocent civilian casualties in the name of 'fighting terrorism' is a great shame, and its one of the reasons for our terrible reputation the world over.

vic270
by Vic on Aug. 1, 2014 at 10:45 AM
1 mom liked this

 Really, we are talking about something that changed this world as we knew it and it will never be the same. A lot of innocent people died that day and a lot of our freedoms were lost. This man was responsible for blowing up the USS Cole and Clinton should have gone after him then. He was responsible for a lot of things before 9-11 and before our lives were changed and our innocence was stolen from us.

Quoting WatermelonP:

Killing innocent people to prevent the deaths of innocent people is wrong. Sometimes it has to be justified, but killing 300 innocents to kill one man? With little evidence (at the time) that doing so would save any lives? It would have been way too far.

The fact that America is willing to put up with so many innocent civilian casualties in the name of 'fighting terrorism' is a great shame, and its one of the reasons for our terrible reputation the world over.

 

WatermelonP
by on Aug. 1, 2014 at 10:52 AM

The attack on the USS Cole took 17 lives. Are you saying it would have been justified to kill 300 innocent people just to kill the man who organised it? 

If you want someone to blame for all the freedoms that were lost on 9/11 you don't have to look further than our own government. The terrorists may have taken a lot of lives that day but our leaders are the ones who decided their attack should change the world and lead to a lot more loss of life.

Quoting vic270:

 Really, we are talking about something that changed this world as we knew it and it will never be the same. A lot of innocent people died that day and a lot of our freedoms were lost. This man was responsible for blowing up the USS Cole and Clinton should have gone after him then. He was responsible for a lot of things before 9-11 and before our lives were changed and our innocence was stolen from us.

Quoting WatermelonP:

Killing innocent people to prevent the deaths of innocent people is wrong. Sometimes it has to be justified, but killing 300 innocents to kill one man? With little evidence (at the time) that doing so would save any lives? It would have been way too far.

The fact that America is willing to put up with so many innocent civilian casualties in the name of 'fighting terrorism' is a great shame, and its one of the reasons for our terrible reputation the world over.



vic270
by Vic on Aug. 1, 2014 at 10:58 AM

 are you saying that we should not have done anything?

Quoting WatermelonP:

The attack on the USS Cole took 17 lives. Are you saying it would have been justified to kill 300 innocent people just to kill the man who organised it? 

If you want someone to blame for all the freedoms that were lost on 9/11 you don't have to look further than our own government. The terrorists may have taken a lot of lives that day but our leaders are the ones who decided their attack should change the world and lead to a lot more loss of life.

Quoting vic270:

 Really, we are talking about something that changed this world as we knew it and it will never be the same. A lot of innocent people died that day and a lot of our freedoms were lost. This man was responsible for blowing up the USS Cole and Clinton should have gone after him then. He was responsible for a lot of things before 9-11 and before our lives were changed and our innocence was stolen from us.

Quoting WatermelonP:

Killing innocent people to prevent the deaths of innocent people is wrong. Sometimes it has to be justified, but killing 300 innocents to kill one man? With little evidence (at the time) that doing so would save any lives? It would have been way too far.

The fact that America is willing to put up with so many innocent civilian casualties in the name of 'fighting terrorism' is a great shame, and its one of the reasons for our terrible reputation the world over.

 

 

 

WatermelonP
by on Aug. 1, 2014 at 11:02 AM

I'm saying that 9/11 was (and still is) used as an excuse for the government to do pretty much anything. Whether that is strip freedoms from american citizens, torture prisoners, or wage war around the globe.

What is the point in protecting our nation if we lose everything that made us great?

Quoting vic270:

 are you saying that we should not have done anything?

Quoting WatermelonP:

The attack on the USS Cole took 17 lives. Are you saying it would have been justified to kill 300 innocent people just to kill the man who organised it? 

If you want someone to blame for all the freedoms that were lost on 9/11 you don't have to look further than our own government. The terrorists may have taken a lot of lives that day but our leaders are the ones who decided their attack should change the world and lead to a lot more loss of life.

Quoting vic270:

 Really, we are talking about something that changed this world as we knew it and it will never be the same. A lot of innocent people died that day and a lot of our freedoms were lost. This man was responsible for blowing up the USS Cole and Clinton should have gone after him then. He was responsible for a lot of things before 9-11 and before our lives were changed and our innocence was stolen from us.

Quoting WatermelonP:

Killing innocent people to prevent the deaths of innocent people is wrong. Sometimes it has to be justified, but killing 300 innocents to kill one man? With little evidence (at the time) that doing so would save any lives? It would have been way too far.

