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.

 

Clinton Was Warned of bin Laden Hijacking Plot

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   
July 19, 2004
PRNewswire

NEW YORK -- In its final report due out this week, the 9-11 Commission will disclose new evidence suggesting that the hard-line Islamist clerics who now exercise near total control over Iran directed their border guards to help jihadists coming from Afghanistan.

I think this release on Thursday will show some light on how long the US has known about this problem (1998) , and the lack of response from both administrations.

john


www.newsmax.com...




posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Yeah I heard about that this s another thing that the Traitor Clinton new about and did nothing to about it he even had three chances to kill osama but he didn't and because he didn't take action 9/11 happened and people now want to say bush likes wars and bush this and bush that what would you rather have do you want bush to be like Clinton so another 9/11



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 12:54 PM
link   
this is old news.... it's been previously beleived and even discussed that yes Clinton had some information, specifics NO, but some info of an attack and about the 3 times to Kill OBL, yeah yeah yeah.... could have, would have, should have.... blah blah blah



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah I heard about that this s another thing that the Traitor Clinton new about and did nothing to about it he even had three chances to kill osama but he didn't and because he didn't take action 9/11 happened and people now want to say bush likes wars and bush this and bush that what would you rather have do you want bush to be like Clinton so another 9/11



- Bit of a Bush fan are we westpoint? Zealot even? Clinton the traitor huh? That's pretty srong stuff even for your average barking republican.

How about what Clark had to say (afterall there's a guy right in there and had been for several administrations)? Bush's initial strategy? He cut anti-terrorist funding and went on holiday a lot. Great. I know who I think traitorous and it isn't Bill.

It's the guy who told everyone to link 9 - 11 to Iraq and is currently keeping US soldiers there in a war that is never going to be 'won'.

Still, you keep imagining that this one is the 'vietnam' you win, huh?



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 01:03 PM
link   
It could be argued that Clinton knew about terrorists using planes as weapons, and stopped them (see Project: Bojinka) and Bush knew about the threat and did nothong (see 9/11).

WestPoint23: A comma, a period, maybe a semi-colon. Something, please! All of your posts read like a Kerouac hopped-up on FOX.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
You liberals kill me.

1. Bush was a liar.
2.. Ya, Clinton might have heard something.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Yes clinton did fail by allowing bin laden to go free. There are plenty of facts on this, even clintons own words, Allowing bin laden to go free was the biggest mistake of my presidency.

Clarke ??? He was out to make a name for himself and line his pockets, That is common knowledge.

Clinton was a liar, failure and coward. Unlike President Bush who believes in American values, freedom for the oppressed, and in his convictions. President Bush has stayed his coarse through adversity, no one can deny that.
The economy is great, interest rates are down, he has liberated 2 very oppressed countries and brought freedom. A free world is a better world, the proof is in our great nation, AMERICA.

History will prove all the Bush critics wrong just as it proved all the Reagan critics wrong!!!



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   


sniper086 wrote:
Clinton was a liar, failure and coward. Unlike President Bush who believes in American values, freedom for the oppressed, and in his convictions. President Bush has stayed his coarse through adversity, no one can deny that.


Very ballsy Sniper! I think I'm just gonna have to sit back and watch the liberals lay into ya though...won't be pretty I'm sure



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I have a different opinion.

They are both liars and cheats to some degree and only looking out for the special interest that got them elected. You know what that makes them don't you? Politicians.

Neither of them could foresee 9/11 and neither did anything about it. We keep trying to look back and the whole hindsight is 20/20 pops into my head. I think we should judge all current politicians on their actions today and stop trying to find someone to blame in the past. It happened and we can't change it. Now what can we do to stop it from happening again? Who will best protect us? Who will focus on the problems we face today?

Republicans need to get over Clinton and Democrats need to stop looking for a Bush conspiracy in 9/11. It doesn't help anyone today.

But whomever is the president this next time needs to keep their freakin butts in Washington and not spend 40% of their time in office running around vacationing. Kerry and Bush are both well known and documented for spending as little time as possible in DC, I don't care if they can work from Boston or Crawford, I expect them to spend 90% of their time either in DC or traveling abroad trying to make sure we don't get attacked again.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sniper068
Yes clinton did fail by allowing bin laden to go free. There are plenty of facts on this, even clintons own words, Allowing bin laden to go free was the biggest mistake of my presidency.


- how about your heros Reagan and Ollie North who created and trained, originally supplied and set up bin Laden and his group in the ways of terrorism? As for Clinton's comment? Ha! Interesting selectivity and interpretation.

Of course it's not like Clinton ever 'had' bin Laden....not like Bush in Afghanistan before he let the pressure off and the guy run to Pakistan, huh?


Clarke ??? He was out to make a name for himself and line his pockets, That is common knowledge.


- he had a book out. So what. He stayed within the law over what he said in it.

Clark was a trusted senior figure in the intelligence community who actually knew what he was talking about because he was there under 4 (or was it 5?) Presidents - and the way your man Bush torched his reputation in an obvious and cheap move to cover his own lame sad ass will come back on him, you mark my words.


Clinton was a liar, failure and coward.


- Clinton was a consumate politician, not just liked by his own people but adored by many - beyond the partisan zealot - in marked contrast to any Bush - and that's something you guys just can't forgive.

Hell if he was able to have stood in 2000 he'd have wiped the floor with Bush - and I suspect the same outcome if it were possible this year (anyone done that poll yet?)


Unlike President Bush who believes in American values, freedom for the oppressed, and in his convictions. President Bush has stayed his coarse through adversity, no one can deny that.


- er, yes we can.

Bush is a liar (he lied about Iraq....a tad more significant a lie that who was or was not blowing whom).

