> In message <3948120513.1000380533 at ccs-aha442.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu>,
> lweiger at umich.edu writes
> >However, if Clinton and Co had managed to kill bin Laden a
> >couple of years ago, many lives probably would've been saved.
> >
> >-- Luke
>
> Do you think so? Do you really believe that the campaign against the US
> is down to one deluded man? After all, Clinton did take some fairly
> decisive action against bin Laden (or actually an aspirin factory in the
> Sudan). Was it effective in stopping attacks on the US?
>
>
> --
> James Heartfield
Osama bin Laden is the only terrorist we know of with the money and connections to pull something of this magnitude off. In fact, many doubt that even he would be capable and that one of the Arab states must of aided him. Let's hope not, because if that's the case a declaration of war is imminent.
I hope you don't mean to imply that anyone's proud that Clinton ended up blowing apart an aspirin factory. However, I think the counterfactual that "if bin Laden was killed in '99, the terrorist attack against the WT wouldn't have occured in '01" is quite reasonable given the assumption that bin Laden is responsible.