The "Clinton was handed Osama and didn't take him" rumor

Does anyone have a link from a reputable news source that debunks this piece of trash rumor that Hannity blathers on about every day?

I can't find anything online from a news source. I figure maybe someone here has it bookmarked.

Thanks.

That is usually my first stop on these questions.

remember, they're all based on the words of one Mansoor Ijaz, who is presently an analyst for....


FOX NEWS!

Too good to be true, isn't it?

But here's at least one article:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030922-090026-8355r.htm

Ask them about Bush's letting Osama go repeatedly in the run-up to 9/11, and immediately thereafter. That's always good for a laugh.

Afghanistan said they'd hand him over if we just provided evidence that he was behind 9/11.

but I know he did, I just KNOW IT! Everybody says that he did it, so it must be true, right? I mean, how insulting, demanding evidence. Gimme a break!

thanks

I remember that Gore was on or headed a committee that presented to congress , during clinton's term, all of the info about al-q and Bn Ldn including names, addresses and the request for beefing up airport security because of info they already had. Congress turned down the request, Strom Thurmond laughed and called it a non-issue.
Clinton did launch a strike after the first WTC bombing. But because the law states that a prez only has authority for under 30 days of military action without approval of congress, nothing else happened. The blame for that mistake goes to the repub led congress who didn't take the intelligence info seriously.

So, look for committees that included Gore. That should lead you to the same news article that I read. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

Of course, he wasn't. It was someone else named Mohammed with a similar last name.

Al Franken writes an entire chapter devoted to how Clinton tried to warn the incoming Resident of the threat Al Qaeda posed but the Chimp paid no attention. I'm not sure if it directly addresses the Clinton Dropped Osama bullshit, but its still great ammo against any similar neo-con con.

My dad is reading "Bush at War," for reasons beyond me, since he's just as liberal as I, or more. So, I picked up the book (in the process losing my dad's bookmark heheh) and began to thumb through it. I only read the first chapter or so, and from the looks of the rest of it, I guess it is slightly biased towards the administration (as any portrait from the inside is likely to be). Anyway, I read the first couple chapters, which described Tenet's and Powell's reactions in particular in the hours following the attacks. It was interesting reading, and I didn't know that Clinton had sent a handful of cruise missiles (well, I didn't know he had sent more than a couple) into Afghanistan to get bin Laden and that he missed by a matter of hours. Also, they tried to track bin Laden in other ways, but ultimately wasn't feasable.

Ironically, it is "Bush at War" that exonerates Clinton to a degree. It does portray Clinton as more dovish than Bush, less willing to enter into combat, but that's probably true.

Has anyone read this book? Does it give more info? Should I read the rest?

Did they ever agree to turn him over to the US????

Did the Saudis ever agree to take OBL into custody from Sudan???

Did the Saudis ever agree to turn OBL over to the US????

the answers...

Nope, nope, nope and nope...

All lies.

Did the Chimp have OBL cornered at Tora Bora???

Yup

Did the Chimp commit enough US troops to that battle to fully encircle OBL's KNOWN position and prevent his escape????

Nope

Did OBL escape from Tora Bora????

Yup

Is OBL plotting away as we speak???

Yuppo

The Chimp botched the War on Terra and has only himself to blame.

I doubt they would have offered him up for anything; had been of big assistance to the Sudanese, emptying his bank accounts in the process.

...following the Afghan-Soviet War? He should have known what OBL was becoming because the CIA trained him.

For one, he hadn't committed high profile attacks that I know of (someone who was actually paying attention during the first Bush administration, feel free to correct me :) ). As far as I know, the name bin Laden became famous with the embassy bombings. So it would be hard to explain to the American people why you were launching missiles into a foreign country.

And wasn't bin Laden in Saudi Arabia anyway? I was under the impression that he only moved to Afghanistan following the embassy bombings.

Dang, I need to read up on this stuff. But sorry, I don't think this could have been dealt with by anybody but Clinton, his staff, or Bush Jr. and his staff.

nada, that's what.

from Bush. After 9/11. The taliban offered him up & Bush opted for war instead:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/14/ret.retaliation.facts/

They said they would discuss giving him to a third country. So if the Taliban live up to their first promise - a discussion - and then if they follow through and give him up, he's still in a third country, and you're not even guaranteed that it's a 'good' third country who will hand him over, and even then, you don't have the accomplices. So the chances are slim that you even get a portion of what you want.

I think the U.S. had every right to bring not only bin Laden but all of al Qaeda and the Taliban to justice, the former for terrorist attacks, the latter for supporting the former and for human rights violations.

The 9-11 plot didn't need Bin Laden to happen...just the dedication of a very small group...

The Taliban offered to turn him over if his connection to 9/11 could be proven. No proof was offered--Afghanistan was invaded.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/2020/predator030624.html

Missed Opportunity
Officials: Bush Administration Was Slow to Approve Drones to Kill Bin Laden

W A S H I N G T O N, June 24— When President Bush took office in January 2001, the White House was told that Predator drones had recently spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times and officials were urged to arm the unmanned planes with missiles to kill the al Qaeda leader.