Claim: Clinton Sought Bin Ladin Beheading

Do I believe it? Maybe; I don't know.

But even if it's true, it demonstrates Clinton's unwillingness to get his own hands dirty... at the expense of compromising American security. He turned down an offer of extradition to the US, citing the "fact" that bin Ladin had committed no crimes against the US. So, instead, he tried to get the Saudis to take him and behead him (or so goes the story), but they balked.

And so he remained free.

Another point. Instapundit made this point over the weekend, I think, but I've made it before. The anti-war left bitches and moans about Bush's "renditions" of terrorist suspects to countries where they will likely be tortured, or at least be exposed to very harsh language.

And yet we know for a fact -- and have long known-- that Bill Clinton did the same thing.

And yet no wailing and gnashing of teeth then... was there?

I do have respect for principled anti-war voices. But I do not respect those who so obviously and clearly put partisan rooting interests ahead of national security. It cannot be the case that Bush's renditions are cause for leftist outrage whereas Clinton's renditions are cited by the same leftists as proof that Clinton was "really trying to deal harshly with terrorists."

posted by Ace at 02:53 PM

| Access Comments