Help me dispell the myth that Clinton could have assasinated Bin Laden

[danimich1]

but didn't. Is there any truth to this story? Can anyone direct me to a website that has the truth? What exactly is the truth? I'm tired of my in-laws excusing Bush for 911!

[NewJeffCT]

1. The 9/11 Report

Didn't they debunk the myth about Clinton turning down the offer from the Sudan on bin Laden?

[uppityperson]

2. Staright from Snopes, here is the link for the false urban legend

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

[mtnsnake]

3. Clinton (the CIA in '98) tried to get him. Bush has all but ignored him nt

[LittleClarkie]

4. Clinton warned the Bush admin on his way out about BinLaden

And whenever Clinton went after anything at all, the Republicans shouted "wag the dog! wag the dog!"

If you look up their quotes from the Bosnian war, the Republicans sound like a bunch of... well, Democrats, actually.

Respect for the Prez only applies when that Prez is a Republican.

[WildEyedLiberal]

27. Exactly.

Any time Clinton authorized any military action, every Republican was talking about what a bad idea it was and how he was just trying to distract from his (Republican-created) domestic scandals.

Republicans were mighty big isolationists in the 90s. Their tune sure changed when Dubya came into office, didn't it? :eyes:

Then they blame Clinton for not being more militarily active in fighting terrorism when the very same assholes were on TV in the 90s chastising Clinton for trying to pursue any military action.

The rank hypocrisy of the GOP repulses me.

[skipos]

5. Bush could have gone after Osama but he stopped thinking about him

I forget the exact quote, but you know the one.

[tabasco]

6. A lie that is perpetuated by liars like Oxy-boy ...

and the idiots that listen to him.

What is not a myth: While Clinton did his best to attack terrorists, the republicans said Clinton was "wagging the dog."

They made a blowjob a national priority while the Democrats were tryig to kill terrorists.

Of course, after Bush was selected, Bush dropped anything to do with Clinton's war on terrorists. That's why he totally ignored terrorism. Bush did not have a single meeting about terrorism prior to 9-11. Bush ignored a briefing paper which laid out Bin laden's plans toattack inside the US. Bush let our guard down and we got hit. THAT'S A FACT !

[Catherine Vincent]

7. Clinton admin warned the Bush admin about Bin Laden instead the Bush's

did business with them. But you don't hear about that much do ya?

[cpa]

8. Clinton

I think that the previous post is correct. The 9/11 report is a good reference. Clinton did sign an order authorizing the CIA to kill Bin Laden. Clinton also aimed cruise missles at an Al Qaeda camp and missed him by only a couple of hours. Clinton also warned Bush about Al Qaeda and was ignored. Richard Clarke's book entitled "Against All Enemies" documents all of this. Bush also received a report on August 6,2001 from the CIA that said that Bin Laden was determined to strike the U. S. and ignored it. When one reads all of the evidence, there is no doubt that Bush was negligent in not preventing 9/11. I can't prove this, but with each passing day, I become more convinced that 9/11 would not have happened if Gore were in the Oval Office. Gore would not have taken a vacation after receiving a briefing that Bin Laden was determined to strike at the U. S. Gore would also have continued the Clinton Administration's focus on Al Qaeda. This focus led to the U. S. preventing a terrorist attack at LAX in January 2000.
Like many Bush supporters, your in-laws are ignoring evidence. Why did Bush not do more on 9/11 than he did? he ran around the country all day and did nothing to reassure the citizens. He continued to read "My Pet Goat" to school children when Americans were dying in New York and after he had been informed of that event. The video of Bush in the classroom is quite revealing. Your in-laws also assume that 9/11 would not have occurred if Bin Laden had been killed. They can not prove that. The republicans did not support Clinton's going after Bin Laden.
your in-laws are wrong. Bush should have stopped 9/11.

[CTyankee]

24. My theory

You are so right in your analysis. Here is what I would add:

After the Clinton Admin. people warned the Bush admin. that Al Quaeda was their biggest threat to national security, the Bush people, not wanting anything to do with Clinton's policies, ignored it and focused on missile defense. Bin Laden either learned about this change of heart along with the change of adminstrations or they figured it out, based on the fact that the "heat was off" after Clinton left office. Hence, they hatched 9/11.

Also, I read somewhere that it was Al Gore who finally convinced Bill Clinton that he DID have authority to have Bin Laden assasinated. Does anyone have the cite where that is?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

12. You forgot not responding to anyone

[hholli11]

10. Agree with them (and hear me out)...

and tell them the OBSTRUCTIONIST GOP treasonists were too busy counting his pubic hairs to concern themselves with America's safety and freedom.

Then start singing God Bless America RIDICULOUSLY loud. Ask them why they hate freedom.

Ask them why they hate America.

[Joe Fields]

11. I seem to remember that Clinton had his sights on bin Laden,

and the CIA had located him. They were waiting on word from the White House, but there were complications. It seems that Osama was with some members of the Dubai royal family. Clinton called off the snipers at the last minute.

At least that's the story I remember. Sorry, no links. It's just one of many bits of info I pick up and do not record for posterity.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joe Fields]

17. your debating skills are extraordinary, sir. may I congratulate you.

You have surely convinced me that I am wrong.

