Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 8:22 pm
You last visited January 23, 2017, 7:51 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Clintonistas assail ABC's "The Path to 9/11"

Published:

Wow, the Clintonistas are having a cow over airing of a docudrama about what lead up to 9-11 and want it censored.  Bet they had a party when they watched Fahren-hype 9-11 which is a compilation of conspiracy theories, the majority of which have been debunked especially how a plane hitting each of the twin towers brought them down.  There's even been a documentary on PBS which explains the physics of why.

Anyway back to the howling......  Seems what's fair for a seated President should be just fine for a has-been bunch of residents whose actions clearly precipitated 9-11. 

Just perhaps the ABC docudrama strikes too close to the heart of the truth damage control has been done to bury.  Big Grin

Next section in Clinton's own voice AND TRANSCRIPT OF HIS WORDS .... has been voice printed and verified and there exists a video of the speech too ... he explains not extraditing bin Laden when offered by the Sudan.  If he took bin Laden into custody 9-11 wouldn't have happened on American soil and history would be on a different track right now.


 

Clinton admitted that he turned down the Sudanese offer during a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association. The address was audiotaped by NewsMax.com and videotaped by the LIA.
However, the LIA had declined to make a copy of their video available until the 9/11 Commission requested it last month. Meanwhile, the Clinton audio soundfile    http://www.newsmax.com/clinton2.mp3
has been available on NewsMax.com since August 2002.

TRANSCRIPT:

Ex-President Clinton's Remarks on Osama bin Laden
Delivered to the Long Island Association's Annual Luncheon
Crest Hollow Country Club, Woodbury, NY
Feb. 15, 2002

Question from LIA President Matthew Crosson:

CROSSON: In hindsight, would you have handled the issue of terrorism, and al-Qaeda specifically, in a different way during your administration?

CLINTON: Well, it's interesting now, you know, that I would be asked that question because, at the time, a lot of people thought I was too obsessed with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

And when I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours.

I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out.

We also bombed a chemical facility in Sudan where we were criticized, even in this country, for overreaching. But in the trial in New York City of the al-Qaeda people who bombed the African embassy, they testified in the trial that the Sudanese facility was, in fact, a part of their attempt to stockpile chemical weapons.

So we tried to be quite aggressive with them. We got - uh - well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

We then put a lot of sanctions on the Afghan government and - but they inter-married, Mullah Omar and bin Laden. So that essentially the Taliban didn't care what we did to them.

Now, if you look back - in the hindsight of history, everybody's got 20/20 vision - the real issue is should we have attacked the al-Qaeda network in 1999 or in 2000 in Afghanistan.

Here's the problem. Before September 11 we would have had no support for it - no allied support and no basing rights. So we actually trained to do this. I actually trained people to do this. We trained people.

But in order to do it, we would have had to take them in on attack helicopters 900 miles from the nearest boat - maybe illegally violating the airspace of people if they wouldn't give us approval. And we would have had to do a refueling stop.

And we would have had to make the decision in advance that's the reverse of what President Bush made - and I agreed with what he did. They basically decided - this may be frustrating to you now that we don't have bin Laden. But the president had to decide after Sept. 11, which am I going to do first? Just go after bin Laden or get rid of the Taliban?

He decided to get rid of the Taliban. I personally agree with that decision, even though it may or may not have delayed the capture of bin Laden. Why?

Because, first of all the Taliban was the most reactionary government on earth and there was an inherent value in getting rid of them.

Secondly, they supported terrorism and we'd send a good signal to governments that if you support terrorism and they attack us in America, we will hold you responsible.

Thirdly, it enabled our soldiers and Marines and others to operate more safely in-country as they look for bin Laden and the other senior leadership, because if we'd have had to have gone in there to just sort of clean out one area, try to establish a base camp and operate.

So for all those reasons the military recommended against it. There was a high probability that it wouldn't succeed.

Now I had one other option. I could have bombed or sent more missiles in. As far as we knew he never went back to his training camp. So the only place bin Laden ever went that we knew was occasionally he went to Khandahar where he always spent the night in a compound that had 200 women and children.

So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill 200 women and children that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him.

Now, after he murdered 3,100 of our people and others who came to our country seeking their livelihood you may say, "Well, Mr. President, you should have killed those 200 women and children."

But at the time we didn't think he had the capacity to do that. And no one thought that I should do that. Although I take full responsibility for it. You need to know that those are the two options I had. And there was less than a 50/50 chance that the intelligence was right that on this particular night he was in Afghanistan.

