Posner: Clinton Feared Evidence Against bin Laden was Too Strong

[DemoVet]

Yet another WMD (Weapon of Mass Delusion) from the (f)right wingnuts. If I'm reading it correctly (if that's even possible), the reason that the Clintons didn't take up the Sudanis on their offer to extradite Bin Laden (now Bin Forgotten), thus removing al-Queda's main leader, financier, and overall operational director, was because al-Queda would be more dangerous *without* him? I think the tin hats are maybe a bit too tight over there at NewsMax.

Asked about Clinton's one-time-only confession to a New York business group that he blew off Sudan's bin Laden offer, Posner told legendary WOR Radio host Bob Grant, "There were some back door feelers made by businessmen and others from Sudan who said, 'Look, we'd like to figure out a way to get off the terrorist sponsorship list. Bin Laden's here. Can we do something about this?'"

But Posner contends, "The Clinton adminsitration never took them up on it."

Why not?
The investigative author said that the problem wasn't concern over whether the Sudanese could deliver. Instead, he contended, White House lawyers feared was that the legal case against bin Laden was actually too strong.

"They were afraid of convicting him," Posner told Grant. The thinking was that "if he's going to go to jail over here we're going to be subject to reprisals around the world by fundamentalists."

[Dookus]

1. This story is a few years old....

and is inaccurate in many details. Posner is less than reliable, and the current and forthcoming histories will demonstrate without a doubt that Clinton did everything he could to capture OBL, and that GWB did nothing.

[DemoVet]

3. I guess they'e just recycling their bullshit, it's really all they have.

[DemoVet]

2. Oops, sorry, the link didn't show in my post-here it is.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/23/85911.shtml
NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story

[liberalhistorian]

4. God, I'm so sick of the

RW wingnut's knee-jerk ICF (It's Clinton's Fault) reactions to everything that I'm gonna throw something the next time I hear it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why don't these idiots ever write about Asskroft GUTTING the counter-terrorism group in the Justice Department after being warned by Clinton's people during the presidential transition that they needed to increase funding to and the activity of the group? Why don't they ever write about Shrub STOPPING the investigation of Bin Laden in the spring of 2001 (too close family ties, perhaps?) Why don't they ever write about Shrub's too-close-for-comfort family ties to the Bin Ladens and the Carlyle Group, which also has close ties to the Bin Ladens and Saudi Arabia?

[RobertSeattle]

5. My standing argument against this revisionist history

Is that if Clinton had failed "so miserably" at fighting bin Laden then why wouldn't Bush/Cheney have welcomed with open arms and open hearings a full blown 9/11 investigation. But they didn't.

I think the #1 theme behind these books is that if they would have written a book about how great the Clinton Admin had been against terrorism then sales would be so good, ergo...

Note: I thought Posner's JFK "Case Closed" (name?) book was quite good.

[zbdent]

6. Well, they wouldn't have to rely on the + sign on the

New York Times Best Seller list, if they ever made it.