Osama bin Laden took responsibility for the first WTC bombing in 1993. The Clinton administration declined to take bin Laden into custody. I cannot understand why. That has baffled me ever since. That being said, to state that 9/11 is Bill Clinton's fault is just stupid.
Is Bill to be held blameless, given that 9/11 was planned under his watch, and the opportunities he left on the table to catch Usama?
This article does not have the specificity to back up your claim. In fact, in reference to a State Dept assessment, it says: In reading this and several other sources, it looks to me like they knew in general where he was but had very few good intel episodes that detailed his exact location at an exact time. Not defending the Clinton effort completely, but you can't look at their actions through the prism of 9/11. Here's the article you quote: Some more background from Sidney Blumenthal's book...
There are several other books that confirm that the CIA and State Department did have Bin Laden in their sights but Clinton refused to go after him. As someone who posted earlier : Adoo "acceptance of reality is the first step to solve the problem." These were Bill Clinton's EXACT WORDS In the words of Clinton himself, as quoted by the Sunday Times of London, Clinton's failure to accept an offer to have Bin Laden handed over was the "Biggest Mistake" of his presidency. Clinton had Bin laden. He chose not to go after him. U.S. paid the price with the bombing of the US Embassies in Africa, the USS Cole. So keep on protecting your beloved Clinton. I Blame both Clinton and Bush for the mess we are in. Here's some more info for you to digest since you love protecting Clinton! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem. Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.” In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away. NBC News contacted the three top Clinton national security officials. None would do an on-camera interview. However, they vigorously defend their record and say they disrupted terrorist cells and made al-Qaida a top national security priority. “We used military force, we used covert operations, we used all of the tools available to us because we realized what a serious threat this was,” said President Clinton’s former national security adviser James Steinberg. One Clinton Cabinet official said, looking back, the military should have been more involved, “We did a lot, but we did not see the gathering storm that was out there.”
I'm not sure if you weren't checking the board or not during this discussion, but it is false that Sudan ever made credible offer to turn OBL over. If they had made such an offer it would baffle me as well why they wouldn't take it. Here are some relevant parts of old posts on the matter. Here is some more.
I find it odd...that Clinton first says he regretted it but then changes his tune and says it never happened. Then you had the commission back him up. Riiiiggghhhhtttt! I'm not saying he did or didn't have a deal with Sudan. I will say that they knew where he was and they could've had him. He chose not to because of his own problems back at home with all the scandals. So in a way, we can kinda blame the Republicans too because they took the focus off the REAL threat which was Bin Laden. Instead, they were too busy going after Monica Lewisnky. So yes, it's BOTH the Democrats, Republicans, and Bill Clinton's fault. George Bush just added to the mess after - a big mess at that.
We've rehashed this ad nauseum on this BBS and the answer is YES, Sudan offered Osama bin Laden to Bill Clinton, who turned down the offer because he did not feel as though they had sufficient evidence against him to convict. There was an audio clip of Bill Clinton which was posted to confirm this. There really is no denying it. This is how the libs would deal with terrorists -- by pussyfooting around. No thanks.
name them, because the orignial souce of your claim doesnot support your claim. why are you having so much trouble backing up your baseless claim. ???
Google it.. there are thousands of entries. pick one and keep going. Just as there are many that support it, there are many that don't. Somewhere in the middle is the truth. Just like we don't have refutable evidence that Roger Clemens absolutely did steroids...BUT WE KNOW HE DID THEM! However, there is audio of Bill Clinton himself saying those EXACT words and then later denying it. Yet, we know he's a shady character to begin with. Baseless?...You are BLIND! Just accept it like you said earlier. It's the key to the solutions right? Just like those who are blind for BUSH! You are Blind for Clinton.
Here are Bill Clinton's words as "quoted" in that very Sunday Times piece you reference (I'll even use a FreeRepublic link): and... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/602402/posts Clinton has repeatedly said his biggest regret was not getting bin Laden, as he does here in an interview with Couric: Now, maybe he did say what the heresay article from the Times says some anonymous source said he said. But reading that article and looking at similar though completely different statements he's made over the years, it's much more probable that someone misquoted him to the Times. I agree with all but the Kerrey paragraph and the last paragraph. First, Kerrey is just nuts on this. It would have possibly been an option after 9-11, but in the Clinton presidency it would have been ludicrous to even propose such a course. Republicans would have opposed it and it would have done more harm than good. As Blumenthal's excerpt makes clear, Wag the Dog was a popular phrase and as other stories point out, particularly when the Gore Task Force made anti-terrorism proposals to Congress, the Repubs didn't want things like the ability to track explosives, increased airport security or worldwide financial monitoring. And Kerrey thinks they would have taken Clinton at his word and said "Hey, let's declare war on a non-state entity that would give Clinton the ability to distract the country from Monica?" Yea, right. According to Blumenthal, not one Congressman or Senator even approached the Clinton administration about bin Laden or Al-Q. Chances of getting that Congress at that time under that president to declare war on bin Laden or al-Q was exactly 0%. As for the last paragraph, there is ample evidence that Clinton pushed for special forces ops but could not convince the military guys to buy off on it. I don't love protecting Clinton. I hate right-wing zombie stories that never die no matter how much evidence and logic is applied. (I'm not saying you're a right wing zombie... just noting that you have bought into a meme that has been pushed repeatedly by wingers to cloud Bush's culpability... and one that has been at least questioned with good cause, if not directly disproven... without considering the historical factors or the nuances inherent in the issue.)
Being elected to terms, while being one of the most underqualified candidates in history. and one of the longest running series of unintentional jokes called "Bushisms." Aww, Mediocrity. Beyond Iraq and Hurricane Katrina (Heck of Job........Brownie!!!), he has came up with bright ideas, like...... No Child Left Behind Patriot Act Police America Act (with another Survelliance Bill that has some questionable statute) Supporting a bill that would grant Amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants Hasn't really paid alot of attention to the borders, even though 3,000 people got obliterated up in the NY towers..... Economy (although, good bit of it is out of the president's control, he hasn't really done much to help it....or even alleviate it somewhat....he is actually making it worst). Scooter Libby/Plame Generally is not a very good diplomat or even a good impersonator of US president.
What is the point of catching bin laden? You kill him he becomes a martyr and 10 others pop up. We should have ignored it and saved some money. Try to be careful, but you can't stop all the wackos out there no matter how hard you try. The president can't control the economy, but spending 3 trillion on a retared war was not smart. He (or Carter) is the worst president of the last 50 years.
if youre and educator, youd be the first educator ive heard say that... but to be fair, bush didnt jack up the education system, it was already jacked up to begin with...
