Author Topic: Clinton testifies, Audio tape says different (Read 664 times)

NUKE · « **on:** April 09, 2004, 07:19:51 PM »

Clinton Denies Taped bin Laden Admission, Blames 'Misquote'

Quote

During his private interview with the 9/11 Commission on Thursday, ex-President Bill Clinton denied that he told a New York business group in 2002 that he turned down an offer from Sudan for Osama bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., according to 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey.

"Bill Clinton said yesterday that that was a misquote," Kerrey told WDAY Fargo, N.D., radio host Scott Hennen, in an interview set for broadcast on Monday.

A transcript of the exchange between Hennen and Kerrey was read on the air by national radio host Sean Hannity late Friday. It shows that the 9/11 Commission was unaware that Clinton's bombshell admission that he spurned the bin Laden offer had been recorded by NewsMax.

After Kerrey said Clinton had denied the quote, Hennen said: "But wait a minute - I heard it in his own voice. I've heard him say it. I have the tape of him saying just that."

"Really?" said a perplexed Kerrey. "Well, then - ship it to me, because Clinton said yesterday [in private 9/11 testimony] that he didn't have a recollection of that."

Clinton made the bombshell admission to the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002. Though the LIA videotaped his appearance, the group has refused requests for copies from NBC News, Fox News and NewsMax.

Though NewsMax has the only publicly available recording of Clinton's remarks that day, they were also reported by Newsday the next day.

Transcript of Clinton's admission:

We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

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]

To hear ex-President Clinton make the admission that he denied making to the 9/11 Commission

Hear Clinton himself

NUKE · « **Reply #1 on:** April 09, 2004, 07:37:47 PM »

What do you mean Gsholz?

Nash · « **Reply #2 on:** April 09, 2004, 07:41:47 PM »

Clinton did not have sexual relations with the Sudanese.

ravells · « **Reply #3 on:** April 09, 2004, 07:42:02 PM »

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NEW304A.html

Ravs

NUKE · « **Reply #4 on:** April 09, 2004, 07:48:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ravells
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NEW304A.html

Ravs

nice, but Bin Ladden's family has little to do with Osama Bin Ladden.

The point of my post was that there is audio (and video) tape of Clinton explaining why he refused to take Bin Ladden from the Sudanese. And the 911 commision doesn't even have that widely availible evidense because they refused to listen to the tape when offered it.

There is a huge difference between having legitimate business dealing with the Bin Ladden family and refusing to take into custody a known terrorist who already had been linked to the bombing of the WTC.

NUKE · « **Reply #5 on:** April 09, 2004, 07:50:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
I mean you said "testifies" as if he lied in court. What I read is that he told Kerry something. And was he wrong, in your opinion, to let OBL go back in 1996?

He testified under oath.

No, he said he was misquoted, but maybe he didn't recall what he said.

I would bet he rememered the offer by the Sudanese though. That tape should be evidense at the hearings.....everyone should hear what Clinton said.

NUKE · « **Reply #6 on:** April 09, 2004, 07:52:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
According to the tape he said the US didn't have anything on him, but pleaded with the Saudis to take him because they did.

no he said that he pleaded with the Saudis to take hime because they could have taken him.

The US already had reason to take him...the WTC bombing and his known threats against us.

Nash · « **Reply #7 on:** April 09, 2004, 08:00:32 PM »

Semantics!

NUKE · « **Reply #8 on:** April 09, 2004, 08:01:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
He said "... 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."

Unless you had evidence against OBL back in 1996 then his decision was right.

so you agree Clinton had knowlege that Bin Ladden wanted to commit crimes against the US? ( actually he already had)

This is what the 911 commision is looking into..... INACTION in the face of a threat against the US. And the commision is ignoring the fact that Clinton did not act when "he knew Bin Ladden wanted to commit crimes angainst the US"

NUKE · « **Reply #9 on:** April 09, 2004, 08:03:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Semantics!

Nash how do you feel about it? Sometimes it's hard to gauge what your point is because you often offer only sarcastic one-liners in response......which I admire b.t.w.

NUKE · « **Reply #10 on:** April 09, 2004, 08:05:20 PM »

But if Bin Ladden was connected to the 1993 WTC bombing, and/or he openly threatened the US.....that's enough.

ravells · « **Reply #11 on:** April 09, 2004, 08:05:44 PM »

Politicians are mostly lying scum....and I don't know why they choose that career, it's so thankless.

Basically, they'll do anything to save their arses and it's a bad on us, because we expect them to be perfect so we create the milieu in which they operate.

We had minister for education who screwed up, and went on national television and said 'I screwed up' and wrote a resignation letter saying 'I screwed up'...her popularity went through the roof.

We can hunt down these little tasty bits in news bulletins, but basically at that level it's such a hall of mirrors that we shall never know the truth.

Ravs

NUKE · « **Reply #12 on:** April 09, 2004, 08:11:34 PM »

You guys dont get it. The 911 commision is looking into failures TO ACT AGAINST THREATS and they are ignoring Clinton's 8 years of inaction, and focusing on Bush's few months in office.

Bush's FIRST international security memo was in regards to the threat of Al Quida, and was complete on Sept 4th. It contained the desire to WIPE OUT Al Quida, yet the 911 commision is after Bush for inaction. They IGNORE Clinton's 8 YEARS of doing nothing.

NUKE · « **Reply #13 on:** April 09, 2004, 08:12:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
If you had evidence in 1996 that he was connected to the WTC bombing, then yes. Threats is not grounds for holding a foreign national though ... at least before 9/11.

A foreign national who declares war on the US is fair game.

ravells · « **Reply #14 on:** April 09, 2004, 08:15:36 PM »

Sorry I was making general points.

I don't know enough about what Clinton did on terrorism to speak on the subject.

Ravs