Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I think what I'm suggesting is something more than a few cruise missles and more along the lines of 2002. I don't recall Congress declaring war in Bosnia/Serbia either, and we didn't stage in Pakistan in 2002 anyway. Not sure about Uzbekistan, but given that they are New Europe, I doubt they would have had a problem.
|
So Ty posts Clarke's listing of relevant operational factors for why invading Afghanistan was not practicable pre-2001, and you say that "well, something more should have been done." But when it is suggested that we shouyld have pulled out all the stops to find OBL after he fled to Pakistan once we did go into Afghanistan, you give the admin a pass: "What more could we have done once they retreated to the Paki border? We have just recently gotten the Pakis to be more willing to help us out, but that has taken time and negotiation."
On the larger point, it is of course entirely your right to evaluate Clarke' credibility based on your subjective impression of him and his motives, which is why I didn't jump into this fray yesterday. But the thing that has struck me throughout the 2 weeks that we have been chewing on this guy's book and testimony is that he has held up very well (a lot better than I thought he would). Maybe this Wash Times article will provide more traction for those seeking to silence him, but I for one am waiting for a non-Moonie paper to look at the document before I jump too far into that one.
