[lugsoul]

Okay, so this guy wouldn't know the truth if it had its lips locked around his... well, that's beside the point.

I've heard this "damning" charge thrown about and it has always made me wonder - what would we have done with OBL in '96? It has always been my understanding that we hadn't even linked him to '93 WTC at that point.

Not disputing billyjeff's taped statement, but can someone tell me what other options we had?

[tonyinv]

Thats not the point. We would not have had enough "evidence" against the 19 hijackers pre 9/11 either. Condi clearly stated that there was no actionable intel.

But thats not enugh for the libs. They are the ones who posit the theory that had we gone into afghanistan in the summer of 2001 that that would have stopped 9/11. They are the ones who started the "only if" game.

Today they have no problem using shaky intel to justify some sort of action pre 9/11. But back then when Clinton could have clearly taken out UBL, they themselves needed alot more evidence and proof.

Its the double standard that they shouldn't be allowed to get away with. Dont give them the benefit of the doubt that they ruthlessly refuse to afford President Bush.

[NYC GOP Chick]

I've heard this "damning" charge thrown about and it has always made me wonder - what would we have done with OBL in '96? It has always been my understanding that we hadn't even linked him to '93 WTC at that point.

Were the Khobar Towers bombed before or after this alleged offer was made in 1996? Anyway, by that point, UBL had already declared war on us, and I'm pretty sure (can't remember where I've read it) that there was at least some evidence tying UBL to the 93 bombing. In any event, Clinturd could have quietly made him disappear at that point, thereby sparing us untold misery.