Clinton passed on getting Bin Laden

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...asualties.html

According the UK Daily Mail, Bill Clinton admitted on the day before 9/11 that he had passed on getting Bin Laden.

Now read this very carefully, I can't say that Clinton KNEW that he would have prevented 9/11. It was the next day and would have probably gone on anyway but it doesn show that Clinton made his decisions based solely on politics and not national security concerns. He already knew that Bin Laden had killed Americans with his other terrorist acts in Africa. He knew that Bin Laden was planning attacks against the US using airliners. He knew that Bin Laden was a bad player in world affairs but Clinton refused to act on more than one occasion. If Clinton had taken the national security approach when Sudan offered him to us then in all likelihood 9/11 would have been stopped. If that had happened then we would not be in Afghanistan and we would not have invaded Iraq. Clinton thought about himself and how the world saw him. Clinton could have used cruise missiles or a stealth fighter to get pinpont accuracy but he ducks responsibility by claiming that he would have had to destroy the "small town". We know that Kandahar is anything like a small town but Clinton didn't know that when he said it.

So like I said, Clinton could not have prevented 9/11 from killing Bin Laden on this occasion but he may have prevented the invasion of Afghanistan. So when you tout the great Clinton co-presidency remember how badly he failed this country.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...asualties.html

If Clinton had taken the national security approach when Sudan offered him to us then in all likelihood 9/11 would have been stopped.

So like I said, Clinton could not have prevented 9/11 from killing Bin Laden on this occasion but he may have prevented the invasion of Afghanistan.. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

If your Daddy had fucked your Mommy in the ass , you wouldn't be around to post this dumb shit.

If your Daddy had fucked your Mommy in the ass , you wouldn't be around to post this dumb shit.
Originally Posted by WTF

I think yours did. That's why they produced a little turd! [

"... he may have prevented the invasion of Afghanistan. So when you tout the great Clinton co-presidency remember how badly he failed this country. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Part of the tacit "qualifications" of Hillarious is her "affiliation" with her predator husband while in the White House, which she claims is where she obtained at least some of her "expertise"and "experience" ... and as a consequence the character and quality of her "mentor" is relevant to her "qualifications" to handle the job and what kind of job she will do, if elected, and along with that is the reality that in the commission testimony there were admissions by the Clinton administration personnel of failing to adequately equip our military to respond to threats regardless of where they may be located, and the inability of the military to put people "on the ground" in Afghanistan and Pakistan (or Somalia) to locate and capture Bin Laden.

But all Clinton apologists sing his praises of a budget surplus at terms end.

Then look up the authorized Border Patrol who were not funded, as well, and VP Gore's 1996 airline safety report with government recommendations to prevent hijackings. And, of course, again:

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/lkl.00.html

Larry King Live: 09/11/2001 Interview on CNN:

KING: Senator Kerry did your -- did you committee on international opertions and terrorism ever actually fear something like this?

SEN. JOHN KERRY (R), MASSACHUSETTS: Absolutely. Absolutely. But let me join John and I know all my colleagues in just expressing -- I think all of us here in Washington are feeling in very personal ways the loss of what's happened here. I know that I had one friend I know of already on that plane from Boston, and I dread the learning of perhaps others. But for thousands of families tonight, there is just a huge loss, and I think in every American there's a sense -- there's a fury, an intense, burning fury about this and a determination to do what is right about it.

"We have always known this could happen. We've warned about it. We've talked about it. I regret to say, as -- I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year. I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it, but not really doing hard work of responding."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...asualties.html

According the UK Daily Mail, Bill Clinton admitted on the day before 9/11 that he had passed on getting Bin Laden.

Now read this very carefully, I can't say that Clinton KNEW that he would have prevented 9/11. It was the next day and would have probably gone on anyway but it doesn show that Clinton made his decisions based solely on politics and not national security concerns. He already knew that Bin Laden had killed Americans with his other terrorist acts in Africa. He knew that Bin Laden was planning attacks against the US using airliners. He knew that Bin Laden was a bad player in world affairs but Clinton refused to act on more than one occasion. If Clinton had taken the national security approach when Sudan offered him to us then in all likelihood 9/11 would have been stopped. If that had happened then we would not be in Afghanistan and we would not have invaded Iraq. Clinton thought about himself and how the world saw him. Clinton could have used cruise missiles or a stealth fighter to get pinpont accuracy but he ducks responsibility by claiming that he would have had to destroy the "small town". We know that Kandahar is anything like a small town but Clinton didn't know that when he said it.

