How many ways can he re-write his legacy?

[Kieran]

Let's face it guys, the American public would not have tolerated arresting Osama without definitive proof. I detest Clinton as much as the next guy, but you have to hold him to the same standard as Bush. Saying "he might do this" is not the same as saying "he did that".

"Probable cause"? Are you kidding me? "Martyr" is more like it.

[DiabloTX]

Originally posted by Kieran
Let's face it guys, the American public would not have tolerated arresting Osama without definitive proof. I detest Clinton as much as the next guy, but you have to hold him to the same standard as Bush. Saying "he might do this" is not the same as saying "he did that".

"Probable cause"? Are you kidding me? "Martyr" is more like it.

If you think Clinton's only option was to "arrest" OSL knowing what he did then you are either extremely naive or foolish.  What did we get Noriega on?  DRUG CHARGES?  Clinton said, and I quote, "we knew he (OSL) wanted to commit crimes against America".  Now, I may be a "condescending POS" but I know when I see a threat made against the US.  You sir, are just foolish.  Oh, and your decision led to the deaths of 3,000 people on 9/11 and 17 sailors aboard the USS Cole not to mention the African embasssy and....shall I go on or do you want me to dust for finger prints to prove OSL was there so we can get a judge to order an extradiction?

*shakes head

[Kieran]

Now, I may be a "condescending POS"

I don't think that's "maybe".

Guess we'd better go round up everyone in the world that makes threats against America. Oh, wait, we have a few down in GB. Do you think for a second that would have been tolerated pre-9/11? No way. No.... way.

Now I think Osama was guilty of both WTC attacks, don't get me wrong... but proven wrong of anything he was not. Maybe Clinton should have gone into Afghanistan in '93, or after the Cole, etc. One thing I am sure of, Americans would have totally rebuffed the idea of sending ground troops in '93. Heck, I am guilty of believing Clinton merely sent his missiles in to divert attention from his sexual exploits. Hindsight proves this to be false.

All that aside...

I don't think Americans would have been all that thrilled to have OBL arrested and brought to the US when nothing against him could be proven. Sad, but true. I personally would have no problem with it, but I tend to be a bit more conservative. There would have been no shortage of people pontificating on how it was "not the American way". Maybe if Clinton had more character he would have said to hell with it and seized him, but I have to be fair and admit he didn't have 20/20 hindsight to help him.

And in the final analysis...

Bush had a few months to begin to do something about OBL as well. I cannot honestly say it's fair to point a finger at Clinton without pointing one at Bush. It is completely reasonable to assume both presidents possessed the same intelligence reports. No matter how it is sliced, both presidents reacted pretty much the same way up to 9/11.

[capt. apathy]

"Probable cause"

do you even know what 'probable cause' is?

it's not we 'probably' should arest him 'cause' we think he's planning something.

probable cause is when you have reason to believe a crime is being (or has been) comitted.

you can't arrest people for what you think they are planning.

and as far as Clinton have\ing to have proof before he mentioned it.

then Bill had to have some kind of evidence to back this up.

why do you assume that? what makes you think he had enough evidence to get a conviction?  seeing someone has motive and is developing ability is a damn good reason to give the new guy a 'heads up'.   however, if he had solid proof (plans, informants,or the like) of a plan in progress then you could arrest him for intent, because you would have proof that he's done something illegal.  

but this is still america and we don't arrest people for what they might do, only for what they've done or you can prove they intend to do(unless they've changed this with the 'patriot act').