| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"*Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
18 Aug 2005 03:12:17 PM |
| Object: |
Clinton Warned After Giving up bin Laden |
Clinton Warned After Giving up bin Laden
The Clintonistas will do all they can to try to cover this one up, but they
goofed!
Though Clinton administration officials have repeatedly denied any
responsibility for bin Laden's escape, the ex-president himself admitted he
played a key role the blunder in a February 2002 speech, which was recorded
exclusively by NewsMax.com. "We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted
America to start dealing with them again," he told a New York business
group. "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." [End of Excerpt]
The Times report, however, ignored the Clinton admission - as the paper
has since NewsMax first reported it on Feb. 15, 2002.
Instead the paper notes: "Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly
denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission
concluded in one of its staff reports that it had 'not found any reliable
evidence to support the Sudanese claim.'"
In his April 2004 testimony before the Commission, Mr. Clinton was
confronted with his 2002 comments on the Sudanese offer.
Initially he claimed he had been misquoted, according 9/11 Commission
member Bob Kerrey.
After being told that his remarks were on tape, however, the ex-president
changed his story, saying instead that he had "misspoken" during the 2002
speech.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told the Times that the new
information "says to me that the Clinton administration knew the broad
outlines in 1996 of bin Laden's capabilities and his intent, and
unfortunately, almost nothing was done about it."
This is a HUGE example folks, of what happens when you have people in office
who worry more about what the ACLU and all those peaceniks have to say than
those who realize the threat of of leaving terrorists alone.
You need someone in office who realizes that the lives and safety of
American citizens here and abroad trumps all. Not someone who's going to
worry about how any action will affect his poll numbers or what the ACLU
will think. What a huge mistake these people are going to have to live with
for the rest of their lives. But being true liberals, they will lie to
themselves, and make thenselves believe that they were right to let that
murderer go.
.
|
|
| User: "Miles Long" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton Warned After Giving up bin Laden |
18 Aug 2005 06:46:07 PM |
|
|
<laughing> And what did the Ship of Fools do when they got in office:
EARLY 2001 - WHITE HOUSE DEPARTS FROM EFFORTS TO TRACK TERRORIST
MONEY: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton
Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an
important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden."
Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton
Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with
"loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers.
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new
National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center." [Source: The Age of Sacred
Terror, 2003]
APRIL 30, 2001 - BUSH ADMINISTRATION SAYS BIN LADEN FOCUS WAS
"MISTAKE": The Bush Administration released the government's annual
report on terrorism, but unlike previous Administrations, it decided to
specifically omit an "extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind
Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official told CNN the U.S.
government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden."
Similarly, AP reported in 2002 that the Bush Administration's "national
security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior
to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of
those sessions." [Source: CNN, 4/30/01; AP, 6/29/01]
The federal government was rapidly increasing its counter-terrorism
efforts at the time President Bush took office. As the New York Times
reported, Attorney General Janet Reno ended her tenure as "perhaps the
strongest advocate" of counterterrorism spending. Similarly, Newsweek
and the Washington Post reported National Security Adviser Sandy Berger
was "totally preoccupied" with the prospect of a domestic terror
attack, telling his replacement that they need to be "spending more
time on this issue" than on any other. The focus changed dramatically
when the Bush Administration took office.
ADMINISTRATION SHIFTED LAW ENFORCEMENT'S FOCUS OFF OF
COUNTER-TERRORISM: The New York Times reported that in the lead-up to
9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft "said fighting terrorism was a top
priority of his agency," yet upon entering office, "he identified more
than a dozen other objectives for greater emphasis within the Justice
Department before the attacks." On Aug. 9, the Administration
distributed a strategic plan to the Justice Department highlighting its
new goals from a list of Clinton Administration goals. The item that
referred to intelligence and investigation of terrorists was left
un-highlighted. [Source: NY Times, 2/28/02]
ASHCROFT OVERRULED EFFORTS FOCUSED ON COUNTER-TERROR: Newsweek reported
that "in the spring of 2001, the attorney general had an extraordinary
confrontation with the then FBI Director Louis Freeh at an annual
meeting of special agents." The two talked before appearing, and
Ashcroft laid out his priorities for Freeh: "basically violent crime
and drugs," recalls one participant. Freeh replied bluntly that those
were not his priorities, and began to talk about terror and
