Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on April 09, 2004, 07:19:51 PM
-
Clinton Denies Taped bin Laden Admission, Blames 'Misquote' (http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/9/165600.shtml)
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 (http://newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3)
-
What do you mean Gsholz?
-
Clinton did not have sexual relations with the Sudanese.
-
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NEW304A.html
Ravs
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Semantics!
-
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"
-
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.
-
But if Bin Ladden was connected to the 1993 WTC bombing, and/or he openly threatened the US.....that's enough.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Sorry I was making general points.
I don't know enough about what Clinton did on terrorism to speak on the subject.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by NUKE
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.
Sorry. :)
Hhmm..
To be honest I have no idea about any of this. I don't feel like I have enough information to form an opinion on it.
But... I agree with you absolutely that if he's sitting there lying to the 9/11 panel then it's outrageous and sad.
-
Nash you are ok by me sir, so don't be offended when I'm being a dipchit....which I openly admit to being at times.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
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.
Not trying to defend Clinton here, because I don't have all the facts. If we go off what he stated in the tape, that OBL had not commited a crime against the United States at that time that we had linked him too. (Although I'm sure we knew he was behind WTC 1 by that point). Then we really did have no business extracting him, although he should have been put under heavy watch when he left Sudan. The 9/11 investigation is looking for failure to act on reliable information coming from a confirmed threat (Al Queda) that had already commited crimes against the U.S. and was wanted in connection with those crimes.
I have to say, that if Clinton was offered OBL after the Cole, the Embassies, and with evidence of his link to WTC 1 then he was a fault. If Bush was offered OBL in 1996 under same circumstances as Clinton in 1996, I would hope he would have refused him as well.
-
slick has experience at lying under oath...
but he was a great man and a terrific leader :rolleyes:
-
I wonder why there is a double standard. The libs were up in arms that Connie Rice wouldnt testify in public and under pressure the administration agreed to it.
But Slick Willy Bubba Clinton and ALGORE got to do it in private behind closed doors and NO ONE is saying ANYTHING about THAT?
I dont see why this post is even relative. Bill Clinton did not fight terrorism at all. I did very little about it. 8 Months after he left office under GWB's watch we were attacked. I shudder to think of the way things would be if Mr Rogers...errr..i mean ALGORE had won the election.
-
Originally posted by Gnslngr
I shudder to think of the way things would be if Mr Rogers...errr..i mean ALGORE had won the election.
Yeah, almost as smooth as things are going now.
-
heh Im still waiting to find out what the definition of "is" is. LOL
As much as I think Clinton was a clown who did nothing more then by pure chance alone happen to be in office during a period of economic boom (sorry kiddies but the president does NOT control the economy)
The blame isnt with Clinton alone. Nor with Bush.
Hindsight is always 20-20 Its easy to look back ad say "yea well if I had done this or that things might have been different".
And Who is to say that even if Clinton had gotten Bin Laden that 9-11 wouldnt have happened anyway? In fact in all likelyhood it would have.
Bin Laden is only one head on a sepent filled with heads
The "blame" if there is any is on our government departments as a whole and the lack of willingness to work as a team for the betterment of the country as a whole.
these various security Depts such as the FBI,CIA and such suffer from the same disease that the Democratic and Republican parties do. That is they are more concerned with their own powerbase then they are about whats best for the country.
thus you get alot of backbiting and alack of willingness to
co-operate and communicate and work with one another
-
It's a shame it comes to pointing blame for political gain. We talk about the hypothetical situation of Al Gore winning the election. But let me present another one.
Let's say 9/11 didn't happen. At the end of Bush's first term the economy is bad and he loses the election to Ralph Nader(remember, we are talking hypothetical). After a few months after taking office, 9/11 happens.
Now who is to blame? Well, Ralph Nader would blame the past administration because they "did nothing". The republicans would blame Nader because he "did nothing"
And the democrats would make out like bandits because they could blame both of them:lol
-
Clinton's mind was probably too busy thinking about his interns to worry about terroists. Not suprising he can't remember anything else.
...-Gixer
-
Come on guys.....
you really think that Clinton passed on OBL because he didn't give a shi...? Or that Gdubya saw a memo that spelled out 9/11 and just didn't feel like saving american lives?
It's not the individual person in the white house that is the problem. It's the whole squealing structure of government and how we are given choices on who is to lead. We elect professional salesmen and doubletalkers into office instead of highpowered people that know how to really get stuff done. And even if, by a miracle, someone that was truly effective got into the position. he would be a lame duck because the political structure couldn't afford to allow him to succeed. Everything he tried to do would be torpedoed by the carreer doubletalkers from both parties. Imagine the horror to both parties (you know which ones I'm talking about because we're only given 2 to choose from) if Mr. Perfect showed up tomorrow and knew how to clean this shi.. up. Every one of them would be shakin in their boots because they KNOW that they are part of the problem.
IMO... it really gets me how people buy into being a republican or democrate and then the only good thing they can say about thier party is through saying all the crap the other party does.
If you're "pro abortion" ... you get labeled as a democrate. if your "pro business" you're a republican... but if you're "pro better choices of government" you don't even fall into a serious catagory.....
grrr... I'm just ranting
-
Why would anyone give any credence to the testimony of a person who was impeached for perjury?
-
WTG mosgood. :aok
I've had that same rant many times in the past, and unfortunately likely will for decades to come. We do seem to get the quality of leadership that we deserve.
Charon
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Why would anyone give any credence to the testimony of a person who was impeached for perjury?
because he's the greatest president the USA has ever known...man where you been?