Posted on 03/17/2004 10:20:15 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
An account by a former CIA official reported by NBC News Tuesday night directly contradicts ex-President Bill Clinton's claim that he gave the CIA standing orders to kill 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden if the opportunity presented itself. Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, told NBC's Lisa Myers that the Clinton White House required the CIA to capture bin Laden alive rather than kill him. The directive "reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him," said Schroen, who was responding to a fall 2000 CIA videotape broadcast by NBC News showing that bin Laden had been pinpointed in his Afghanistan hideout. In February 2002, however, President Clinton expressly claimed just the opposite, detailing what he insisted were his extensive efforts to track bin Laden down and execute him on the spot. "We actually trained to do this. I actually trained people to do this. We trained people," Clinton told a New York business group. "We had a standing contract between the CIA and some groups in Afghanistan authorizing them and paying them if they should be successful in arresting and/or killing him." Clinton described several plans he had authorized to "get" bin Laden, one of which involved a missile strike on what appears to be the same compound in the CIA video. "The only place bin Laden ever went that we knew was occasionally he went to Khandahar where he always spent the night in a compound that had 200 women and children," the ex-president explained. "So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill 200 women and children that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him." [In fact, the CIA video shows bin Laden relatively isolated, surrounded by an entourage of no more than 20 aides and bodyguards.] Clinton continued: "Now, after he murdered 3,100 of our people and others who came to our country seeking their livelihood you may say, "Well, Mr. President, you should have killed those 200 women and children.'" But at the time," Clinton claimed, "no one thought that I should do that - although I take full responsibility for it. You need to know that those are the two options I had." Though the videotape broadcast by NBC showed that the CIA had pinpointed bin Laden's location - imagery that was transmitted back to CIA headquarters in real time - Clinton insisted, "there was less than a 50/50 chance that the intelligence was right that on this particular night he was in Afghanistan." "I tried a lot of different ways to get bin Laden 'cause I always thought he was a very dangerous man," the ex-President claimed. Here's a full transcript of President Clinton's Feb. 2002 comments, which are his fullest public account to date of his failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden: The Long Island Association Annual Luncheon Feb. 15, 2002 Question from LIA President Matthew Crosson: CROSSON: In hindsight, would you have handled the issue of terrorism, and al-Qaeda specifically, in a different way during your administration? CLINTON: Well, it's interesting now, you know, that I would be asked that question because, at the time, a lot of people thought I was too obsessed with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. And when I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours. I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out. We also bombed a chemical facility in Sudan where we were criticized, even in this country, for overreaching. But in the trial in New York City of the al-Qaeda people who bombed the African embassy, they testified in the trial that the Sudanese facility was, in fact, a part of their attempt to stockpile chemical weapons. So we tried to be quite aggressive with them. We got - uh - well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so 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. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan. We then put a lot of sanctions on the Afghan government and - but they inter-married, Mullah Omar and bin Laden. So that essentially the Taliban didn't care what we did to them. Now, if you look back - in the hindsight of history, everybody's got 20/20 vision - the real issue is should we have attacked the al-Qaeda network in 1999 or in 2000 in Afghanistan. Here's the problem. Before September 11 we would have had no support for it - no allied support and no basing rights. Though we actually trained to do this. I actually trained people to do this. We trained people. But in order to do it, we would have had to take them in on attack helicopters 900 miles from the nearest boat - maybe illegally violating the airspace of people if they wouldn't give us approval. And we would have had to do a refueling stop. And we would have had to make the decision in advance that's the reverse of what President Bush made - and I agreed with what he did. They basically decided - this may be frustrating to you now that we don't have bin Laden. But the president had to decide after Sept. 11, which am I going to do first? Just go after bin Laden or get rid of the Taliban? He decided to get rid of the Taliban. I personally agree with that decision, even though it may or may not have delayed the capture of bin Laden. Why? Because, first of all the Taliban was the most reactionary government on earth and there was an inherent value in getting rid of them. Secondly, they supported terrorism and we'd send a good signal to governments that if you support terrorism and they attack us in America, we will hold you responsible. Thirdly, it enabled our soldiers and Marines and others to operate more safely in-country as they look for bin Laden and the other senior leadership, because if we'd have had to have gone in there to just sort of clean out one area, try to establish a base camp and operate. So for all those reasons the military recommended against it. There was a high probability that it wouldn't succeed. Now I had one other option. I could have bombed or sent more missiles in. As far as we knew he never went back to his training camp. So the only place bin Laden ever went that we knew was occasionally he went to Khandahar where he always spent the night in a compound that had 200 women and children. So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill 200 women and children that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him. Now, after he murdered 3,100 of our people and others who came to our country seeking their livelihood you may say, "Well, Mr. President, you should have killed those 200 women and children." But at the time we didn't think he had the capacity to do that. And no one thought that I should do that. Although I take full responsibility for it. You need to know that those are the two options I had. And there was less than a 50/50 chance that the intelligence was right that on this particular night he was in Afghanistan. Now, we did do a lot of things. We tried to get the Pakistanis to go get him. They could have done it and they wouldn't. They changed governments at the time from Mr. Sharif to President Musharraf. And we tried to get others to do it. We had a standing contract between the CIA and some groups in Afghanistan authorizing them and paying them if they should be successful in arresting and/or killing him. So I tried hard to - I always thought this guy was a big problem. And apparently the options I had were the options that the President and Vice President Cheney and Secretary Powell and all the people that were involved in the Gulf War thought that they had, too, during the first eight months that they were there - until Sept. 11 changed everything. But I did the best I could with it and I do not believe, based on what options were available to me, that I could have done much more than I did. Obviously, I wish I'd been successful. I tried a lot of different ways to get bin Laden 'cause I always thought he was a very dangerous man. He's smart, he's bold and committed. But I think it's very important that the Bush administration do what they're doing to keep the soldiers over there to keep chasing him. But I know - like I said - I know it might be frustrating to you. But it's still better for bin Laden to worry every day more about whether he's going to see the sun come up in the morning than whether he's going to drop a bomb, another bomb somewhere in the U.S. or in Europe or on some other innocent civilians. (END OF TRANSCRIPT)
He wanted OBL, but refused to authorize anyone to catch him.
He wanted OBL, but also to have the CIA accept all blame if something went wrong.
He wanted OBL, but refused to accept responsibility.
So he had Reno's DoJ send repeated authorizations of force that basically let the CIA operatives know they'd hang if something went wrong.
If Bin Laden had been a piece of tail, Clinton would have nailed 'im.
This is a good example of Clinton's pathological orientation to the truth, i.e., he tells a lie when the truth would be better.
A better reply, one that conservatives and liberals alike could accept would be something to the effect that if he knew 911 was going to happpen, of course he would have used ever resource to kill him. Nobody can see the future though, there's no crystal ball in the White House.
His desparate repetition is very revealing. But as the saying goes, tell a lie loud enough and often enough, people will believe it. (hey, it's worked for them before, why not?)
What's this "we" $hit, kemosabe? The ONE thing I miss about him being in office is his tendency to get rolling on a lie and just making it even more absurd. (Kind of like early in his first term when he actually referred to his having had a career in the NBA.)
He warms up by claiming that he authorized/ordered "training" to kill UBL, but that isn't enough for him -- he has to claim that he personally trained operatives to take out bin laden!
This wacky, manic exercise in CYA reminds me of one of my favorite threads: Clinton Hatched Wacky 'Black Ninja' Plot to Get al-Qaeda (Legacy).
You have to understand his mental pathologies in order to know that truth-vs-lie isn't relevant in BillyWorld -- just the desperate, manic need to make himself look good and secure that elusive legacy.
If the truth serves that purpose better, then he'll go with it; otherwise, he'll blurt out whatever lie randomly pops into his fat head, regardless of how implausible it sounds. Hell, the more outlandish, the more he *wants* us to doubt him so that he can play victim of the VRWC.
The best thing to do is to mostly ignore him, although occasionally laughing at him is OK.
Can anybody directly refute any of his story? 'Cause I can't.
Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, told NBC's Lisa Myers that the Clinton White House required the CIA to capture bin Laden alive rather than kill him.
Pretty direct refutation, I'd say.
"So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill 200 women and children that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him."
[In fact, the CIA video shows bin Laden relatively isolated, surrounded by an entourage of no more than 20 aides and bodyguards.]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.