counterterrorism. "Ashcroft didn't want to hear about it," says a
former senior law-enforcement official." [Source: Newsweek, 5/27/02]
BUSH ADMINISTRATION TERMINATED PROGRAM THAT TRACKED AL QAEDA: "In the
months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly
classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor Al Qaeda suspects
in the United States." [Source: Newsweek, 3/21/04]
SO LITTLE CONCERN FOR COUNTER-TERROR THAT A WHITE HOUSE TASK FORCE
NEVER MET: In January of 2001, the U.S. Government's bipartisan
Commission on National Security gave the White House a report that
warned of an attack on the homeland and urged the new Administration to
implement its specific "recommendations to prevent acts of domestic
terrorism. The Administration rejected the Commission's report,
"preferring to put aside the recommendations." Instead, the
Administration waited until May of 2001 to appoint Vice President
Cheney to head a task force "to combat terrorist attacks on the United
States." But according to the Washington Post, neither "Cheney's review
nor Bush's took place." Meanwhile, Newsweek reported that when senators
"sent a copy of draft legislation on counterterrorism and homeland
defense to Cheney's office on July 20," they were told by Cheney's top
aide "that it might be another six months before he would be able to
review the material." [Source: Salon, 9/12/04; White House release,
5/8/01; Washington Post, 1/20/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]
WHITE HOUSE BEGAN EFFORT TO CUT COUNTER-TERRORISM PROGRAMS: The New
York Times reported that in its final 2003 budget request, the
Administration "called for spending increases in 68 programs, none of
which directly involved counterterrorism...In his Sept. 10 submission
to the budget office, Ashcroft did not endorse FBI requests for $58
million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence
analysts and 54 additional translators. Ashcroft proposed a $65 million
cut for a program that gives states and localities counterterrorism
grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and
training." By comparison, "Under Janet Reno, the department's
counterterrorism budget increased 13.6% in the fiscal year 1999, 7.1%
in 2000 and 22.7% in 2001." [Source: NY Times, 2/28/02]
ADMINISTRATION LEFT "GAPS" IN MILITARY'S REQUEST FOR COUNTER-TERROR
FUNDS: The Washington Post reported that in its first budget, the White
House left "gaps" between "what military commanders said they needed to
combat terrorists and what they got." Newsweek noted that, among other
things, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld elected not to re-launch a
Predator drone that had been tracking bin Laden. When the Senate Armed
Services Committee tried to fill those gaps, "Rumsfeld said he would
recommend a veto" on September 9. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02;
Newsweek, 5/27/02; NY Times, 2/28/02]
ADMINISTRATION STOPPED PREDATOR FLIGHTS TRACKING AL QAEDA IN
AFGHANISTAN: AP reported "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin
Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did
not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight
months." Additionally, "the military successfully tested an armed
Predator throughout the first half of 2001" but the White House "failed
to resolve a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the
armed Predators" and the armed Predator never got off the ground before
9/11. [Source: AP, 6/25/03]
WHILE CUTTING COUNTER-TERROR, THE WHITE HOUSE SENT FUNDING TO THE
TALIBAN: At the same time the White House was trying to cut
counter-terrorism funding, it gave "$43 million in drought aid to
Afghanistan after the Taliban began a campaign against poppy growers."
As the 5/29/01 edition of Newsday noted, the Taliban rulers of
Afghanistan "are a decidedly odd choice for an outright gift of $43
million from the Bush Administration. This is the same government
against which the United Nation imposes sanctions, at the behest of the
United States, for refusing to turn over the terrorist mastermind Osama
bin Laden." [Washington Post, 9/23/01; Newsday, 5/29/01]
MAY 2002 - BUSH ADMINISTRATION MOVES TO PREVENT INDEPENDENT INQUIRY
OF 9/11: Months after 9/11, Vice President Cheney went on Fox News to
announce the Administration's full opposition to an independent 9/11
commission. As CBS News noted, the White House "opposed a commission"
from the start, claiming "it would tie up officials waging the war on
terror - and endanger U.S. secrets." [Source: Fox News, 5/19/02; CBS,
9/20/02]
Source: http://www.americanprogress.or g/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=43926
Miles "Fucking Up Their One Clown Car Parade" Long
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Bush warned "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States" |
18 Aug 2005 03:32:45 PM |
|
|
"Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States" - report presented
to Bush on August 6, 2001.
Bush was warned, Bush failed to stop 9/11. Righties want to blame the
previous administration for 9/11. Can't blame them for trying. But of
course, Bush is responsbile for what happens on his watch, especially when
he was warned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton Warned After Giving up bin Laden |
18 Aug 2005 08:29:07 PM |
|
|
<dan@dan.com> wrote in message news:9uidndTo9Y_zbZneRVn-2A@comcast.com...
Here dan, here is what you are running away from.
Try to be a civil adult and reply to the post.
Clinton Warned After Giving up bin Laden
The Clintonistas will do all they can to try to cover this one up, but they
goofed!
