Front Office Football Central - View Single Post

Dutch · 02-08-2004, 08:53 AM

And there lies the big dilemna. US Intelligence said Bin Laden was bad news. We needed to stop him way back in 1996. He was rich, he was motivated, he was suspected of multiple bombings in Saudi Arabia including the Khobar Towers that killed some 30 US soldiers, an Army Liaison Office in Riyahd that killed a score of US Army Officers, the WTC bombing in 93, and preparing to cause even more problems as he threatened he would to the Saudi Royal Family who eventually revoked his citizenship.

BUT...

Because Bin Laden hadn't actually been involved in causing a major catastrophe with thousdands dead or with using WMD, there was major arguments over how to handle him. President Clinton chose to be reactionary. "Let's wait and see what he does."

And I don't blame President Clinton for that. Nobody outside of Intelligence circles really consider the idea of mass murder the magnitude of the WTC. Hell, even after the failed bombing in 93 nobody considered it. Not really, anyway.

But then, we saw what a 250 million dollar operation called Al Qaeda could do on the 11th of September, 2001. And if a large operation such as Al Qaeda could do that, imagine what a rogue nation with hundreds of billions of dollars could achive? That was the nightmare we all started to envision. That was the nightmare that Saddam Hussein had to have envisioned. If his enemy Al Qaeda could cause that much damage to the USA, where was his support going to come from if he couldn't act in an even more devastating capacity? His support infrastructure could quickly turn to investing in Al Qaeda instead of Iraq.

He had plans to have his first Nuclear Bomb by 2007. A grave and gathering danger. This isn't made up by President Bush. We chose to be proactive instead of reactive based on the history with dealing with Al Qaeda.

I honestly think we chose correctly in this instance.

02-08-2004, 08:53 AM	#199
Dutch "Dutch" Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Tampa, FL	And there lies the big dilemna. US Intelligence said Bin Laden was bad news. We needed to stop him way back in 1996. He was rich, he was motivated, he was suspected of multiple bombings in Saudi Arabia including the Khobar Towers that killed some 30 US soldiers, an Army Liaison Office in Riyahd that killed a score of US Army Officers, the WTC bombing in 93, and preparing to cause even more problems as he threatened he would to the Saudi Royal Family who eventually revoked his citizenship. BUT... Because Bin Laden hadn't actually been involved in causing a major catastrophe with thousdands dead or with using WMD, there was major arguments over how to handle him. President Clinton chose to be reactionary. "Let's wait and see what he does." And I don't blame President Clinton for that. Nobody outside of Intelligence circles really consider the idea of mass murder the magnitude of the WTC. Hell, even after the failed bombing in 93 nobody considered it. Not really, anyway. But then, we saw what a 250 million dollar operation called Al Qaeda could do on the 11th of September, 2001. And if a large operation such as Al Qaeda could do that, imagine what a rogue nation with hundreds of billions of dollars could achive? That was the nightmare we all started to envision. That was the nightmare that Saddam Hussein had to have envisioned. If his enemy Al Qaeda could cause that much damage to the USA, where was his support going to come from if he couldn't act in an even more devastating capacity? His support infrastructure could quickly turn to investing in Al Qaeda instead of Iraq. He had plans to have his first Nuclear Bomb by 2007. A grave and gathering danger. This isn't made up by President Bush. We chose to be proactive instead of reactive based on the history with dealing with Al Qaeda. I honestly think we chose correctly in this instance.