You are being purposefully obtuse. If there was no operational relationship then there was no justification in trying to use that claim to help justify the invasion. When I said there was no link I was saying there was not a relationship between the two that helped provide legitimate justification. You are clearly going to continue your semantic charade and as already proven, you refuse to admit when you are wrong. What was the latest? Was it you who claimed the US had charges against bin laden before 1996?
What a moron.
Here you are claiming sudan offered bin laden to the US. That's not true. They offered him to Saudi Arabia.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1899787-post600.html
This is you claiming bin laden had already been charged for the 93' wtc bombing by the time Sudan offered him to SA in 1996. Unfortunately, the first time the US indicted bin laden for anything wasn't until 1998.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1899808-post604.html
Those are great examples of you making false claims that you ignore when proven wrong.
Curve once again you are wrong.
Click on the link and you can hear Clinton himself tap dancing why he didn't accept Sudan's offer to take OBL in custody.
On Tape, Clinton Admits Passing Up bin Laden Capture; Lewinsky Played Role
During a
February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."
But that wasn't exactly true. By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York.
9/11 Commissioner former Sen. Bob Kerrey said that Clinton told the Commission during his private interview that reports of his comments to the LIA were based on "a misquote."
During his interview with the 9/11 Commission, Clinton was accompanied by longtime aide and former White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, along with former national security advisor Sandy Berger, who insisted in sworn testimony before Congress in Sept. 2002 that there was never any offer from Sudanese officials to turn over bin Laden to the U.S.
But other evidence suggests the Clinton administration did not take advantage of offers to get bin Laden -- and that the Monica Lewinsky scandal was exploding during this time period.
At least two offers from the government of Sudan to arrest Osama bin Laden and turn him over to the U.S. were rebuffed by the Clinton administration in February and March of 1996, a period of time when the former president's attention was distracted by his intensifying relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
One of the offers took place during a secret meeting in Washington, the same day Clinton was meeting with Lewinsky in the White House just miles away.
On Feb. 6, 1996, then-U.S. Ambassador to the Sudan Tim Carney met with Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Osman Mohammed Taha at Taha's home in the capital city of Khartoum. The meeting took place just a half mile from bin Laden's residence at the time, according to Richard Miniter's book "Losing bin Laden."
During the meeting, Carney reminded the Sudanese official that Washington was increasingly nervous about the presence of bin Laden in Sudan, reports Miniter.
Foreign Minister Taha countered by saying that Sudan was very concerned about its poor relationship with the U.S.
Then came the bombshell offer:
"If you want bin Laden, we will give you bin Laden," Foreign Minister Taha told Ambassador Carney.
Still, with the extraordinarily fortuitous offer on the table, back in Washington President Clinton had other things on his mind.
A timeline of events chronicled in the Starr Report shows that during the period of late January through March 1996, Mr. Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky was then at its most intense.
It doesn't matter if he was indicted. It's not a law enforcement issue. THATS' THE PROBLEM.
It's a war, not a law enforcement issue.
to be engaged in this kind of discussion.
