Skip to comments.9/11 Report Concludes Clinton 'Misspoke' on Sudan Offer
Posted on 07/22/2004 11:55:03 AM PDT by pookie18
The 9/11 Commission has concluded that when ex-President Clinton gave a detailed account in 2002 of how he turned down an offer from Sudan to have Osama bin Laden arrested, he simply "misspoke."
"President Clinton, in a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association, said that the United States did not accept a Sudanese offer and take Bin Ladin (sic) because there was no indictment," the Commission report says on page 480. Noting that the Commission had Clinton's speech on videotape, the report states: "But the President told us that he had 'misspoken' and was, wrongly, recounting a number of press stories he had read."
The report continues:
"After reviewing this matter in preparation for his Commission meeting, President Clinton told us that Sudan never offered to turn Bin Ladin over to the United States."
To corroborate Clinton's account, the Commission cited the testimony of discredited National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who is under criminal investigation for stealing 9/11-related national security secrets.
"Berger told us that he saw no chance that Sudan would have handed Bin Ladin over and also noted that in 1996, the U.S. government still did not know of any al Qaeda* attacks on U.S. citizens," the report says.
On page 109 of its report, the Commission states:
"Sudans minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so."
Contrary to the Commission's assertion, however, Clinton never mentioned the lack of an "indictment" as the reason he couldn't accept the bin Laden offer, explaining instead, "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."
In fact, prior to Sudan's attempts to hand the al Qaida mastermind over, reports appeared in USA Today and U.S. News & World Report detailing bin Laden-linked attacks that killed U.S. citizens in New York and Saudi Arabia.
A Commission spokesman told NewsMax last month that it has no plans to release its copy of Clinton's videotaped remarks.
What evidence did they have that he misspoke, for that matter?
The statement is inoperative. He kept all of the promises he intended to keep.
If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.
Check Sandy Berger's pants.
So the Sudanese foreign minister said they offered us Bin Laden (BTW -- I heard the same thing from a Sudanese diplomat I know well. This was years before 9/11). And we have Clinton on tape saying the same thing.
But, now that events have made this a damaging fact, all Clinton has to say is "I misspoke," and there is suddenly "no evidence." What a crock.
I have not seen Mansoor Ijaz on Fox for weeks? Can anyone shed any light or why?
Well..What you mean to say Slick
Could those credible evidence be part of what Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives?
This is ceasing to be funny. I can't take it anymore. I have no hope.
Heck, Madeliene Albright confirmed that they passed on the opportunity to arrest Bin Laden too.
"We didn't have any evidence at the time."
Bush LIES! yet Clinton 'mis-spoke'
You beat me to it!
Clinton misspoke and Sandy inadvertantly stuffed several classified documents down his pants on multiple visits. Hoe dare we state otherwise. LOL
Maybe we should check Fort Marcy Park.
Misspoke, Mistakes, Inadvertant, Inappropriate, Sloppy, compartmentalize, and is isn't is. How have so many in this country been sucked in by this utter nonsense.
The 911 commission choosing in the face of conflicting or no evidence to believe that Clinton lied is not an unreasonable conclusion in my mind. In fact generally whenever Clinton speaks, I assume it is a lie until proven truthful.
What muddies the water is that the 911 commision was clearly sandbagged by Gorelick and Berger. So maybe this once Clinton was caught in a truth. But I do not blame the victim of the sandbagging but rather the sandbaggers, Clinton, Gorelick, Berger, Ben-Venistes etal.
Evidently they totally dismissed Mansoor Ijaz' testimony.
I ask you: Who are you gonna believe? The Sudanese Defense Minister, or Slick? Yeah, that's what I thought!
Clintonese Translation Secret De-Coder Pant-O-Meter
Clinton Misspoke = Clinton miss poke (d)
He misses poking misses, not The Missus
"the 911 commision was clearly sandbagged by Gorelick and Berger."
Let's face it. Right from the start, this was to be a 'whitewash' commission!
Until I see information to the contrary, I'll believe the reports that say Berger stole draft documents relating to the Millenium Bomb Plot.
THIS is what Berger is covering up.
Retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert Buzz Patterson was a military aide to Clinton from May 1996 to May 1998 and one of five individuals entrusted with carrying the nuclear footballthe bag containing the codes for launching nuclear weapons. On page 139 of Pattersons book Dereliction of Duty, published in March 2003, he wrote:
'During the summer of the 1996 attacks, I myself learned firsthand that the administration knew that terrorists were plotting to use commercial airliners as weapons. The president received a Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, every morning. . . . One late-summer Saturday morning, the president asked me to pick up a few days worth of PDBs that had accumulated in the Oval Office. He gave them to me with handwritten notes stuffed inside the folders and asked that I deliver them back to the NSC. I opened the PDB to rearrange the notes and noticed the heading Operation Bojinka. I keyed on a reference to a plot to use commercial airliners as weapons and another plot to put bombs on U.S. airliners. Because I was a pilot, this naturally grabbed my attention. I can state for a fact that this information was circulated within the U.S. intelligence community, and that in late 1996 the president was aware of it.'
Well, if it's corroborated by Sandy Berger, that's good enough for me!
Sort of like he "MIsspoke" about Monica.
It's amazing how absolutely stupid Clinton believes the public is.
The 911 commission is a bad joke.
WHAT THE...?so i didnt hear what i heard on the recording that was floating around a while back where the joke said he didnt take the Saudis up on getting OBL? this is pathetic and disgusting and if anyone believes this they are not only refusing to see the truth of the matter they are iirational,delussional, and just plain ole belligerent.
The Israelis probably know ("have evidence") of what happened with the Sudan offer. Let's ask them to provide some facts.
If pols are going to claim they 'mis-speak' now -- then WHENEVER they speak... they can fall back on the ole "mis-spoke' ploy.
So, when can we EVER believe what they say from now onward?
Now, if you mis-speak, you can just "re-speak" -- sort of like the "rebaselining" (hiking of costs) that goes on with public works projects.
I don't think anyone knows what the burglar stole and whatever it was it's in flames at this point.
Clinton mis-spoke and Sandy Burglar mis-stuffed his pants.
just remember...no controlling legal authority.
Okay, I've had it. This literally makes me want to vomit. The gall of these people and their "spin"! I am furious...
Looks like the 9/11 commission report is the bastard son of the Warren Commission Report....
" I did not have sex with that"....Sandy Burglar!
Isn't the good Colonel violating federal law and his own duty by revealing these facts. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see the intelligence failures rammed up Bill Clinton's nether regions as much as the next Freeper -- as I think that most of the blame for 9/11 rightly belongs on his doorstep -- but we need to do this right or we'll come to regret our tactics in the future.
When it comes to "the public" that's part of the commission, he's got it right :-(
Saw him with Linda Vester on Dayside in the last 7-10 days.
Paging Mr. Orwell. Mr. Orwell to the white courtesy phone...
When one is a pathelogical liar and has no redeeming moral values, then NOTHING they say should be believed. It doesn't matter what Clinton says as what he says can not be trusted, big or small. If one wants to know what happened, they need to go to official records (assuming they haven't been destroyed.) This is why the Sandy Berger thing is significant. What Bill says doesn't matter, nobody expects him to tel the truth anyway.
"A Commission spokesman told NewsMax last month that it has no plans to release its copy of Clinton's videotaped remarks."
This tells us all we need to know.
"Slick Willie"....with plenty of friends on both sides of the fence to grease the skids for him..
I wonder if there was a deal to get a unanimous report, we'll go easy on Bush if you go easy on Clinton.
NOw you are on it.
Another pass to our Criminal in Cheif. When will our nation learn that it shouldn't matter whether what party you belong to, error are errors. The Dems should be screaming for Sandy Burgers head, but they are defending him to the hilt. Even though Sandy confessed, they don't demand accountability with their own. The same was true with Bill Clinton. The dems haven't changed their spots since Bill and I pray they don't through the next election.
Let's see if I have this right. For twelve years I have heard all these stories about Clinton's brilliance and absolute mastery in recalling details and facts. Now I'm told he cannot distinguish between a personal recollection and stories he has read in the press. This whole damn commission can go screw itself it thinks I and my fellow citicens are so stupid and gullible.