Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bill Clinton "lost" bin Laden?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
poskonig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-03 06:23 PM
Original message
Bill Clinton "lost" bin Laden?
Republicans are frequently talking about how Clinton "lost" bin Laden in the 1990s. Usually they talk about how his extradition from Sudan was "turned down," and then digs about the so-called "aspirin factory" are thrown in for fun. Some guy even wrote a book about it.

Are they correct?

If the context in which this events occurred could be explained, many would be happy. Liberals have not been on top of this minor issue, which means the conservative story will become truth if it is not refuted vocally over and over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-03 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. Don't Blame Clinton - By Joe Conason
http://www.44thad.org/opinion/DontBlameClinton.htm

See the section that starts with this paragraph:

Perhaps the most sensational charge against Clinton to emerge in the months since Sept. 11 is the dubious claim that he somehow let an offer from Sudan to turn over bin Laden slip through his fingers. Sullivan blatantly misrepresents a definitive article that appeared in the Washington Post on Oct. 3, 2001, on this topic. "The Sudanese government offered to hand over bin Laden to the United States," Sullivan writes. "Astonishingly, the Clinton administration turned the offer down." But that phony accusation is exploded by the very first sentence of the Post article, which says only that Sudan offered to "arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Composed Thinker Donating Member (874 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-03 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I was just about to mention Conason's book
He gives a solid explaination of what happened. It literally shoots down the nonsense from the right. The problem is that this is a myth that refuses to die.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rusty charly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-03 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. it doesn't "refuse to die"
the repugs are given thousands of hours of tv hours to repeat the myths and the hosts don't stop them. they sit and smile and say ok, that's one way to look at it, and on to the next question. i also think if they refuted every lie they tell, the talking head shows would just grind to a halt and the tv directors don't want that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
poskonig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-03 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Thanks for the link!
I've always dismissed the charges out of hand, since the thought of Clinton making his purpose in office to destroy America is strongly counter-intuitive. Nevertheless, it is nice to be able to empirically back it up.

Again, thanks! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-03 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. The USSR-Afghan War took place from 1979-1989...
...and the CIA was very active in supplying arms and ammunition to the anti-Soviet forces, to include the organization headed by Osama Bin Laden.

Following the end of the war with the Soviets, the various Afghan factions broke out in a circular firing squad Civil War which was eventually won by the Taliban. Poppy Bush was the Pres from 1988-1992...guess who lost Bin Laden by failing to provide the funding promised by the Bush Administration? Yep, that's correct...George H. W. Bush. That's why Osama learned to hate Americans.

Bill Clinton wasn't elected until 1992.

Case closed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbartko Donating Member (199 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-03 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
4. Clinton would have had him...
if it wasn't for that damn Steve Bartman getting in the way!

(Sorry, I'm tired and burned out and have nothing particularly mature to contribute)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-03 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
6. After bin Laden moved to Afghanistan,
Clinton maintained submarines armed with cruise missiles in striking distance of his camps. They could launch in, I believe, an hour of receiving intelligence of bin Laden's whereabouts. Three times, the White House received intelligence of bin Laden's presence, and that he was likely to remain at the location for at least an hour. Clinton wanted to order strikes each time, but each time, George Tenet strongly advised against them on security grounds. They didn't happen.

One of Bush's first orders on taking office in January 2001 was to remove the submarines.

The info is on Paul Thompson's timeline, supported by links to the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maccagirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-03 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Sounds like Tenet didn't want Bin Laden
caught on Clinton's watch eh? Clinton should have over-ridden him-but of course the military/intelligence community considered Clinton illegitimate and was always undermining him anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-03 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. Here is a quote from a General who served under Clinton and Bush...
"Clinton's advisors met nearly weekly on how to stop bin Laden...I didn't detect that kind of focus from the Bush adminsitration."
- Two Star General Donald Kerrick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donotpassgo Donating Member (867 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-03 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. Bill Clinton killed Jesus too and shot Reagan, and destroyed the moral
fabric of America because middle class conservative frigid prudes had no concept of what oral sex was until Bill Clinton taught their children how to do it by destroying the courts and putting homosexual friendly judges on the bench and forcing companies to use Affirmative Action to replace my undeserving golf buddy's kid with an undeserving minority and then Clinton's alliance with the world body made him import their hate of Jesus...because the Christian Jesus is the only possible God...and that alliance with the world causes the Communist federal government to not allow me to pray to a stone block inside of a courthouse BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbartko Donating Member (199 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-03 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Mr. Donotpassgo,
Is President Hillary really gonna eat my puppy, Sprinkles, like the NRA says she will?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maccagirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-03 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Hitlery Klintoon
is an evil spawn of Satan bent on world domination who is a lesbian who offed Vince Foster after their affair (sorry-I'll let someone else explain THAT one) and yes-she hates Sprinkles! Keep your pup safe!!

This post was brought to you by Sean Hannity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlavesandBulldozers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-03 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
10. while the moralists accused Clinton, UBL plotted our destruction
this was a great posted link. thanks

I remember the Republicans, during the cruise missile strikes, accusing Clinton of wagging the dog to distract from the Lewinsky scandal. Now they say he didn't do enough. This is a complete contradiction. And the article eloquently stated it

snip
"Several attempts were made on bin Laden's life, aside from the famous cruise missile launches that summer, which Sullivan and other Republicans reflexively denounced as an attempt to deflect attention from the Lewinsky scandal."
snip

The fact of the matter is that the moralist right in this country prevented the president from doing his job, by accusing Clinton of trying to distract them from the scandal at hand. Clinton was paralyzed militarily, and could not avenge the Embassy bombings adequately, simply because of the Republican grasp on the country and on the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-03 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
14. Seriously, if it really was Clinton's fault, wouldn't Bush have
pushed for more then 3 million dollars for investigating what happened leading up to the attacks in 9/11? He would have demanded that this information be touted constantly, with the Repukes screaming for Clinton's head.

Throw that cold water into the faces of the Repukes who try to claim it's Clinton's fault! In fact, demand that they get the investigation going to prove it!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrPrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-03 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
15. But Bin Laden
was in Korsovo...an easy target. (ergo is the tinfoil narrative is correct...CLARK could have got him)

Personally this thread only makes sense if you buy the 911 'narrative'--I am skeptical about a pracie of someone who 'liked' America and then turned his back on freedom!! preferring hard ascetism and tough times...

It reads about as interesting as a 'scorched' passport found in the pits of the World Trade Center v2.0
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov 12th 2018, 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC