Originally posted by Valhall
I'm not arguing with you that the 9/11 Commission report should be held to a stern litmus test before we decide it was fair and exhaustive, but why
are you claiming it is dubious at this point?
quote: ...and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had "not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese
Until we find out the above statement is false, aren't you jumping to a baseless conclusion?
Valhall, I'm not refering to the Sudanese offer of Bin Laden to Clinton in this story and I did not make reference to that incident. (however there
is audio tape of Clinton detailing his motives for not taking the Sudanese offer - which not surprisingly was discounted by the commission.) is an
audio tape of the man making the decision not reliable enough? - come-on now.
My claims of the 9/11 report being dubious is based on the omission not only of the Able Danger information but also the omission of other pertinant
data such as I've detailed above where "state" recommended Bin Laden not be allowed to go to Afganistan where he could better export terrorism to
other countries, that information also was omitted from the 9/11 report.
What else has been omitted that we're not yet aware of?
Yes - dubious as in suspicious, not yet 100% proven, but more and more likely.
This is the pertinant information from the NY Times article,
WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give
him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter the move,
newly declassified documents show.
The State Department knew the danger Bin Laden presented,
Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle
The President ignored advice from a major component of government that seemed to realize way back in 96' what danger Bin Laden was.
Was it election year jitters?
Was it the Ruby Ridge, Waco, OKC debacles?
Was it a concentration on domestic issues to exclusion of external issues and investigations?
It was the commissions job to set the framework leading to 9/11 failure, 9/11 did not occur in a void as is apparent by the recent information
pointing in the direction of a failure in leadership rather than an intell analysis failure as we have been led to believe with the current 9/11
[edit on 18-8-2005 by Phoenix]