Clinton cause of 9/11?

Question

- In 1998 he had numerous chances to kill Osama, signed off on all the papers to do so but left the final decision to his Admin. who called it off due to women and children in the area.

- In 1999? (not sure date) Pres. Clinton sent cruise missles to kill Osama but NOTIFIED PAKASTAN before hand and they notified Osama and he got away.

What do you think?

SNIFF MY FINGER - you will be reported

notyou311, KNOW YOU FACTS DUMASS - NOT ONE PAGE IN CLINTONS REPORT DID HE WARN BUSH ABOUT A UN AND COMING ATTACK.

rainfingers, CLINTON STAYED ON TOP OF IT? HAHAHAHA HE WAS PRES. DURING THE USA EMBASSY BOMBING AND THE USS COLE BOMBING BY BIN LADEN. GOOD TRY THO!

WAY WAY TO MANY IGNORANT DEMS. POSTING

gamer2, HE DID SEND TROOPS TO FIND HIM YOU IGNORANT LITTLE BOY, WAR IN AFGANISTAN??? DUHHHHH

DeMon W, YOU COMMENTS ARE FAIR, ALTHOUGH I THINK THE US COULD OF TIMED WHEN WE TOLD PAKISTAN BETTER SO OSAMA WOULD NOT OF BEEN NOTIFIED (IF POSSIBLE)

Answer 1

The First WTC Attack
Clinton had been in office just 38 days when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000. Although it was later learned that the bombing was the work of terrorists who hoped to topple one of the towers into the other and kill as many as 250,000 people, at first it was not clear that the explosion was the result of terrorism. The new president’s reaction seemed almost disengaged. He warned Americans against “overreacting” and, in an interview on MTV, described the bombing as the work of someone who “did something really stupid.”

From the start, Clinton approached the investigation as a law-enforcement issue. In doing so, he effectively cut out some of the government’s most important intelligence agencies. For example, the evidence gathered by FBI agents and prosecutors came under the protection of laws mandating grand-jury secrecy — which meant that the law-enforcement side of the investigation could not tell the intelligence side of the investigation what was going on. “Nobody outside the prosecutorial team and maybe the FBI had access,” says James Woolsey, who was CIA director at the time. “It was all under grand-jury secrecy.”

Another problem with Clinton’s decision to assign the investigation exclusively to law enforcement was that law enforcement in the new administration was in turmoil. When the bomb went off, Clinton did not have a confirmed attorney general; Janet Reno, who was nominated after the Zoë Baird fiasco, was awaiting Senate approval. The Justice Department, meanwhile, was headed by a Bush holdover who had no real power in the new administration. The bombing barely came up at Reno’s Senate hearings, and when she was finally sworn in on March 12, neither she nor Clinton mentioned the case. (Instead, Clinton praised Reno for “sharing with us the life-shaping stories of your family and career that formed your deep sense of fairness and your unwavering drive to help others to do better.”) In addition, at the time the bombing investigation began, the FBI was headed by William Sessions, who would soon leave after a messy forcing-out by Clinton. A new director, Louis Freeh, was not confirmed by the Senate until August 6.

Amid all the turmoil at the top, the investigation missed some tantalizing clues pointing toward a far-reaching conspiracy. In April 1995, for example, terrorism expert Steven Emerson told the House International Relations Committee that there was information that “strongly suggests . . . a Sudanese role in the World Trade Center bombing. There are also leads pointing to the involvement of Osama bin Laden, the ex-Afghan Saudi mujahideen supporter now taking refuge in Sudan.” Two years later, Emerson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the same thing. In recent years, according to an exhaustive New York Times report, “American intelligence officials have come to believe that [ringleader Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman] and the World Trade Center bombers had ties to al-Qaeda.”

