Especially with President Bush’s second term, approval for the war in Iraq has decreased a great deal. People say that it has nothing to do with the ‘war on terror,’ yet there have been proven links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. [See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml for more]. The problem that I see, with the little I know on the topic, is that previous commander-in-chiefs, one in particular, was too selfish to stop known terrorists (Bin Laden). The following article talks about Clinton’s failure to act on two (maybe more) separate occasions about Bin Laden and proven terrorist crimes. Again, had Clinton done so with just reason there would be no problem. However, he was known to be very nervous when it came to foreign action because he feared anything aggressive would cost him his re-election. Clinton did get re-elected, but Osama Bin Laden executed a near flawless 9/11/01 attack on the citizens United States because he was never captured or killed. I am not even trying to blame any of the deaths of the 9/11 victims on a former president, because of course he had no knowledge of what would happen. He did, however, take his own success over his country’s safety by refusing to work with Sudan and their evidence against Bin Laden (and known associates). http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030901-102359-9067r.htm
P.S.---As for the credibility of the article it was written by the former secretary of defense (under Ronald Reagan) Caspar Willard "Cap" Weinberger. He was also a former publisher of Forbes magazine and recently passed away.
C.S.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yes I have heard similar things. I do not have anything against Former president Clinton, but not reacting due to a chance of no re-election is a move he had to make to stop any contrivercy during his campain. Although I do not think that was a right move since he did have inside informatiom from the Sudanese government, he should have reacted.ASM
Post a Comment