So like I said, Clinton could not have prevented 9/11 from killing Bin Laden on this occasion but he may have prevented the invasion of Afghanistan. So when you tout the great Clinton co-presidency remember how badly he failed this country. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

By not killing 300 other people?

It's been documented that Clinton had several opportunities of kill bin Laden and he either passed on or drug his feet so long that he missed him..

Yet, he's a hero rapist to the Democratic Socialists simply because the internet/PC boom happened on his watch and he didn't fuck it up until there at the end.

I'm sure Clinton had other opportunities to get bin Laden, but with what he knew at that particular moment, he made the right call.

Of course, he may have been lying.

Clinton was instructed by George H. Bush not to fuck with Bin Laden.


Jim

Clinton was instructed by George H. Bush not to fuck with Bin Laden. Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

As expected he didn't follow instructions well ....

http://fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/indict1.pdf

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/

Did anyone ever find out exactly what documents Clinton's NSC chief Sandy Berger was caught trying to steal and/or destroy at the National Archives? Didn't they have to do with not killing bin laden?

I'm sure Clinton had other opportunities to get bin Laden, but with what he knew at that particular moment, he made the right call.

Of course, he may have been lying. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

.

Former CIA official Michael Scheuer, identified as head of CIA’s bin Laden unit 1995-1999, disputed Clinton’s recollection. He said the attack on bin Laden “would have occurred in the middle of the night” and “it would have killed no one but Taliban people and Osama bin Laden and his crew.”

Scheuer took a shot at Clinton, saying, “if you looked up the word ‘lie’ his face (Clinton’s) would be right next to it.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/former-ci...n-laden-tapes/

The Commission testimony was the military was incapable of inserting personnel without "over fly" permission, which was not given to the U.S., so the U.S. was left only with ...

... "over flying" cruise missiles into the "goat farms" and abandoned training camps, apparently occupied by the goat herding families.

Perhaps we should have contracted with the IDF .. they seemed to know how to do it ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2786967.stm

.. or at least someone should have called up and inquired as to how one enters the airspace of another country without permission and undetected to kick terrorists' ass!

I mean .. if someone can slip in a subordinate to the office in the other end of a house in which one's wife is living and get a blow job without the wife knowing about it and later believing it was a Great Right-Wing Conspiracy, it seems like sneaking in some special-ops folks to take out a bunch of murdering savages would be a cake-walk.

And she wants your vote for President? And you are going to give it to her?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...asualties.html

According the UK Daily Mail, Bill Clinton admitted on the day before 9/11 that he had passed on getting Bin Laden.

Now read this very carefully, I can't say that Clinton KNEW that he would have prevented 9/11. It was the next day and would have probably gone on anyway but it doesn show that Clinton made his decisions based solely on politics and not national security concerns. He already knew that Bin Laden had killed Americans with his other terrorist acts in Africa. He knew that Bin Laden was planning attacks against the US using airliners. He knew that Bin Laden was a bad player in world affairs but Clinton refused to act on more than one occasion. If Clinton had taken the national security approach when Sudan offered him to us then in all likelihood 9/11 would have been stopped. If that had happened then we would not be in Afghanistan and we would not have invaded Iraq. Clinton thought about himself and how the world saw him. Clinton could have used cruise missiles or a stealth fighter to get pinpont accuracy but he ducks responsibility by claiming that he would have had to destroy the "small town". We know that Kandahar is anything like a small town but Clinton didn't know that when he said it.

So like I said, Clinton could not have prevented 9/11 from killing Bin Laden on this occasion but he may have prevented the invasion of Afghanistan. So when you tout the great Clinton co-presidency remember how badly he failed this country. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/cli...ing-bin-laden/

Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.
FULL QUESTION
Was Bill Clinton offered bin Laden on "a silver platter"? Did he refuse? Was there cause at the time?
FULL ANSWER
Let’s start with what everyone agrees on: In April 1996, Osama bin Laden was an official guest of the radical Islamic government of Sudan – a government that had been implicated in the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993. By 1996, with the international community treating Sudan as a pariah, the Sudanese government attempted to patch its relations with the United States. At a secret meeting in a Rosslyn, Va., hotel, the Sudanese minister of state for defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, met with CIA operatives, where, among other things, they discussed Osama bin Laden.
It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower," flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa’s claims were not in fact present for the meeting.
Wright and the 9/11 Commission do agree that the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. One Clinton security official told The Washington Post that they had "a fantasy" that the Saudi government would quietly execute bin Laden. When the Saudis refused bin Laden’s return, Clinton officials convinced the Sudanese simply to expel him, hoping that the move would at least disrupt bin Laden’s activities.
Much of the controversy stems from claims that President Clinton made in a February 2002 speech and then retracted in his 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In the 2002 speech Clinton seems to admit that the Sudanese government offered to turn over bin Laden:
Clinton: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got – well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.

