Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're such a clown. You continually peddle Newsmax crap from 2002. I actually think you believe your own bs.

I don't know if the 911 Commission is a good enough source for you but here goes:

" Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all."

Staff Statement No. 5
www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never read Newsmax unless it was a link that was posted here, and I don't watch or listen to talk tv/radio except in passing. I read books, newspapers and original sources voraciously.

I prefer the man's own words and inept attempts at backpedaling to any hack "bipartisan" commission's intepretation. You do realize that the commission, by virtue of it being "bipartisan" was doomed to present only a sanitized compromise version of reality, dont you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok so because the 9/11 commission was "bipartisan" you think they had clear evidence of the Sudanese offering OBL to Clinton and decided to lie about it?

What are the odds that they are telling the truth about it? I guess 0 makes sense since the comission was "bipartisan" and of course Clinton is lying because he got a BJ once.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another one who needs a lesson in logic. Knowing that the output is sanitized tells you nothing about the input. I dont know nor care whether they had clear evidence or not. In an effort to avoid the "blame game" there isnt a chance in hell that they would have reached a compromise finding that included that conclusion. That is why I prefer to rely on Clinton's own words and attempts to cover up his own words, which is the game he constantly played. It has nothing to do with a BJ, it has to do with his narcissism, his willingness to assassinate the character of anyone who dared challenge him and that he couldnt buy off, including the multiple women he sexually harrassed, including an out and out rape, and his numerous lies that were eventually caught.

He lied to his staff numerous times, he lied to his wife, he lied to Congress. It took DNA evidence to get him to finally tell the truth.