On September 10, 2001, Bill Clinton Explained Why He Didn't Kill bin Laden

[NewsSource]

I wonder who the Clintons pissed off to have this audio surface. He's said the same things before to a Long Island business group, but what unfortunate timing for these statements.

An extraordinary historical nugget has been unearthed in Australia. In September 2001, Bill Clinton was in that country. Only hours before the terrorists struck the World Trade Center, Clinton was talking to a group in Melbourne. Terrorism and bin Laden came up in that discussion, and Clinton said that he had had an opportunity to kill bin Laden when the terrorist was in Kandahar, but he had decided not to do so because the strike (the nature of which was not defined) would also have killed 300 innocent people. Here it is, as aired on Melbourne television:

[video=youtube;EhakDgb3IQU]

Of course, one shouldn’t assume that Clinton’s account, as it related to his motives, was true. He evidently thought it put him in a favorable light, although it is a story that I don’t think he repeated after September 11. What this audio tells us for certain is that Clinton did pass up a chance to kill bin Laden, for whatever reason. This has been the subject of some debate over the years. Clinton’s 2001 admission that he could have had bin Laden killed but decided not to for humanitarian reasons is quite different from the defense he mounted in 2006.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/24/clinton.binladen/

Over the years, Clinton’s defenders have generally soft-pedaled claims that Clinton could have killed bin Laden but failed to do so. For example, in early 2008 FactCheck.org wrote:

Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?

A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...ton-explained-why-he-didnt-kill-bin-laden.php

Now we use drones to carpet bomb Pakistan and Afghanistan. Civilian deaths are never reported. I also wonder why the US didn't just obliterate the compound where bin Laden was at when the SEALS killed him.

 

[jlprk]

During the war fever to invade Afghanistan, the Taliban government acceded to Bush's demand to turn over bin Laden. Bush refused their offer, saying it was too late, and began the war about 10 days later.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

During the war fever to invade Afghanistan, the Taliban government acceded to Bush's demand to turn over bin Laden. Bush refused their offer, saying it was too late, and began the war about 10 days later.

Intriguing. Link?

 

[jlprk]

I'm finding articles claiming supposed offers back to 7 months before the invasion, but here's the most solid article, from AP during the first week of the war. It was the headline in most U.S. papers on one day. Then the media kind of hid it forever after, so readers forgot, but some of us didn't.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm

This is from UK's The Independent (giving a now-broken link, but you can read part of the article).

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

 

[NewsSource]

I'm finding articles claiming supposed offers back to 7 months before the invasion, but here's the most solid article, from AP during the first week of the war. It was the headline in most U.S. papers on one day. Then the media kind of hid it forever after, so readers forgot, but some of us didn't.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm

This is from UK's The Independent (giving a now-broken link, but you can read part of the article).

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

OK, those are "offers" made after 9/11/01. Back to ignore for you. Your posts aren't at all trying to be out of honesty.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm finding articles claiming supposed offers back to 7 months before the invasion, but here's the most solid article, from AP during the first week of the war. It was the headline in most U.S. papers on one day. Then the media kind of hid it forever after, so readers forgot, but some of us didn't.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm

This is from UK's The Independent (giving a now-broken link, but you can read part of the article).

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

Sure. They would have turned over Bin Laden to Iran. A third country.



Bush was right, just as FDR and Truman were right. Terms of surrender - complete surrender, no terms.

 

[Eastoff]

Wow this makes Bill Clinton look not so good. But it doesn't say anything about Hillary Clinton, luckily.

 

[HailBlazers]

An extraordinary historical nugget has been unearthed in Australia. In September 2001, Bill Clinton was in that country. Only hours before the terrorists struck the World Trade Center, Clinton was talking to a group in Melbourne. Terrorism and bin Laden came up in that discussion, and Clinton said that he had had an opportunity to kill bin Laden when the terrorist was in Kandahar, but he had decided not to do so because the strike (the nature of which was not defined) would also have killed 300 innocent people. Here it is, as aired on Melbourne television:

Don't believe that for a second. There's a reason why "the nature of which was not defined."

Wow this makes Bill Clinton look not so good. But it doesn't say anything about Hillary Clinton, luckily.

The fact that she has stayed with him all this time tells you all you need to know about Billary.

 

[Eastoff]

The fact that she has stayed with him all this time tells you all you need to know about Billary.

OH.
MY.
GOD!

Hillary is literally Bill Clinton!?