Posted on 07/22/2004 11:55:03 AM PDT by pookie18
The 9/11 Commission has concluded that when ex-President Clinton gave a detailed account in 2002 of how he turned down an offer from Sudan to have Osama bin Laden arrested, he simply "misspoke."
"President Clinton, in a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association, said that the United States did not accept a Sudanese offer and take Bin Ladin (sic) because there was no indictment," the Commission report says on page 480. Noting that the Commission had Clinton's speech on videotape, the report states: "But the President told us that he had 'misspoken' and was, wrongly, recounting a number of press stories he had read."
The report continues:
"After reviewing this matter in preparation for his Commission meeting, President Clinton told us that Sudan never offered to turn Bin Ladin over to the United States."
To corroborate Clinton's account, the Commission cited the testimony of discredited National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who is under criminal investigation for stealing 9/11-related national security secrets.
"Berger told us that he saw no chance that Sudan would have handed Bin Ladin over and also noted that in 1996, the U.S. government still did not know of any al Qaeda* attacks on U.S. citizens," the report says.
On page 109 of its report, the Commission states:
"Sudan’s minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so."
Contrary to the Commission's assertion, however, Clinton never mentioned the lack of an "indictment" as the reason he couldn't accept the bin Laden offer, explaining instead, "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."
In fact, prior to Sudan's attempts to hand the al Qaida mastermind over, reports appeared in USA Today and U.S. News & World Report detailing bin Laden-linked attacks that killed U.S. citizens in New York and Saudi Arabia.
A Commission spokesman told NewsMax last month that it has no plans to release its copy of Clinton's videotaped remarks.
What evidence did they have that he misspoke, for that matter?
sheesh.
The statement is inoperative. He kept all of the promises he intended to keep.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "The Wussification of America: Fallout from Arnold, John and Sandy"
If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.
Check Sandy Berger's pants.
Bush's Fault!
So the Sudanese foreign minister said they offered us Bin Laden (BTW -- I heard the same thing from a Sudanese diplomat I know well. This was years before 9/11). And we have Clinton on tape saying the same thing.
But, now that events have made this a damaging fact, all Clinton has to say is "I misspoke," and there is suddenly "no evidence." What a crock.
I have not seen Mansoor Ijaz on Fox for weeks? Can anyone shed any light or why?
Well..What you mean to say Slick
Could those credible evidence be part of what Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives?
This is ceasing to be funny. I can't take it anymore. I have no hope.
Heck, Madeliene Albright confirmed that they passed on the opportunity to arrest Bin Laden too.
"We didn't have any evidence at the time."
How amusing:
Bush LIES! yet Clinton 'mis-spoke'
Funny....
You beat me to it!
Clinton misspoke and Sandy inadvertantly stuffed several classified documents down his pants on multiple visits. Hoe dare we state otherwise. LOL
Maybe we should check Fort Marcy Park.
Misspoke, Mistakes, Inadvertant, Inappropriate, Sloppy, compartmentalize, and is isn't is. How have so many in this country been sucked in by this utter nonsense.
The 911 commission choosing in the face of conflicting or no evidence to believe that Clinton lied is not an unreasonable conclusion in my mind. In fact generally whenever Clinton speaks, I assume it is a lie until proven truthful.
What muddies the water is that the 911 commision was clearly sandbagged by Gorelick and Berger. So maybe this once Clinton was caught in a truth. But I do not blame the victim of the sandbagging but rather the sandbaggers, Clinton, Gorelick, Berger, Ben-Venistes etal.
Evidently they totally dismissed Mansoor Ijaz' testimony.
I ask you: Who are you gonna believe? The Sudanese Defense Minister, or Slick? Yeah, that's what I thought!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.