Bill Clinton on Sept. 10, 2001: ‘I could have killed’ bin Laden


#1

Ten hours before the first plane hit the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, Bill Clinton allegedly told a group of businessmen in Australia that he had a chance to kill Osama bin Laden, but passed because it would have meant killing hundreds of innocent civilians. That’s according to never-before-released audio of remarks made public by Australian media on Wednesday.

msnbc.com/msnbc/bill-clinton-sept-10-2001-i-could-have-gotten-bin-laden


#2

Good thing President Truman didn’t fail to drop the bombs on Japan using the same reasoning. We (and the Japanese) would have lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians in the ensuing invasion.


#3

What an ego this guy has. It’s all about him and it runs in the family.:eek:


#4

Wait, for years, I’ve had liberals claim the Clinton - Bin Laden connection was a lie made up by the right?

I guess we fooled Clinton too then.


#5

I didn’t remember that speech. But I do remember THAT DAY.

It was full of foreboding. Like now I was conversing on a Catholic bulletin board on some of the day’s developments. We were horrified at some news about human-animal hybrid experimentation that came out that day. And shocked that the head of Priests For Life,
Father Frank Pavone had been fired (or whatever they called his temporary removal).

Finally got to bed about 3 am California time. At about 6 was awoken by a hubbub of excited conversation amongst neighbors in my driveway.

“We’re at War!” one wide eyed fellow declared. “With who?” I asked. “Turn on your TV!”.

I did. And like most people were glued to the mystery of what happened to the first tower - and I was watching when the second tower was hit.

Osama bin Laden’s name came up as a possibility for the attack … but there had been riots in Seattle opposing World Trade by leftists and THAT was the building that got hit.

Bush was in his eighth month as President at the time. Clinton had supposedly attacked areas bin Laden was rumored to be twice. Once the “aspirin factory?” in Sudan, later bin Laden’s base in Afghanistan. In the latter attack Pakistanian and Afghani officials were alerted of the coming attack and the fact American missiles were going to come through their airspace. Which some speculate allowed someone to alert (and spare) bin Laden.

bin Laden subsequently “took credit” for the 9-11 attacks … but was HARD to find for a long time. American Presidents from both parties were right to try to stop him. And finally get him. AND …

Late though this news is in coming … it is good to know that at some point in his life President Clinton gave a thought about innocent lives … and made the CHOICE not to kill.


#6

Islamism is bigger than Obama bin Laden. He was just another cog in the machine. Changing just one element of that machine by knocking him out of the mesh would have altered the end results slightly, but the intent of Islamists remains the same, with or without bin Laden, before he was a player, and as much now as on that fateful day.
It may be psychologically comforting to be able to give evil a face, but it is a mistake to mistake the face of evil for the evil itself.


#7

Right, because those two things are totally analogous.


#8

I believe Clinton did the right thing in weighing the lives of innocent people against the death of one head of a hydra that is still now besetting the world.
If Truman had chosen a forsaken atoll to show the power of the atomic bomb would the Japanese have listened. We will never know. I personally doubt it given the attitude of the ruling military in Japan. However in a war a man is not always open to compassion.
Clinton’s actions might have been different after 7/11 however I hope he would have made the same purported decision. We become those who force us to the same level as they. Revenge is for the Lord. Justice for one at the loss of hundreds of innocents is not justice.


#9

Even after dropping the first atomic bomb on a Japanese city, the Japanese hardliners would not yield. I fail to see how dropping it on a nearby island would have made any difference. Outside Tokyo Bay maybe, but I don’t blame the Americans for using the nuclear bombs in that case.

US military planners estimated they would lose up to a million servicemen invading Japan by conventional means, and the Japanese several times that number of military and civilian deaths, as they were so determined to resist, as demonstrated at Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

There’s not much doubt though that we’re going to face a major challenge with Islam. Consider the number of flash-points that are springing up or getting worse around the place - Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. etc.

