Old news?

[Rekaar.]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003 ... 2810.shtml

Or just overlooked? Do you agree wtih the statements in the article or do you think the recording contradicts them?

[Adex_Xeda]

Clinton can say anything he wants. He's clever enough to discredit his past statements and bring in to mass attention his new legacy building statements.

He's one of the few people in the public sector who can lie repeatedly and get away with it.

[Kelshara]

In the next breath Clinton explained, "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."

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that comment. Then again I have also argued long and hard against holding people without any evidence of actual crimes.

Colmes argues, however, that the ex-president's remarks do not constitute an admission that he turned down a chance to capture the 9/11 mastermind.

This is pretty ridiculous since bin Laden was not the mastermind. He is just a figurehead for al Qaeda, hardly the brains behind it. A PR kind of person.

Citing the Web site "Jane's Intelligence Review," Colmes contends that "Clinton spent ten weeks trying to get the Saudis to accept Sudan's offer of bin Laden."

If that is correct (and Jane's is rarely wrong imho), then what is the big fuss about? Isn't it about time conservatives get over Clinton already?

[Tegellan]

You cannot hold people without evidence, it all comes down to that really and sicne there was none at the time i don't see how he could have reacted differently.