Generik420

I disagree. I am not going to argue that Clinton was a great president, but he did not get the country bogged down in an unwinnable war that there was no justification to start. I don't think Bush would have nearly the negative opinions surrounding him if he had stayed the course in Afghanistan and taken care of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Instead, he diverted the troops out of that region, allowing Al Qaeda to melt away and regroup, the Taliban is slowly taking over large chunks of Afghanistan, and we are stuck in bog with Iraq. Now we have Al Qaeda still very functional, and to top that off, they are more dispersed and better organized so there is no single killing blow that will knock them out. A few years ago it is widely assumed that if we had gotten Bin Laden, Al Qaeda would cease to be a functional entity. Now all I see is that there is a new tier of leadership and they are split apart, so capturing / killing on of the top guys or even Bin Laden himself really won't do anything but knock out one piece. So maybe Clinton had a longer list of military blunders, but Bush has blunders that dwarf those in comparison.

farberio

Im not getting into Clintons vs Bush's blunders.

But I don't think just getting rid of a leader of a extremest group is just going to make them go away. They will either find a new leader or create a new organization and nothing will change.

Generik420

The idea is based on this. Right after 9/11 when the US went into Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was run directly by Bin Laden and a few top lietuenants. We went in and basically took away their safe haven in Afghanistan, and at that time, if we had taken out their leadership, which was also where much of their funding came from, you effectively decapitate the terrorist organization and render it fairly harmless. Sure there would still be members that were free, but most of them were trained to carry out a specific type of task, not to lead and plan large scale attacks. Instead, we let those top guys get away, and the entire structure of Al Qaeda has supposedly morphed into a multi-headed organization with redundant leadership, so there is no way to kill it off in one stroke. It is widely assumed now that Bin Laden is only a figurehead in the organization and does not participate much in the day-to-day planning. So capturing or killing him now, while it would make for great TV in the US, would not change ANYTHING in the fight against Al Qaeda. So you are correct that killing the leader now will not do anything, but 4 1/2 years ago, it probably would have made a huge difference.

farberio

I don't mean to call you a liar, or stupid or anything...but since I have not heard of this 'widely assumed' thought I am asking for refences. (Please no Wikipedia unless you can't possibly find anything else)

What my thoughts and what I personally have heard is such that Bin Laden is the #1 dude and his confirmed death is bad. The reason given that if Al-queda doesn't know for sure if he is dead or not then no-one will want to take over the #1 spot untill its confirmed. I don't have any references that I can name, so I will say its my personal opinion at best.

Generik420

Article dated from Dec. 2005, sorry best I could come up with at work.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178432,00.html

Generik420

Here is another link from a while back expressing how Bin Laden still weilds power in Al-Qaeda, but is more figurehead then CEO.

http://www.rand.org/commentary/020405CT.html

Maicca

Anyone who cannot name some good things about someone/something that they do not like has blinders on. I can list some good things about (arguably) the most evil man in history, Adolf Hitler- can you?

As for never doing anything good, President Clinton created the largest United States nature preserve, 84 million acres underwater around the northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

The United States does not care what Al Queda's inner machinations would be if Bin Laden were captured/killed- it would be seen as a MAJOR political bonus for the administration's policies of "stay the course."

Generik420

Well as I said, it would make for great TV in the US, but would not do much in terms of changing the war on terror in a logistical sense.

farberio

You know...I think I did see one of those articles once...shows ya how much I thought af it...

You do make a good point. +1 point for Generik420