Did in fact Bill "bloejob" Clinton pass up during his watch offers from Sudan to hand over bin Laden?

Question

" Bill Clinton also often weighs in with ideas on the Middle East. But during his two terms he passed up an offer from Sudan to hand over bin Laden. Shortly afterwards, the terrorist openly threatened us: “To kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim.” "
(V D Hanson, Back to the Future? The Mideast landscape, 26 Jul 2007)

Comments? Insights? Additional information?

Let's focus on the question, but regarding S Hussein, he was complicit with the first 9/11, the first attempt at the WTC, the assassination of Bush Sr, the overt support of terrorism, and the harboring of AlQ in Iraq at least as early as 2001. Some analysts pin his aiding AlQ to 1995. And why wouldn't he after Desert Storm arrested his aggression in the Middle East?

Answer 1

Yeah its true, he did becaue he did not want to piss Osama off. It was a true missed opportunity. The Sudan is now being ravaged by Muslims committing genocide there and black Congressional leaders have urged Bush to send troops there to intervene. Thats kind of odd even in todays pre election political world because those same Congressmen criticize the military and yet they want to deploy troops to the Sudan. The Sudan wanted Osama out of their country when Clinton was President and he declined to take action even though Osama was linked to the bombing of the USS Cole and to the bombing of the World Trade Center the first time (when Bill was President). When the barking dogs on these sites bark about one candidate or another or lib/conserv baloney I wish they would consider that we would be better off if we all looked at larger pictures than just election snapshots. I am a lifelong Dem, liked much of what Clinton did but have to admit that Bush has been better on terrorism than Bill was or Gore or Kerry would have been. We are at war, well beyond Iraq and for years to come and we need to stop arguing like we are on different bowling teams.

Answer 2

I don't exactly know the context of that offer. It's possible Clinton didn't trust Sudanese enough to take such offer. How trust worthy was Sudanese back then? Today?

Whatever the reason may have been it sure would be spun every which direction you can imagine by people who get hold of information like this one. This is gold. For Clinton haters and likes.

This is no different than people keep mentioning that famous memo to Bush administration that said something like 'Usama determined to attack US' shortly before 9/11. Bush or Rice claim they don't remember such thing, but people keep bringing it up.

I don't see difference between that and Clinton thing.

Answer 3

I never knew that,but I'm not really surprised. The Clinton
Administration was widely known to be weak in the area
of foreign policy,and indecisive when it came to Bin Laden.
After his term of office ended and it was too late,he was
quoted saying he regretted not going after Osama when he
could have.

For all his faults,including being a bit of a do-nothing,Clinton
is still more highly regarded than the current President-who
goes to the other extreme and is more like a bull in a china shop.

Answer 4

Clinton might have passed up on it, but it seems as if Bush has pretty much done the same. We have 11,000 troops in Afghanistan "looking" for Osama, yet 120,000 in Iraq fighting terrorists that wouldn't be there if not for our troops to begin with.

Answer 5

If that's true, then thats almost as bad (but not quite) as GW Bush invading Iraq -who had nothing to do with 9/11- instead of putting all our efforts into going after the terrorists DIRECTLY INVOLVED with 9/11, including Bin Laden.

After 6 years, Bin Laden is STILL running free. Go GW!!!!

-to hell, that is!!!!