Hours before 9/11 Bill Clinton boasted he could have killed Osama bin Laden, but didn't

Explosive new audio was just rediscovered of former President Bill Clinton admitting – THE DAY BEFORE 9-11 – that he could have killed Osama bin Laden, but decided not to. And is it just me or does he sound boastful about it:

On the July 30th Paul Murray Live program on Sky News, guest Michael Kroger revealed an audio tape that he didn’t remember he had until the week prior to the program. Speaking at a luncheon in front of 30 business people, the former president was asked a question about international terrorism and answered:

I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden — he’s a very smart guy, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about him — and I nearly got him once. I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.

H/T Truth Revolt

Riiiiiight … here’s Slick Willie at his best, massaging language to his purposes. Sure, Kandahar is a “little town” – it’s the second largest in Afghanistan. Oh, and I totally believe it is solely populated by “innocent women and children,” and that our military is not capable of surgical precision to minimize civilian casualties. Give me a break!

Clinton also claims he nearly got bin Laden “once,” but we know that there were several opportunities to get him over the years:

1996: Sudan offered to turn Osama bin Laden over to Clinton Administration, but was rebuffed

1998: Clinton’s unavailability and indecision wasted a 2 hour window to get bin Laden

1999: CIA asked for authorization to kill bin Laden after spotting him in Kandahar, but the Clinton Administration denied it (this could be the instance Clinton was talking about in the audio)

2000: Clinton Administration was offered a way to extradite bin Laden

You can be sure this newly resurfaced audio is something the Clintons do NOT want you to hear. Just think of how they bent over backwards to stop ABC from ever re-airing or making the TV movie “The Path to 9-11″ available after it was first broadcast simply because it had scenes suggesting the Clinton Administration passed on opportunities to get Osama bin Laden – which it did! The Citizens United film “Blocking the Path to 9-11” details how the Clinton machine buried “The Path to 9-11.”

Well, they can’t bury this audio, and I’m sure it’s no coincidence that it was foreign media that broadcast it. Watch the Sky News segment with audio below:

Originally posted at The Political Insider: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/shock-day-9-11-bill-clinton-admitted-killed-osama-bin-laden-didnt/#ixzz3BQP1CZeH

Astounding: Hillary Claims the Taliban Five Poses No Threat to the United States

This article was originally published on The Political Insider:

In an interview that aired on the Today Show, presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton dismissed criticism of the Obama administration’s trade of the five most dangerous Taliban terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay for an alleged deserter.

She told NBC’s Cynthia McFadden:

These five guys are not a threat to the United States. They are a threat to the safety and security of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s up to those two countries to make the decision once and for all that these are threats to them. So I think we may be kind of missing the bigger picture here. We want to get an American home, whether they fell off the ship because they were drunk or they were pushed or they jumped, we try to rescue everybody.

It is Clinton, with her astounding willful blindness or outright stupidity, who is missing the bigger picture here. A threat to Afghanistan and Pakistan, an unstable region where we still have troops being killed, is a threat to us. These five “guys” are hardened terrorists dedicated to attacking America anywhere they can. To say that the Taliban does not pose a threat to the United States pretty much ignores the entire history of the 21st century and the War on Terror.

It is scary to think that a President Hillary Clinton would bring a pre-9-11 mindset to her potential administration – a mindset that led to the horrific murder of 3,000 Americans on U.S. soil. Would she follow in the footsteps of her husband, who allowed the Taliban to take over Afghanistan in the 1990s, leading to Al-Qaeda gaining a stronghold from which to launch terrorist attacks? Don’t forget Bill Clinton infamously refused to take action when Osama bin Laden was offered – multiple times – on a silver platter.

We already know the deadly consequences of leaving Afghanistan alone to handle the Taliban, why would we EVER want to repeat that?

And let’s not allow the outrageousness of the first half of Hillary’s quote to overshadow the fact that she goes on to conflate the issue of negotiating with terrorists for a possible traitor with the military maxim of leaving no man behind. The circumstances of how Bergdahl fell into Taliban hands matters greatly.

Suggesting that Bergdahl might have been drunk or forced out is an attempt to cloud and make light of the issue to an audience of low-information voters who don’t know any better. Meanwhile, the rest of us already know he purposefully and willingly abandoned his post, a grievous offense in the military and one that any Commander-in-Chief should take seriously. Instead, Hillary is too clever by half and flippant about it.

You can be sure that when Hillary, and the Obama administration, says the important thing is to “get an American home,” they don’t mean so Bergdahl can be court martialed and face the consequences of allegedly deserting. I’m willing to bet that both would work hard to save face by preventing Bergdahl from ever being tried and the full details of his disappearance revealed.

Obviously, this is not the first time Hillary has demonstrated an unnerving indifference to foreign policy crises. At this point, what difference does it make? Hopefully enough to derail her 2016 presidential bid.

Watch the video:

H/T: Washington Examiner