Skip to main content

The Path to 9-11

I recall watching a show about Bin Laden, probably on the History channel, a *long* time ago that was a documentary and did show how time after time (someone said 10?) the Clinton administration either had Bin Laden in their sights or else were offered him, and they didn't take action.

The "why" according to that documentary was essentially that they believed that either assasinating him or taking him prisoner would have been *illegal*.

In hindsight, of course, this was a mistake. Still, the idea that the threat from Al Qaida was less than it was was a pervasive idea, not limited to the Clinton administration. And I don't really think that most people support the notion that we ought to go about assasinating potential threats as a matter of policy.

The trailer says "why not" and quite frankly I think that a strong answer to "why not" can be made. The problem is that the only answer that will fly is that what is clear in hindsight was not clear at the time, and that it seemed like a good idea, at the time, to treat the terrorist threat as a law enforcement issue, in which case having a *legal* standing to capture or kill Bin Laden was necessary.

But that can't be said without *also* saying, "But now we know better. It's not a criminal, law-enforcement problem."

And the Democrats aren't willing to give that up.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Makes Clinton's outburst that he "tried to get Bin Laden" on several occasions and "had contracted with people to get him (Bin Laden)" all the more interesting, doesn't it?

If his squawk is true, it means that the Clintonistas have been lying all along about not grabbing Ozzie because they couldn't figure out a legal justification for it.

If his squawk is false (and you can bet the ranch on it), it's just one more reason to wonder why half the country figures he's the sole human being alive capable of returning us to the Time When Everybody Loved Us.

But maybe I'm just not nuanced enough to perceive his good points...

Popular posts from this blog

Goals

  Somehow I never got this colored and posted.  Anyhow, everyone should be honest about what their goals are and what they have as intended results.   ADDENDUM: When I added Popper's Paradox to the "labels" on this, I did a quick check that I had his name right and saw the fast and dirty definition on wikipedia, that unfettered tolerance simply means that the intolerant will always win.  This is baloney, of course, because we can *contend* without being intolerant.  We can still advocate for tolerance among everyone.  But even so, it struck me just how Popper's Paradox plays into the Progressive/SJW ethos. Intolerance isn't wrong. Racism isn't wrong. "Punching" isn't wrong. Political violence isn't wrong. Hate isn't wrong. Not even fascism is wrong. The Progressive/SJW ethos is that none of these things are wrong, they only become wrong based on who is targeted by those things. Those who like to quote Popper believe intolerance a moral ne

Why We Can't Have Unity

  Trump didn't divide the country. Let's get that out of the way first. There's several things that have divided us but the people who get elected are only the symptoms. Collective Identity is why we can't have Unity.  Don't believe me? 1) Dealing with groups is tempting because it's a force multiplier, and we've had "group politics" forever, but it's reached a tipping point. Everyone is considered primarily their group identity. 2) A failure to buy into this group identity ideology has been framed as racism. So we're told to believe that people with ideological differences or who question dividing everyone into group identities are not just people with different opinions, they are evil. Even arguing against the focus on group identity will get you called a racist. 3) Group identity defines nearly everything. Racism, right and wrong are no longer defined by actions or attitudes, at least by a critical percentage of the population. Right, wr

Why it doesn't matter what Parler allowed.

Because allowing people to say scary things in public (or mean things, or false things) doesn't inflame anyone.  It attracts people who are already inflamed. There used to be a joke that went more or less something like this:  There's a couple thousand white supremacist militia members in the US and two thirds of them are undercover FBI agents. And that's the second reason.  Because we actually want the scary conversations to happen in public. Driving those conversations underground doesn't make them go away. Inflamed people are still inflamed except now they are also legitimately aggrieved.  We have thousands of years of History that proves that this is true. Short of simply killing everyone of a certain mindset, ideology, religion, or culture, it's impossible to make them go away by forcing them to keep their scary ideas quiet.  Killing a few simply creates martyrs, not converts. Economic oppression, which was used against the Jews as well as endless other minorit