Mohammed Atta, the terrorist who flew one of the jets into the World Trade Center, was arrested in Israel in 1986 for blowing up a bus. In 1993, at the insistance of then President Clinton and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, he was released as part of the Oslo Agreement. The Israelis refused but Clinton prevailed. The same man went on to organize the 9-11 disasters.

This was reported by TV journalists in 1993 but seems to be censored from newscasts now. Why would the media choose not to report this in 2002? Could it be that they are protecting Clinton and his legacy? Could it be that they don't want the public to share in this information. How many of us @ FTE know this? What is your take on this obviously "censored" story?

 

2 words liberal press!!!

its just like the press bad mouthing GW because he dont throw parties at the white house all the time like "slick *****" did

 

Hey Brien - I think you should check this out. Why is everyone so quick to blame all of the world problems on Clinton?????????

[http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/atta.htm]

 

It doesn't surprise me.
You know that GUY that was caught at the US border in Washington state trying to smuggle explosives across and was heading for L.A.X.?

Our Prime Minister a couple of years before had stood up for him regarding another terrorist action ,and was freed.



[font color=red]Dennis

FTE Assistant Administrator
[/font]

[link:www.ford-trucks.com/guidelines.html|Club FTE]

[link: motorhaven.autoanything.com|How YOU Can Support This Site]

http://www.clubfte.com/users/mil1ion/canada_flag_animated.gif

[link:www.clubfte.com/users/mil1ion/Mil1ion.html|My Website,"North Of The 49th"]

 

Carlene: This information is all very good. I applaud your vigilance for the truth. But why don't we get these stories from the mainstream press at the time when they are relevant? This is why misinformation abounds over the internet. It still seems to me that they (mainstream press) are protecting those people who make stupid decisions in government that lead to disasterous consequences for our country.

 

Whatever the other facts, both these "ATTA" guys were pretty bad boys!

With regard to censorship, I don't think that's what we are seeing.
My interpretation of "free press" means that the press can report whatever they want as long as it's TRUE. They have no legal obligation to report ALL the news, only what they want to.

Censorship is the government telling the press what to (not to)report.

I believe that the press has a moral obligation to present a neutral story of events. But that will not draw audiences. Even Fox news, the most balanced news network, is not neutral. Whenever a news caster asks leading questions, they have already expressed their bias.

I recently watched a newscast discussing the Texas newspaper's decision not to print anything about baseball. Some leading lady news person said that was censorship. I disagree. I think free press means speaking your mind. Even opinions are ok, as long as they are not reported as facts.


Winford

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 13-Sep-02 AT 12:48 PM (EST)]>Carlene: This information is all very good. I applaud your
>vigilance for the truth. But why don't we get these stories
>from the mainstream press at the time when they are
>relevant? This is why misinformation abounds over the
>internet. It still seems to me that they (mainstream press)
>are protecting those people who make stupid decisions in
>government that lead to disasterous consequences for our
>country.

You lost me here Brien, get what story? According to snopes.com there is no story. This is just another in a long line of email hoaxes that continues to make it's way around the internet. If the press took any notice of this at all, it's at best a non-story. Given the number of hoaxes that are in circulation at the moment (take time to read snopes.com, you'll find lots there that have been sent to you as the truth), finding and debunking them all would keep several reporters busy. And it just isn't newsworthy. At best all these hoaxes do is to incite what we believe to be righteous indignation. I have about as much use for Bill Clinton as I do a rattlesnake in my house. But inventing things to make him look bad is wrong. Besides, there are enough documented wrongs to keep people talking about slick Willie for years.

Good catch Carlene!!

Ron



Edit to add: My statement about inventing things was not aimed at you Brien. I reread what I said and it may have sounded like it did. I know you didn't invent this.

 

Thanks Ron - I thought that site was dead on to what this discussion was about.

Brien - I believe in "Free Press", but think they should spend more time making sure the stories they report are true rather than just printing something to make sure they're the first out with the story. I think investigative reporting needs a little work these days.

