Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (40774)	8/20/2005 12:45:54 AM
From: paret	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Jew-Hating London Mayor : Anti-Terror Plans Counter-Productive, Warns London Mayor Az Conservative ^ \| Aug 19, 2005 \| John Semmens The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, expressed serious reservations about the British government's new anti-terror plans. “Terrorism is ill-defined,” said Livingstone. “Is bombing trains terrorism? We bombed plenty of German trains during the Second World War. Some consider the American Revolutionaries terrorists. They dumped tea into Boston Harbor some 200 years ago. That was mighty irksome.” The Home Office is holding consultations, including with British Muslims, over plans to exclude and deport people for preaching, fermenting or provoking terrorism. This is seen as directed at Muslim “extremism,” which Prime Minister Tony Blair is blaming for July's London bombings. Livingstone says he is opposed to the introduction of legislation or any extension of powers which could result in the exclusion or criminalization of individuals who merely preach, ferment or provoke attacks.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (40774)	8/20/2005 12:54:00 AM
From: paret	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

In his April 2004 testimony before the Commission, Mr. Clinton was confronted with his 2002 comments on the Sudanese offer. Initially he claimed he had been misquoted, according 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey. After being told that his remarks were on tape, however, the ex-president changed his story, saying instead that he had "misspoken" during the 2002 speech.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (40774)	8/20/2005 12:54:29 AM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Clinton Warned After Giving Up bin Laden NewsMax.com \| Wednesday, Aug. 17, 2005 \| Carl Limbacher Four months after President Clinton refused a Sudanese offer to have Osama bin Laden arrested, the State Department warned the White House that the blunder would have disastrous consequences. In documents obtained by the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch and provided to the New York Times, the State Department said that allowing bin Laden to escape from Sudan to Afghanistan "could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum." Though Clinton administration officials have repeatedly denied any responsibility for bin Laden's escape, the ex-president himself admitted he played a key role the blunder in a February 2002 speech, which was recorded exclusively by NewsMax.com. "We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again," he told a New York business group. "They released him. 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, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. "So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." [End of Excerpt] The Times report, however, ignored the Clinton admission - as the paper has since NewsMax first reported it on Feb. 15, 2002. Instead the paper notes: "Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had 'not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.'" In his April 2004 testimony before the Commission, Mr. Clinton was confronted with his 2002 comments on the Sudanese offer. Initially he claimed he had been misquoted, according 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey. After being told that his remarks were on tape, however, the ex-president changed his story, saying instead that he had "misspoken" during the 2002 speech. The newly declassified documents do not directly address the question of whether Sudan ever offered to turn over bin Laden, the Times noted. But they go well beyond previous news and historical accounts in detailing the Clinton administration's perception of the al-Qaida mastermind as a growing threat to U.S. national security interests. The State Department documents describe Afghanistan as an "ideal haven" for bin Laden, that would "allow him considerable freedom to travel with little fear of being intercepted or tracked." Bin Laden's public statements suggested an "emboldened" man capable of "increased terrorism," the State Department said. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told the Times that the new information "says to me that the Clinton administration knew the broad outlines in 1996 of bin Laden's capabilities and his intent, and unfortunately, almost nothing was done about it."