aplusmnt said:
All of the guys involved in the WTC bombing of 93 did not stand trial. Just the ones Clinton could find here still in the U.S. or did not let leave the next day on a plane to IRAQ! And what about all those others involved in the bombing you know Al Qaeda or whatever they were calling themselves at the moment. Clinton as always did the minimum that could be done.
And Bin Laden still puts out his videos and calls for Muslims to attack the US. We know that the majority of 9/11 highjackers were Saudis. We know that members of the Saudi Royal family helped fund 9/11. Yet Bush is out holding hands and kissing the KING? And that's fine with you. But if Bill Clinton let a possible terrorist escape, you're incensed. Your double standard is very clear here.
You say Clinton warned Bush of Bin Laden? :roll: Bin Laden was responsible for more than one attacks on the U.S. under Clinton. He should have did more than warn him, he should have tried to catch him back when he was not so hidden and protected.
Let's see a list of the attacks Bin Laden made on the US under Clinton. We can talk about them. But be sure you really want to do that first.
How easy do you think it would be to find Bin Laden now? I don't think he will ever be found he is to deeply hidden in a land thousands of miles away with to many people that want to protect him at all cost. If the U.S. was given a month to hide someone thought of as a God by 95% of the people in our land and then a few thousand men were sent to find them and kill him, what are the chances of finding him? Heck just use Texas to hide him in and he would never be found.
How easy would it have been to find in on 9/12? Bush knew immediately who was behind 9/11. We'll never find him if we're not looking. And Bush has stopped the search. The reward is still there, but people who were dedicated to the search have stopped. And, again, you ignore the fact that they had him at Tora Bora and let him slip away. Why is that OK, if Clinton refusing to attack a tall Arab is so bad? Again, your double standard.
You say Kahlid was not in the country or he would have been caught.... :roll: ..Who cares where he was, Clinton should have went anywhere to get this man. But as I said Clinton did the minimum he could do..........whoops he left the U.S. he is not my problem anymore I will leave him for the next President to worry about.............Good thing the next President did catch him and stopped his evil.....If Clinton would have did that 7 years earlier he could not have planned 911.
Why should Clinton have gone anywhere? Bush didn't go to Saudi Arabia, even though that's were the 9/11 highjackers came from. That's where much of the funding came from. Can you say double standard?