It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9-11 commission undermines credibility of the panel

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   
9-11 Commission Rejects Evidence Clinton Turned Down bin Laden Offer

The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, known as the 9-11 Commission, said Tuesday that they have not found "any reliable evidence" that Sudan was ready to turn over Osama bin Laden to the U.S. in 1996, rejecting a statement by ex-President Clinton admitting that such an offer was indeed made - but that he turned it down.

The 9-11 Commission's insistence that there is no evidence to confirm the bin Laden extradition offer comes despite ex-President Clinton's recorded account confirming Sudan's version of events.

Link




posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   
lol oh well. Looks like it'll just be political the way the impeachment was, rather then trying to find the truth...



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Yep! Just like how threads like this only get 38 views all day long.

The truth hurts.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 12:00 AM
link   
I smell Warren Commision.....................



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
I smell Warren Commision.....................


yeah really... this is old news. so what if Sudan made such decisions? is this just a clinton bashing attempt? screw that: we haven't had any honest presidents since kennedy or eisenhower.

hello? the attack happened in 2001? how about some questions like "so... where were the f-16's that were supposed to intercept flight 93 and 77?"

this is quite sad... nobody is asking the real questions. who wants to infiltrate the senate building with me and start getting some real questions on air?

yeah... *sigh* that's what I thought. i can wish, can't I?



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 12:33 AM
link   
About the extradition aspect, might want to ask Mr.Clark and Mansoor Ijaz on that:
Ijaz: Clarke Blocked bin Laden Extradition

As to the commission, they 'may' have rejected such information/evidences, but here is what the commission is asking:

The commissioners on the Sept. 11 panel asked the same question over and over: Why didn't the Clinton administration take stronger military action against al Qaeda's Taliban refuge in the 1990s, when the Sept. 11 plot was being hatched?

Defenders of the Clinton administration have twinned this claim -- "We can't be blamed, because no one wanted us to take stronger military action" -- with its post-9/11 obverse assertion: President Bush doesn't deserve any credit for toppling the Taliban and ending al Qaeda's sanctuary, because after Sept. 11 anyone would have done this. In the words of Bush's most recent and surprising critic, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke: "Any leader whom one can imagine as president on September 11 would have declared a 'war on terrorism' and would have ended the Afghan sanctuary by invading."

The Clinton Mind-Set

Btw, found this interesting article put out in 2002, by The Sunday Times:
Clinton missed three chances to seize Bin Laden



seekerof



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 12:45 AM
link   
dudes, clinton didn't miss any chances. he was told not to go after the guy. being told not to do anything about osama and ignoring osama are two different things.

remember the FBI memos and the whistleblower who said the same thing? just who told all of those people to avoid arresting bin laden? who was it who had the audacity to say "what, osama? back off, man. this is a direct order." welllllllll if you know the answer, do tell!

don't look at me like that because I said "dudes". I like to be redundantly casual, sometimes.


and i understand how you guys want to do some clinton bashing, in contrast to today's more universal bush bashing. clinton got so much good publicity in his time, despite the oral sex escapade. how much that story was advertised on every media outlet alone made me ashamed of calling myself a republican in the past, and even ken starr, himself, regrets making a debacle of the whole thing.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 01:10 AM
link   
I don't think I am necessarily doing Clinton bashing.
I do think after being here long enough to hear the 'claims' and such leveled at this current administration over loads of issues, seems fitting that every little bit of redemption that I can get back is very cool!

As to what you have mentioned, without digging for articles and such to counter otherwise.....I'll simply go with this:


"...Everything was more important than fighting terrorism. Political correctness, civil liberties concerns, fear of offending the administration's supporters, Janet Reno's objections, considerations of cost, worries about racial profiling and, in the second term, surviving impeachment, all came before fighting terrorism."

Time Magazine's 'Clinton Plan' Fish Story




seekerof



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof


"...Everything was more important than fighting terrorism. Political correctness, civil liberties concerns, fear of offending the administration's supporters, Janet Reno's objections, considerations of cost, worries about racial profiling and, in the second term, surviving impeachment, all came before fighting terrorism."



also, the public could've cared less about terrorism until 9/11 happened.

granted, that may be the fault of the Clinton admin., but hey, everyone was having too much fun online trading.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   
By the way, did you hear what Rumsfeld told the commission towards the end of the hearings? He said "I was confessing ignorance." I loved that statement.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Good replies, Seekerof.

By the way, today the Mr. Tenet is being interviewed for and hour, but the panel is giving Clarke 2 1/2 hours!

Just an interesting note.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 12:22 PM
link   
By the way, I'm still waiting on an answer as to who told clinton and FBI agents to back off Osama...



again, he didn't ignore it. the FBI agents didn't catch the fish and let it go because they felt bad. they were told to do so



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 05:52 PM
link   
wow still no reply, seekerof or Mr Decepticon?

like you said, the truth really does hurt, right buddy? muhahahahaha


again, im not against you guys doing some friendly clinton-bashing, but at least try to consider all points of an issue for a change. that was the lesson behind this post.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I believe it was George Tenet who told them not to go after bin laden.

