Why did Clinton ignore Sudan for offering Bin Laden?

Question

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61251-2001Oct2

Yeah I posted a soarce you bobblehead libs... watch and learn.

Answer 1

Did you actually read your source? I mean just go back and read the first paragraph and that should clear things up for your.

However since Im sure you won't I will just tell you what it says. Sudan wanted to send Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia, ( of course) said no we don't want him. There was nothing the US could charge him with in an American court.

Answer 2

It was stated quite clearly in the article:

[The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.]

So my question, are you always this stupid or is today an exception?

Answer 3

"The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture".

How do you get "ignored" the offering from this? I'm quoting your source.

Answer 4

911 Commission said Sudan didn't offer bin Laden to the US during the Clinton years.

Reported for "bobblehead" insult.

Answer 5

This is a simple answer and not worthy of conspiratorial debate. The article itself, says why.

"Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture. "

"The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States," said Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then.

Same Source.

Answer 6

I heard in one occasion on the final minute photos confirmed an plane from i've got faith it became the U.A.E. or another royal family individuals ( of a u . s . a . that became meant to be an best pal of the U. S. ) at a camp in Afghanistan that they've been rather lots to sell off a bunch of cruise missiles on so as that they desperate to hold off via fact they did no longer prefer to alienate the "meant" best pal. yet another attempt became stopped with the aid of White residing house legal experts via fact of a few god is customary with of what criminal subject. i've got stated it earlier and that i will say it returned, we've painted ourselves right into a nook with those insane criminal rulings that handle terrorists like some adult adult males that knocked over a nook convenience keep somewhat than what they are definitely and only occasion after occasion of how we do exactly no longer in all risk get what the terrorists and others rather characterize, so we neglected Bin encumbered and others.

Answer 7

Did you actually read the article you "soarced"? All you have to do is read the first two paragraphs to see that the deal was contingent on the Saudi's taking custody, which they ultimately refused to do.

Answer 8

Clinton wasn't a man of action in my opinion. He made a mess that didn't show its ugly head until 2001.

Answer 9

Clinton was to busy playing golf to be bothered by something as bothersome as national security

Answer 10

He wasn't important then. He's not so important now either, thats what Bush said anyway about 7 months ago. Now who looks stupid you follower of president retardo.