Libs say Bush let Bin Laden go, but....?

Question

Billy Boy Clinton had several opportunities to capture Bin Laden and just shrugged it off along with Sandy Berger. Quite possibly 9/11 could have been avoidedhad Clinton been doing his "real job" in the oval office. Yet, you never hear the libs talk about this...

I will give you two sources... both of them from the liberal media! The Washington Post talks about Tora Bora. (where the libs claim Bush just let Bin Laden walk right out unharmed... practically escorted. As if "letting him go" would work out so well for him politically.) Tora Bora was in Dec. of 2001... just after 9/11. We have never prior fought an enemy of cowards that hide within the citizen ranks and don't identify themselves with a uniform. If you read it you will see that the information was suspect to begin with as stated by Rear Adm. Craig Quigley.

However, read the article in the LA Times and you will see that Bin Laden was all but handed to Clinton and he chose not to give it the time of day.

Here is Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16?language=printer

One quote from the article:

"We have never seen anything that was convincing to us at all that Osama bin Laden was present at any stage of Tora Bora -- before, during or after," Quigley said. "I know you've got voices in the intelligence community that are taking a different view, but I just wanted you to know our view as well."


LA Times:
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

Quote from article:

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.
As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

One more quote from the LA Times Article:

President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.


Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history

Chuck... you're right!... I forgot about that secret meeting in the White House with Bush and Bin Laden to destroy New York, the Pentagon and the very White House that Bush was staying in....

thevon.... am I not clearly pointing out two articles that show both opportunities... the difference being that one was an easy, repeditive offering... the other... not so easy. And yes, we did have some ties to him early on. Sometimes you work with the smaller fish to get to the bigger fish... and sometimes those smaller fish grow into the bigger fish.

Who cares... my friend... yes Bin Laden was a known threat through out Clinton's Administration... he was linked to Embassy bombings and to the bombing of the USS Cole... Clinton knew who he was and what the threat potential was.

Bert,

How long was it before we found Hitler? Point being, when you are well connected in a huge region its easy to hide. For you to suggest that our military is not actively working to find him shows a complete ignorance on your part. And yes, thank God Bush can look at the greater picture.... Bin Laden isn't the entire problem. He is one small cog. It would be a huge bonus to get him and I repeat... I am sure they are looking.

Did anyone throw Clinton under the bus for the first, second, third or fourth attacks? Here is the diference that you choose to ignore. CLINTON WAS HANDED BIN LADEN ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. After being suspect of several attacks.

And please... don't be so blind to the fact that when any President goes on Vacation, Republican or Democrat, that it is a real vacation away from work like a normal person would take. They still know what is going on and they still govern. Oh, and they also have something called a cabinet, they do stuff too!

Answer 1

In 1996, the CIA informed President Clinton, that they
had uncovered a plot to fly planes into the CIA building,
the plot was an Al-Qaeda plot and Clinton had the CIA
keeping tabs on Osama Bin Laden, in 1998 Clinton was
again informed that new information came up about Al-Qaeda
flying planes in to skyscrapers in New York.

Clinton had at least 3 chances to capture OSB, but he never
did a thing about doing so, the way I see it Clinton had
5 years of knowledge about Al-Qaeda, 3 of our Embassies
were bombed, the U.S.S. Cole attacked and each time
Clinton said "Those responsible for these actions, will be
hunted down and punished", well we all know that the only
thing he ever hunted down was more women to mess with.

Jimmy Carter, is the President that originally funded
Osama, giving him weapons and money, this was
supposedly to be used to aid in defending Afghanistan
from Russia.

Everyone knows that Sandy Berger is guilty of taking
secret documents from the C.I.A. at a time when
investigators were looking to see who knew what when
about 9/11, Berger, in my opinion, took documents that
would have proved beyond any doubt that Clinton was
well aware of the threat of Osama Bin Laden.

I remember when Clinton was interviewed about this
on Fox, he couldn't dance around the questions fast
enough, but they don't call him Slick Willey for nothing.

See the thumbs downs, that is because the liberals can
not tolerate the truth and most of them are envious of
Monica.

Answer 2

Everyone messes up, I think that people give Bush too hard of a time though.. People say he is the worst president in history but that isn't an accurate statement- if you based his term on what other presidents terms then there is a lot that could have done better. Honestly though he had 9/11, all of the horrible hurricanes and other devestating weather, he has the war. What did people want him to do- if we hadn't gone to war there would be just as many people mad about it. I am just glad that Clinton wasn't in term for all of this he couldn't even handle having an intern without screwing that up....literally....

Answer 3

Oh what could possibly not make sense about Bush letting Bin Ladin go? Oh yes, as we all know, nothing propels a political career more than failure to capture the most wanted man in America!

Are these the same people telling us our own govt blew up the twin towers??? It shames and discredits the liberal media to no end to be humoring these goofballs and giving them a voice.

Answer 4

I have no solid information eithe way, but Clinton apparantly had Bin Laden in his sights and let him go. Thes appears to be much more credible than the allegations against Bush. I do not think Bush is the brightest bulb in the package, but I do not think he is an outright traitor. I am not so sure about Clinton.

Answer 5

I dislike Bill Clinton because I'm a Democrat

but it was not the Clinton administration that flew all of Bin Laden's family members out of America the day after 9-11....protecting them from questioning.

Answer 6

The CIA funded Osama and his "minions", so I suggest you take a look at history before you blame Clinton (or Bush for that matter). Our politicians are corrupt, and they are all on the same side- the side that lines their pockets. Accept it and stop being blind.

Thanks for your question.

Answer 7

How about the answer you don't want to hear, because it goes against your "I want to be on the winning team" attitude you purvey: they all have messed up with Bin Laden. He was a friend of the White House going all the way back to Bush Sr. and Reagan, probably even Carter.

No one party thought he was dangerous.

If you are looking for a party to blame, you have plenty of choices.

Answer 8

your entire Clinton argument hinges on the words or one man...

some guy who claims to be an ambassador to the Sudan... that's not a news article, but an open letter...

HERE'S A HINT... news articles don't say "I did this" or "I did that"...

and the actual news articles are much more fuzzy on the incident...

and last but not least... and the ONLY REAL ARGUMENT HERE... is no one really cared about Osama... before 9-11... so it doesn't matter...

you didn't care, I didn't care, Bush didn't care, Clinton didn't care... no one in any of the congresses really cared...

you weren't feverishly writing letters to the president and congressmen at any time telling them to go after Osama and neither was I...

but, after 9-11... that's what I call "motivation" to get it done... and Bush hasn't... period

Answer 9

I beg to differ my friend. Was Bin Laden a threat to America at that time? If he was, how come he wasn't discussed? Also, why would Bill Clinton ignore Bin Laden if he knew he was a threat?

Answer 10

yeah..the liberals wanted Bush to invade pakistan.


.when Sandy Berger stole the related info from the National Archives relating to how Clinton was too busy and pre-occupied with what was in his pants to order bin Laden's
destructon..

add to that Clinton refusing to accept bin Laden from the Sudanese..before that.

it's all a joke how the libs shout down and revise the actual
things that happened..to Clinton bin Laden was a legal
issue not a threat..I am sure he extorted money from bin Laden's family to keep him free.