Bill Clinton: ‘Impossible To Explain’ Why When I Had Chance To Get Bin Laden I Refused Take It.

Clinton’s failure to take out bin Laden when he had the chance was the inspiration for Obama not to make the same mistake. I wondered what kept Obama from wussing out. Thanks Bill.

Tonto was a good partner. Pakistan is iffy.

right or wrong, clinton gave a lot of thought to his decisions, even bringing in that toe sucker dick morris. i don’t even want to think was happens over at bill daley’s house, but i’m sure all policy decisions are given a whole more thought at obama’s office than the ones in ‘the decider’s office.

” Difficult decision ?
Hillary would have kicked his a** “

ChiliPeppersFan said:
right or wrong, clinton gave a lot of thought to his decisions, even bringing in that toe sucker dick morris. i don’t even want to think was happens over at bill daley’s house, but i’m sure all policy decisions are given a whole more thought at obama’s office than the ones in ‘the decider’s office.

Oh yeah. I hear Barack employs all the latest technology, Including a ” Magic 8 Ball and a Ouija board in all his ‘ Top Secret ” decision making.

IMF HEAD ARRESTED IN SEX RAP; PULLED OFF PLANE

The Secretary disavows any knowledge of the Impossible Mission Force or it’s peeps .

Bill,Bill,Bill, First,Stay away from the orange seaweed, its has a wicked backbite.Second we do have the internet here in the great pacific and remember Former US ambassador to Sudan Timothy Karney stating that the government of Sudan offered to turn over intelligence on Osama bin Laden to then President Clinton 1996. Said intelligence included passport numbers, financial accounts, photographs and copies of communications on Bin Laden and his followers. President Clinton originally vociferously this and maintained that no such option existed and there was no choice but to allow Bin Laden to depart from Sudan.
However, in a speech in February 2002, out of office, President Clinton averred that the United States had turned down an offer from Sudan. Later, he stated that he had “misspoken” but by 2003, his National Security Adviser Samuel Berger admitted, “The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States.”

YOU dropped the Oysters Mr. President!

Group Hug said:
Bill,Bill,Bill, First,Stay away from the orange seaweed, its has a wicked backbite.Second we do have the internet here in the great pacific and remember Former US ambassador to Sudan Timothy Karney stating that the government of Sudan offered to turn over intelligence on Osama bin Laden to then President Clinton 1996. Said intelligence included passport numbers, financial accounts, photographs and copies of communications on Bin Laden and his followers. President Clinton originally vociferously this and maintained that no such option existed and there was no choice but to allow Bin Laden to depart from Sudan.
However, in a speech in February 2002, out of office, President Clinton averred that the United States had turned down an offer from Sudan. Later, he stated that he had “misspoken” but by 2003, his National Security Adviser Samuel Berger admitted, “The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States.”

YOU dropped the Oysters Mr. President!

Thanks for that, Chris Wallace. Now, here’s some another take with…..dare I say….a source.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html

Sociopath http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2010/08/sociopath-alert-bill-clinton.html

“President Barack Obama would not have agreed to go forward with the mission to kill Osama bin Laden had it not been for intense pressure from CIA Director Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, administration sources have revealed.

The advocates of the mission had “reached a boiling point”, because President Obama, hesitated for months and kept delaying the final approval. This delay was because of a close aide who suggested that this could damage him politically.

According to these sources, Administration officials were frustrated with the president’s indecisiveness and his orders not to carry out the mission in February. President Obama was “dragged kicking and screaming” to give the green light for the operation in the last week of April. By then, the US military and other high-level officials were so determined to launch the operation that they did not want to give the president the opportunity to delay or to call it off. President Obama reluctantly approved to go forward with the operation only if the CIA head agreed to take all the blame in case the mission failed ”

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=46960&Cat=1&dt=5/14/2011

Clinton passed on Osama, its a well known fact. I’m glad that Obama had the guts to give the SEALs the thumbs up for the mission go-ahead. Too bad he beat his chest about it and claimed victory for himself instead of the country…..the backlash was quick on that and his poll numbers have pretty much sunk to what they were prior to the Osama kill. (Except of course the always propaganda polling, which is such bull shit it is laughable).

hmmm…reading this is like having deja vu all over again…this story is 2 days old….mediaite playing catch up again

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/13/bill-clinton-pakistan-is-still-a-partner-in-the-war-on-terror/

im_lovin_it said:
Thanks for that, Chris Wallace. Now, here’s some another take with…..dare I say….a source.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html

This is one of those cases where Clinton’s socialpathy helps him. He says different things to different people and it’s very hard to figure out what happened. Clinton even claimed that people were telling him that he was too obsessed with Bin Laden! A lot of this was going on while the Lewinsky scandal was coming out so we know he was preoccupied with his own problems rather then dealing with what he was supposed to be doing.