Clinton later claimed to have misspoken and stated that there had never been an offer to turn over bin Laden. It is clear, however, that Berger, at least, did consider the possibility of bringing bin Laden to the U.S., but, as he told The Washington Post in 2001, "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." According to NewsMax.com, Berger later emphasized in an interview with WABC Radio that, while administration officials had discussed whether or not they had ample evidence to indict bin Laden, that decision "was not pursuant to an offer by the Sudanese."
So on one side, we have Clinton administration officials who say that there were no credible offers on the table, and on the other, we have claims by a Sudanese government that was (and still is) listed as an official state sponsor of terrorism. It’s possible, of course, that both sides are telling the truth: It could be that Erwa did make an offer, but the offer was completely disingenuous. What is clear is that the 9/11 Commission report totally discounts the Sudanese claims. Unless further evidence arises, that has to be the final word.
Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.

I mean... if someone can slip in a subordinate to the office in the other end of a house in which one's wife is living and get a blow job without the wife knowing about it and later believing it was a Great Right-Wing Conspiracy, it seems like sneaking in some special-ops folks to take out a bunch of murdering savages would be a cake-walk. Originally Posted by LexusLover

+1


Lol.

.

Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?

Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

First, OBL was linked to the terrorist act of attempting to down the World Trade Center in 1993 ... that was the year Clinton was sworn.

Profiles JANUARY 14, 2002 ISSUE

"The Counter-Terrorist
John O’Neill was an F.B.I. agent with an obsession: the growing threat of Al Qaeda.

"BY LAWRENCE WRIGHT

"The legend of John P. O’Neill, who lost his life at the World Trade Center on September 11th, begins with a story by Richard A. Clarke, the national coördinator for counter-terrorism in the White House from the first Bush Administration until last year. On a Sunday morning in February, 1995, Clarke went to his office to review intelligence cables that had come in over the weekend. One of the cables reported that Ramzi Yousef, the suspected mastermind behind the first World Trade Center bombing, two years earlier, had been spotted in Pakistan. Clarke immediately called the F.B.I. A man whose voice was unfamiliar to him answered the phone. “O’Neill,” he growled. “Who are you?” Clarke said. “I’m John O’Neill,” the man replied. “Who the hell are you?”"

....

"Osama bin Laden had been linked to terrorism since the first World Trade Center bombing, in 1993. His name had turned up on a list of donors to an Islamic charity that helped finance the bombing, and defendants in the case referred to a “Sheikh Osama” in a recorded conversation." “

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...nter-terrorist


Second, suffiicient evidence was gathered against OBL to obtain an indictment in 1998. That evidence was gathered from the early 1990's.

"From 1989 until in or about 1991, the group (hereafter
referred to as "al Qaeda") was headquartered in Afghanistan and
Peshawar, Pakistan. In or about 1991, the leadership of al
Qaeda, including its "emir" (or prince) defendant USAMA BIN
LADEN, relocated to the Sudan."

http://cns.miis.edu/reports/pdfs/binladen/indict.pdf

Clinton "changed his story"??? ... Really????

Clinton the perjuror, who lost his law license for lying under oath?

What did he say: "I never had sex with that woman"!!!!!!!

And, hey, if you love Obaminable, here's YOUR MAN'S CHOICE:

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/lkl.00.html

Larry King Live: 09/11/2001 Interview on CNN:

KING: Senator Kerry did your -- did you committee on international opertions and terrorism ever actually fear something like this?

SEN. JOHN KERRY (R), MASSACHUSETTS: Absolutely. Absolutely. "But let me join John and I know all my colleagues in just expressing -- I think all of us here in Washington are feeling in very personal ways the loss of what's happened here. I know that I had one friend I know of already on that plane from Boston, and I dread the learning of perhaps others. But for thousands of families tonight, there is just a huge loss, and I think in every American there's a sense -- there's a fury, an intense, burning fury about this and a determination to do what is right about it.

"We have always known this could happen. We've warned about it. We've talked about it. I regret to say, as -- I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year. I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it, but not really doing hard work of responding." (Emphasis Added)