Now, we did do a lot of things. We tried to get the Pakistanis to go get him. They could have done it and they wouldn't. They changed governments at the time from Mr. Sharif to President Musharraf. And we tried to get others to do it. We had a standing contract between the CIA and some groups in Afghanistan authorizing them and paying them if they should be successful in arresting and/or killing him.

So I tried hard to - I always thought this guy was a big problem. And apparently the options I had were the options that the President and Vice President Cheney and Secretary Powell and all the people that were involved in the Gulf War thought that they had, too, during the first eight months that they were there - until Sept. 11 changed everything.

But I did the best I could with it and I do not believe, based on what options were available to me, that I could have done much more than I did. Obviously, I wish I'd been successful. I tried a lot of different ways to get bin Laden 'cause I always thought he was a very dangerous man. He's smart, he's bold and committed.

But I think it's very important that the Bush administration do what they're doing to keep the soldiers over there to keep chasing him. But I know - like I said - I know it might be frustrating to you. But it's still better for bin Laden to worry every day more about whether he's going to see the sun come up in the morning than whether he's going to drop a bomb, another bomb somewhere in the U.S. or in Europe or on some other innocent civilians. (END OF TRANSCRIPT)

"Clinton Administration Officials Assail ABC's 'The Path to 9/11'

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 7, 2006; A09

 

Top officials of the Clinton administration have launched a preemptive strike against an ABC-TV "docudrama," slated to air Sunday and Monday, that they say includes made-up scenes depicting them as undermining attempts to kill Osama bin Laden.

Former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright called one scene involving her "false and defamatory." Former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger said the film "flagrantly misrepresents my personal actions." And former White House aide Bruce R. Lindsey, who now heads the William J. Clinton Foundation, said: "It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006090601819_pf.html
Entry #555

Comments

1.
ToddComment by Todd - September 7, 2006, 1:48 pm
I'll tell you, when I saw that article on Drudge I let out a belly-laugh! Hearing how the Clinton's are squirming brightens up the day. The more they squirm, the more truth I know the story has.

Bill Clinton let Bin Laden go, and that's all there is to it. And that is ABSOLUTE FACT, because he said so in his own words. He was offered Bin Laden by Syria when his traiing camps were located there, and Clinton declined the offer to take him into custody, claiming that he did not break any United States laws!

The liberal spin machines do everything in their power to distract from that fact, but they cannot escape Bill Clinton's own words, where he tells that story. (He even denied saying it at one point.)

I think it's just great that ABC will show how the Clinton presidency was all about spinning the Monica Lewinski scandal. That's an early Christmas present!
2.
emilygComment by emilyg - September 7, 2006, 3:03 pm
and let us see how the secret prisons spin.
3.
konaneComment by konane - September 7, 2006, 3:14 pm
Those have been in exitstence since way back in the 60's or earlier .... don't kid yourself about that.
4.
ToddComment by Todd - September 7, 2006, 3:23 pm
My comment should have read "Sudan" rather than "Syria".
5.
konaneComment by konane - September 7, 2006, 3:28 pm
http://abc.go.com/site/contactus.html      Contact form link to contact ABC about airing "The Path to 9-11".

I want to see it uncensored, uncut and like it was filmed.
6.
JAP69Comment by JAP69 - September 7, 2006, 7:16 pm
I heard late today that the docudrama is going to be edited and censored.
ABC
appeasing bill clinton
7.
konaneComment by konane - September 7, 2006, 7:21 pm
Well the media loved and protected him while in office so goooooooo figure!!! Thanks for the info but not at all surprised.
8.
ToddComment by Todd - September 8, 2006, 7:14 am
Who wants to lay odds that they are going to cancel the broadcast altogether? If ABC airs this, I'm sure Madam Hillary will do her interviews on the Today show, rather than GMA.
9.
konaneComment by konane - September 8, 2006, 9:24 am
Why stop there?? She has her very own little cheerleader in Katy so milk it for all it's worth.

Absolutely amazing .... conservatives show civility at the airing of Fahrenhype 911, 6 years of conspiracy theories to rival anything someone criminally insane could dream up, all types of shrill insults. Yet when it comes time to take what's been dished they don't have the character to stand up and take it with courage. [insert picture of felines here]

Why let the truth come out when history can be re-written via revisionism then boob-tube feed it to the gullible and limited?????

The left upholds first amendment rights only if they're the ones doing the talking.

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.