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: lparker@NOSPAM.emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: 21 Sep 2002 20:09:31 GMT
Organization: Emory University
NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Sep 2002 20:09:31 GMT
In article ,
>"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
>> In article ,
>> "Chris" wrote:
>> >"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
>> >> "Chris" wrote in message
>> >> news:AMki9.firstname.lastname@example.org...
>> >> > But he was in 1998 when they were first informed about the
>> >> plans
>> >> > and they did nothing.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> That means he and Bush had about the same length of time to do
>> >The only problem is that Clinton had the ability to get Osama Bin
>> Laden from
>> >Sudan and let that fall through his fingertips. We might not have
>> had 9/11
>> >if Clinton would have extradited Bin Laden.
>> At the time, there was no evidence. When there was later and we
>> the Saudis, they refused to hold him.
>Please! It was reported back when the terrorist attacks I listed
>that Bin Laden was behind them.
"It was reported" is not evidence.
>> >Clinton, in his own words, stated that he was offered Bin Laden in
>> >however he didnt have enough evidence to hold him.
>> And that's the American way (up to Bush and Ashcroft, that is).
>Right and now you will tell me that you have been questioned about
>and your rights have been infringed.
>> > 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
>> >have enought evidence to hold him?
>> How did we "know" that?
>How did we not know that??
>> >That is absolutely ridiculous.
>> Could we have brought him to trial? Was there even enough evidence
>> for an indictment? If so, why wasn't there one?
>Thats the question of the day!
>> > Clinton,
>> >who claimed in the same speech that he was "obsessed" with Bin
>> >do what he had to do to get him. Members of his own cabinet have
>> >that Clinton rarely spoke of terrorism and Bin Laden as was less
>> >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
>> Personally, I think FDR does. Teddy Roosevelt too.
>and you believe in the toothfairy too? Come on dont be an idiot!
>> > It
>> >would be like the police officer who had the opportunity to pick
>> >suspected seriar killer, but decided against it because he didnt
>> >there was enough evidence, even though they knew he took part in a
>> number of
>> >killings in the past, then because of them not picking him up, he
>> >another 10 people.
>> I see. You advocating arresting people because you THINK they may
>> have committed a crime. Glad you're not running the nation's
>are you telling me that the police dont bring in suspects??
They don't HOLD them without evidence. They don't extradict without
strong evidence, usually an indictment.
>Are you telling
>me that we didnt have evidence enought to hold Bin Laden, if there
>evidence about Bin Laden why would Sudan even offer him up?
That's what has been reported, yes.
>Just because he
>would make a nice house guest?
>> > Clinton should have had him extradited and done all he
>> >could to get the "needed evidence" that was required.
>> Like what? Torture? Fabricating evidence?
>If Clinton was the one finding the evidence, it very well could have
>> >We knew back when the
>> >bombings occurred that Bin Laden was behind them, why then after
>> >did Clinton have questions about this. He could have very well
>> >Laden, and if in fact we had no case against him, he could have
>> >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
>> >anywhere, could have been much better than letting him go into
>> So we should arrest and detain people just because they might have
>> done something? Come on, you're John Ashcroft, right?
>Did I say arrest? I said he should have at least done more than he
Clinton came up with a plan to go after bin Laden, in late 2000. Bush
rejected it out of hand, just because Clinton had come up with it.
Bush did nothing about him for 8 months. Like Nero, Bush fiddled
while America burned.
>> >You can say that the FBI / CIA might have had information about
>> >Bush was in office, however those two departments are not in the
>> >leadership of Bush. Bush is not responsible for any lack of
>> >either office. It might have happened during Bush's watch, but
>> 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 and
>> >decided against it.
>> >You want to hear Clinton say that he had the offer:
>> >http://www.newsmax.com/clinton2.mp3 . It might be from NewsMax,
>> >Clinton himself speaking, you cant deny that!
>> Newsmax has absolutely no credibility outside your right-wing
>and you have no credibility outside your leftist fringe group. Face
>buddy, more people are aligned closer to me than like you!
>> >(on my computer when you
>> >click on it, you have to click on the play button to have it
>> >> Keith
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of