I remember seeing that sign at the time, and thought it was totally faked. It turns out that it actually was a factory that made infant formula. (This was determined by UN inspectors and U.S. intelligence after Hussein’s son-in-law defected in 1995.) But the buildings were painted in camouflage, and there were fences and guard posts that made it look more sinister.
If you don’t want innocent civilian facilities attacked, you probably shouldn’t make them look like military installations.
It’s a little hard to pin down exactly what Clinton is saying happened in what order, but he says his administration created a plan to take out the Taliban and search for bin Laden, but the FBI and CIA wouldn’t say for certain that bin Laden was behind the attacks at the time and that appeared to complicate his plans to a point that the military found it unfeasible. There’s some discussion of basing rights in Uzbekistan for a special forces mission and how they weren’t able to get those and that that’s somehow related to the FBI and the CIA, but I’m not sure how it all fits together.
He might be saying that without that sign-off from the intelligence community, he didn’t feel he could convince Congress (or the public?) that the US needed to invade Afghanistan and that the military didn’t feel the special forces alternative was workable.
Again, not totally sure what he said in the video, but:
Clinton launched the 1998 strikes specifically to target Al Qaida and bin Laden. The story is that UBL had been at the Afghan camp hours before, but left. The point is that it is difficult to have perfect intelligence on where he was at any moment.
There was no authorization for the use of force against UBL or AQ.
Republicans had made it politically contentious to attack AQ in light of domestic circumstances.
I can see how Clinton can fairly summarize the above three points and conclude that he couldn’t (in a practical sense) attack AQ more than he had already. You may be reading his comment to mean that he was not allowed to; but my guess is that Clinton was talking about practicalities and not the law (or something like that).
I think I understand it now. It was the sum of events that tied his hands. The FBI/CIA were not 100% certain of Bin Laden at the time, and besides there was so much else going on it would seem almost silly to pursue him over other issues.
Thanks all! For a moment I thought the former President was implying even HE had people he had to report to, and that didn’t jive with my understanding of US politics.
You do understand the President can’t just order somebody killed? He’s restricted within the limits of his power to make war - and Congress controls that power.
Well… the president couldn’t just order someone killed at that time. And there are still limits dictated in part by Congress. But this statement is less true now than it was when Clinton was in office.
I recall a journalism repeatedly asking questions of Henry Kissinger, only to receive the replay, “The United States does not employ assassination was a tool of politics.”
If the CIA wants to whack a KGB agent, whose approval do they get? By the time an approving Congressman has talked to his cronies and mistresses, the KGB guy will blow town.
And yet, G.W.B. did nothing whatsoever with that intel. Not sure if G.W.B. simply didn’t wish to impinge on his business ties to the bin Laden family, or maybe he was just a scared little pussy, but it did take 1½ years for the “good guys” to pick up the trail again and exterminate the bastard.
Not certain if that was your point, but thanks for making it nonetheless.
“As President, you get three secret murders. If you don’t use 'em up, phfffp, they’re gone.”
