Hear Richard Miniter
|
|
WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?
Posted on 08/21/2005 7:21:12 PM PDT by TruthFactor
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.
I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedossier.ukonline.co.uk ...
Really? I didn't know that! I saw him several years ago on the tv and he detailed how he had tried to get someone in the Clinton administration to get Bin Laden. He sounded sincere.
I didn't realize that we were going to hit Bin Laden in his camp but saw a swing set and decided against it thinking there were children in the camp. It tells me that those who order hits need to get thicker skin. Those same "children" in the 90's have grown up to be terrorists taking shots at our military. We would have done better to wax them and cry about it later.
.
Some of ALOHA RONNIE's previous MONSOOR IJAZ Freerepublic Threads:
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/694455/posts
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1117043/posts
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1106808/posts
.
I'm not sure but I thought I heard them say that Atta was identified but the FBI was not allowed to be notified. Is this not what Col Shaeffer has been saying? How did National Geographic no about it and if so --and here is the question-- why was this not in the 9/11 commissions final report?
(in Arkansas accent) That depends on what your definition of the word terrorist is.
I'm not sure but I thought I heard them say that Atta was identified but the FBI was not allowed to be notified. Is this not what Col Shaeffer has been saying? How did National Geographic know about it and if so --and here is the question-- why was this not in the 9/11 commissions final report?
Sorry I meant know instead of no. In too much of a hurry to post.
The veil on the 9/11 commission is slowly being lifted and it doesn't look pretty. #1 rule of a democratic member of the commission, deflect all blame away from the Clinton admin. #1 rule of a republican member of the commission, don't upset the democratic members, it may make you look bad.
I'm not sure what to make of the 9/11 National Geographic Special yet. At the end I found myself just madder at the terrorists. They seemed to take some shots at Clinton: saying he had a couple of chances to get Bil Laden but didn't because they were afraid of civilian casualties but they also made it seem like the impeachment hearings were a distraction to Clinton and then they seemed to take a shot at President Bush for being on vacation in August of 2001. They neglected to mention that the Sudan offered Bin Laden to Clinton before he moved to Afghanistan. Again overall at the end I just found myself madder at the terrorists scumbags.
The program had a segment about what I assume were intelligence officers working at McDill Air Force Base in Florida. They had a chart of terrorist suspects that included pictures of Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi. They concluded they couldn't share this information since the persons were in the United States on valid visas. I would love to know National Geographic's sources for this part of the story, since it dovetails with what Lt. Col Shaffer has been saying about the Able Danger id. The people at McDill had to get the chart from somewhere. I smell a hot story here.
Remind me of Richard Gere-types.
It's the same old Clinton coverup which continues unabated.
Afterall the Clintons are the Dems favorite two scumbag scalawags!
It will likely never end during their(Clintons') lives.
Ugh puke, sickening isn't it?
Hear Richard Miniter
|
|
"""WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?"""
What prior president DIDN'T ignore terrorism?
I totally agree!
Article by MANSOOR IJAZ - frequent Fox News contributor.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
ping!
"What prior president DIDN'T ignore terrorism? "
Um Ronald Reagan for one - attacked Libya after the bombings, he captured the Achille Laru (sp?) terrorists by sending Nato jets to intercept the Egyptian airliner that was attempting to ferry them back to friendly nations.
Terrorism was not on the radar in any of the Presidential debates. Clinton and predecessors can be faulted as can Bush for taking his eye of bin Laden and going for Saddam.
The same point can be made now for China. The long range view of politicans is the next election.
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.