Bill Clinton Admits He Chose Not to Kill Bin Laden Before 9/11

In addition to every other terrible thing he did, the blood of 3,000 Americans in on his hands.

Ten hours before the first plane hit the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, Bill Clinton allegedly told a group of businessmen in Australia that he had a chance to kill Osama Bin Laden, but passed because it would have meant killing hundreds of innocent civilians.

That’s according to never-before-released audio of remarks made public by Australian media on Wednesday.

At the event in Melbourne, which took place not long after the end of Clinton’s term in office, the former president was asked about international terrorism.

“And I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden — he’s very smart guy, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about him — and I nearly got him once,” Clinton is heard saying. “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.”

Instead Bill Clinton chose to let Al Qaeda kill 3,000 Americans. And now his wife wants the chance to follow that same policy for eight years.

By the way, Fact Check rated this claim as “false” back in 2008. Now here are the facts from Clinton’s own mouth.

And here’s a flashback from Bill Clinton on FOX News in 2006

Clinton asserted he had done more to try to kill bin Laden than “all the right-wingers who are attacking me now.” In fact, Clinton said, conservatives routinely criticized him for “obsessing” over bin Laden while he was in office.

“They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed,” he said.


  • Viet Vet

    Mr Bush still didn’t have all of his government in place by 9/11/01. First there was Gore trying to steal the election and dragging out the process, then the democraps, p*ss*d that Bush had been “selected” did everything to hold up his nominations. Further, Mr Bush even held over Klinton’s Terrorism Czar, Richard Clarke.
    Klinton’s National Security Advisor, Sandy Burger (who later got the name, Burglar, after he stole and destroyed documents from the National Archives), said once that the Seals had bin Laden in their sights and only needed the go ahead to take him out. Klinton got word the call was coming and hid out until the window of opportunity had closed. There is no doubt that Klinton’s 8 years of appeasement policy led directly to the 9/11 attack.

    • Erudite Mavin

      You are spot on. See my post above as to the book pub 2003 on this.
      Also the book, “Dereliction of Duty” the Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America’s National Security. by Lt. Col. Robert Patterson. who was the carrier of the nuclear football

      • Viet Viet

        Yep, I have Patterson’s book.

    • Bamaguje

      I’m not sure that Clinton taking out Bin Laden would necessarily have averted 9/11. Ayman al-Zawahiri (Bin Laden;s successor) and Khalid Sheik Mohammed (who supervised the execution of 9/11) are just as committed to Jihadist terror as OBM.

      You’ll have to view Clinton’s decision in the context of pre-9/11 America. 3000 Americans hadn’t been massacred in a Jihadi terror attack.
      In that context, killing “300 innocent women and children” just to get at Bin Laden would have been politically unacceptable.
      Bear in mind that even after 9/11, critics still whine about drone attacks killing innocent civilians.

      • Viet Vet

        Your mistake is buying into the ruse that he would have had to kill 300 civilians to get bin Laden.

        Bin Laden is supposed to have said in an interview that when Klinton retreated from Somalia, they saw that the U.S. wouldn’t take casualties, and that’s when they began to plan the 9/11 attack.

  • Erudite Mavin

    Am glad this Clinton disaster is being brought out especially with audio.

    I bought the book years ago ( pub. 2003) “Losing bin Laden” How Bill Clinton’s failures Unleashed global Terror by Richard Miniter.

    Now perhaps some people will have a clue what was going on with Clinton and his Democrats.

  • JR Kipling

    That’s our Bill…telling us how serioius he was about Osama…and how much he thought about Osama…but never so serous that he stopped repeating the “Islam Religion of Peace” lie. Nor did he stop mass immigration, nor did he stop the “Peace Process” nor did he stop AQ Khan and his nuclear shopping spree, nor did he stop all aid to Pakistan, nor did he stop Iran, or Saddam, nor did he stop
    his “One World Order” delusions, nor did he stop Open Borders, nor did he stop
    Greenspan, nor did, nor did he stop giving nuclear technology to China.
    But Bill was serious.

    • Viet Vet

      Nor did he stop Karter’s CRA (subprime lending), instead he put it on steroids, forcing the lending industry to comply, by way of his AG, Janet Reno and HUD Director Andrew Cuomo. Which led directly to the Housing Bubble and subsequent bust in 2008.
      If Klinton had not been elected and re-elected, and Odumbo not elected and re-elected, we would have a much different and much better and much safer world today.

