again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
Posted on 08/01/2004 7:38:54 AM PDT by CT
Source: 911 Report
Location: 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. [ show in clusters ]
CT
I'm getting the book today; so the lefties I work with can't say I'm not informed.
That way all you need do is find what you want, then cut and paste!
The website is free.
First "Lady" (that ain't no lady) again deciding policy.
And some people say they only pay attention to the candidates, not their wives.
Everyone take note that Theresa Heinz gives money to the Tide Foundation, which supports CAIR and hamas.
The $250 million was a great trial balloon that set the approximate price that Clinton would want to NOT zap OBL. Some of the payoff may actually have come from the Saudis and from OBL family wealth in Saudi, but the bulk was cash from Saddam's oil vouchers.
That is why the dems have lied so offten and worked so hard to denigrate anyone suggesting there was a connection between Saddam/Iraq and 9-11/OBL. Because, even a casual examiniation of the evidence will prove there was a connection and it involved Willie and his administration. Willie took big oil voucher money (some through Marc Rich in Switzerland) to NOT get OBL.
Through the 90s, what with France and the UN blocking for Iraq (and, collecting oil voucher cash, as well) it was easy and no one would do anything decisive. In fact, the whole Monica thing was a diversion to shift attention, not from impeachment (the dems thought the could block that like another court appointment) but from the huge cash payments to Willie and his friends.
.
Remember the Lost and Suffering on September 11, 2001
http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33
The word is "quash." And the objection to "buying" bin Laden seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The losses on 9-11 were worth much more.
But this is hindsight. We're allowed to criticize President Bush for his lack of foresight, but not Clinton's regime/sarc.
Do you have proof or are you just speculating?
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.