Posted on 07/23/2004 1:11:17 AM PDT by kattracks
The NY Daily News is a Liberal paper (except for their editorial dept. ....sometimes) so I really don';t think they would publish this if it weren't true.
Imagine them not making the offer because Hillary might object. The woman had no right to tell the President what to do... technically. Bill Clinton was not running the government, she was. And Sandy Berger might have been destroying documents and sanitizing them because there were Hillary's notes in the margins, not Bills.
This should make national headlines. But it won't, the liberal media will never pick it up. Its up to us to get this on talk radio!
I agree. The main problem I have is that many Liberal attack and condemn the Bush admin because of its supposed (based on misinformation) support of the Taliban. Now we find that it was the Clinton adminstration that was actually supporting the Taliban. Will we hear any apologies? Here is an article by Robert Scheer:
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm
Of course, almost all the information/spin in this article can be easily debunked by doing some searches on google, but many Liberals still cling to this sort of misinformation and I don't think it is advisible to holds ones breath waiting for an apology/retration from Robert Scheer.
So no, I don't condemn the Clinton admin outright for trying to bribe the Taliban to give up bin Laden. One can debate that policy - whether it was a good one or not. I think that arguments could be made on both sides. The problem I have is the double standard of the Left. They attack Bush for doing "X" when he actually didn't do "X". Now we find that "X" was in fact done by Clinton and there is nary a peep from them. I doubt this will even register a blip in their consciousness which is so overrun with hatred for President Bush that they are unable distinguish fact from fiction.
Pass me the smelling salts......omg!
Also now the Berger leak makes sense ....the RATS wanted to distract us from the 9/11 report.......now we know why.
Also it might pay all of us to download the report and read it.
Its sorta like the cockroach theory. When you see one in the light of day (Berger), there a hundreds of others hiding in the dark.
The correct political term is "Girlie Men".
This makes much more sense than any other theory. I doubt Berger would risk jail for his own vanity or for the sake of Bill. Kerry wasn't involved in the decision-making so it only leaves one person who benefits from his sticky fingers.
That one upset me so much that it gave me an instant migraine. We funded the ------- Taliban all during the Clinton years for nothing???? GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Paragraph #603 (on page 125)
Frustrated by the Taliban’s resistance, two senior State Department officials suggested asking the Saudis to offer the Taliban $250 million for Bin Ladin. Clarke opposed having the United States facilitate a “huge grant to a regime as heinous as the Taliban” and suggested that the idea might not seem attractive to either Secretary Albright or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton—both critics of the Taliban’s record on women’s rights.86 The proposal seems to have quietly died.
Dog -
This is supposed to be a good way to read the 9/11 Commission Report; it breaks the Report into sections and you choose which sections to read at any given time.
http://vivisimo.com/projects/911
Why do I doubt that was the real reason...?
Great thought - might well be true!!
Here's a searchable 9-11 report. Pass it on. http://vivisimo.com/911
I still believe that Bill was just a sock puppet in the White House and Hillary was the President. That harridan ran things and Bill played with his tool box.
Richard Clarke Cites Iraq-Al Qaeda WMD Tie
Though intelligence gave no clear indication of what might be afoot, some intelligence reports mentioned chemical weapons, pointing toward work at a camp in southern Afghanistan called Derunta. On November 4, 1998, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations.The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”109 This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qaida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.”110 This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998.
Dick Clarke is the man who claimed that it was utterly impossible that Iraq and Al Qaeda could be cooperating, and that anyone who suggested that a tie should even be investigated was either stupid or fanatically ideological or insane.
http://vivisimo.com/search?input-form=simple&query=al+Qaeda+Iraq+Berger&v%3Asources=911&v%3Aproject=911
Goodness. The former Clinton administration's judgement couldn't be much worse, could it?
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.