Link - Miami.com
Wonder if it will contain this information about bin Laden being treated at a US Hospital in July 2001 (just weeks before 09/11), being visited by a CIA agent. We'll see....
Link
Americans, Brace Yourself - US Report on 09/11 to be Explosive
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by LadyEagle, Jul 10, 2003.
-
-
Also, we can find all the links we want to Saudis but the bottom line is nothing will change. We need their oil for our economy. -
-
"Also, we can find all the links we want to Saudis but the bottom line is nothing will change. We need their oil for our economy."
I strongly disagree!
Plenty of oil elsewhere. That oil would be a little more expensive, causing the petrol prices to rise a little in the USA and that would mean that the political party that breaks of ties with the Saudis will lose a number of elections.
Politics as usual. -
It will be very interesting to see if Clinton's ties to Bin Laden are disclosed. :rolleyes:
-
-
Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
It will be very interesting to see if Clinton's ties to Bin Laden are disclosed. :rolleyes:Click to expand... -
Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
It will be very interesting to see if Clinton's ties to Bin Laden are disclosed. :rolleyes:Click to expand...
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
WASHINGTON (Tribune Media Services) --Here is one of the first rules of politics: It’s not enough that I do well; I must also destroy my enemy.
Sadly, even in America’s war against terrorism, that rule still drives a lot of Republicans. I see it on the op-ed pages. I get avalanches of it in my e-mail. I hear it in their public statements. For them, it's not enough that most Americans give George W. Bush credit for doing a good job in leading the nation against Osama bin Laden. They're not satisfied unless everybody also holds Bill Clinton responsible for getting us into this mess.
Yet the evidence shows his detractors have more to answer for than he does.
The attacks of September 11 were only a few hours old when conservative
Congressman Dana Rohrbacher, R-California, blamed Clinton, not the terrorists: We had Bill Clinton, backing off, letting the Taliban go, over and over again.
Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh trumpeted on the pages of the Wall Street Journal: Mr. Clinton can be held culpable for not doing enough when he was commander-in-chief to combat the terrorists who wound up attacking the World Trade Center and Pentagon
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who resigned in disgrace, also chimed in, citing Clinton’s pathetically weak, ineffective ability to focus and stay focused.
Don't you love it? Gingrich and company derail the president and the country for two whole years over a minor sex scandal in the White House -- magnifying one act of oral sex into a full time, $50 million Independent Counsel investigation, weeks of House Judiciary Committee hearings, impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate -- and then they accuse Clinton of not staying focused on government business!
Have they no shame?
The truth, of course, is just the opposite. Given how distracted he was by the Lewinsky scandal, (which was of his own making, but blown out of proportion by his political enemies), it’s amazing Clinton was able to continue governing at all. And during that time, as The Washington Post reveals, he did a great deal to combat terrorism, much of it behind the scenes.
Clinton’s most public response, of course, were the cruise missile attacks of 1998, directed against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and the Sudan, following the terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
Operating on limited intelligence -- at that time, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tazikistan refused to share information on the terrorists whereabouts inside Afghanistan -- U. S. strikes missed bin Laden by only a couple of hours.
Even so, Clinton was accused of only firing missiles in order to divert media attention from the Lewinsky hearings. A longer campaign would have stirred up even more criticism.
So Clinton tried another tack. He sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network -- identical to orders given by President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas.
Those actions, we knew about. Others, we did not, until recently. Starting in 1998, for example, Clinton gave the CIA a green light to use whatever covert means were necessary to gather information on Osama bin Laden and his followers, and to disrupt and preempt any planned terrorist activities against the United States.
As part of that effort, the CIA, under Clinton, trained and equipped some 60 commandos from Pakistan to enter Afghanistan and capture bin Laden. The operation collapsed when Pakistan experienced a military coup and a new government took over.
In 1998, Clinton also signed a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to begin joint covert operations against Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. U.S. Special Forces have been training there ever since, which is why the Pentagon was immediately able to use Uzbekistan as a staging area for forays into Afghanistan.
Clinton targeted bin Laden even before he moved to Afghanistan. In 1996, his administration brokered an agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest the terrorist leader and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. For 10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer. They refused. With no cooperation from the Saudis, the deal fell apart.
Conclusion: Rohrbacher, Limbaugh, Gingrich are dead wrong when they blame Bill Clinton for September 11. Did Clinton get Osama bin Laden dead or alive? No, but he came close, several times -- long before tracking down terrorists became a national priority.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/column.billpress -
You can certainly tell that article was written by a Democrat. :rolleyes: No matter what the commentarys say...you can't change history. The fact remains that Bill Clinton DID let the Taliban go.
