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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (304001)	9/25/2006 1:16:07 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571429

Sure it exists. Did you see Peter Dierks post that he'd heard it played on the radio? If the tape doesn't exist, why does Clinton claim to have misspoke on it? Are you accusing Clinton of lying when he admitted he once said it? Clinton Hit with NewsMax Tape, Says 'I was Wrong' on Bin Laden Offer NewsMax ^ \| 7/11/04 \| Carl Limbacher Posted on 07/11/2004 11:41:50 AM PDT by wagglebee For the first time ever, ex-President Bill Clinton has admitted that he once publicly confessed to turning down an offer to have Osama bin Laden arrested before the 9/11 attacks. But in an interview broadcast Sunday, he now says that his confession was "not accurate." "What I said there was wrong, what I said was in error," Clinton told CNN's Christiane Amanpour, after she asked specifically about a 2002 speech to a Long Island business group where he detailed a 1996 offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition. The ex-president did not contest - as some of his defenders have - that his 2002 remarks sounded like a confession. "I'd said that we were told we couldn't hold him, implying that we had a chance to get him," he told CNN. "But we didn't. That's not factually accurate," he insisted again. The speech was recorded by NewsMax.com, as well as the Long Island Association, which hosted the event. The LIA has declined to make their own recording public, though the group has supplied the 9/11 Commission with a videotape. Just three months ago, when asked about print reports documenting his bin Laden confession, Clinton told the Commission: "That was a misquote." But that was before he learned that his remarks were on tape. When Amanpour asked him directly about the recording, Clinton said he had "reconstructed all the records, read all the documents" about the Sudanese controversey and had concluded his earlier recollection was wrong. "Here's what is factually accurate," he told her. "In 1996 - and before then when we found out about bin Laden - we at first thought he was a financier of terrorism but not a ringleader . . . When he took up residence in Sudan, after having been ejected from Saudi Arabia, it is true that at some point during that period, there was some discussion in the Justice Department casting a doubt on how long we could hold him." But those discussions were not prompted by Sudan's offer, Clinton said, which he still denies was genuine. "The idea that the Sudanese offered to hand him over to us is just absurd," he told CNN. "The idea that they told us when he was leaving and he was landing in the Gulf, and we could get him at another airport, is absurd." While Amanpour interviewed Clinton last week - and CNN reported the story on its web site Friday, the exchange about the Sudanese offer was omitted from the report. NewsMax.com columnist Steve Malzberg, however, caught CNN's early Sunday morning telecast of the full interview, and broadcast the key audio over his own popular WABC radio show. Here's a transcript of the full Clinton-Amanpour exchange: AMANPOUR: Some time in 1996, or - you spoke to a group of people in Long Island about this whole controversial issue of Sudan. CLINTON: Actually it was 2001. [In fact it was 2002]. AMANPOUR: OK. Was Sudan asked to extradite him? Did you miss the opportunity to have him extradited? CLINTON: And I missed - what I said there was wrong. What I said was in error. I went back now and did all this research from my book. And I'd said that we were told we couldn't hold him, implying that we had a chance to get him but we didn't. That's not factually accurate. Here's what is factually accurate. In 1996 - and before then when we found out about bin Laden - we at first thought he was a financier of terrorism but not a ringleader in the beginning. When he took up residence in Sudan, after having been ejected from Saudi Arabia, it is true that at some point during that period, there was some discussion in the Justice Department casting a doubt on how long we could hold him because, had he committed, did we have evidence that he committed an offense against the United States. But that was never part of the question about whether could we get him. When he left - the idea that the Sudanese offered to hand him over to us is just absurd. The idea that they told us when he was leaving and he was landing in the Gulf, and we could get him at another airport, is absurd. And the idea, you know, that they tried to give him to us, and could have given him to Afghanistan is just not true. I've now gone back and reconstructed all the records, read all the documents, and that's just not true. [END OF TRANSCRIPT] To hear the confession that Bill Clinton now calls "factually inaccurate," click here. freerepublic.com