[Catherine Vincent]

20. LOL!

[tabasco]

26. What debating skills?

You make a totally unsupported statement and I called you on it.

Do you have any links for your assertion that Clinton stopped snipers from taking out Bin laden??

I am awaiting the no doubt voluminous information you will provide.

I'm sure a great debater like yourself will provide tons of sources.

[bling bling]

19. This was on the Nat'l Geographic Channel a couple days ago.

Clinton signed orders allowing the CIA to arrange for a group of rebel Afhans to kill Osama but they cancelled the orders when it was discovered that there were many children in the "village" where Osama was staying and that the battle would put too many innocent people in jeapordy. At this time, nobody really but the Administration and CIA even knew who Osama was.

I also heard the plot to kill Osama that was foiled by the royal family. I can't remember if that was on the same show I watched the other night or somewhere else.

[Festivito]

13. Al Franken's Harvard research team debunked Sudan OBL turnover.

In one of his books he made a one page summary for photocopying. I think Lying Liars...

As I recall:
Ijaz made offer that Sudan would turn over OBL, just wanted trade restrictions lifted. (i.e. weapons. Sudan loves killing each other, and especially Christians.)

Bad news: Ijaz had no standing with Sudan. Clinton admin made many inquires and found no one in Sudan who'd do it.

Stranger news: Ijaz went to work at FOX news.

Bush started ignoring terrorism from Jan 20, 2001 (his first day in office). He took the Hart-Rudmann act and let Cheney handle it. Cheney did NOTHING until 9/11/01. Then he worked real hard and came up with his own idea. (Looked just like the suggestion made in the report oddly enough. A new cabinet level administration.)

Clinton had 24/7 watch on OBL with a missile at ready to kill him. Bush made fun of this during the campaign. Trying to hit a camel in the butt. Or, gonna hit an empty tent in the desert. Real funny now isn't it? When Bush took office the watch was dropped. OBL was elated. Eight months later: 9/11.

[Sydnie]

14. Here

Ok, start here on page 11, then move on to the bottom of page 21 and read through page 25 - especially page 25.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing8/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-03-24.pdf

[danimich1]

22. Thanks for all the great info

The inlaws got back from watching that Flight 93 movie last night, so now they're being all patriotic. It just makes me sick to hear them defend B&*%, while ignoring that at the very least, through his lack of leadership, he allowed 9/11 to happen. Instead, they start harping on how Clinton could have taken Bin Laden out years ago and didn't. Anyway, I appreciate all the details. I'm probably just going to be banging my head against the wall, but I may as well try to make them see reason.

[Sydnie]

25. Once you get through that with them - hit them with this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601

With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

more at link

[KyuzoGator]

16. State Department April 2001: "Clinton focused too much on bin Laden"

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/

-snip-

Unlike last year's report, bin Laden's al Qaeda organization is mentioned, but the 2000 report does not contain a photograph of bin Laden or a lengthy description of him and the group. A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S. government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts of the elephant and not the whole beast."

-snip-

[AllieB]

18. Use your internet research skills while you still can-freely

Both snopes and the 9-11 report have lots of information, as other poster mentioned above.

And I'll add a:

:popcorn:

[rasputin1952]

21. It should be noted that under Clinton's watch, the first WTC bombing

culprits were caught, as was the Murrah Bldg, OK City as well.

Kind of hard to catch the Cole bombers, as they blew up w/the boat they were on.

This is not to say that Clinton had anything to do w/catching them, but they were caught on his watch through luck and police work.

bush and his minions of idiocy, did not listen to one thing that the Clinton Admin had to say about terrorism, or anything else...they were fixated on the Lewinsky scandal, and nothing else...Rice told the 9-11 Committee that the bush people had in their possession a paper know as, "bin-Laden Determined to Strike the US". They did NOTHING!!!

You can tell them this as well; when bin-Laden was holed up in Afghanistan, the bush admin paid warlords to get him...but so did bin-Laden! So he was whisked out of the country, the warlords got a double dip, and to top it all off a lot of the money from the US AND bin-Laden, has been funneled into the terrorist network that bush enhanced while expecting people to throw "Roses at the feet of the American soldiers".

on edit: there will be the inevitable..."But if Gore were president....".
This too is a strawman...we will never know if the WTC would have been attacked if Gore were president. The rabid dogs that pushed FL into the ugly scene that played out there, ensured that bin-Laden would have the opportunity to set up an attack.

[Ksec]

23. I try to stay on the offensive

And ask them why bush has failed to catch BinLaden , especially since weve blown a few hundred billion dollars during bushs reign. bush has hijacked the war on terror for a personal grudge against a third rate dictator who had zero to do with 911/

[NoodleBoy]

28. as far as I know, from reading the 9/11 report

On two occassions, the CIA thought it was "possible" to assassinate UBL. On one of them, he left a training camp that was struck by cruise missiles two hours before the attack commenced, and although it was raised that the attack may lead to his death, intelligence officials had basically assumed that it probably wouldn't have happened.

on an earlier occasion, for about a week the CIA got information on where UBL was, but it was from a single source that wasn't considered infallible, so they didn't act on the information. it was later found out that, during much of the time, UBL was not in the room of the building they thought he would be in, so if the attack had taken place he would have survived.