From: lparker@NOSPAM.emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: 20 Sep 2002 19:01:06 GMT
Organization: Emory University
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Sep 2002 19:01:06 GMT
In article ,
>"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
>> "Chris" wrote in message
>> > But he was in 1998 when they were first informed about the
>> > 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
>Sudan and let that fall through his fingertips. We might not have
>if Clinton would have extradited Bin Laden.
At the time, there was no evidence. When there was later and we asked
the Saudis, they refused to hold him.
>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).
> Before that date, we
>know he was part of the original World Trade Center bombings, and
>the Khobar Tower bombings, and part of the US Embassy bombing, but we
>have enought evidence to hold him?
How did we "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?
>who claimed in the same speech that he was "obsessed" with Bin Laden
>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 than
>obsessed about him.
>Now dont get me wrong, Im not blaming Clinton 100%, but I think he
>bear some responsibility in the events that happened last September.
Personally, I think FDR does. Teddy Roosevelt too.
>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
>there was enough evidence, even though they knew he took part in a
>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 justice
> Clinton should have had him extradited and done all he
>could to get the "needed evidence" that was required.
Like what? Torture? Fabricating evidence?
>We knew back when the
>bombings occurred that Bin Laden was behind them, why then after the
>did Clinton have questions about this. He could have very well held
>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
>could have extradited him to that country. In jail, whether here or
>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?
>You can say that the FBI / CIA might have had information about this
>Bush was in office, however those two departments are not in the
>leadership of Bush. Bush is not responsible for any lack of movement
>either office. It might have happened during Bush's watch, but the
>those departments are the ones responsible. I guess that teaches
>leave Clinton appointees in charge! Clinton had the offer in HIS
>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, but
>Clinton himself speaking, you cant deny that!
Newsmax has absolutely no credibility outside your right-wing fringe
>(on my computer when you
>click on it, you have to click on the play button to have it begin)