Still No Terror Attack In The US

[red states rule]

I am not defending anyone's "spin". I am merely stating the fact that we had no justification in May of 96 to take OBL into custody - and I don't care if the Pope had offered him up..we still had no evidence at that time that he had done anything against our interests that was worthy of custody and incarceration.

No, you are lying for the your party - something you do constantly

 

[maineman]

and you call other a political hack

if you don't have any facts that would suggest that we had any legal justification to take custody of OBL, just say so!

 

[red states rule]

if you don't have any facts that would suggest that we had any legal justification to take custody of OBL, just say so!

He was a known terrorist - he was offered on a silver platter - and Bill passed

He lied about the offer, then admitted it when the tape of the speech was made public

 

[maineman]

He was a known terrorist - he was offered on a silver platter - and Bill passed

He lied about the offer, then admitted it when the tape of the speech was made public

so....you have no evidence of crimes against America or American interests? why don't you just say so?

 

[red states rule]

so....you have no evidence of crimes against America or American interests? why don't you just say so?

Keep spinning MM - that is about the only thing you can do

 

[maineman]

Keep spinning MM - that is about the only thing you can do

spinning? All I am doing is stating a fact. and you cannot refute it.

and here you are...a guy who claims to love facts, yet you run away from them at every opportunity.

 

[red states rule]

spinning? All I am doing is stating a fact. and you cannot refute it.

and here you are...a guy who claims to love facts, yet you run away from them at every opportunity.

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.


By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. 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.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.
http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

 

[maineman]

thank you for proving my point.

nothing in there shows that we knew anything about any OBL criminal activity against America or American interests prior to may of 96.

thanks again.

case closed.

 

[red states rule]

thank you for proving my point.

nothing in there shows that we knew anything about any OBL criminal activity against America or American interests prior to may of 96.

thanks again.

case closed.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.



You must have ignored this and other points proving you wrong

 

[maineman]

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.



You must have ignored this and other points proving you wrong

odd...nothing in there that would disprove my point in the least.

did you misread it?

 

[red states rule]

Aide: Clinton Unleashed bin Laden
Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com
Thursday, Dec. 6, 2001
Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism, one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.
Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996 to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence, focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound threats to national security.

Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin Laden arrested.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, hoping to have terrorism sanctions 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,” Ijaz writes in today’s edition of the liberal Los Angeles Times.

These networks included the two hijackers who piloted jetliners into the World Trade Center.

But Clinton and National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy” Berger failed to act.

”I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities,” Ijaz writes.

”The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."

Thank Clinton for 'Hydra-like Monster'

”As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster,” says Ijaz, chairman of a New York investment company and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ijaz’s revelations are but the latest to implicate the Clinton administration in the spread of terrorism. Former CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson today also noted the failure of Clinton to do more than talk.

Among the many others who have pointed out Clinton’s negligence: former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, former Clinton adviser Dick Morris, the late author Barbara Olson, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iraqi expert Laurie Mylroie, the CIA and some of the victims of Sept. 11.

And the list grows: members of Congress, pundit Charles R. Smith, former Department of Energy official Notra Trulock, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, government counterterrorism experts, the law firm Judicial Watch, New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler, the liberal Boston Globe – and even Clinton himself.

The Buck Stops Nowhere

Ijaz's account in the Times reads like a spy novel. Sudan’s Bashir, fearing the rise of bin Laden, sent intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996. They offered to arrest bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or to keep close watch over him. The Saudis "didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.”

”In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.”

That’s when bin Laden went to Afghanistan, along with "Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for al-Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.”

If these names sound familiar, just check the FBI's list of most-wanted terrorists.

The Clinton administration repeatedly rejected crucial information that Sudan had gathered on these terrorists, Ijaz says.

In July 2000, just three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen, Ijaz "brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies - an ally whose name I am not free to divulge - approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.”

This offer would have brought bin Laden to that Arab country and eventually to the U.S. All the proposal required of Clinton was that he make a state visit to request extradition.

"But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family - Clintonian diplomacy at its best
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml

 

[red states rule]

There have been several high profile cases . One in Florida and another in New York just recently, but of course you and your liberal buddies all claim those were just innocent bystanders and or idiots and the Government was hyping the bust for publicity. Same with every time the threat level is raised and no attack occurs, or even just because the level was raised.

You people wouldn't believe this Government thwarted an attack if they found a nuclear warhead in some building in some major city. You would claim the "military"was ordered to plant it there to make news.

Just like no WMD's claim in Iraq, short of a nuclear tipped missile with New York stenciled on it and the coordinates programmed in, you lot simply ignore the evidence and the truth. The Government , according to you is lying, BUT every time some AQ type says something, your all hot to trot about how it is true.

How would libs fight terrorists?

WE SURRENDER

 

[Alucard]

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.



You must have ignored this and other points proving you wrong

Of course he did... Thats what weak libs do, ignore facts...