As for Sudan, the Sudanese did offer him to us as there are plenty of stories and there is audio of Clinton admitting it: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=1032&q=+Foreign+Minister+Taha+%22bin+laden%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

In speeches, Clinton talks about begging the Saudi’s to take him. It’s because Clinton was in liberal mode and he didn’t want to do anything until Bin Laden did something – even though by 1996 Bin Laden was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

So Clinton’s one story where he says he couldn’t do anything when offered Bin Laden seems like a lie. He goes back and forth from “not being to do anything” to being “too obsessed”.

Alz said:
This is one of those cases where Clinton’s socialpathy helps him. He says different things to different people and it’s very hard to figure out what happened. Clinton even claimed that people were telling him that he was too obsessed with Bin Laden! A lot of this was going on while the Lewinsky scandal was coming out so we know he was preoccupied with his own problems rather then dealing with what he was supposed to be doing.

As for Sudan, the Sudanese did offer him to us as there are plenty of stories and there is audio of Clinton admitting it: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=1032&q=+Foreign+Minister+Taha+%22bin+laden%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

In speeches, Clinton talks about begging the Saudi’s to take him. It’s because Clinton was in liberal mode and he didn’t want to do anything until Bin Laden did something – even though by 1996 Bin Laden was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

So Clinton’s one story where he says he couldn’t do anything when offered Bin Laden seems like a lie. He goes back and forth from “not being to do anything” to being “too obsessed”.

Hmmm……I see a lot of writing here about things like Monica Lewinksy and sociopathy, but nothing that really addresses or refutes what is in the article that I linked.

Oh, yeah, this is the Big Story from Clinton’s appearance on CNBC, not his advocacy of an “internet watchdog.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54951.html

Being a “media site,” you’d think that Mediaite would be all over this. But, no, instead they go with another “isn’t Obama great ’cause he got bin Laden” story. Gutsy call.

The Lantern of Truth said:
“President Barack Obama would not have agreed to go forward with the mission to kill Osama bin Laden had it not been for intense pressure from CIA Director Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, administration sources have revealed.

The advocates of the mission had “reached a boiling point”, because President Obama, hesitated for months and kept delaying the final approval. This delay was because of a close aide who suggested that this could damage him politically.

According to these sources, Administration officials were frustrated with the president’s indecisiveness and his orders not to carry out the mission in February. President Obama was “dragged kicking and screaming” to give the green light for the operation in the last week of April. By then, the US military and other high-level officials were so determined to launch the operation that they did not want to give the president the opportunity to delay or to call it off. President Obama reluctantly approved to go forward with the operation only if the CIA head agreed to take all the blame in case the mission failed ”

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=46960&Cat=1&dt=5/14/2011

Don’t forget the most important person to Obama’s decision was the next president of these here United States of America, Donald John Trump..

Judge Mental said:
Oh, yeah, this is the Big Story from Clinton’s appearance on CNBC, not his advocacy of an “internet watchdog.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54951.html

Being a “media site,” you’d think that Mediaite would be all over this. But, no, instead they go with another “isn’t Obama great ’cause he got bin Laden” story. Gutsy call.

Oh forget about the MEDIAite gang. Thiy’ve all still got their pants off over this whole Stewart on O”Reilly thing tomorrow night.

im_lovin_it said:
Hmmm……I see a lot of writing here about things like Monica Lewinksy and sociopathy, but nothing that really addresses or refutes what is in the article that I linked.

You must be one of these peculiar liberals. Read it again and look at the search link for more info. Clinton DID pass up a chance. Duh! I typed this slow for you.

Barack Must Go said:
Oh forget about the MEDIAite gang. Thiy’ve all still got their pants off over this whole Stewart on O”Reilly thing tomorrow night.

I’m sure they already have some of the stories written!

Barack Must Go said:
Oh forget about the MEDIAite gang. Thiy’ve all still got their pants off over this whole Stewart on O”Reilly thing tomorrow night.

Alz said:
I’m sure they already have some of the stories written!

One of which surely will be headlined, “Jon Stewart’s epic takedown of Bill O’Reilly.”

“Stewart eviscerates O’Reilly.” I like that one.

Alz said:
You must be one of these peculiar liberals. Read it again and look at the search link for more info. Clinton DID pass up a chance. Duh! I typed this slow for you.

Interesting…..now we have some quotes about peculiar liberals and “Duh!,” but again nothing about the article I linked. Perhaps a more cut and paste approach is needed.

“So on one side, we have Clinton administration officials who say that there were no credible offers on the table, and on the other, we have claims by a Sudanese government that was (and still is) listed as an official state sponsor of terrorism. It’s possible, of course, that both sides are telling the truth: It could be that Erwa did make an offer, but the offer was completely disingenuous. What is clear is that the 9/11 Commission report totally discounts the Sudanese claims. Unless further evidence arises, that has to be the final word.

Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.”

Thanks for typing so slowly for me. I’d hate to spill coffee hastily trying to debate against your link to a Google search result.

writer said:
“Stewart eviscerates O’Reilly.” I like that one.

They need to fit the word “epic” in there somehow.

I’m sure Stewart will win, even though he’ll be totally edited out of the segment.

im_lovin_it said:
Interesting…..now we have some quotes about peculiar liberals and “Duh!,” but again nothing about the article I linked. Perhaps a more cut and paste approach is needed.

“So on one side, we have Clinton administration officials who say that there were no credible offers on the table, and on the other, we have claims by a Sudanese government that was (and still is) listed as an official state sponsor of terrorism. It’s possible, of course, that both sides are telling the truth: It could be that Erwa did make an offer, but the offer was completely disingenuous. What is clear is that the 9/11 Commission report totally discounts the Sudanese claims. Unless further evidence arises, that has to be the final word.

Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.”

Thanks for typing so slowly for me. I’d hate to spill coffee hastily trying to debate against your link to a Google search result.

The question is if Clinton had a chance to get him and he DID. The question has been answered

What this reminds me though is how the liberals blame Bush for continuing to sit in with the kids during the first few minutes of 9/11 unfolding and somehow it is perfect evidence that he is stupid (or whatever you guys think he is.)

The difference between the two is when you look at Bush’s actions (like actually watching a timeline), they seem more than reasonable, but with Clinton, he missed his chance. Remember, people knew Bin Laden was evil because he was called out by name. The Saudi’s didn’t want him and the Sudanese offered him to us (so we could deal with him.)

Whatever the case, Clinton was offered Bin Laden and he turned it down.

Alz said:
The question is if Clinton had a chance to get him and he DID. The question has been answered

What this reminds me though is how the liberals blame Bush for continuing to sit in with the kids during the first few minutes of 9/11 unfolding and somehow it is perfect evidence that he is stupid (or whatever you guys think he is.)

The difference between the two is when you look at Bush’s actions (like actually watching a timeline), they seem more than reasonable, but with Clinton, he missed his chance. Remember, people knew Bin Laden was evil because he was called out by name. The Saudi’s didn’t want him and the Sudanese offered him to us (so we could deal with him.)

Whatever the case, Clinton was offered Bin Laden and he turned it down.

This is incredible. Are you even reading my posts? Are you a robot? Hopeless partisanship and blatant denial of facts like this is why our country is in so much trouble today. Why do you hate America so much?

Oh, and as an aside on Bush…..the man is hailed as a saint in Africa, and rightfully so. Too bad his foreign policy wasn’t quite so benign a few hundred miles northeast.

One problem:
Clinton was a politician / Obama is an ideologue…

im_lovin_it said:
Thanks for that, Chris Wallace. Now, here’s some another take with…..dare I say….a source.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html

I don’t know if the Clinton WH had enough info on UBL in 1996 ( the 1993 WTC bombing was carried out by Ramzi Yousef, who spent time at Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan before beginning in 1991 to plan a bombing attack within the United States. Yousef’s uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Ali Fadden, who later was considered the principal architect of the September 11 attacks, gave him advice and tips over the phone, and funded him with a US$1,400 wire transfer.) but they certainly did by 1999. But either way, he was treating a world terrorist like a common criminal.

