No, it is not an internet rumor. It has been well documented. The defense of Clinton's decision has been that the US had no basis upon which to detain Bin Laden had the administration accepted his head.

 

 

Your right. I was wrong.

 

 

Saudis Balked at Accepting U.S. Plan

 

WASHINGTON The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.

.

The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at hotel in Arlington, Virginia, on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.

.

Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/sudan_offered_to_arrest_bin_laden.html

 

 

It sounds like Clinton did not see a legal means to do this without disrupting the Saudi's and chose not to take him.

 

I find it interesting that most of these stories are dated within a year after 9/11 including the one in the LA Times quoted by Jumper Dad. Pretty convenient to have hindsight and then say something. Too bad this guy didn't go public after Clinton went out of office.

 

I think any president would have not done much more vs. Bin Laden than Clinton until the 9/11 event. Just my take.

Your right. I was wrong.

 

 

Saudis Balked at Accepting U.S. Plan

 

WASHINGTON The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.

.

The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at hotel in Arlington, Virginia, on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.

.

Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/sudan_offered_to_arrest_bin_laden.html

 

 

It sounds like Clinton did not see a legal means to do this without disrupting the Saudi's and chose not to take him.

 

I find it interesting that most of these stories are dated within a year after 9/11 including the one in the LA Times quoted by Jumper Dad. Pretty convenient to have hindsight and then say something. Too bad this guy didn't go public after Clinton went out of office.

 

I think any president would have not done much more vs. Bin Laden than Clinton until the 9/11 event. Just my take.

I am not one of those people who blame Clinton for 9/11 or the general increase in terror attacks against the US that culminated in the fall of the Twin Towers. (I believe that Jimmy Carter bears more responsibility than any US president for putting the wind into the sails of terrorists around the world.)

 

However, I find the following excerpt from the LA Times story that Jumper_Dad posted disturbing:

 

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

I understand Clinton's decision not to take Bin Laden into US custody at the time, but I do not understand why our government pressured Sudan into expelling him from that country.

 

In any event, public opinion toward terrorist threats was much different prior to 9/11 than it was on 9/12. Every president could have done more in hindsight, but they could not have taken the same actions that Bush took after the 9/11 attacks.

 

Bush deserves credit for the actions that he took post-9/11, but in some ways he did not have much choice in the matter. He was following public opinion at the time, but as memories of the attacks have faded, Bush has refused to let the war on terror slide to the back burner.

Where is the documentation?

I had posted links to a couple of articles in another thread. If you want more documentation than the articles to which Jumper_Dad linked, I will post a few more links to articles on the subject. If you have any information contradicting the assertion, please post it.

I had posted links to a couple of articles in another thread. If you want more documentation than the articles to which Jumper_Dad linked, I will post a few more links to articles on the subject. If you have any information contradicting the assertion, please post it.

 

I never said that I had documentation contradicting it. You said that you had documentation, but didn't provide it. I just wanted to see it.

I never said that I had documentation contradicting it. You said that you had documentation, but didn't provide it. I just wanted to see it.

Actually, I did provide provide the documentation. http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showpost.php?p=2635415&postcount=113, I did not feel that it was necessary to post the links a second time in the same thread.

Actually, I did provide provide the documentation. http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showpost.php?p=2635415&postcount=113, I did not feel that it was necessary to post the links a second time in the same thread.

 

Gotcha. Didn't read that in post 251 and I didn't go back and reread all 250 previous posts.