Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clinton balked at Sudan offer to arrest bin Laden
Washington Post via DallasNews.com ^ | 10/03/2001 | Barton Gellman

Posted on 10/03/2001 1:49:22 AM PDT by CommiesOut

Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:21 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

WASHINGTON

(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last
To: CommiesOut
Yet another chapter for clintoon's legacy.
41 posted on 10/03/2001 5:53:49 AM PDT by LoneGOPinCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CommiesOut
Bump
42 posted on 10/03/2001 6:01:52 AM PDT by ELS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry;travis mcgee
"To some extent the future hinges on the unresolved question of how to pass down the absolute monarchy once all 44 sons of the founder, King Abdel Aziz al-Saud, are gone.

"And now that the royal clan numbers roughly 7,000 princes, there are also questions about how much longer some members can treat the kingdom like their private club."
------------------------------------------from your referenced link

I am sick of hearing that someone is a "Saudi Prince" without the disclaimer that there are 7000 of them AND breeding as fast as they can.

Americans need real information now more than ever. Which news media will step up to the plate?

43 posted on 10/03/2001 6:02:27 AM PDT by maica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GretchenEE
Saudi Arabia’s Future Stability Questionable

Another great one...this time from an absolutely impeccable source.
Also look at the date...Long before the present mess.

44 posted on 10/03/2001 6:14:11 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GretchenEE
All the links I posted are new to me too. As I told you I started with just a suspicion.

Here's how it looks now. It's all about oil, of course. The British established the kingdom in the 20's to protect it. But right from the beginning there was trouble because Saudi Arabia is Islam's Holiest land. Somehow a compromise was worked out.
We took over from the British after WWII and continued the policy. Everything was fine (a few bumps). The Saudis kept getting richer and we got our cheap oil.
But recently things have started to go bad. The Arab-Israeli conflict wasn't settled. Demographic and economic pressures built up. Pan-Arab fundamentalists got really strong as a result of the Afghan-Russian conflict. Probably other things too.
Osama bin Laden has become the focus of all this. He's almost certainly heavily supported by many Saudis. Everyone (except the American masses knows this). The game is they look the other way. What else can they do? Anything else would provoke an explosion. If we can catch Osama somewhere else that's ok, but not in Saudi Arabia.
It worked fine until the WTC. Now it's not fine. No American government or business person wants this to come out. It's dynamite.
But Osama does...and he'll succeed. It's too big and too obvious. Some time soon he'll make some move which will prevent deniability.

I can't prove this. It's still supposition. Maybe it's wrong.

45 posted on 10/03/2001 6:32:46 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CommiesOut
Wasnt early 1996 the time Clinton was being "serviced" by Monica Lewinsky? If he spent half as much time being serviced by Monica as he did hunting down Bin Laden, there probably would have been no September 11 massacre.
46 posted on 10/03/2001 7:15:43 AM PDT by cahergowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CommiesOut
"The point is not to point blame or point fingers. The point is to see where the weaknesses are in our system."

Isn't this an antithetical statement?

47 posted on 10/03/2001 7:20:34 AM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
An interesting aside:

A caller to FOX news mentioned a banner at the bottom of the page that said "Clinton Admin sought Bin Ladin but failed to get him due to lack of intelligence".

He asked why the banner had been removed, because he liked it and thought it was true. The ancher answered that because of limited space, sometimes the wording was a mishap or something like that. The anchor was John Gibson and he had an evil grin on his expression. Very funny.

48 posted on 10/03/2001 7:37:10 AM PDT by CaliforniaOkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CommiesOut
Clinton's FBI Learned In 1995 Of Plot To Use Terror Jetliner

Political Left Beginning to Finger clinton for Terrorists' Success

49 posted on 10/03/2001 7:45:35 AM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nightdriver
Typical democrap logic.
50 posted on 10/03/2001 7:57:54 AM PDT by CommiesOut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: CommiesOut

Try reading the article, please?

Not to defend Clinton for this, but the title is a LITTLE overblown: it was the Saudis who broke the deal, not the U.S.

The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.

"The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States," said Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then.

If anything, this means it was the Louis-Freeh-led FBI that is to blame, not the Clinton White House.

51 posted on 10/03/2001 8:22:30 AM PDT by cracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maica
The media will NEVER step up to the plate. They don't want to play ball, just hog the cameras outside the stadium.
52 posted on 10/03/2001 8:26:14 AM PDT by lds23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CommiesOut
Bump

For truth.

53 posted on 10/03/2001 8:36:08 AM PDT by DreamWeaver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Andrew Sullivan predicted yesterday that Sandy Berger would have to spin what's in that article somehow. This article in today's Compost is the spinning that Sullivan predicted.

That is exactly my take on the Washington Post article. Mostly CYA with some facts thrown in.

54 posted on 10/03/2001 8:46:24 AM PDT by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Wallaby; nita nupress; rdavis84; thinden; LSJohn; roughrider; a history buff; askel5
fyi
55 posted on 10/03/2001 8:51:59 AM PDT by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Jimmy Valentine
Let us all please remember that before he became a distinguished member of Clinton's cabinet, that he was a lobbyist for RED China.

Some of us haven't forgotten. Wonder why so many in our country have...

56 posted on 10/03/2001 8:56:09 AM PDT by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: hflynn
Does Clinton believe that "an hour late" is better than "a day late and a dollar short"??? In any case, he mussed up bad.
57 posted on 10/03/2001 8:59:32 AM PDT by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SKYDRIFTER
I have not read all the thread so excuse me if this has already been asked. Did not Hillary Clinton have something to do with charities that raised funds for the Palestinens or the arab nations? I feel certain I read that someplace but can't source it. Does anyone have this sense too? I think the suggestion that the money trail go all the way to checking the Clintons is not a half bad idea.
58 posted on 10/03/2001 9:04:39 AM PDT by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: celtic gal
No truth to Clintons raising money for Palestinian causes (other then general global humanitarian aid). It is true, however, that yesterday the White House released a news report that on Sept 24 of this year, W. Bush was to become the very first US President to suggest and support a INDEPENDENT PALESTINIAN STATE.
59 posted on 10/03/2001 9:10:55 AM PDT by virtualreb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Jimmy Valentine
Sandy Berger actually told Judy Woodruff that this attack had probably been "in the planning for several months."
60 posted on 10/03/2001 9:17:20 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson