Cohen: Clinton debated killing bin Laden three times

[papau]

Clinton debated killing bin Laden three times(but intel bad - as in late or unverified - plus killing civilians a problem)

http://www.cnn.com/ Headline from CNN front page:

Cohen: Clinton debated killing bin Laden three times

Story continues at http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/911.commission/index.html
but with different headline


The Clinton administration debated whether to launch airstrikes to kill Osama bin Laden three times in 1998 and 1999, but decided against them because of doubts about the intelligence and concerns about killing civilians, former defense secretary William Cohen told the independent panel investigating the 9/11 attacks

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Bush and Clinton administration officials on Tuesday defended their responses to terror threats, insisting they did all they could to eliminate the possibility of deadly attacks against the United States.

Testifying before an independent commission investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Secretary of State Colin Powell said the Bush administration began focusing on the threat from Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network, even before it took office.

And the Clinton administration debated whether to launch airstrikes to kill bin Laden at least three times in 1998 and 1999, but decided against them because of doubts about the intelligence and concerns about killing civilians.

"There were three occasions. Each time, the munitions and people were spun up," former Defense Secretary William Cohen told the panel. "They were called off because the word came back, 'We're not sure.' "<snip>

[Moderator]

1. Subject does not match title of article you linked to

Please edit as soon as possible.

[Minstrel Boy]

2. And you know what Bush did in January 2001?

He ended the deployment of the attack subs which Clinton had had stationed for two years within missile range of al Qaeda's Afghanistan bases. One of the very first things he did after his inauguration. This was just after receiving confirmation that al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole bombing.

From the timeline:

Late 1998-January 2001: The US permanently stations two submarines in the Indian Ocean, ready to hit al-Qaeda with cruise missiles on short notice. Six to ten hours advance warning is now needed to review the decision, program the cruise missiles and have them reach their target. On at least three occasions, spies in Afghanistan report bin Laden's location with information suggesting he would remain there for some time. Each time, Clinton approves the strike. Each time, CIA Director Tenet says the information is not reliable enough and the attack cannot go forward. (Washington Post, 12/19/01, New York Times, 12/30/01) The submarines are removed shortly after President Bush takes office.

Late January 2001 (B): Even as US intelligence is given conclusive evidence that al-Qaeda is behind the USS Cole bombing (see January 25, 2001), the new Bush administration discontinues the covert deployment of cruise missile submarines and gunships on six-hour alert near Afghanistan's borders that had begun under President Clinton (see Late 1998-January 2001). The standby force gave Clinton the option of an immediate strike against targets in al-Qaeda's top leadership. The discontinuation makes a possible assassination of bin Laden much more difficult. (Washington Post, 1/20/02)

http://www.complete911timeline.org

[Endangered Specie]

3. I can agree with that...

You dont make yourself better than terroists by bombing innocents whether you KNOW the guy is there or not.

[Red State Rebel]

5. But do you make yourself safer?

Quite frankly, I think a few innocents around Bin Laden being killed would be preferable to the 3,000 we lost.

[THUNDER HANDS]

6. you're assuming he was there

As you've probably learned, our real intelligence services aren't quite what they're made out to be on television.

[Red State Rebel]

7. I'll be the first to agree there, but if they were ever sure...

then we should have taken him out.

[lancdem]

8. I don't believe they ever were

That was one of the problems.

[Tellurian]

9. Bush owned the CiA...

Clinton couldn't risk killing one teensey, weensy, civilian. The hate mongers would have taken to their high horses and dubbed him reckless, violent and unpresidential.

Of course, the real flogging would have come from the daily fish wrap calling him "MURDERER of INNOCENTS"-

But that was then....

[w4rma]

11. Few knew Smirk to be such a horrible leader to ignore Clinton's warnings

about Al Queda and Bin Laden. The 10s of thousands of civilians killed in Bush's wars didn't have to die, either. But, hindsight is 20/20.

[Bonhomme Richard]

4. bush has no problem killing civilians. That's the difference.

Clinton had to follow the law. There isn't a law made that bush wouldn't ignore if it suited him.

[They_LIHOP]

10. CNN are such wh*res...

When they say "debated killing bin laden", the impression they're trying to give to the casual reader is that there absolutely WAS 3 TIMES when Clinton could've simply given the order, and UBL would have been dead.

Reading the actual article shows that impression to be false. The proper headline should have been: "Clinton pondered attempting assasination of UBL 3 times"

The subtitle should have been: "Each time, Tenet said 'Intel not good enough'"

This is a crap article, period, actually...

[w4rma]

12. Right-wingers control CNN. Remember, they merged with AOL

against Ted Turner's wishes (at a windfall to the owners of AOL).