-
>>>>You can certainly tell that article was written by a Democrat. No matter what the commentarys say...you can't change history. The fact remains that Bill Clinton DID let the Taliban go.<<<<<<
But you alleged something far more sinister. You said that Clinton had ties to Bin Laden. Hogwash! you should retract that statement. It is a mean lie unless you have proof of it. What is your proof? -
Aide: Clinton Unleashed bin Laden
Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com
Thursday, Dec. 6, 2001
Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism, one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.
Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996 to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence, focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound threats to national security.
Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin Laden arrested.
Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, hoping to have terrorism sanctions 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,” Ijaz writes in today’s edition of the liberal Los Angeles Times.
These networks included the two hijackers who piloted jetliners into the World Trade Center.
But Clinton and National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy” Berger failed to act.
”I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities,” Ijaz writes.
”The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."
Thank Clinton for 'Hydra-like Monster'
”As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster,” says Ijaz, chairman of a New York investment company and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Ijaz’s revelations are but the latest to implicate the Clinton administration in the spread of terrorism. Former CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson today also noted the failure of Clinton to do more than talk.
Among the many others who have pointed out Clinton’s negligence: former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, former Clinton adviser Dick Morris, the late author Barbara Olson, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iraqi expert Laurie Mylroie, the CIA and some of the victims of Sept. 11.
And the list grows: members of Congress, pundit Charles R. Smith, former Department of Energy official Notra Trulock, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, government counterterrorism experts, the law firm Judicial Watch, New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler, the liberal Boston Globe – and even Clinton himself.
The Buck Stops Nowhere
Ijaz's account in the Times reads like a spy novel. Sudan’s Bashir, fearing the rise of bin Laden, sent intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996. They offered to arrest bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or to keep close watch over him. The Saudis "didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.”
”In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.”
That’s when bin Laden went to Afghanistan, along with "Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for al-Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.”
If these names sound familiar, just check the FBI's list of most-wanted terrorists.
The Clinton administration repeatedly rejected crucial information that Sudan had gathered on these terrorists, Ijaz says.
In July 2000, just three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen, Ijaz "brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies - an ally whose name I am not free to divulge - approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.”
This offer would have brought bin Laden to that Arab country and eventually to the U.S. All the proposal required of Clinton was that he make a state visit to request extradition.
"But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family - Clintonian diplomacy at its best.”
'Purposeful Obfuscation'
Appearing on Fox News Channel’s "The O’Reilly Factor” on Wednesday night, Ijaz said, "Everything we needed to know about the terrorist networks” was in Sudan.
Newsman Bill O’Reilly asked how Clinton and Berger reacted to the deals Ijaz brokered to bring bin Laden and company to justice. "Zero. They didn’t respond at all.”
The Clintonoids won’t get away with denials, he said. "I’ve got the documentation,” including a memorandum to Berger.
"This was purposeful obfuscation,” he asserted.
O’Reilly wondered why the White House didn’t want information about the terrorists. Ijaz said that was for the American people to judge, but when pressed he suggested that Clinton might intentionally have allowed the apparently weak bin Laden to rise so he could later make a show of crushing him.
Concludes Ijaz in the Times: "Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.”Click to expand...
The Truth - There is enough blame to go around for letting the terrorists go scott free -through all Administrations dating back to even 1986!!!!! -
Hey, let's not get caught up worrying about the future of our country. Let's just try to deflect blame to the OTHER political party.
After all, it's OK for MY party to run the nation into the ground, it's only bad when the OTHER party does it.
More specifically...why is it that those who so loudly denounce Clinton every chance they get, will cover for Bush when he does the same things?
There's a term for it...it starts with the letter "h" and has 7 letters.
(I say all of this as a Republican). -
There is plenty of oil in Alaska, but the environmentalists and animal rights protectionists won't let us get near it. It's available oil in our own country, for crying out loud!!
Politics as usual. [/QB]Click to expand... -
The sad thing is, drilling there would not disrupt the environment, as where they want to drill is pretty much a barren wasteland. Got the tree-huggers and PETA-types to thank for the lies!
I have family living in North Pole, AK. They said the environmentalist are worried how it will impact the caribu & moose. My brother-in-law is a native. He said they just walk right under the existing pipeline. Doesn't bother them in the least. -
Originally posted by Alexandra Spears:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
There is plenty of oil in Alaska, but the environmentalists and animal rights protectionists won't let us get near it. It's available oil in our own country, for crying out loud!!
Politics as usual.Click to expand...Originally posted by Alexandra Spears:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
There is plenty of oil in Alaska, but the environmentalists and animal rights protectionists won't let us get near it. It's available oil in our own country, for crying out loud!!
Politics as usual.Click to expand...
We could have have a significant synthetic fuel capability today but the project was killed by Ronald Reagan because it wasn't economically viable at the time. That wasn't the point. The real importance of such a program was to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.