Though Clinton administration officials have repeatedly denied any
responsibility for bin Laden's escape, the ex-president himself admitted he
played a key role the blunder in a February 2002 speech, which was recorded
exclusively by NewsMax.com. "We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted
America to start dealing with them again," he told a New York business
group. "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." [End of Excerpt]
The Times report, however, ignored the Clinton admission - as the paper
has since NewsMax first reported it on Feb. 15, 2002.
Instead the paper notes: "Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly
denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission
concluded in one of its staff reports that it had 'not found any reliable
evidence to support the Sudanese claim.'"
In his April 2004 testimony before the Commission, Mr. Clinton was
confronted with his 2002 comments on the Sudanese offer.
Initially he claimed he had been misquoted, according 9/11 Commission
member Bob Kerrey.
After being told that his remarks were on tape, however, the ex-president
changed his story, saying instead that he had "misspoken" during the 2002
speech.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told the Times that the new
information "says to me that the Clinton administration knew the broad
outlines in 1996 of bin Laden's capabilities and his intent, and
unfortunately, almost nothing was done about it."
This is a HUGE example folks, of what happens when you have people in office
who worry more about what the ACLU and all those peaceniks have to say than
those who realize the threat of of leaving terrorists alone.
You need someone in office who realizes that the lives and safety of
American citizens here and abroad trumps all. Not someone who's going to
worry about how any action will affect his poll numbers or what the ACLU
will think. What a huge mistake these people are going to have to live with
for the rest of their lives. But being true liberals, they will lie to
themselves, and make thenselves believe that they were right to let that
murderer go.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Bush warned "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States" |
18 Aug 2005 09:39:12 PM |
|
|
"Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States" - report presented
to Bush on August 6, 2001.
Bush was warned, Bush failed to stop 9/11. Righties want to blame the
previous administration for 9/11. Can't blame them for trying. But of
course, Bush is responsbile for what happens on his watch, especially when
he was warned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush warned "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States" |
18 Aug 2005 09:47:11 PM |
|
|
<dan@dan.com> wrote in message news:FKOdnQN_Y8DI25jeRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
"Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States" - report
presented
to Bush on August 6, 2001.
This has been refuted so many times.
You need to get some new material.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush warned "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States" |
18 Aug 2005 11:14:19 PM |
|
|
"Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States" - report presented
to Bush on August 6, 2001.
Bush was warned, Bush failed to stop 9/11. Righties want to blame the
previous administration for 9/11. Can't blame them for trying. But of
course, Bush is responsbile for what happens on his watch, especially when
he was warned.
This has been refuted so many times.
Wow, you get dumber and dumber. It's been refuted by no one, ever, because
it is an easily verifiable fact.
You need to get some new material.
You need to get a brain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "KARL ROVE: TRAITOR & LIAR Jake WK" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush warned "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States" |
19 Aug 2005 08:36:00 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:14:19 -0700, <dan@dan.com> wrote:
"Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States" - report presented
to Bush on August 6, 2001.
Bush was warned, Bush failed to stop 9/11. Righties want to blame the
previous administration for 9/11. Can't blame them for trying. But of
course, Bush is responsbile for what happens on his watch, especially when
he was warned.
This has been refuted so many times.
Wow, you get dumber and dumber. It's been refuted by no one, ever, because
it is an easily verifiable fact.
You need to get some new material.
You need to get a brain.
Yep. It's a sure sign of their lemming mentality. A case of "who you gonna
believe? Me or your lying eyes?" Especially considering the fact that there is
news footage of Condoleeza Rice testifying before Congress about the report they
received well before 9/11 entitled, "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the
United States"----which has been played repeatedly on all the networks.
Jake
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "KARL ROVE: TRAITOR & LIAR Jake WK" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush warned "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States" |
19 Aug 2005 08:33:09 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:47:11 -0800, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
<dan@dan.com> wrote in message news:FKOdnQN_Y8DI25jeRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
"Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States" - report
presented
to Bush on August 6, 2001.
This has been refuted so many times.
You need to get some new material.
Cite.
Back up your ***** or shut up.
Jake
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marinus van der Lubbe" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush warned "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the UnitedStates" |
18 Aug 2005 06:04:57 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States" - report presented
to Bush on August 6, 2001.
Bush was warned, Bush failed to stop 9/11. Righties want to blame the
previous administration for 9/11. Can't blame them for trying. But of
course, Bush is responsbile for what happens on his watch, especially when
he was warned.
One year, seven months; how much time passes before a regime accepts
responsibility for its incompetence? Or are they blaming Clinton because
he was the last elected president? I guess they are always going to have
this inferiority complex when compared to a real president since Bush
regime only got into power through fraud.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jimmy" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush warned "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States" |
18 Aug 2005 06:36:17 PM |
|
|
Marinus van der Lubbe wrote:
dan@dan.com wrote:
"Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States" - report
presented to Bush on August 6, 2001.
