Quote:
|
Quote by: GodBlessAmerica As far as Newsmax, yep, there is a link at the bottom of the article I provided you. It goes to the Bill Clinton confession from his own lips, followed by a speech of Hillary trying to cover up what happened.
Did you expect the liberal CNN or Democratic Underground to feature incriminating evidence? |
Nice grainy poor sound quality on the recording there. Where is it from? Who is the female voice? And it doesn't really say anything. He says "At the time, he had commited no crimes against America so there was no basis to hold him" So what is your point? That he should have gotten him back then? Hindsight is 20/20 GBA And give the "liberal CNN" BS a rest. Good news outlets are neither Liberal or conservative. They also don't reduce the news to left vs. right like Fox. Also Newsmax is not what I would consider real news.
Quote:
|
Quote by: GodBlessAmerica I suspect you dare NOT listen to the recording of Clinton, because you would then be unable to deny that Clinton had Bin Laden and let him go. Laden had earlier declared war on the United States (a federal offense that is arrest-able). |
What I did hear on the shitty recording was Clinton said the Sudanese had released him (bin laden). He didn't say they offered bin laden to the US. He didn't say he "had him" as you imply. He says "The Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with [him/them???] again. You and Sean Hannity types like to blame Clinton for 9/11 but the blame does not belong there. On what basis should we have gotten him in 1996? Anyway
New evidence shows Clinton tried to get bin laden in 1998. So quit criticising Bill Clinton and focus on the gist of this thread which is faulty intel RE: WMD's in Iraq.