Clinton warned in 1996 about OBL

No foresight...No balls...Busy doing "other things"?

Pick any one and you won't be too far off.

woiyo wrote:

No foresight...No balls...Busy doing "other things"?

Pick any one and you won't be too far off.

damn straight, buddy.

just look at how quickly george w. bush located, apprehended, tried, sentenced and punished osama.

if it weren't for dubya's laser like focus on osama bin laden, that terrorist pig might still be running around today, stepping on our freedoms.

I repeat my original question...In light of this evidence,why didnt Clinton do anything then?
Thats all I asked.

I repeat my original question...In light of this evidence,why didnt Clinton do anything then?
Thats all I asked.

mysteryman wrote:

I repeat my original question...In light of this evidence,why didnt Clinton do anything then?
Thats all I asked.

he did.

he launched on a bin laden location in sudan and again on training camps in afghanistan.

i know you really hate clinton and want so badly to assign to him full responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened to america, from 1560 to today, but it's really a pretty hypocritical assertion when you rail against your political opposites for doing the same with bush.

don't you get it ? it's a cumultive problem that's been building for over 25 years.

over 35 if you include the murdered israelis at the olympics. nearly 60 if you count the establishing of the state of israel.

there's more than enough blame to go around.

Sudanese officials claim that they offered to turn bin Laden over to the Clinton administration before he was expelled from the Sudan, but Clinton diplomats deny it was that simple.

On July 20, ABC radio host Sean Hannity thrice repeated the false claim that former President Bill Clinton refused a 1996 offer from Sudan to hand Osama bin Laden over to the United States. Hannity has previously propagated this claim, for which the 9-11 Commission found "no reliable evidence to support."

As Media Matters for America has noted, the false claim originated in an August 11, 2002, article on right-wing news website NewsMax.com that distorted a statement Clinton made on February 15, 2002. While addressing the Long Island Association's annual luncheon, Clinton said he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States, and Clinton did not admit to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else. (Clinton's statements are posted here).

The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.

The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

I repeat my original question...In light of this evidence,why didnt Clinton do anything then?
Thats all I asked.

he did.

he launched on a bin laden location in sudan and again on training camps in afghanistan.

i know you really hate clinton and want so badly to assign to him full responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened to america, from 1560 to today, but it's really a pretty hypocritical assertion when you rail against your political opposites for doing the same with bush.

don't you get it ? it's a cumultive problem that's been building for over 25 years.

over 35 if you include the murdered israelis at the olympics. nearly 60 if you count the establishing of the state of israel.

there's more than enough blame to go around.

Excuse me,
Where did I ever say I "hate" Bill Clinton?
I didnt agree with his policies,but I have no feelings one way or the other about the man.

Also,I have said many times the Bush shares part of the responsibility,I have NEVER said Clinton was solely responsible,and I defy you to find anyplace where I did.

But,this is from the article...

Quote:

Sudanese officials claim that they offered to turn bin Laden over to the Clinton administration before he was expelled from the Sudan, but Clinton diplomats deny it was that simple.

Yet the Clinton admin has denied that the offer was ever made.
Now they say it was but it "wasnt that simple".
So,were they or werent they?

I'm prepared to admit that Clinton may not have done all he could have done....but unleased global terror?
That's a mighty aggressive assumption considering the historical grudge Islamist fascists (is that what we're calling them...I don't know for sure...) have held toward the west in general, and the US in particular.

I certainly wouldn't say that global terrorism is the shrub's fault, no matter how low he is in my mental polls--that's just far too big a burden to lay on one man...or even one administration. If you buy that crap Baldy, you're never going to grasp the larger picture here.

In the book Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror, Richard Miniter explains how this all took place and how Clinton failed to take possession of bin Laden.

Baldimo wrote:

In the book Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror, Richard Miniter explains how this all took place and how Clinton failed to take possession of bin Laden.

You said this without even reading the book?

I didn't say I bought it; I haven't even read the book. I was pointing out that the book was written and is filled with large amounts of info on the subject of Clinton and his refusal to take possession of bin Laden.