Clinton had Osama in his sights...and didn't fire - P2P-Zone

adonai · 21-03-04, 10:09 PM

Quote:

As the 9/11 commission investigates what Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush might have done to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, one piece of evidence the commission will examine is a videotape secretly recorded by a CIA plane high above Afghanistan. The tape shows a man believed to Osama bin Laden walking at a known al-Qaida camp.

The question for the 9/11 commission: If the CIA was able to get that close to bin Laden before 9/11, why wasn’t he captured or killed? The videotape has remained secret until now.

Over the next three nights, NBC News will present this incredible spy footage and reveal some of the difficult questions it has raised for the 9/11 commission.

In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing killed six people.

In 1998, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa killed 224.

Both were the work of al-Qaida and bin Laden, who in 1998 declared holy war on America, making him arguably the most wanted man in the world.

In 1998, President Clinton announced, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.”

NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

Link

span · 21-03-04, 10:44 PM

welcome to the fray my evil co-conspirator

JackSpratts · 21-03-04, 10:45 PM

well before 911, bush's terrorism czar asked the administrtion to eliminate osama. fearing a new and major attack against america he gave the whitehouse a plan to bomb al-qaeda. they could have got osama. bush wasn't interested.

- js.

span · 21-03-04, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JackSpratts
well before 911 bush's terrorism czar asked the bush administrtion to eliminate osama. fearing a new and major attack against america he gave the whitehouse a plan to bomb al-qaeda. they could have got osama. bush wasn't interested.

- js.

Clinton had 7 years to fight Al-Queda, what was his plan exactly?...other than a grand total of 3(!) arrests and convictions of Al-Queda chumps and bombing a aspirin factory? Bush's "terrorism czar" also harped on about cyberterrorism being the next big attack...theres a reason no one listened to him and he was quickly sent away after 9-11.

JackSpratts · 21-03-04, 10:54 PM

bush had the benefit of hindsight. he knew everything osama had done during the past decade and did nothing to stop him until disaster struck on september 11th, inspite of being warned repeatedly of the danger he posed.

- js.

span · 21-03-04, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JackSpratts
bush had the benefit of hindsight. he knew everything osama had done during the past decade and did nothing to stop him until disaster struck on september 11th, inspite of being warned repeatedly of the danger he posed.

- js.

Osama had rammed planes into buildings during the "past decade"? i wasn't aware of that...

more info on the infallible "terrorism czar":

Clarke's legacy of miscalculation

people laughed at him behind his back in Washington.

JackSpratts · 22-03-04, 12:33 AM

Quote:

people laughed at him behind his back in Washington

is that some measure of character? they laugh harder at bush. welcome to washington.

- js.

Mazer · 22-03-04, 12:41 AM

I saw the video, it was taken by an unmanned remote controlled spy plane. I seriously doubt they could have captured him with it, but they should have kept better track of him. Unfortunatly those videos take a couple days to analyze and they probably didn't know it was him until he was long gone.

floydian slip · 22-03-04, 02:07 AM

There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in607356.shtml
also in the article

Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.

Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gee Clinton and Dumbass(bush) could have gotten Osama but did nothing.

Kerry is of the same pod.

This world needs to be saved from the fucking politicians.

Im sure there is a way to use the PATRIOT act against them, every time i turn on the TV or open a newspaper I feel terrorized.

AweShucks · 22-03-04, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JackSpratts
bush had the benefit of hindsight. he knew everything osama had done during the past decade and did nothing to stop him until disaster struck on september 11th, inspite of being warned repeatedly of the danger he posed.

- js.

Oh and Mr. Willy did something?? On which occassion? Oh yeah he sent a couple of missiles towards usama's tent. After how many attacks on Americans? Years of inaction by the Clinton admin doing nothing nothing nothing but Talk talk talk. Then dump the blame for years of inaction.

At least this president is willing to take a stand.

floydian slip · 22-03-04, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AweShucks

At least this president is willing to take a stand.

after he let it happen

Mazer · 22-03-04, 05:18 PM

People are allowed to change aren't they, floyd? The last president bombed an aspirin factory after the embasy bombings, this president invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. Which do you think has had a greater effect? Even if he's too proud to admit that he made a costly mistake, at least Bush is doing something substantial to make up for it.

span · 22-03-04, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by floydian slip
after he let it happen

for OIL right?

i look at my rising gas prices and i'd have to disagree with you.

floydian slip · 23-03-04, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mazer
People are allowed to change aren't they, floyd? The last president bombed an aspirin factory after the embasy bombings, this president invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. Which do you think has had a greater effect? Even if he's too proud to admit that he made a costly mistake, at least Bush is doing something substantial to make up for it.

Yeah those Taliban almost had poppy production erradicated so we had to go in and stop those evil islamists from taking money out of the alphabet organizations mouths. Now the opium trade is humming along at record pace since the good ole boys took over.

floydian slip · 23-03-04, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by span
for OIL right?

i look at my rising gas prices and i'd have to disagree with you.

Thats because the oil production has peaked. The price will continue to rise.

span · 23-03-04, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by floydian slip
Yeah those Taliban almost had poppy production erradicated so we had to go in and stop those evil islamists from taking money out of the alphabet organizations mouths. Now the opium trade is humming along at record pace since the good ole boys took over.

i suppose you have facts to back this up....because otherwise you sound like a tin foil hat wearing fool.

AweShucks · 23-03-04, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by floydian slip
after he let it happen

Let what happen? Do you honestly think anyone regardless of office let "it" happen? That's bull and anyone who claims that is frickin crazy.

JackSpratts · 23-03-04, 12:37 PM

From the hearing -

The first major witness today, former Secretary of State Albright, offered a measured defense of the Clinton administration's handling of terror attacks and threats.

"President Clinton and his team did everything we could, everything we could think of, based on the knowledge we had, to protect our people and disrupt and defeat Al Qaeda," she said.

Mr. Clinton repeatedly told the United Nations that combatting terrorism "topped America's agenda and should top theirs," Ms. Albright said.

She described the 1998 attacks on the American embassies in Tanzania and Zambia as "my worst day as secretary of state."

Within a week, she added, "we had clear evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible."

"The question for us was whether to rely on law enforcement or take military action," she testified. "We decided to do both."

As well as prosecuting the conspirators who had been captured, "we also launched cruise missiles on Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan" on the understanding that Mr. bin Laden himself and other terrorist leaders might be present, Ms. Albright said.

But Mr. bin Laden escaped, so further military action was authorized. "There should have been no confusion that our personnel were authorized to kill bin Laden," Ms. Albright said. "We did not, after all, launch cruise missiles for the purpose of serving legal papers."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/po...D-TERR.html?hp

Mazer · 23-03-04, 03:23 PM

Quote:

"we also launched cruise missiles on Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan" on the understanding that Mr. bin Laden himself and other terrorist leaders might be present, Ms. Albright said.

I like this part; he randomly fired a few missiles into Afghanistan on the basis that it might solve all our problems with terrorism, just like he fired a few hundred missiles into Iraq on the basis that it might take attention away from his impeachment. Good job Mr. Clinton.

JackSpratts · 23-03-04, 03:48 PM

Let’s see. From the time the embassies were attacked in August of ’98 to the day Clinton left office he had 29 months to get Bin Laden. He tried, but they missed him. The republicans cannot forgive him that. I understand. Yet from the time Bush took office to today it’s been how long? Some 38 months. It’s even been 30 months since 9/11. Bush hasn’t gotten Bin Laden in all this time but few republicans care to acknowledge the fact. I can understand that too. It’s tough to concentrate on a war on terror when making up Iraq excuses and whining about Clinton are jobs Number One and Two.

But who likes this part? Bush sends 500 Americans and 10,000 Iraqis to their deaths because Afghanistan doesn't have "good targets."

- js.

21-03-04, 10:45 PM	#3
JackSpratts Join Date: May 2001 Location: New England Posts: 10,017	clinton's not running - but bush is, and he didn't fire either well before 911, bush's terrorism czar asked the administrtion to eliminate osama. fearing a new and major attack against america he gave the whitehouse a plan to bomb al-qaeda. they could have got osama. bush wasn't interested. - js.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

21-03-04, 10:44 PM	#2
span Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 1,260	welcome to the fray my evil co-conspirator

21-03-04, 10:54 PM	#5
JackSpratts Join Date: May 2001 Location: New England Posts: 10,017	bush had the benefit of hindsight. he knew everything osama had done during the past decade and did nothing to stop him until disaster struck on september 11th, inspite of being warned repeatedly of the danger he posed. - js.

22-03-04, 12:41 AM	#8
Mazer Earthbound misfit Join Date: May 2001 Location: Moses Lake, Washington Posts: 2,563	I saw the video, it was taken by an unmanned remote controlled spy plane. I seriously doubt they could have captured him with it, but they should have kept better track of him. Unfortunatly those videos take a couple days to analyze and they probably didn't know it was him until he was long gone.

22-03-04, 02:07 AM	#9
floydian slip ===\/------/\=== Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 2,704	There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on. "I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years." Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department. For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz. Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.' "And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States." Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in607356.shtml also in the article Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House. Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day. That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives. Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject." Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11." In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden. --------------------------------------------------------------- Gee Clinton and Dumbass(bush) could have gotten Osama but did nothing. Kerry is of the same pod. This world needs to be saved from the fucking politicians. Im sure there is a way to use the PATRIOT act against them, every time i turn on the TV or open a newspaper I feel terrorized.

22-03-04, 05:18 PM	#12
Mazer Earthbound misfit Join Date: May 2001 Location: Moses Lake, Washington Posts: 2,563	People are allowed to change aren't they, floyd? The last president bombed an aspirin factory after the embasy bombings, this president invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. Which do you think has had a greater effect? Even if he's too proud to admit that he made a costly mistake, at least Bush is doing something substantial to make up for it.

23-03-04, 12:37 PM	#18
JackSpratts Join Date: May 2001 Location: New England Posts: 10,017	From the hearing - The first major witness today, former Secretary of State Albright, offered a measured defense of the Clinton administration's handling of terror attacks and threats. "President Clinton and his team did everything we could, everything we could think of, based on the knowledge we had, to protect our people and disrupt and defeat Al Qaeda," she said. Mr. Clinton repeatedly told the United Nations that combatting terrorism "topped America's agenda and should top theirs," Ms. Albright said. She described the 1998 attacks on the American embassies in Tanzania and Zambia as "my worst day as secretary of state." Within a week, she added, "we had clear evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible." "The question for us was whether to rely on law enforcement or take military action," she testified. "We decided to do both." As well as prosecuting the conspirators who had been captured, "we also launched cruise missiles on Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan" on the understanding that Mr. bin Laden himself and other terrorist leaders might be present, Ms. Albright said. But Mr. bin Laden escaped, so further military action was authorized. "There should have been no confusion that our personnel were authorized to kill bin Laden," Ms. Albright said. "We did not, after all, launch cruise missiles for the purpose of serving legal papers." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/po...D-TERR.html?hp

23-03-04, 03:48 PM	#20
JackSpratts Join Date: May 2001 Location: New England Posts: 10,017	Let’s see. From the time the embassies were attacked in August of ’98 to the day Clinton left office he had 29 months to get Bin Laden. He tried, but they missed him. The republicans cannot forgive him that. I understand. Yet from the time Bush took office to today it’s been how long? Some 38 months. It’s even been 30 months since 9/11. Bush hasn’t gotten Bin Laden in all this time but few republicans care to acknowledge the fact. I can understand that too. It’s tough to concentrate on a war on terror when making up Iraq excuses and whining about Clinton are jobs Number One and Two. But who likes this part? Bush sends 500 Americans and 10,000 Iraqis to their deaths because Afghanistan doesn't have "good targets." - js.