But the Clinton administration stuck with its theory that the bombing was the work of a loose network of terrorists working apart from any government sponsorship. Intelligence officials who might have thought otherwise were left out in the cold — “I made repeated attempts to see Clinton privately to take up a whole range of issues and was unsuccessful,” Woolsey recalls — and some of the nation’s most critical intelligence capabilities went unused. In the end, the U.S. tried six suspects in the attack. All were convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Another key suspect, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was released after being held by the FBI in New Jersey and fled to Baghdad, where he is living under the protection of the Iraqi government. Today, with many leads gone cold, intelligence officials concede they will probably never know who was behind the attack.

Answer 2

Here is one for you to chew on.First off the 9/11 Commission didn't put the blame on anyone in particular.They spread it around.Clinton,Bush the FBI,CIA and the list goes on.I for one after reading the report thinks most of the blame should go on the FBI and CIA.They blew it.They had numerous chances to potentially stop the whole thing.they were given all kinds of evidence that something was going down.Now try thinking bout this for a minute if you want to believe that Clinton could have stopped 9/11 because it was planned on his watch how about the first WTC attack being planned on Bush Sr watch.And how about the fact that our govt was a huge supporter of Bin Laden back when he was fighting against the Russians.That was while Reagan was in office.It seems this countries Intelligence community is a joke.So please educate yourself and stop with the partisan rhetoric from both sides.The govt as a whole failed on 9/11 not just one President.

Answer 3

Blowback is the real cause.

The US sent the CIA into Iran to overthrow the legitimate democratic leader and installed the Shah, who did whatever the US wanted, but also commited human rights atrocities on his people.

The Iranians revolted and overthrew the Shah.

Then the US sent arms and military support to Sadaam Hussein in Iraq to war against Iran. Rumsfelf himself negotiated many of the deals (hence the joke - Iraq had WMD's, we know because we have the receipts). Then Sadaam invades Kuwait, and the US responds by staging troops in Saudi Arabia. (needless to say, saudi arabia, kuwait, and iraq have most of the worlds oil supply).

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, and the reason Osama bin Laden gave for 9/11 was the staging of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

See the movie "Why we fight."

Answer 4

Clinton knew about Osama Bin Laden. Oliver North was one of those who alerted him to him and instead of addressing the issue they prosecuted North and Clinton did nothing with the information he was given. He many times knew of Bin Laden's whereabouts yet did nothing to take him out and prior to the attacks knew about the plans for one and did nothing about it.

Clinton was one of the many who was responsible for not stopping the attacks but the ones who attacked were the cause of 9/11.

Answer 5

Watch to Much Tv Clinton did give the go ahead on Bin Ladin in real Life.The defense department told Pakastan so they wouldn't
think they wass under attack.

Answer 6

Even if those things are true clinton isnt the cuase. The majority of the american people are considered infidels because they arent muslims. Therefore, it is their belief that we should convert or be killed. Not allof them beleive this however as i have tlaked to several of them and they are really nice people. But thats thereason for 9/11. Whether ornot it could have been prevented im not sure. But no clinton was not the cause. and im a republican,

Answer 7

How about the Presidential Daily Brief on August 6, 2001 that said Osama bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, and Bush did NOTHING? At least Clinton tried to stay on top of it.

Answer 8

you should learn historical past greater valuable, the region and motives premiere as much as 9/11 began some time past some say hundreds of years yet we do understand that Lawerence of Arabia and the negotiations he held with the Arabs and the subsequent breaking of the contract by ability of the Allies after ww2 has had a great influence yet quite the Jews and Christians have been at odds with the Islamics for hundreds of years and it will all play out interior the years yet to return via fact the Bible say's that is going to.

Answer 9

No.

Lack of border and port security and lameduck immigration laws have been the standard in our country for decades.

I often said, it's not if another 9/11 will occur on our soil, but more of when?????

We need to demand our goverenment strengthen border and port security and definately revamp the lameduck immigration laws currently in existance. Remember the Government works for us and not the other way around. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!

Answer 10

Did Clinton cause it? Not really. Did he do all that could be done to disrupt Al Qaeda? Not no but hell no. He had several years and numerous chances to do something but there was always an excuse.

UBL wasn't on civilian radar before 9/11. But he was certainly on the government radar.