In testomony today it seemed clear that in the 3 apparent chances we had to kill him the CIA refused to do it since they could not guarentee no collateral damage.



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
wow still no reply, seekerof or Mr Decepticon?


It's called "going to work." You should try it sometime instead of steady holding down the refresh button and waiting for replies on the internet.

How sad.



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
By the way, I'm still waiting on an answer as to who told clinton and FBI agents to back off Osama...



again, he didn't ignore it. the FBI agents didn't catch the fish and let it go because they felt bad. they were told to do so


First off, the FBI doesn't have too much to do with overseas terrorism suspects, so I don't know where you're going with this train of though.

Secondly, it's been clearly documented that Osama bin Laden was a threat to the U.S. and U.S. interests abroad. Clinton didn't have the nuts to make a preemptive strike against him. And for the most part, I don't think Bush did either, but I firmly believe that had 9-11 not even happened, Bush would have done something. Something more than blowing up some meaningless, empty factories.



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Actually if you listened to the testimony today from Tenet and Clarke you would have heard that Clinton ordered the assisnation of Bin Laden. Tenet did not follow through, feeling he never had a clear opportunity to do it. They also were not willing to assinate other leaders which always seemed to be around when we caught him in the open. Also you say he did not have the nuts to do it yet he did send 60 cruise missles into a training camp in Afghanistan trying to kill him, they missed him though by a few hours. Sounds pretty ballsy to me

Blaming Clinton doesnt' work. Well blaming Bush doesn't either, really since he did only have 8 months. It was a general failure in intelligence and tracking, remember this was before our predator was armed or really functioning well. Times were different, so was the threat.


[Edited on 3/25/2004 by nativeokie]



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by nativeokie
Actually if you listened to the testimony today from Tenet and Clarke you would have heard that Clinton ordered the assisnation of Bin Laden. Tenet did not follow through, feeling he never had a clear opportunity to do it. They also were not willing to assinate other leaders which always seemed to be around when we caught him in the open. Also you say he did not have the nuts to do it yet he did send 60 cruise missles into a training camp in Afghanistan trying to kill him, they missed him though by a few hours. Sounds pretty ballsy to me

*************************************

Blaming Clinton doesnt' work. Well blaming Bush doesn't either, really since he did only have 8 months. It was a general failure in intelligence and tracking, remember this was before our predator was armed or really functioning well. Times were different, so was the threat.


[Edited on 3/25/2004 by nativeokie]


**********************************

Totally agree. It does nothing to bring back 9/11 victims or troops from Iraq. We (as a country) should be spending our time making sure that 9/11 never happens again.

john



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by nativeokie Also you say he did not have the nuts to do it yet he did send 60 cruise missles into a training camp in Afghanistan trying to kill him, they missed him though by a few hours. Sounds pretty ballsy to me


Well, me and you got different opinions on what the definition of "ballsy" is then, don't we? Because those half-assed attacks were not only weak, but there underminded the capability of the USA. We lobbed missiles over there that blew up some empty buildings and killed no one. I'm sure those al-Qaeda guys tried their best to hold back the laughter.

Bush putting out forces in Afghanistan less than a month after 9/11 is what having balls is all about, and it's exactly what we should have done after the first WTC attack, or after the US embassy bombing, or after the Saudi barracks bombimg, or after the USS Cole...



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   
This may be a reason for the "difference" but first I must ask if you truly believe that if Clinton or anyone other than Bush was in office on 9/11, do you believe they would not have immediately responded as Bush so correctly did? I cannot put that together, we have nothing other than the attack on Pearl Harbor to compare to 9/11. The first WTC attack as well as the USS Cole bombing were horrible events, but they were events on the scale of what we have seen our allies in Europe deal with for many decades. We additionally responded within similar parameters as they did. Right or wrong, international law as well as opinion justfied a response of that level for an event of that level.

9/11 was different, in scale, effect and long term stability for us and our allies around the world. Yes the others were precurors but I do not believe that anyone saw an attack like 9/11 as anything but a worse case scenario. I don't believe most Americans did either, hindsight shows us a different scenario though.

As for the fact that Bush did respond against Afghanistan.

At the time of the first WTC attack there was no country for us to attack. Our military is designed for large scale attacks. When after 9/11 we had a whole country to hit, we were the best and went after it. In 1993 when the first WTC attack occured there was no Taliban. They did not take control of Kabul until September 27, 1996. Hitting radom people vs hitting the sitting power of a government are very different military campaigns and we are experts at one and seemingly failures at the other.

Information link:
Taliban rise




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join