BTW, I happen to like Clinton.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 13-Sep-02 AT 01:58 PM (EST)]Ron: There is a story. Even if it is one of mistaken identity. I agree that I fell for an misinformative internet story, but that does'nt let the press off the hook. Afterall, they were the first to report the story in when the terrorists were first identified, but they were'nt there to follow up on the story when it went south. It does'nt matter if Clinton or Reagan was involved in the 1986 manhunt for the bomber or the 1993 extradition. What matters is the story became one of misinformation and was not reported correctly from there on out. Mohamad Atta is news, the link of the mistaken identity is news when it was reported incorrectly that he was one in the same man. So there is the story and the follow up on Carlene's internet link shows that very few of the mainstream papers felt the need to follow up on the corrections.

Once again, my mistake for not checking the source of the information, but there still seems to be relevant news contained within this misunderstanding.

One other aspect of the Snope report. They debunk the Oslo Agreement and its tie to the Reagan Administration, but it seems to place it in the Clinton Administration. The internet message I read placed the extradition in the Clinton Administration in 1993. This is corroborated by Snopes. They also blame the "extradition process" for Atta's release from the Israeli prison. Therefore, the only part of the story that is really in question is the case of mistaken identity, and snopes states "what we have here appears to be a case of mistaken identity". They don't seem positive of what they are writing either. Perhaps there is more to this yet?

Carlene: I am not looking to hang Clinton or anybody else for things that go wrong in our government. I do like to find out the truth when it comes to these things and your help here is very much appreciated. Thanks.

BTW I think there are good and bad aspects of all Presidents. I also think that the Executive Office is given way too much credit and blame for things over which they have little control. The economy is a perfect example.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 13-Sep-02 AT 02:38 PM (EST)]>Carlene: This information is all very good. I applaud your
>vigilance for the truth. But why don't we get these stories
>from the mainstream press at the time when they are
>relevant? This is why misinformation abounds over the
>internet. It still seems to me that they (mainstream press)
>are protecting those people who make stupid decisions in
>government that lead to disasterous consequences for our
>country.

Pardon me for replying with your quote again, Brien. My reasons for saying there is no story are this. This story matters to you and I, and other right thinking persons. It borders on unthinkable that the people we elect to make decisions for the good of our country could be so careless. But when it has no value to the news services, a story ceases to matter. As was originally reported, this would seem to be a black eye on whomever was in charge of such a fiasco. And as reported, it would have been both stupid and disasterous as you pointed out. But the stories were mistaken in that they have two different middle eastern men with similar names. What it ended up being was a colossal "egg on your face" kind of blunder. Not many news agencies will admit to that sort of thing. And if they do it's buried somewhere that it's not likely to be seen. I have no more use for the press in most cases, than I do the aforementioned snake. But in this instance I don't believe they are covering for anyone. It's more of a case of "man do we look stupid now". You're right in saying that this sort of thing leads to a misinformed public.
Expecting the press, liberal or otherwise to have a concious is asking for the moon, in my opinion. It just doesn't sell copy.

Ron

Edit to add: And I was guilty of not reading the complete snopes story myself before my initial reply. After re-reading it, I see where my first post was off-base a bit. I concentrated on the hoax and missed the meat of your post Brien. I do stand by this post however. No cover-up......unless it was to "cover their @ss".

 

Right on Ron. But I think I was off base for relying upon the internet as a source and I certainly made a mistake by linking it to a free press. It is more like a biased press. I have posted a new, more clear question with regard to these matters. Thanks for your input, and thanks once again, to Carlene for her vigilance.

 

>
>BTW, I happen to like Clinton.

You didn't have to say this for us to know. We could figure that out from other comments...

 

Rob - I don't get it! What other comments?

*edited to remove cynical remarks*

You almost got me going there.

 

I guess I don't do a good job of paying attention Carlene, I missed your biased posts too.
Heck it came as a mild surprise to me that you like Clinton. I gotta start paying attention better........

Ron

 

Carlene: At the risk of this becomming a Clinton or "Carlene likes Clinton" bashing thread, it takes great hutzpuh to make that statement
here @ FTE. I personally think there is good and bad aspects of all Presidencies. It may be the case that Clinton's bad aspects overshadow his good ones. You see, we need you to point out the good aspects of Clinton's Administration. All presidents are under a microscope, and as I stated before, I think too much importance is rendered from the Executive branch. :-)