Personally I think it’s part of a judgment against the world that God is allowing to happen. He’s had 1400 years to evangelise the Moslem world and has hardly made a dint. If He’s all powerful as claimed, then He hasn’t done much in that area. Which means that either He can’t do it, which puts His omnipotence under the microscope, or more likely, He’s left it there for a later purpose, when He could foresee the Christian West losing its saltiness.

It’s thoughts like these, and some of my own personal experiences, that make me a bit leery about the labels like “God is love” and the other cheerful dogmas we trot out to encourage ourselves, without considering what exactly God might mean by “love”.

That He and the devil conspire to stop us getting too smug in our earth mindedness is obvious if you look at recent history - a smug Europe in its heady empire and colonial days was shaken to the core by World War I and the Russian Revolution. This was followed by a brief roaring 20’s, then a major depression. The world was just climbing out of this when it was hit by Nazism, Fascism and World War II.

We just finished that war, and the Cold War started. We then armed ourselves with Nuclear MAD, while a host of proxy wars, big and small, were fought around the globe between the Soviets and the USA, or the West.

Then the wall fell, and a New Order was proposed. Which then promptly hit the snags of the Balkan and first Gulf Wars. They finished, and there was a few years of peace, and then the twin towers came down, followed by the second Gulf War and Western powers taking the place of Russia in Afghanistan.

Now we find we’re being confronted world wide by Islam.

Somehow or other I get the feeling neither God or the devil are going to allow us permanent peace in this world. No matter what we do, our best laid hopes fall short.


#10

Of course not! Just one important point of similarity: Acceptance of collateral damage (killing of innocents) to achieve an important objective (saving many lives).


#11

was Bin Laden behind the FIRST attack on the WTC that happened in 1993? Or were those random terrorists with no names? Cause wasn’t Clinton president at that time? :confused:


#12

Should we just nuke the Middle East?


#13

My Father was one of the most liberal people I ever knew.He used to, however, bristle when people condemned the use of Atomic bombs on Japan.His perspective,I am sure, was quite different than yours.He was on a ship of the coast of Japan preparing to invade

There is no dispute that more people would have died from an invasion than died from the bombs


#14

The act was wrong according to Catholic moral teaching. If masturbation is wrong, porn is wrong, anal sex is wrong, then so was Hiroshima.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/dropping-the-atomic-bomb-was-wrong-period


#15

And I lost many civilian relatives to the Germans in WW2. My grandmother’s father and my father’s father were murdered by the Germans and she was taken as a slave labourer. I still think purposeful killing of German civilians would be wrong. My father says the same thing. We faced nuclear death due to the Soviet-Western conflict and we were the place where most nukes would fall. I would still think it is wrong to kill Soviet civilians on purpose.


#16

It really isn’t even up for debate. There is nothing in Catholic moral teaching that would permit the slaughter of 200,000 civilians, many of them innocent children, for any reason whatsoever.


#17

We are making much much worse decisions now than rehashing this old tune. That was over a decade ago. The mistakes this administration is making are happening today.

And Dennis Rodman could have choked Kim Jong Ill to death. Woulda coulda shoulda.


#18

However, some Catholics try to justify it. Click on that link, it cites examples.


#19

I know some Catholics do try to justify it, but I haven’t seen one serious, respected Catholic moral theologian try to defend the attack.


#20

I respect Bill Clinton for not killing hundreds of innocent people to get Bin Laden and I don’t have a lot of respect for Clinton otherwise.

I rejected Bush’s attempts to kill Saddam Hussein on three different occasions, using cruise missiles.

The first attempt to kill Saddam, which started the invasion of Iraq, Bush killed hundreds of innocent Iraqi men, women and children when the missile took out an entire block only to learn, Saddam was no where near the site. Bush repeated that attempt two more times based on faulty intel, before Saddam was finally captured.

We Americans should’ve hung our heads in shame after the murder of innocence was done in our name.

Jim


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.