We could've had Osama before 9/11

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by derinda, Jan 5, 2004.

  1. derinda macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    #1
    Clinton Administration Freed Bin Laden's Banker

    A Saudi national known to investigators as Osama bin Laden's "banker" was apprehended inside the U.S. in 1994 - only to be set free by the Clinton administration in a decision that was considered a "massive loss" in the war on terrorism by U.S. intelligence officials.

    Bin Laden brother-in-law Mohammed Jamal Khalifa was believed to be "the real money man" behind the scenes for the 9/11 mastermind, reports investigative journalist Peter Lance, in his comprehensive overview of the 9/11 attacks, "1,000 Years For Revenge: International Terrorism and the FBI."

    The bin Laden relative was involved most intensively in bankrolling Ramzi Yousef, the operations chief for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, who conceived the plan later adopted by bin Laden to hijack airliners and fly them into the Twin Towers.

    Convicted of murder in Jordan, Khalifa was picked up on a fraud rap by INS agents in San Francisco. Lance writes that at the time, Khalifa "was in the process of funding Yousef's Bojinka and Pope John Paul II assassination plots - even as Yousef was laying the groundwork for what became the 9/11 attacks."

    Documents found on his person indicated that the bin Laden brother-in-law was a major cog in the global terror machine. Based on that evidence, the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco pushed to have him held for questioning.

    But the Clinton State Department had other ideas. Reports Lance:

    "Secretary of State Warren Christopher wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno on Jan. 5, 1995, arguing that 'to permit Mr. Khalifa to remain at large inside the United States in light of his alleged activities and criminal conviction in Jordan . . . . would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.'"

    "Of course," notes the author, "the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco wasn't asking for Khalifa to be released, merely held for questioning. Khalifa had traveled the world as Osama bin Laden's 'banker.' He was a potential intelligence gold mine."

    Secretary Christopher, however, prevailed. Khalifa was deported to Jordan, where, at trial, the murder witness recanted. Bin Laden's banker was promptly set free.

    U.S. counterterrorism officials were dumbfounded by the administration's decision to let Khalifa go. "Not even speaking in retrospect, but contemporaneous with what the intelligence community knew about bin Laden, Khalifa's deportation was unreal," CIA counterterrorism analyst Jacob L. Boesen told the author.

    Concludes Lance: "In light of what we now know. . . Khalifa's release has to be considered one of the most grievous instances of negligence in the years leading up to 9/11."

    Little more than a year after the Clinton administration let bin Laden's banker get away, President Clinton would personally turn down an offer for Osama bin Laden's arrest and extradition to the U.S. by Sudan.

    Story Here
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    Re: We could've had Osama before 9/11

    this has been debunked
     
  3. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #3
    False! False! False! False! False! False!

    Go here for more info: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=485920#post485920

    Anyone who prints this information as fact loses a hell of a lot of credibility with me. The details of the actual offer are widely available on the internet and only the most ardent Clinton-haters would print this version of the story.

    Its amazing how misinformation lives on even after repeated debunkings. :rolleyes:

    Taft
     
  4. DavisBAnimal macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #4
    I think more alarming than this guy getting let go way back in '94 is the whole story of all those Bin Ladens getting a free trip home immediately following 9/11 - where they were flown by the Saudi Government first to Boston then to Paris even during the Federal ban on flying, and without questioning from the FBI.

    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011112fa_FACT3

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60F14F63F590C738FDDA00894D9404482

    That was under GW's watch - he let these guys go without an investigation? BS.

    Davis
     
  5. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #5
    Looking over the website, I see that my lack of trust of this news source was well founded.

    On a "news story" linked to from the main page, they describe Rush Limbaughs continuing plight. Throughout the story they insert many obviously biased statements, then cap off the story with this line: "Editor's Note: Read about Rush Limbaugh and the media war against him CLICK HERE."

    None of this immediately invalidates the point of the original story. However, before I believe the details of the story, I'd like to hear about it from a more reputable news source with less obvious bias. I'd also prefer it was from a source that didn't reprint easily debunked conservative myths in their stories.

    Taft
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Not this hooey again. This must be about as annoying to me as it is to a conservative every time some liberal spouts off about how "Bush wasn't elected".

    Maybe we can make a forum sticky that mentions this so it never goes far down the list, since it seems to come up so often.;)
     
  7. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #7
    Ahh ... mac, Bush wasn't elected. Selected, yes, elected, no. ;) Now, as the old comic book character used to say, "Flame On!"
     
  8. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    I gave up on that long ago. It really doesn't matter how he got there (outside of wanting to see elections run smoother in the future) he's there and he's in charge like it or not. Grousing about it at this point is just not productive IMHO.
     
  9. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #9
    From the viewpoint of what can be done about it, I agree. It is long over and his first term is entering his last year. From the point of view of the reforms that need to be done in our electoral system, starting with the abolishment of the electoral college, in order that it never happens again -- well, it has only just begun.

    When we can be sure that election lists are not manipulated to disallow voters more likely to vote for one candidate or that a campaign can the use of thugs to intimidate vote counting or simply we don't have the election of a candidate who did not receive the most votes - then I will say that it maybe over. Not until then.
     

Share This Page