He has to... the facts are that if the Clinton administration was doing what we hired them to do instead of getting head on the taxpayers dime,the 9/11 attacks could have been avoided...

Liberal America haters like MM ignore facts altogether.

Lets Look at some facts...After soaking the taxpayers for 20 years salery and a college education, and a half hearted attemt to conduct himself as an officer MM retired from the Navy and he and his wife continue to draw a pension from our tax dollars today. While energy costs rise, He spends his days at a utility company hiding behind his computer acting like he is working, when really, he is actually here posting 40 times a day instead of doing the job he was hired to do. Once again soaking the public to support his family, While he cries and complains of injustice .. ridiculing those who actually contribute and place themselves in danger daily, for his security.

Liberals like him ignore facts because the truth is exactly that....the truth.

If the facts were revealed he would be soaking the public agian, this time from the unemployment line!

 

[maineman]

Of course he did... Thats what weak libs do, ignore facts...

He has to... the facts are that if the Clinton administration was doing what we hired them to do instead of getting head on the taxpayers dime,the 9/11 attacks could have been avoided...

Liberal America haters like MM ignore facts altogether.

Lets Look at some facts...After soaking the taxpayers for 20 years salery and a college education, and a half hearted attemt to conduct himself as an officer MM retired from the Navy and he and his wife continue to draw a pension from our tax dollars today. While energy costs rise, He spends his days at a utility company hiding behind his computer acting like he is working, when really, he is actually here posting 40 times a day instead of doing the job he was hired to do. Once again soaking the public to support his family, While he cries and complains of injustice .. ridiculing those who actually contribute and place themselves in danger daily, for his security.

Liberals like him ignore facts because the truth is exactly that....the truth.

If the facts were revealed he would be soaking the public agian, this time from the unemployment line!

oooo...the threatening secret agent man! LTNS!

I guess you missed the point that I was making. Simply: America did not have any evidence that would have allowed us to take custody of Osama bin Laden in May of '96. Now if you can prove me wrong....have at it, motherfucker.... if not, shut your piehole.

 

[ReillyT]

Of course he did... Thats what weak libs do, ignore facts...

He has to... the facts are that if the Clinton administration was doing what we hired them to do instead of getting head on the taxpayers dime,the 9/11 attacks could have been avoided...

Liberal America haters like MM ignore facts altogether.

Lets Look at some facts...After soaking the taxpayers for 20 years salery and a college education, and a half hearted attemt to conduct himself as an officer MM retired from the Navy and he and his wife continue to draw a pension from our tax dollars today. While energy costs rise, He spends his days at a utility company hiding behind his computer acting like he is working, when really, he is actually here posting 40 times a day instead of doing the job he was hired to do. Once again soaking the public to support his family, While he cries and complains of injustice .. ridiculing those who actually contribute and place themselves in danger daily, for his security.

Liberals like him ignore facts because the truth is exactly that....the truth.

If the facts were revealed he would be soaking the public agian, this time from the unemployment line!

If you have an intelligent point to make, then make it. Nearly your entire post was a mean-spirited personal attack, which frankly, was uncalled for. That is both pathetic, and leads me to believe you might be just about the biggest douchebag I have ever seen here.

 

[maineman]

and Alucard, you presumptious fuck.... please tell us how you know what my job is or what my working hours are... or even what I am paid to do. Do you have that info on your super secret database?

and if you did, isn't even obliquely referring to it a violation of board rules?

oh...and my wife does not draw any pension from the navy....

and once again... keep MY wife out of our discussions or I may be inclined to reveal certain sordid details I know about the revolting lives of prostitution of a certain someone else's mother... and wife... and daughter.... and pets.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you have an intelligent point to make, then make it. Nearly your entire post was a mean-spirited personal attack, which frankly, was uncalled for. That is both pathetic, and leads me to believe you might be just about the biggest douchebag I have ever seen here.

As opposed to the more INTELLIGENT leftbots that make personal attacks in every post in order to divert attention from what ever the issue is.

 

[Larkinn]

As opposed to the more INTELLIGENT leftbots that make personal attacks in every post in order to divert attention from what ever the issue is.

Reilly referred to ONE person whose entire post was an attack. What does that have to do with "leftbots" ?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Reilly referred to ONE person whose entire post was an attack. What does that have to do with "leftbots" ?

You and Maineman can not carry on a conversation about anything with out insults, name calling, character assassination, your joined by Truthmatters, Edwards and a host of others. You don't need facts, all yu need is to attack the poster and get everyone on about anything but the issue at hand.

 

[Larkinn]

You and Maineman can not carry on a conversation about anything with out insults, name calling, character assassination, your joined by Truthmatters, Edwards and a host of others. You don't need facts, all yu need is to attack the poster and get everyone on about anything but the issue at hand.

Please refer to our conversation in the previous thread. Where have I made any insult, name called, or character assassinated? Whereas you have been busy making up lies about me.

Besides the fact that you did not anwser the question.