Bill Clinton Knew Iran Orchestrated Khobar Towers Attack, Hid Evidence
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/5/bill-clinton-white-house-suppressed-evidence-of-ir/?page=all
RUSH: News that Bill Clinton did nothing to retaliate against the people who bombed the Khobar Towers. This is a story in the Washington Times. This one, this one is so under the radar, and it ought not be. It's a really long and detailed article. It's 2,300 words, but I don't need nearly that many to tell you what this story is. John Solomon, the editor of the Washington Times, has the byline.
The headline is, "Bill Clinton White House Suppressed Evidence of Iran's Terrorism --Bill Clinton's administration gathered enough evidence to send a top-secret communique accusing Iran of facilitating the deadly 1996 Khobar Towers terrorist bombing, but suppressed that information from the American public and some elements of US intelligence for fear it would lead to an outcry for reprisal," and Clinton had no desire to counterattack Tehran. Bill Clinton did not want to have to confront Tehran. He had evidence that Iran was instrumental in the Khobar Towers attack.
A lot of Americans died in that attack. That was in Saudi Arabia. "Before Mr. Clinton left office, the intelligence pointing toward Iran's involvement in the terror attack in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 US servicemen and wounded hundreds was deemed both extensive and 'credible,'" according to the memos that John Solomon saw here. "It included FBI interviews with a half-dozen Saudi co-conspirators who revealed they got their passports from the Iranian embassy in Damascus," i.e., Syria, for those of you in Rio Linda, "reported to a top Iranian general and were trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), officials told The Washington Times."
Basically that's all you need to know about the story. It's 2,300 words, but Clinton administration gathered enough evidence to send a top secret communique accusing Iran of facilitating the Khobar Towers attack 1996 in Saudi Arabia. He knew was it Tehran and suppressed it.
By the way, all of this has been corroborated by the former head of the FBI, Louis Freeh, who says the Clinton administration had decided they wanted to improve relations with Iran, and so there was no release of this evidence to the American people that the Iranians were behind it. Everybody thought it was bin Laden or Al-Qaeda or, you know, a precursor. It was Islamic terrorists, they were right about that, just nobody thought it was Iran. Clinton knew that it was Iran, didn't tell anybody 'cause he didn't want the pressure of having to retaliate.
"The revelations about what the Clinton administration knew are taking on new significance with the recent capture of the accused mastermind of the 1996 attack, which has occurred in the shadows of the US nuclear deal with Iran." Which is something the media ignored 'cause they didn't want any hard feelings toward Iran while Obama was paving the way for them to get a nuclear bomb. So the last two Democrat presidents have played footsie with Iran while publicly stating policy initiatives that were not true, meaning, Clinton and Obama have both spoken tough about Iran, but they haven't meant it.
This is incredible. This like Black Hawk Down all over again, except we knew about that. Khobar Towers, Americans dead. It was a huge terror attack in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Clinton knew from the get-go it was the Iranians and suppressed the evidence. He probably knew, it's not mentioned here, but it wasn't long after this that the Lewinsky thing happened, and there had to be some people inside the Clinton administration that had to think that might pop, too. So, anyway, two Democrat presidents both looking the other way as Iran behaves as it is. Just incredible.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/5/bill-clinton-white-house-suppressed-evidence-of-ir/?page=all
RUSH: News that Bill Clinton did nothing to retaliate against the people who bombed the Khobar Towers. This is a story in the Washington Times. This one, this one is so under the radar, and it ought not be. It's a really long and detailed article. It's 2,300 words, but I don't need nearly that many to tell you what this story is. John Solomon, the editor of the Washington Times, has the byline.
The headline is, "Bill Clinton White House Suppressed Evidence of Iran's Terrorism --Bill Clinton's administration gathered enough evidence to send a top-secret communique accusing Iran of facilitating the deadly 1996 Khobar Towers terrorist bombing, but suppressed that information from the American public and some elements of US intelligence for fear it would lead to an outcry for reprisal," and Clinton had no desire to counterattack Tehran. Bill Clinton did not want to have to confront Tehran. He had evidence that Iran was instrumental in the Khobar Towers attack.
A lot of Americans died in that attack. That was in Saudi Arabia. "Before Mr. Clinton left office, the intelligence pointing toward Iran's involvement in the terror attack in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 US servicemen and wounded hundreds was deemed both extensive and 'credible,'" according to the memos that John Solomon saw here. "It included FBI interviews with a half-dozen Saudi co-conspirators who revealed they got their passports from the Iranian embassy in Damascus," i.e., Syria, for those of you in Rio Linda, "reported to a top Iranian general and were trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), officials told The Washington Times."
Basically that's all you need to know about the story. It's 2,300 words, but Clinton administration gathered enough evidence to send a top secret communique accusing Iran of facilitating the Khobar Towers attack 1996 in Saudi Arabia. He knew was it Tehran and suppressed it.
By the way, all of this has been corroborated by the former head of the FBI, Louis Freeh, who says the Clinton administration had decided they wanted to improve relations with Iran, and so there was no release of this evidence to the American people that the Iranians were behind it. Everybody thought it was bin Laden or Al-Qaeda or, you know, a precursor. It was Islamic terrorists, they were right about that, just nobody thought it was Iran. Clinton knew that it was Iran, didn't tell anybody 'cause he didn't want the pressure of having to retaliate.
"The revelations about what the Clinton administration knew are taking on new significance with the recent capture of the accused mastermind of the 1996 attack, which has occurred in the shadows of the US nuclear deal with Iran." Which is something the media ignored 'cause they didn't want any hard feelings toward Iran while Obama was paving the way for them to get a nuclear bomb. So the last two Democrat presidents have played footsie with Iran while publicly stating policy initiatives that were not true, meaning, Clinton and Obama have both spoken tough about Iran, but they haven't meant it.
This is incredible. This like Black Hawk Down all over again, except we knew about that. Khobar Towers, Americans dead. It was a huge terror attack in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Clinton knew from the get-go it was the Iranians and suppressed the evidence. He probably knew, it's not mentioned here, but it wasn't long after this that the Lewinsky thing happened, and there had to be some people inside the Clinton administration that had to think that might pop, too. So, anyway, two Democrat presidents both looking the other way as Iran behaves as it is. Just incredible.