State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996

NY Times ^ | August 17, 2005 | ERIC LICHTBLAU

[Homer1]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show.

[Just mythoughts]

"Of course, John Loftus trying to downplay the whole CLINTON KNEW aspect of this story."


Right now I would not be surprised if bjclinton did not know what was going on. Old bj was not exactly interested in the security of this nation and I would not be surprised if this "intel" was diverted from his attention.

[foreshadowed at waco]

I remember hearing that tape on WABC radio on a Sean Hannity program...of course, the MSM ignired it.

[SunkenCiv]

...and 'being loved' is a euphemism for gettin' the presidential treatment while the wife's out somewhere obstructing justice.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Apparently, that was their arrangement.

[OldFriend]

CLINTON KNEW.........he wanted plausible deniability but it won't work.

Now some of the 9/11 family members are speaking out and they're outraged.

[Just mythoughts]

You are willing to assign bjclinton with mental capability I do not believe he has. Bjclinton is obsessed with himself.

What kind of mind would think they could seduce old Arafat into a "peace" deal?

Bjclinton traveled the world like an emperor without clothes apologizing for America's past sins, and never ever admitted to his own.

There was a group of people whose job it was to trail him to keep him out of trouble.

He is the one with the title and the one who should be held accountable, but I doubt that day will come in my flesh existence, too many have been seduced by his lies.

Now his in-name-only woman is a total different story, she was copresident and had no accountability.

[the invisib1e hand]

nyc type leadership: "what right have we got to interfere in ___________ [insert country here]."

[the invisib1e hand]

The New York Times said this?

really! what happened, clinton's subscription check bounce?

[OldFriend]

Both Clinton's are evil and deserve no excuses for what they did to the USA and the world.

[Just mythoughts]

"Both Clinton's are evil and deserve no excuses for what they did to the USA and the world."


Totally agree with you on that. They have plenty of "wall" building company as well as many on this planet whose goal appears to be installing misery at every green plentiful oasis.

We can only imagine what an algore administration would have destroyed. Hillry's Senate seat seems like a premeditated act to further the cause and protect herself.

These days sitting senators are like untouchable 'gods'.

[OldFriend]

Kerry had Sandy Burglar as his foreign policy/national security advisor until he was caught pants/sox stuffing

Let anyone think that staying home on election day is an option, consider the alternative.

[No Surrender No Retreat]

TT,
Roger that for a big fat fact.

Klintoon's legacy, 8 years of doing nothing=9/11
NSNR-PRAP

[cpdiii]

"The New York Times said this?"
If the New York Times said this what is yet to be revealed must really be bad. They are trying to get all the bad news behind Hillary before she runs for election.

[aculeus]

Judicial Watch + New York Times.

Whodathunkit?

[Enchante]

Fits right in with growing body of evidence that the Clintonistas had ample reason to focus upon Bin Laden long before the 1998 embassy bombings but they had other priorities.