Bush was warned, Bush failed to stop 9/11. Righties want to blame the
previous administration for 9/11. Can't blame them for trying. But of
course, Bush is responsbile for what happens on his watch,
especially when he was warned.
One year, seven months; how much time passes before a regime accepts
responsibility for its incompetence? Or are they blaming Clinton
because he was the last elected president? I guess they are always
going to have this inferiority complex when compared to a real
president since Bush regime only got into power through fraud.
This form of government is known as a Clyptocracy. That state which exists
through lying and thievery.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jimmy" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton Warned After Giving up bin Laden |
18 Aug 2005 03:20:41 PM |
|
|
*Harry Hope wrote:
Clinton Warned After Giving up bin Laden
The Clintonistas will do all they can to try to cover this one up,
but they goofed!
Though Clinton administration officials have repeatedly denied any
responsibility for bin Laden's escape, the ex-president himself
admitted he played a key role the blunder in a February 2002 speech,
which was recorded exclusively by NewsMax.com. "We'd been hearing
that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again,"
he told a New York business group. "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." [End of Excerpt]
The Times report, however, ignored the Clinton admission - as the
paper has since NewsMax first reported it on Feb. 15, 2002.
Instead the paper notes: "Clinton administration diplomats have
adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11
commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had 'not
found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.'"
In his April 2004 testimony before the Commission, Mr. Clinton was
confronted with his 2002 comments on the Sudanese offer.
Initially he claimed he had been misquoted, according 9/11 Commission
member Bob Kerrey.
After being told that his remarks were on tape, however, the
ex-president changed his story, saying instead that he had
"misspoken" during the 2002 speech.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told the Times that the new
information "says to me that the Clinton administration knew the broad
outlines in 1996 of bin Laden's capabilities and his intent, and
unfortunately, almost nothing was done about it."
This is a HUGE example folks, of what happens when you have people in
office who worry more about what the ACLU and all those peaceniks
have to say than those who realize the threat of of leaving
terrorists alone.
You need someone in office who realizes that the lives and safety of
American citizens here and abroad trumps all. Not someone who's going
to worry about how any action will affect his poll numbers or what
the ACLU will think. What a huge mistake these people are going to
have to live with for the rest of their lives. But being true
liberals, they will lie to themselves, and make thenselves believe
that they were right to let that murderer go.
Get over it. This is not news. In the worst of times for Bush there has to
be some way to make the doom look a bit brighter. Keep trying though. Fox
will be out of a job when everyone finally smartens up and Bush falls off
his little bike for the last time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton Warned After Giving up bin Laden |
19 Aug 2005 07:25:07 AM |
|
|
Don't feed the fraud.
"Jimmy" <Jimmycliff@Spamex.com> wrote in message
news:lqydnSukm7ULcJneRVn-gA@comcast.com...
*Harry Hope wrote:
Clinton Warned After Giving up bin Laden
The Clintonistas will do all they can to try to cover this one up,
but they goofed!
Though Clinton administration officials have repeatedly denied any
responsibility for bin Laden's escape, the ex-president himself
admitted he played a key role the blunder in a February 2002 speech,
which was recorded exclusively by NewsMax.com. "We'd been hearing
that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again,"
he told a New York business group. "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." [End of Excerpt]
The Times report, however, ignored the Clinton admission - as the
paper has since NewsMax first reported it on Feb. 15, 2002.
Instead the paper notes: "Clinton administration diplomats have
adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11
commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had 'not
found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.'"
In his April 2004 testimony before the Commission, Mr. Clinton was
confronted with his 2002 comments on the Sudanese offer.
Initially he claimed he had been misquoted, according 9/11 Commission
member Bob Kerrey.
After being told that his remarks were on tape, however, the
ex-president changed his story, saying instead that he had
"misspoken" during the 2002 speech.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told the Times that the new
information "says to me that the Clinton administration knew the broad
outlines in 1996 of bin Laden's capabilities and his intent, and
unfortunately, almost nothing was done about it."
This is a HUGE example folks, of what happens when you have people in
office who worry more about what the ACLU and all those peaceniks
have to say than those who realize the threat of of leaving
terrorists alone.
You need someone in office who realizes that the lives and safety of
American citizens here and abroad trumps all. Not someone who's going
to worry about how any action will affect his poll numbers or what
the ACLU will think. What a huge mistake these people are going to
have to live with for the rest of their lives. But being true
liberals, they will lie to themselves, and make thenselves believe
that they were right to let that murderer go.
Get over it. This is not news. In the worst of times for Bush there has to
be some way to make the doom look a bit brighter. Keep trying though. Fox
will be out of a job when everyone finally smartens up and Bush falls off
his little bike for the last time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
