Clinton Was Warned of bin Laden Hijacking Plot

OK, so what was done about the growing terror threat from the time of the first WTC bombing to the time Clinton passed the buck to Bush?

CAN ANYONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION?

Originally posted by sniper068
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 didn�t."

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.

- you conservative types make me laugh.

So, the President of a rogue nation, knowingly the home to various terror groups makes an unverifiable statement and suddenly you're falling over yourself to believe every word?! LMAO.

What do your own people say about this 'offer'? .....and even if it was amde what do your own people have to say about the credibility of the Sudanese President!

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.

- Sorry but it absolutely does mean the failure is Bushs' fault when Bush is telling everyone within earshot right from the off to connect Iraq to 9 -11.

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.

- yes Congress did, just like the House of Commons did in the UK.....on the basis of weak and politically slanted intelligence - intelligence that was just what Bush had demanded within hours of 9 -11, surprise surprise.

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

- Yeah well that's kind of typical given the Bush version of the USA's attitude to the environment and ecology. Take a look there's only one world and it doesn't belong to the USA.

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!!!!

- and this is relevant because? Yeah the USA invests in Ireland, so what everyone else owns huge chunks of the USA, so what?

I dont remember asking the worlds opinion of Mr Reagan.

- well you brought him into the conversation.

Frankly there opinions mean nothing.

- that much has been clear from the start.

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

- I certainly shall be trying to.

I dont know, but this really bothers me.

Bill Clinton new about OBL in 1998, he says he did all he could do to combat OBL.

Now the news today is that his Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger removed sensitive documents to prevent the 9/11 commision from finding something important, what that information is, we will probably never know and that bothers me!

Its like all the attention is focused on GWB and why he did not respond to the threat, but in all actuallity the attention sould be focused on the Clinton administration for not responding to OBL when he had the chance!

john

Originally posted by kramtronix
OK, so what was done about the growing terror threat from the time of the first WTC bombing to the time Clinton passed the buck to Bush?

CAN ANYONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION?

I fear you've fell victim to an URBAN LEGEND.

I find it frightening that someone who had risen to the rank of National Security Advisor would 'inadvertently' take classified material from the archives and 'inadvertently' throw them away. How does one 'inadvertently' take documents from the archives in his socks? www.foxnews.com...

In all reality, why wasn't something done about these terrorists between 1993 and 2001? Fact: 1993, World Trade Center Bombed. Al Qaida linked
Fact: 1995 Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City Bombed. Indictments include Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and "Others Unknown". According to 27 eyewitnesses, John Doe #2 is a former member of Iraq's Republican Guard. Read "The Third Terrorist" by Jayna Davis.
Fact: 1995 Khobar Towers bombed by suicide squad. Al Qaida linked.
Fact: 1998 US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed. Al Qaida linked
Fact: 2000 USS Cole attacked. Al Qaida linked.

After September 11, 2001 a military commentator on Fox news said it best: "Have we had enough at last???" I had been thinking this since 1993. Glad we have a man in office now who is taking the fight to them.

edit: I saw the Urban Legends link. Indictments mean little in the eyes of a radical. Kind of like the threat of a speeding ticket to those who participated in the Gumball Rally.

[edit on 20-7-2004 by Wudman]

Originally posted by curme

Originally posted by kramtronix
OK, so what was done about the growing terror threat from the time of the first WTC bombing to the time Clinton passed the buck to Bush?

CAN ANYONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION?

I fear you've fell victim to an URBAN LEGEND.

Urban Legend? So the '93 WTC attack, the Saudi barricks, the embassy in Kenya and the USS Cole are all fictional terroristic attacks that did not occur during the Clinton years? Is that what that link will tell me?

earthtone

Just responding to your post with no intent of stating your position.

I dont think its fair to say the Bush Administration failed to protect America from 9/11. I believe it to be near impossible to ensure absolute safety at any time. I also dont believe the administration did nothing with the reports from clinton.

There may have very well been a breakdown in the information gathered but you must understand that we are talking about millions of pieces of information that have to be assemblied into a picture. That information then needs to be analyzed and verified. The info clinton turned over was no way complete, no intelligence ever is untill it is history,Until then it is only speculation. That is just the nature of the beast.

Its funny how President Bush is being blamed for not protecting the public or giving them warining, now every time they raise the threat level it becomes a media joke and a Bash a thon here at ATS. Go figure!

Originally posted by sniper068

Its funny how President Bush is being blamed for not protecting the public or giving them warining, now every time they raise the threat level it becomes a media joke and a Bash a thon here at ATS. Go figure!

Thats because these warnings seem to have no purpose other than to keep the public reminded that they are 'constantly under threat' from terrorists. The more they believe this, the more they will be willing to give away their freedom under the guise of 'protecting the nation.' This is the reason there is a a 'bash a thon' as you put it. Sniper, have you seen the presidents reaction on 9/11? Not only that, didn't he cut funding in the areas of terror intelligence and such? Look, I could get you some articles but I suggest you search the following in google " Bush administration failed 9/11." Have a read.