How did we get here? It seems clear that the storm clouds of war began to gather during the Clinton presidency, which was paralyzed by dangerous indecisiveness in combating bin Laden. President Clinton and his top officials knew that the archterrorist posed a real threat to our way of life--beginning with his gunners shooting at American soldiers in Somalia in 1993, a plot to kill Americans in a Yemen hotel, and escalating into simultaneous bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa--which killed 224 people--and the assault on the USS Cole a year ago this week. Yet the administration did little to thwart this menace. Consider a seemingly small event in 1996 to which future historians may devote volumes as a turning point that set the world on a course toward war.
That year the government of Sudan offered to arrest bin Laden, then living in its capital city, and turn him over to American authorities, the Washington Post and several British newspapers reported.
2006-08-21 13:48:15 · 22 answers · asked by slyry75 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
from the Wall Street Journal
Sudan's Angle
How Clinton passed up an opportunity to stop Osama bin Laden.
BY RICHARD MINITER
Monday, October 8, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT
2006-08-21 13:49:34 · update #1
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rminiter/?id=95001289
2006-08-21 13:50:03 · update #2
Because according to Clinton, he had "No legal reason in which to hold bin laden" which is downright BS because this was after the WTC bombings in 1993 and they know he was behind them.
2006-08-21 13:55:18 · answer #1 · answered by nighthawk_842003 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There's a whole lot to the story that has never been revealed to the American people. And if Bin Laden was so well known as Ollie North and others like to pretend, why didn't the Bush Administration make him a priority when they took power. They didn't and if fact, Bush began cutting funding for anti-terrorist programs and didn't read many of the intelligence briefings regarding Bin-Laden. This is of course old news. Condi Rice basically fessed up to it during the hearings.
But let's remember that Carlos the Jackal was apprehended during the Clinton Administration. At the time he was much better known to the American public than Bin-Laden, who if we all remember was a product of CIA training.
So again, there's a much deeper story here than any of us knows.
And let's stop blaming Clinton for our current woes. You people never gave him any credit when he was in office. All I heard for 8 years was conservative whining and how it was Reagan's economy....so leave the guy alone and focus your attention on the current clown in office. He's doing way more to wreck this fair land than Clinton ever dreamed of and Bush takes way more vacation. Imagine the damage if he really took his job seriously.
2006-08-21 13:57:16 · answer #2 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He said in a television interveiw that it would not have been legal to take him at that time. I think it was meet the press about 6 months ago. I am sure that he had advisers that told him that. He may have did the wrong thing for the right reasons.
edit, please do not blame the present situation in the middle east on Clinton. Bush was in office almost a full 9 months before 911, he gets intelligence briefings every day on what is happining in the world. His people had to know that something was in the works and would have supplied him with that information. The question is why wasn't their more done to prevent it.
2006-08-21 13:55:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because at the time (someone correct me if I'm wrong) Bin Laden was a freedom fighter and an ally to the United States and fought against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.
2006-08-21 13:56:03 · answer #4 · answered by Lisa E 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bin Laden secretly promised him 2 virgins.
2006-08-21 13:52:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who knows, lack of hard evidence maybe? Nothing worse than putting someone like that on trial, then not having the proof needed to actually convict him. It would have been nice not having him around though so people will blame somebody, and I guess Clinton is that one.
2006-08-21 13:55:09 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ben Laden is a Prince of Saudi Arabia.
It is against time honored tradition to take Royalty prisoners.
Go big Red Go
2006-08-21 13:58:13 · answer #7 · answered by 43 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ha you guys are so predictable - if Bush farted in an elevator you'd blame Clinton.
Truth is 9/11 happened on Ws watch. He'll go down in history as the guy who let it happen and then let Bin Laden get away. Sucks when you can't blame it on someone else doesn't it?
2006-08-21 14:09:57 · answer #8 · answered by Dastardly 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
GOOD QUESTION!!! Hey the man was busy, covering up all of the people who disagreed with him who mysteriously died, banging fat chicks with cigars, giving Rich his pardon, fighting off all the women who said he raped them etc so on.Just think, if he was actually acting like a President and got Laden, 9-11 wouldn't of happened
2006-08-21 13:56:43 · answer #9 · answered by itsallover 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He probably bribed Slick Willy with a box of cigars and a dozen interns.
2006-08-21 13:54:22 · answer #10 · answered by fishing66833 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