The fact that America is willing to put up with so many innocent civilian casualties in the name of 'fighting terrorism' is a great shame, and its one of the reasons for our terrible reputation the world over.





vic270
by Vic on Aug. 1, 2014 at 11:11 AM
1 mom liked this

 You do know that we the people are the government and it is up to us to have authority over what goes on by our voting. But we can't sit back and dodge airplanes and bombs being thrown at us and not retaliate. We are America and that is what makes this country great. Sometimes we have to do bad things to see the good that will come from them. Every war before the war on terror proved this and made us stronger. We will some day win this one to and we will be better for it.

Quoting WatermelonP:

I'm saying that 9/11 was (and still is) used as an excuse for the government to do pretty much anything. Whether that is strip freedoms from american citizens, torture prisoners, or wage war around the globe.

What is the point in protecting our nation if we lose everything that made us great?

Quoting vic270:

 are you saying that we should not have done anything?

Quoting WatermelonP:

The attack on the USS Cole took 17 lives. Are you saying it would have been justified to kill 300 innocent people just to kill the man who organised it? 

If you want someone to blame for all the freedoms that were lost on 9/11 you don't have to look further than our own government. The terrorists may have taken a lot of lives that day but our leaders are the ones who decided their attack should change the world and lead to a lot more loss of life.

Quoting vic270:

 Really, we are talking about something that changed this world as we knew it and it will never be the same. A lot of innocent people died that day and a lot of our freedoms were lost. This man was responsible for blowing up the USS Cole and Clinton should have gone after him then. He was responsible for a lot of things before 9-11 and before our lives were changed and our innocence was stolen from us.

Quoting WatermelonP:

Killing innocent people to prevent the deaths of innocent people is wrong. Sometimes it has to be justified, but killing 300 innocents to kill one man? With little evidence (at the time) that doing so would save any lives? It would have been way too far.

The fact that America is willing to put up with so many innocent civilian casualties in the name of 'fighting terrorism' is a great shame, and its one of the reasons for our terrible reputation the world over.

 

 

 

 

 

couture-mommy
by Member on Aug. 1, 2014 at 11:13 AM
What innocence?

Quoting vic270:

 Really, we are talking about something that changed this world as we knew it and it will never be the same. A lot of innocent people died that day and a lot of our freedoms were lost. This man was responsible for blowing up the USS Cole and Clinton should have gone after him then. He was responsible for a lot of things before 9-11 and before our lives were changed and our innocence was stolen from us.


Quoting WatermelonP:

Killing innocent people to prevent the deaths of innocent people is wrong. Sometimes it has to be justified, but killing 300 innocents to kill one man? With little evidence (at the time) that doing so would save any lives? It would have been way too far.


The fact that America is willing to put up with so many innocent civilian casualties in the name of 'fighting terrorism' is a great shame, and its one of the reasons for our terrible reputation the world over.


 

WatermelonP
by on Aug. 1, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Glad to see you think we can win a war against a concept rather than an enemy. Not sure what good you think will eventually come of giving up our rights to things like fair trials, privacy, not being tortured by our government etc.

Also lol if you think the American people control the government. 

 You do know that we the people are the government and it is up to us to have authority over what goes on by our voting. But we can't sit back and dodge airplanes and bombs being thrown at us and not retaliate. We are America and that is what makes this country great. Sometimes we have to do bad things to see the good that will come from them. Every war before the war on terror proved this and made us stronger. We will some day win this one to and we will be better for it.

Quoting WatermelonP:

I'm saying that 9/11 was (and still is) used as an excuse for the government to do pretty much anything. Whether that is strip freedoms from american citizens, torture prisoners, or wage war around the globe.

What is the point in protecting our nation if we lose everything that made us great?

Quoting vic270:

 are you saying that we should not have done anything?

Quoting WatermelonP:

The attack on the USS Cole took 17 lives. Are you saying it would have been justified to kill 300 innocent people just to kill the man who organised it? 

If you want someone to blame for all the freedoms that were lost on 9/11 you don't have to look further than our own government. The terrorists may have taken a lot of lives that day but our leaders are the ones who decided their attack should change the world and lead to a lot more loss of life.

Quoting vic270:

 Really, we are talking about something that changed this world as we knew it and it will never be the same. A lot of innocent people died that day and a lot of our freedoms were lost. This man was responsible for blowing up the USS Cole and Clinton should have gone after him then. He was responsible for a lot of things before 9-11 and before our lives were changed and our innocence was stolen from us.

Quoting WatermelonP:

Killing innocent people to prevent the deaths of innocent people is wrong. Sometimes it has to be justified, but killing 300 innocents to kill one man? With little evidence (at the time) that doing so would save any lives? It would have been way too far.

The fact that America is willing to put up with so many innocent civilian casualties in the name of 'fighting terrorism' is a great shame, and its one of the reasons for our terrible reputation the world over.







Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)