This is what the 911 Commission found about Clinton’s failure to take action in 1999:

“Kandahar, May 1999

It was in Kandahar that perhaps the last, and most likely the best, opportunity
arose for targeting Bin Ladin with cruise missiles before 9/11. In May 1999,
CIA assets in Afghanistan reported on Bin Ladin’s location in and around Kandahar
over the course of five days and nights.The reporting was very detailed
and came from several sources. If this intelligence was not “actionable,”
working-level officials said at the time and today, it was hard for them to imagine
how any intelligence on Bin Ladin in Afghanistan would meet the standard.
Communications were good, and the cruise missiles were ready.“This was
in our strike zone,” a senior military officer said. “It was a fat pitch, a home
run.” He expected the missiles to fly.When the decision came back that they
should stand down, not shoot, the officer said,“we all just slumped.” He told
us he knew of no one at the Pentagon or the CIA who thought it was a bad
gamble. Bin Ladin “should have been a dead man” that night, he said.”

for sale high quality n i k e shoes and other sporting goods.

FREE SHIPPING AND PAYPAL ACCEPT

best running shoes

http://zapposer.com

&%$#@

More than anyone else, Clinton would know all about trying to explain his cowardice.

The Lantern of Truth said:
“President Barack Obama would not have agreed to go forward with the mission to kill Osama bin Laden had it not been for intense pressure from CIA Director Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, administration sources have revealed.

The advocates of the mission had “reached a boiling point”, because President Obama, hesitated for months and kept delaying the final approval. This delay was because of a close aide who suggested that this could damage him politically.

According to these sources, Administration officials were frustrated with the president’s indecisiveness and his orders not to carry out the mission in February. President Obama was “dragged kicking and screaming” to give the green light for the operation in the last week of April. By then, the US military and other high-level officials were so determined to launch the operation that they did not want to give the president the opportunity to delay or to call it off. President Obama reluctantly approved to go forward with the operation only if the CIA head agreed to take all the blame in case the mission failed ”

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=46960&Cat=1&dt=5/14/2011

My analysis is similar, Lantern. In consideration of all of Hussein’s other decisions concerning military operations and cornered terrorists, as well as his clear and consistent preference for international law over American sovereignty, ordering the execution of Osama was completely out of character for Hussein. That cat will never change his stripes.

Therefore, I don’t believe Hussein knew anything about the killing until it was over. The Seals knew we couldn’t allow another “Clinton moment” while Hussein dithered and shuffled, so they took care of business, then called him with his option to either crucify them publicly or take all the credit and boost his sagging poll numbers. His ” Me, Myself, and I” speech following the act is consistent with the overstatements of a liar.

This is what most people were thinking when the Obama minions were claiming it was a “gutsy” call. Basically, any American Citizen in the role of President would have given the okay for the assault. It was not gutsy and in fact, there was no other decision to make.

Alz said:
The question is if Clinton had a chance to get him and he DID. The question has been answered

What this reminds me though is how the liberals blame Bush for continuing to sit in with the kids during the first few minutes of 9/11 unfolding and somehow it is perfect evidence that he is stupid (or whatever you guys think he is.)

The difference between the two is when you look at Bush’s actions (like actually watching a timeline), they seem more than reasonable, but with Clinton, he missed his chance. Remember, people knew Bin Laden was evil because he was called out by name. The Saudi’s didn’t want him and the Sudanese offered him to us (so we could deal with him.)

Whatever the case, Clinton was offered Bin Laden and he turned it down.

Clinton turned down a possible chance at Bin Laden because he did not have the cover of war. He considered it too legalistically and concluded it would be a big headache. Since then, obviously we have been at war with OBL’s organization so Obama automatically had to accept the plan to attack OBL’s HQ.

dougx said:
This is what most people were thinking when the Obama minions were claiming it was a “gutsy” call. Basically, any American Citizen in the role of President would have given the okay for the assault. It was not gutsy and in fact, there was no other decision to make.

No decision to make? Given the fact President Obama had 2 choices: either bomb the mansion and not retrieve any of the data or even Bin Laden’s body, or take the covert operation, the “gutsy” call as he did, how can you be sure “any American Citizen in the role of President” would take the “gutsy” route? How can you be sure of that? You can’t make such a broad assumption. It’s impossible to say what other President’s would do.

Alz said:
The question is if Clinton had a chance to get him and he DID. The question has been answered

What this reminds me though is how the liberals blame Bush for continuing to sit in with the kids during the first few minutes of 9/11 unfolding and somehow it is perfect evidence that he is stupid (or whatever you guys think he is.)

The difference between the two is when you look at Bush’s actions (like actually watching a timeline), they seem more than reasonable, but with Clinton, he missed his chance. Remember, people knew Bin Laden was evil because he was called out by name. The Saudi’s didn’t want him and the Sudanese offered him to us (so we could deal with him.)

Whatever the case, Clinton was offered Bin Laden and he turned it down.

