Berger Contradicts Clinton, Denies Bin Laden Offer

NewsMax ^ | 9/20 | Limbacher

[Stallone]

Nuts and sluts, the Clinton specialty.

It ain't working, Arkansas trash.

[Aaron_A]

Clinton's a glutton for publicity (punishment). I doubt there were any imminent deals in the works for OBL...but Bubba sure wants to get back in the thick of things.

[Mr. Lucky]

This can't be so. Otherwise, one of them would have to be lying.

[syriacus]

Otherwise, one of them would have to be lying.

Yep, One of them is lying.

[Piquaboy]

I have yet to hear anyone in the Clinton administration tell the truth. On top of lying they all had altzheimers and could not recall anything. Remember Hitlary!

[scooby321]

Richard Armitrade also Differs with Sandy on any Such Plan to get rid of Bin Laden when Bush took over

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The previous admin is its own worst enemy. If no such offer was made by the Sudanese, Clinton has just shown he is a liar once again. If an offer was made, Clinton's supporters are shown to be liars. These guys are totally stupid.

[syriacus]

Maybe Dan Rather will ask Clinton to explain the "discrepancy."

Maybe Tom Brokaw will...

or maybe Peter Jennings will

....or.....maybe Jim Lehrer will...

[lawdude]

This is how klintonistas get their exercise. BACKPEDALING!

[CaptRon]

Just another liar from the "most ethical administration in history".

[syriacus]

Maybe Katie Couric will ask WJC if there really was an offer...

[Burkeman1]

Oh- I think there was. Clinton is that stupid and egotistycal to know when to shut up. But his lackies and flunkies are not camera hogging - attention loving sociopaths like Bubba and they don't want the world to know how stupid and incompetent they were.

[Dante3]

I wouldn't trust either Berger or Clinton (or Madeline or anyone else close to Billy Jeff).

[tomball]

"We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again," the ex-president told the Long Island Association's annual luncheon in February, when asked whether, in hindsight, he might have handled the bin Laden threat differently.

"They released him. 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, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America," the ex-president admitted.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

 

Bill Clinton confirms a story that appeared in a post 9/11 issue of Vanity Fair where where there were actually two sources who tried to warn the US (CIA/FBI) in the mid '90s about the terrorists in training in the Sudan and Pakistan, and offered help if we intervened. The Sudanese dignatary who was interviewed said he was literally "put-off" by the Clinton Administration, and was given the impression that he could not be heard unless he made a campaign contribution. (This same Sudanese dignatary was also interviewed on several TV news shows last year.) From what the artical said, he made the political contribution, and still, no one listened. I guess the Clinton presidential pardoning of terrorists (with the blessing of his fellow Democrats) would have been contradictory with going on the hunt for more of them.

[Aaron_A]

If one were to believe that there was a deal and it was scuttled, then there is a lot of room for some heavy duty tin foil because that's what the conspiracy nuts have been looking for.

[Cicero]

Sandy Berger, who was up to his neck in Chinese treason, is not a credible source.

[aristeides]

Mansoor Ijaz's account is supported by the testimony of two Clinton-administration U.S. ambassadors to the Sudan.

[steve-b]

This can't be so. Otherwise, one of them would have to be lying.

That's true. Normally members of the Clinton Crime Cabal are all lying.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Remember the Begala story?