  • truebearing

    What about his repeatedly turning down the Sudan’s offer to capture and turn over Bin Laden and the rest of Al Queda’s leadership? Clinton didn’t fail just once. he failed multiple times.

    • Viet Vet

      Because, said Klinton, he didn’t know what to do with him.

  • Crassus

    It runs in the family. Lady Douchebag could have done something when all hell broke loose in Benghazi but she chose not to just the way Wet Willie chose not to kill Bin Laden.

    • Viet Vet

      She and Odumbo could have done something 3 weeks before all hell broke loose in Benghazi, when Stevens informed them of al Qaida “enmassing” there, and that he didn’t have the resources to defend the 30 or so U.S. personnel.

  • Viet Vet

    Isn’t it amazing how truth has so much trouble getting through the filter of the drive-by-“media.” Our nation is on the verge of collapse and revolution, precisely because we have a one-party “media.” Now you can see why the left went apoplectic when Reagan called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire.

  • Habbgun

    Where does that 300 number come from? That sounds like a bit much.

    • Viet Vet

      Exactly, it was Klinton trying to create an excuse for not going after bin Laden. It was his CYA.

  • USARetired

    Most likely Bill said he had ‘all the skeletons in his closet he could use’, which was remarkable, coming from the number one criminal in America! Now Obama is attempting to break his record!

    • Viet Vet

      As bad as Klinton was, Odumbo has surpassed him.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Something about chickens roosting?

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Democrats are all dhimmi demagogues.

  • DogmaelJones1

    Another “Hard Choice” probably not mentioned in Hillary’s book. Nothing like, “My husband chose not to kill Bin Laden because he said that would’ve made him as bad as Bin Laden, because he’d have to kill women and children, too.” So Clinton is responsible for sparing 300 women and children and Bin Laden in exchange for 3,000 Americans in an act of war. Get out of our lives, both Clintons. You and your daughter are rat dung.

    • Tom von Mises

      IIRC, TWICE snipers had him in their sights and Clinton was too busy to give the okay to pull the trigger. There would have been no such 300 or 3 “women and children” harmed.

      Even if so, those are the decisions a president has to make; it doesn’t fall well to any punk that wants the perks and prestige of the office with none of the responsibility, Bubba or Obubba.

      • Viet Vet


  • liz

    Bill Clinton lying. No surprise there.
    Also a great example of the unintended consequences of a leftists moral equivalence – “I would have been no better than him”.

  • Youcankeepyourdoctor Period

    Bill Clinton is a psychopathic liar. Why would anyone believe this (at the time) self aggrandizing story.

  • Youcankeepyourdoctor Period

    Bill Clinton is a psychopathic liar. Why would anyone believe this (at the time) self-aggrandizing story?

    • Viet Vet

      Some of the instances were known before, from other sources. I think Klinton knew that and this was his attempt to get out in front of the story.

  • DontMessWithAmerica

    Humanitarianism is linked to suicide. He spared 300 enemy lives to have 3000 of our lives lost in 9/11. Israel is doing similarly now. They could flatten the entire Gaza in two-three days with carpet bombing and not a single loss of their own lives. By pulling their punches to save Muslim lives and going in with a land operation, they’ve already lost over 50 lives of their own, they drag the whole thing out and chance having their outside enemies such as Obama run enough interference to never end the job.

  • lickityspit

    She and Odumbo could have done something 3 weeks earlier when Ambassador Stevens informed them that al Qaeda was “enmassing” in benghazi and he needed additional resources to defend the 30 or so U.S. personnel there.

  • carpe diem 36

    I believe that the crime of treason has no expiration date. He should be charged with treason now.

  • tickletik

    I didn’t like this article, especially the title. If Pres. Clinton had known that Bin Ladin intended to slam several planes into the twin towers and then chose not to act, well, then your title would have been accurate. But as of now, we have no such information indicating that he knew.

    Also, it’s one thing if they chose not to kill Bin Ladin if they knew no innocents would be taken out as well, it’s quite another if they were worried about taking out “an entire village”. Now, I understand that sometimes that is necessary, I also understand that sometimes it isn’t. But in this case, assuming what he said is the truth, that is a legitimate call to make.

    Keep in mind, I do not care for that man one bit. I regard him as a proven rapist, and a terrible president who cause tremendous damage to Israel, and to the world with his vile “peace process”. Many people have lost their lives because of his decisions, but so far, this article has not made the case that his decision with bin ladin was one of those.