Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Sep 7, 2003.
Whoa, look at that top spin. Can anyone catch it before the whole thread is drawn into it?
The Clinton administration was offered the chance to nab bin Laden and turned them down. Bin Laden and 150 of his aides/family landed in Qatar to refuel on their way to Pakistan, and the Qatar authorities called up the U.S. asking what to do. The word from the administration was to let him go.
I'm sorry... did I just ruin the whole Bush-hating feeling of the thread?
i'd never heard of this. do you have a link?
It's all in a book entitled "Why America Slept" by Gerald Posner (I hope I got the name right...) I suggest you read the book. I'll do a quick google search to see if there's any online references to the research, and then I'll edit this post with a link.
I first learned of this when Mr. Posner came on Bill O'Reilly (keep opinions to self, keep thread on topic people) and talked about the book, and so I was interested, and so I bought it, and I thought it was a great read. Anyway, I'm off to google.
Here we go:
they have the usual listing of bits of information about the book without giving too much away, but it mentions:
"how the Clinton administration passed on an opportunity to arrest bin Laden when his jet refueled in Qatar"
Unfortunately, they seem to mess up formatting a lot, from the few pages I've seen on their sites.
When bin Laden leaves the Sudan on a chartered commercial airliner with 150 of his top aides and his family, he goes to Qatar to refuel on his way to Pakistan, Posner recounted to Fox News Bill OReilly Wednesday night.
Posner continued: And Qatar, being an ally of the U.S. calls up and says what should we do with this guy?
And the word comes back from the top of the [Clinton] administration let him land and proceed on to Pakistan.
This story has been debunked and yet Republicans keep propogating this garbage. The FBI and CIA never believed that Sudan never had anything substantive to offer regarding Bin Laden.
Supply some references. I'm interested in hearing both sides of this story.
"Big Lies" by Joe Conason, page 205.
regardless of the is-it-true-maybe-maybe-not clinton adminstration thing...
FAA has stopped all flights. the towers are down. bin laden is suspected immediately. so the bush administration allows several planes full of saudis, including some bin ladens, to fly around the country, then leave.
why was it so important for them to leave?
why did the administration allow it?
This is a complete and utter lie. Sudan had information as to the whereabouts of bin Laden and offered to capture him and hand him over the the Saudis NOT the US government. When the Clinton administration contacted the Saudis about the deal, they flatly refused. They Saudis have long been the benefactors of terror and have continued the trend during the current administration.
Also, Clinton launched several offensives against bin Laden, even though it was technically illegal to do so under federal law at the time. (That provision has been abolished during the current administration).
The following was a report I construct for Clinton's culpability in the 9/11 attacks. All of the following facts are true and I can back them up with links.
If people are going to come here and make statements they should do their research first. And please don't rely on a single source for you information, you'll get a skewed perspective.
BTW, most of that information from the write up was from Joe Conason's new book. The information was also referenced against other stories on the internet.
I highly recommend Conason's new book. It is very well written and offers some valuable contract to the right wing pundits that have enjoyed so much popularity recently.
Thanks for the info. FWIW Joe Conason has sort of made a career out of exposing what he calls right wing conspiracies. Not to say he's wrong, but he isn't exactly an unbiased observer.
I remember reading about this when it happened - Then, like a lot of stories, it was quickly buried.
Yeah, I always take what Conason says with a grain of salt. He holds an uncomfortably close position to some very left on the internet. But many of the points he makes in his book are dead on and, to my knowledge, factually accurate.
I don't know, does this story from those raving National Review left wing nutjobs affect the feeling any?
another interesting link here