The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most ISP NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 17:21:55 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:17:23 +0000 (UTC)
"Chris" wrote in message
> "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
> > "Chris" wrote in message
> > news:AMki9.firstname.lastname@example.org...
> > > But he was in 1998 when they were first informed about the terrorists
> > plans
> > > and they did nothing.
> > >
> > >
> > That means he and Bush had about the same length of time to do something
> The only problem is that Clinton had the ability to get Osama Bin Laden
> Sudan and let that fall through his fingertips. We might not have had
> if Clinton would have extradited Bin Laden.
> Clinton, in his own words, stated that he was offered Bin Laden in 1996,
> however he didnt have enough evidence to hold him. Before that date, we
> know he was part of the original World Trade Center bombings, and part of
> the Khobar Tower bombings, and part of the US Embassy bombing, but we
> have enought evidence to hold him? That is absolutely ridiculous.
> who claimed in the same speech that he was "obsessed" with Bin Laden didnt
> do what he had to do to get him. Members of his own cabinet have refuted
> that Clinton rarely spoke of terrorism and Bin Laden as was less than
> obsessed about him.
> Now dont get me wrong, Im not blaming Clinton 100%, but I think he has to
> bear some responsibility in the events that happened last September. It
> would be like the police officer who had the opportunity to pick up a
> suspected seriar killer, but decided against it because he didnt know if
> there was enough evidence, even though they knew he took part in a number
> killings in the past, then because of them not picking him up, he killed
> another 10 people.
A simplistic view at best.
Frankly the US has a history of being less than concerned
about terrorism outside its borders. T
> Clinton should have had him extradited and done all he
> could to get the "needed evidence" that was required.
Last I checked the President of the USA didnt oversee
We knew back when the
> bombings occurred that Bin Laden was behind them, why then after the fact
> did Clinton have questions about this. He could have very well held Bin
> Laden, and if in fact we had no case against him, he could have assisted
> other countries who might have a more valid case against Bin Laden and we
> could have extradited him to that country. In jail, whether here or
> anywhere, could have been much better than letting him go into
> You can say that the FBI / CIA might have had information about this when
> Bush was in office, however those two departments are not in the direct
> leadership of Bush.
Then that applies to Clinton too
> Bush is not responsible for any lack of movement by
> either office.
Of course he is , he's the head of the Executive branch.
The simple fact is that Dubya really didnt care much
about foreign policy prior to 9/11 but in any event I dont
expect the President to have to personally chase down
every suspected terrorist
> It might have happened during Bush's watch, but the heads of
> those departments are the ones responsible. I guess that teaches Bush to
> leave Clinton appointees in charge! Clinton had the offer in HIS hands
> decided against it.
> You want to hear Clinton say that he had the offer:
Not particularly, I've heard it before
> http://www.newsmax.com/clinton2.mp3 . It might be from NewsMax, but its
> Clinton himself speaking, you cant deny that! (on my computer when you
> click on it, you have to click on the play button to have it begin)
I could give a damm about either being a Brit but the fact
remains that it was during Dubya's presidency that
the attack and the preparations for it took place.
To an outsider the fractured nature of the US security
apparatus with the FBI, CIA, the state dept and NSA all jealously
guarding their own fiefdoms seems much more of an issue
than who was President.
Its now clear that individual govt depts all had pieces of the
jigsaw but were less than open in their dealings with each
other. Thus we had the CIA having files on some of the
attackers as suspected terrorists but not passing on details
to the State dept and INS resulting in their visa applications being OK'd
Similarly the FBI were not notified when Atta was spotted
acting suspiciously on various foreign trips.
These structural weaknesses still remain.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of