News Focus
News Focus
icon url

GT

02/16/03 2:01 AM

#5383 RE: sarai #5382

Sarai, the Clinton administration's record regarding Osama bin Laden is extraordinarily tragic. Read the following and mourn once more for those that died in the World Trade Center towers and at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.


Sunday Feb. 9, 2003

Albright: I Don't Know Why Clinton Turned Down Bin Laden Deal--

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said Sunday that she couldn't explain why ex-president Bill Clinton turned down a deal with the government of Sudan to take Osama bin Laden into custody seven years ago. But she admitted that, "obviously, in hindsight, one would wish that some other action had been taken."

Albright feigned ignorance of the Clinton-bin Laden extradition deal during the following exchange with NBC "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert:

RUSSERT: In May of 1996 under pressure from the United States and Saudi Arabia, the Sudanese government asked bin Laden to leave. He returned to Afghanistan permanently..... Was it a mistake to let Osama bin Laden leave Sudan - or at least not apprehend him in Qatar on his way to Afghanistan?

ALBRIGHT: As I understand it, and I was ambassador to the U.N. at the time, was that basically we felt that he was too intricately involved with some of the activities in Sudan, which was a major issue for us. And that it was better to get him out of there.

Obviously, in hindsight, one would wish that some other action had been taken. But, for the most part, that was a decision made on the basis of information at that time, that he was playing the terrorist game there and that there had in fact been terrorist activity. As you know, there was an attempt on President Mubarak's life that came out of that area. And that it was probably better to move (bin Laden) out.

RUSSERT: But why not capture him, apprehend him while he was refueling in Qatar?

ALBRIGHT: I can't answer that question. (End of excerpt)

While Ms. Albright claims she doesn't know the answer to that question, Mr. Russert certainly does - though he declined to challenge her. But in fact, in May 1996, ex-President Clinton gave the order not to take bin Laden into custody, a blunder he confessed in a speech to a Long Island, N.Y. business group last year.

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan," Clinton told the Long Island Association in on Feb. 15, 2002.

"And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. 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, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

Clinton continued:

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." (End of Excerpt)

Though Mr. Clinton's confession has been widely covered in such high profile venues as the Fox News Channel's "O'Reilly Factor," "Hannity & Colmes," WOR Radio's "The Bob Grant Show" and, just the night before Albright' protested her ignorance, WABC Radio's "Batchelor & Alexander Show," network news organizations like Russert's NBC News have embargoed coverage of the bombshell development.

The big media cover-up has allowed New York Sen. Hillary Clinton to escape confrontation on the issue of her husband's blunder. And two weeks ago, in an interview with WLIE Radio's Mike Siegel, she tried to blame President Bush for "mishandling" North Korea and for not stopping Osama bin Laden before 9/11.



icon url

mlsoft

02/16/03 2:06 AM

#5385 RE: sarai #5382

sarai...

I find little to fault in your post. It sickens me that both sides put politics and personal benefit above the national good. I personally believe that George Bush is doing a better job of putting the national good first than most, as did Ronald Regan.

mlsoft
icon url

sarai

04/24/03 9:17 PM

#15650 RE: sarai #5382

Posted by: sarai
In reply to: mlsoft who wrote msg# 5373 Date:2/16/2003 1:37:44 AM
Post #of 15643

Mlsoft, No question Clinton was a slime! But look at Congress during the same time period. Surely there were more pressing national priorities than Monica Lewinsky, her mother, Tripp & Goldberg (wretches-squared), and the unforgettable "blue dress" (from the Gap!!)....

The 1998 embassey attacks were a major wake-up call for the US and it's gov. Yet gov was more concerned with sleeze politics, than with clear national security issues or anything else for that matter.... So fanatic terrorists bombed our embassies, engaged in other acts of war and devilry while Clinton and Co concerned themselves with focus groups and pollsters. The Republicans were obsessed with their witch hunt, while We, the People, watched Geraldo with OJ like fascination.... And when Clinton did dropped a couple of token bombs, Trent Lott and the rest of the smut police in Congress yelled "Wag the Dog"!!...

To me the Clinton Era, and Lewinsky Era, specifically, represented a huge failure of gov - a very dark period in our history. I often wonder if gov had responded responsibily to the attacks of 1998, could 9/11 have been avoided or averted?... Could those 3000 people have been saved if our elected officials taken gov serious? Could they have been saved if We, the People, had taken our roll in gov serious and demanded higher standards of those we elected to the highest levels of public service?... Tragically, we will never know the answer....

=========================================================================================

Posted by: mlsoft
In reply to: sarai who wrote msg# 5382 Date:2/16/2003 2:06:38 AM
Post #of 15643

sarai...

I find little to fault in your post. It sickens me that both sides put politics and personal benefit above the national good. I personally believe that George Bush is doing a better job of putting the national good first than most, as did Ronald Regan.

mlsoft