Bush is a failure (he has succeeded in isolating and destroying the vast well of sympathy America had following 9 - 11 which is in part responsible for the disaster that is this so -called 'war on terrorism').

and Bush is a coward (his hiding behind the honourable men in uniform as a mere political convenience yet ignoring the damaged and dead is truely breath-taking) and so obviously a mere right-wing front, a 'badge' for interests far greater than him.

A pathetic risible President the world over, no less.


The economy is great, interest rates are down,


- your economy is 'benefitting' from the increased short-term spending thanks to the wars - the only 'public spending you guys love, huh, but to hell with using public money for anything productive at home, eh?.

This could not be further from sustained 'real' economic activity if you tried. These 'benefits' will quickly pass as per gulf war mk1 and you will one day have to face the record current account trade and spending deficits. Wake up.


he has liberated 2 very oppressed countries and brought freedom.


- Look, I'm absolutely certain life was horrible uder Saddam and the Taliban but open your eyes or start getting your news from elsewhere. It is not better now.

Those 2 countries are still horrible hell-holes. Your notions of freedom are tragically laughable when applied to them.


A free world is a better world, the proof is in our great nation, AMERICA.


- what are you doing? Sloganising?! Is that the last refuge? Tell that to the 30 000+ who have died in Iraq since the war started.


History will prove all the Bush critics wrong just as it proved all the Reagan critics wrong!!!


- When all else fails some blind faith and the mantra of the believer, huh?

You do realise that outside of your 'special view' the world isn't especally fond of Ron either? Interesting though that you cite 'history' in the manner of the fascist or communist dictator. Nice company you're keeping.

The world doesn't revolve around the USA, no matter who her President is, and many of the beneficial events that have happened had nothing to do with the USA or only partly involved the USA.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 10:57 PM
link   
mpeake

Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Its not like there is a lack of Bush bashing going on.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Unfortunately, we may never find out what Clinton knew and when he knew it.

apnews.myway.com...

Sandy Berger lost some memos about terrorists when reviewing for his 9/11 testimony??? Sounds a bit funny, like Ron Brown's plane crashing a month before he was to testify about campaign finance problems.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   
sminkeypinkey

A few facts that has seem to elude Ireland , Is it??

"Bill Clinton ... [was] offered Osama bin Laden by the Sudanese government, and they turned the offer down. They could have taken him into custody and begun unraveling his terrorist network 8 years ago [1996]. But they didnt."

President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan 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.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

Let me also tell you a little about our Intellegence community. It consist of more than the President, as a matter of fact he does no itellegence gathering, only acts on what he is given. Now if there is bad intel does that mean its the Presidents fault, NO.

About the use of the Military, he is the Commander in Chief therefore has the power to use the Military. However in the case of Iraq he went before Congress with a Resolution that Congress, reviewing the same intel the President had, voted to invade Iraq.

But I dont see how any of this would matter to you anyhow if you are in fact living in Ireland.

U.S. investment has been a major factor in the growth of the Irish economy.
In the first 3 months of 2004 trade between Ireland and the United States was worth approximately $9.2 billion, If those figures stay on track that equates to approx $36.8 Billion Dollar. Compare that to $18.5 billion for all of 1999 under the clinton administration. You do the math!!!!

I dont remember asking the worlds opinion of Mr Reagan. Frankly there opinions mean nothing.

Have a nice day.........



[edit on 19-7-2004 by sniper068]

[edit on 20-7-2004 by sniper068]

[edit on 20-7-2004 by sniper068]

[edit on 20-7-2004 by sniper068]

[edit on 20-7-2004 by sniper068]



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 02:47 AM
link   
I can't wait for this document to be released. And in my mind, it's going to pose and interesting question.

If a memo regarding a man that Clinton supposedly did everything in his power to catch came across his desk in 1998, why was there no mention of al-Qaeda in Clinton's final terror report? Link

[edit on 20-7-2004 by kramtronix]



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 02:51 AM
link   
And after Clinton the responsibility was passed on, a report was handed to Bush himself regarding the terror threats Al qeada posed. The current administration did nothing. What Clinton did or didn't do hardly matters now.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 02:55 AM
link   
kram thinks to himself... 1998 to 2001 is 3 years... Nothing was done...

2001 to 9/11 is 9 months... Nothing was done...

Liberal mindset: Bush should have done something!

PLEASE.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 02:59 AM
link   
When a discussion that mentions either Clinton or Bush isn't thoughtlessly obscured by partisan rhetoric, please send me a u2u. Then push me over with a feather.

Introducing partisan dogma into a thread is the fastest way to EMBRACE IGNORANCE I know of. And, as it happens, I know quite a few ways to do that. So consider it a back-handed compliment.

As for the topic, oh sorry, what was the topic again?



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 03:03 AM
link   
I am not defending Clinton, but really what is the point in talking about the warnings he got ? The current administration is the one you should be focusing on. Only 9 months you say? So just because the Bush administration was only in for 9 months by 9/11, that means that during that time they cannot be held responsible for defending the country? What are you talking about. The warnings from the previous government were ignored. There was no protection, not even an armed jet in the air before it was too late. I would call this a failure of the people in charge at that time. The people who didn't respond when the 9/11 plot was unfolding and the people who are too focused on war and oil to give a # about the state of their country.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Look at the bigger picture. Osama bin Laden's associates attacked us in 1993. What was done about the growing terror threat from '93 to the time Bush walked into office?

Can you answer that question?



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Well, I tend to focus on what actually effects us no and what we can change. Clinton maintains that he dealt with the threat, i have not passed judgment on this. My point is that the current administration did not protect the country from 9/11, I am not really disputing your points. Wether or not it was bad leadership, or just the wanting a reason to go to war, but the Bush administration failed.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join