Four months after President Clinton refused a Sudanese offer to have Osama bin Laden arrested, the State Department warned the White House that the blunder would have disastrous consequences.

 

In documents obtained by the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch and provided to the New York Times, the State Department said that allowing bin Laden to escape from Sudan to Afghanistan "could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum."

 

Though Clinton administration officials have repeatedly denied any responsibility for bin Laden's escape, the ex-president himself admitted he played a key role the blunder in a February 2002 speech, which was recorded exclusively by NewsMax.com.

 

"We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again," he told a New York business group. "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.

 

"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." [End of Excerpt]

 

The Times report, however, ignored the Clinton admission - as the paper has since NewsMax first reported it on Feb. 15, 2002.

 

Instead the paper notes: "Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had 'not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.'"

 

In his April 2004 testimony before the Commission, Mr. Clinton was confronted with his 2002 comments on the Sudanese offer.

 

Initially he claimed he had been misquoted, according 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey.

 

After being told that his remarks were on tape, however, the ex-president changed his story, saying instead that he had "misspoken" during the 2002 speech.

 

The newly declassified documents do not directly address the question of whether Sudan ever offered to turn over bin Laden, the Times noted. But they go well beyond previous news and historical accounts in detailing the Clinton administration's perception of the al-Qaida mastermind as a growing threat to U.S. national security interests.

 

The State Department documents describe Afghanistan as an "ideal haven" for bin Laden, that would "allow him considerable freedom to travel with little fear of being intercepted or tracked."

 

Bin Laden's public statements suggested an "emboldened" man capable of "increased terrorism," the State Department said.

 

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told the Times that the new information "says to me that the Clinton administration knew the broad outlines in 1996 of bin Laden's capabilities and his intent, and unfortunately, almost nothing was done about it."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/17/90239.shtml

newsmax isn't exactly the most reputable(sp?) source.

 

Not to mention the sudanese offer was done by a man who had an extreamly sketchy past and record and who would have benefited personally off of improved US/Sudan relations.

Oh yes please, let's bash Clinton some more.

 

It's getting old. He isn't in office anymore, and had no clear evidence that 9/11 was going to happen. Bush was in office for a year before 9/11 occurred, he should take most of the blame, if we're going to blame a President.

Oh yes please, let's bash Clinton some more.

 

It's getting old. He isn't in office anymore, and had no clear evidence that 9/11 was going to happen. Bush was in office for a year before 9/11 occurred, he should take most of the blame, if we're going to blame a President.

905695[/snapback]

I don't really mind if he posts it, in fact I kind of like it because it gives a nice balance to the board and kinda stops the accusations that should be named the "move on board"

There are plenty of right-leaning people on these boards that still don't like Bush. Sometimes criticism of authority crosses party lines.

 

I don't like everything that Clinton did, but I believe he was a much smarter president than Bush could ever hope to be.

I don't think either Clinton nor Bush understood the gravity of the situation with bin Laden and al-Queda before 9/11. I don't think anyone is to blame, however, Bush the son is now tasked with dealing with security dillema. Clinton, despite his transparent attempts at garnering attention, is now irrelevant.

Oh yes please, let's bash Clinton some more.

 

It's getting old. He isn't in office anymore, and had no clear evidence that 9/11 was going to happen. Bush was in office for a year before 9/11 occurred, he should take most of the blame, if we're going to blame a President.

905695[/snapback]

I don't really mind if he posts it, in fact I kind of like it because it gives a nice balance to the board and kinda stops the accusations that should be named the "move on board"

905699[/snapback]

Yeah, but they will still call it that. Its a divergence from actually defending a viewpoint.

1. People criticize Bush for not being able to catch Osama in the past few years.

 

2. Clinton had him offered on a silver platter and turned him down.

 

Hmm... Quick, scramble together some incoherent babble to make Clinton look better than Bush in this scenario. I say "this scenario", because Clinton was probably better than Bush in about every other situation.

2. Clinton had him offered on a silver platter and turned him down.

 

905826[/snapback]

Do you even know the whole situation? The guy was was an untrustworthy source who had nothing to do with the sudanese government who would have benefited from lifting of sanctions against Sudan.

 

Clinton did go after Bin Laden with a cruise missile attack in 98 it just didn't work. You know kinda like what Bush did before 9/11,

2.? Clinton had him offered on a silver platter and turned him down.

 

905826[/snapback]

Do you even know the whole situation? The guy was was an untrustworthy source who had nothing to do with the sudanese government who would have benefited from lifting of sanctions against Sudan.

 

Clinton did go after Bin Laden with a cruise missile attack in 98 it just didn't work. You know kinda like what Bush did before 9/11,

905830[/snapback]

I highly doubt ANYONE on this board knows the WHOLE situation. I remember those missle attacks. Beastie Boys condemned them.