Perhaps that was bin Laden that was seen by a predator drone, but one must also remember that during Clinton’s administration the drones weren’t capable of carrying weapon payloads so they would have had to call in the bombers and by then the target would have been gone. That particular incident drove the Clinton-Gorge administration to seek ways that the drone could be adapted to carry a weapon payload which then became available during the Bush administration.

Bill Clinton: Would’ve Been ‘Impossible To Explain’ ….
Bill should know about these things from experience. Impeachable things.

Bill Clinton: Would’ve Been ‘Impossible To Explain’ If Obama Had Passed On Bin Laden Mission

I dunno, slick willie seems to have explained why he didn’t prevent the UBL masterminded attacks on 9/11 well enough for the liberals to not hold him responsible for what happened.

X-3 said:
Bill Clinton: Would’ve Been ‘Impossible To Explain’ If Obama Had Passed On Bin Laden Mission

I dunno, slick willie seems to have explained why he didn’t prevent the UBL masterminded attacks on 9/11 well enough for the liberals to not hold him responsible for what happened.

On September 11, 2001, George W. Bush was President of the United States. Bush had been President of the United States since January 20, 2001.

Care to dispute that?

Alz said:
The question is if Clinton had a chance to get him and he DID. The question has been answered

What this reminds me though is how the liberals blame Bush for continuing to sit in with the kids during the first few minutes of 9/11 unfolding and somehow it is perfect evidence that he is stupid (or whatever you guys think he is.)

The difference between the two is when you look at Bush’s actions (like actually watching a timeline), they seem more than reasonable, but with Clinton, he missed his chance. Remember, people knew Bin Laden was evil because he was called out by name. The Saudi’s didn’t want him and the Sudanese offered him to us (so we could deal with him.)

Whatever the case, Clinton was offered Bin Laden and he turned it down.

The Taliban offered Bush Osama Bin Laden in 2001. Bush turned it down, remember?

“President George Bush rejected as “non-negotiable” an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban “turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over.” He added, “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty”. In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir – the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime – told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: “we would be ready to hand him over to a third country”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

Davo said:
More than anyone else, Clinton would know all about trying to explain his cowardice.

My analysis is similar, Lantern. In consideration of all of Hussein’s other decisions concerning military operations and cornered terrorists, as well as his clear and consistent preference for international law over American sovereignty, ordering the execution of Osama was completely out of character for Hussein. That cat will never change his stripes.

Therefore, I don’t believe Hussein knew anything about the killing until it was over. The Seals knew we couldn’t allow another “Clinton moment” while Hussein dithered and shuffled, so they took care of business, then called him with his option to either crucify them publicly or take all the credit and boost his sagging poll numbers. His ” Me, Myself, and I” speech following the act is consistent with the overstatements of a liar.

You’re just LYING here. Candidate Obama declared on nationally televised debates on MULTIPLE occasions that his policy would be to capture and/or KILL Bin Laden, unilaterally if the government of Pakistan was not willing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkAEkA81TUA&feature=related

How do those folks on the business end of predator drone strikes feel about Obama’s unwillingness to use lethal force? Interviewed any Somali Pirates on that issue lately?

Second, you’re INCREDIBLY dismissive and disrespectful to the US Military, special forces, and particularly the Seal team. The attrition rate for these Special Op’s members is nearly 50%. Black Hawk Down was a Special Op. The Iranian Hostage Rescue attempt was a Special Op.

Just say you simply hate Obama. Lying is only making you look more foolish.

–Cobra

Cobra said:
On September 11, 2001, George W. Bush was President of the United States. Bush had been President of the United States since January 20, 2001.
Care to dispute that?

Nope, I don’t dispute that which I know to be fact: George W. Bush was indeed the President of the United States on 11 September 2001.

HOWEVER: slick willie had two opportunities to take out UBL, and on one of those opportunities, a US operative had UBL in his crosshairs, ready to squeeze off a round that would have dispatched him. slick willie REFUSED to give the order. again: slick willie REFUSED to give the order! the rest, as they say, is history.

(you might also remember a documentary that aired on–of all places–ABC, that provided explicit details of slick willie’s FAILURE to protect the US from a KNOWN terrorist.

Bill should have taken out Bin Laden in 1999 when he had the chance.  I like Bill but if he had did his job properly, 9/11 would never have happened.  However saying that, Bill couldnt have predicted the events of 2001 and frankly I think he’s a good guy and a patriotic guy