I Would Have Started By Nuking Kandahar, But That’s Just Me….

Wes Clark: Clinton had an opportunity to go in on the ground to get Bin Laden but it was “a lot of logistics” « Hot Air

Also, did Clinton even mention this to those Australian businessmen? We only got a tiny snippet of audio, but it makes sense that he’d want to showcase his refusal to order an air raid but not a ground raid. His excuse for not bombing Bin Laden, i.e. civilian casualties, made him look magnanimous; he went so far as to say that killing people indiscriminately in the name of killing Osama would have made him no better than a terrorist himself. That’s a harder argument to make in the case of a ground raid, the whole point of which is to maximize your ability to discriminate among targets. That’s why Obama sent SEAL Team Six into Abbottabad instead of simply droning Bin Laden’s compound from the air. They weren’t sure Bin Laden was inside and didn’t want to risk a major international incident by bombing a house belonging to an innocent person in a country with which we’re formally allied. He wanted eyes and ears on the ground. Clinton could have had the same thing, per Clark, but decided against it. How come?

I see three possibilities here:

1.  Clinton is lying.

2.  Clark is lying.

3.  Both of them are lying.

Based on past history, the third option would be my guess.

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.

Leave a Reply