2. Clinton had him offered on a silver platter and turned him down.

 

 

905826[/snapback]

 

It wasnt as simple as that. There were doubts as to how they would indict him in the US. Clinton didnt have 9-11 to suspend the US Constitution the way Bush did. How can you expect him to just create an independent Gitmo the way it is now based on nothing but intelligence? Furthermore, Sudan, was offering Bin Laden. Sudan was no beacon of good intention. There was some doubt as to whether they should trust Sudan or isolate them for being a terrorist supporting nation.

Beyond the fact that newsmax has little credibility, this repeated assertion about Clinton and OBL has been addressed by the bi-partisan 9/11 commission. In Chapter 4 of the report, it states:

 

"Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so."

I'm sure that if Clinton was truely offered Bin Laden, then he would have taken him into custody.

Clinton's lack of balls in basically just letting Bin Laden roam free and eventually go into hiding was easily the worst thing he did during his 8 years.

 

(And for the record, I said as much pre 9/11, although most of that time he wasn't through all 8 years, but you get my point).

Simply put, theres no point in bashing Clinton. He made mistakes, but had 8 successfull years. This is just a clear attempt to shift attention and blame from Bush to Clinton.

Simply put, theres no point in bashing Clinton. He made mistakes, but had 8 successful years. This is just a clear attempt to shift attention and blame from Bush to Clinton.

905940[/snapback]

Exactly.

It always goes back to Bush if anybody says a negative word about Clinton or any democrat....ugh.

 

Come on guys, I don't like Bush (at all) and I don't want people to forget the mistakes he made, but Clinton had a shot at Bin Laden, knew he was dangerous, and did nothing. Although it looks worse now, at the time even anybody could tell you he made a mistake not getting Bin Laden.

It always goes back to Bush if anybody says a negative word about Clinton or any democrat....ugh.

 

Come on guys, I don't like Bush (at all) and I don't want people to forget the mistakes he made, but Clinton had a shot at Bin Laden, knew he was dangerous, and did nothing. Although it looks worse now, at the time even anybody could tell you he made a mistake not getting Bin Laden.

905949[/snapback]

As it has been said before, it's not a black and white case that he had Bin Laden.

 

Bush has also had plenty of chances to catch Bin Laden, and has also failed.

Beyond the fact that newsmax has little credibility, this repeated assertion about Clinton and OBL has been addressed by the bi-partisan 9/11 commission. In Chapter 4 of the report, it states:

 

"Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so."

905890[/snapback]

 

Wow, pure and unquestioned pwning. And its being ignored. How can the premise that this cite destroyed be restated again?

Clinton was elected to rebuild the economy and work on domestic issues. Thats exactly what he did.

Clinton was elected to rebuild the economy and work on domestic issues. Thats exactly what he did.

906132[/snapback]

So he ignores everything else?

First off, its 2005, why are you even bringing this up?"

 

Second, read rhe 9/11 comission report, those "facts" are faulty.

 

Third, if youve read into his foreign affairs(ive read a few things on it) his hands were tied by his staff and administration because to them he had to fufill what he was supposed to do to the people.

 

Seriously, who easy do you think it is to be President. Unlike Bush who literally is in Crawford Texas more than in DC, he had to deal with te economy when he first came, Kosovo, Africa, AIDS, tried to reform healthcare, and to top that all off, he had a bulls*** 80 million dollar Repub led investigation into his personal life. Who gives a f***, he did his job and did it well, I can care LESS if he was gay, an adulterer, whatever. I dont need my President to be the high inquisitor of morals.

 

Lastly, if he would have accepted Bin Ladens death, the Repubs would be on his ass for killing an innoccent person at the time! They would have spinned it to make him look like a criminal. How great would it look to the world if your leader ordered the death of a suspect, someone at the time we thought could be the murderer. People would have said he should be tried for War Crimes!

You dont know much about the subject at hand. Ordering the death of a civilian of another country isint that simple. Not only will you kill yuourself PR wise, youd probably find yourself in a big international legal mess.

Simply put, theres no point in bashing Clinton. He made mistakes, but had 8 successful years. This is just a clear attempt to shift attention and blame from Bush to Clinton.

905940[/snapback]

Exactly.

905945[/snapback]

One can easily say the same about the people who blame Bush when really only the terrorists can be blamed.

Ive never blamed Bush on this, ever. And if I have, it was out of sudden anger or something. Truth is I dont.

 

You cant predict or forsee these kind of things. No one can. Niether is to blame. Lousy itelligence is to blame, however.

 

Stop beating a dead horse.

All of this should not be a blame Bush or blame Clinton type of thing. The point in all of this is that the U.S. generally ignored the threat of Islamist terrorism, and it was never viewed as a threat to the US itself even after the first WTC incident.