Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

9/11 Commission: Clinton Refused to Let CIA Kill Bin Laden
NewsMax.com ^ | March 24, 2004 | Carl Limbacher

Posted on 03/24/2004 8:05:53 AM PST by Carl/NewsMax

Announcing some of its preliminary findings on Wednesday, the 9/11 Commission has confirmed that President Clinton ordered the CIA to take Osama bin Laden alive or not at all - a directive that made the task of neutralizing the terrorist kingpin infinitely more difficult.

In a statement read at the beginning of Wednesday's session, 9/11 staffer Michael Hurley revealed:

"CIA senior managers, operators and lawyers uniformly said that they read the relevant authorities signed by President Clinton as instructing them to try to capture bin Laden.

"They believed that the only acceptable context for killing bin Laden was a credible capture operation. 'We always talked about how much easier it would have been to try to kill him,'" a former chief of the bin Laden station told the Commission.

"Working level CIA officers were frustrated by what they saw as the policy restraints of having to instruct their assets to mount a capture operation," the Commission statement said.

Commission staffer Hurley detailed one attempt to recruit indigenous Afghan forces in a bin Laden capture operation, explaining, "When Northern Alliance leader Massoud was briefed on the carefully worded instructions for him, the briefer recalled that Massoud laughed and said, 'You Americans are crazy. You guys never change.'"

The Commission found that at least two senior CIA officers would have objected to killing bin Laden even if Clinton had authorized the hit. "One of them, a former counterrorism center chief, said that he would have refused an order to directly kill bin Laden," the Commission statement said.

Last week NBC News quoted former CIA official Gary Schroen as saying that White House orders to spare bin Laden's life cut the chances of getting him in half, from 50 to 25 percent.

Schroen's revelation - now confirmed by the 9/11 Commission - was ignored by the mainstream press beyond its initial coverage by NBC.


TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: 911commission; binladen; cia; clinton; clintonlegacy; failure; michaelhurley; missedopportuity; obl

1 posted on 03/24/2004 8:05:53 AM PST by Carl/NewsMax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
Oh, this is huge. Expect it to be all over the ABCNNBCBS newscasts. < /sarcasm>
2 posted on 03/24/2004 8:07:11 AM PST by FreedomPoster (This space intentionally blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Carl/NewsMax
It's kind of funny how clinton chickened out killing Bin-Laden but had no problem with the dead that fell around him in Arkansas and other parts of the world. Just ask Vince Foster!
4 posted on 03/24/2004 8:08:29 AM PST by Lucky2 (I'm a Born Again Christian, Republican, Conservative and will proudly vote for George W. Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
His legacy lives on.
5 posted on 03/24/2004 8:09:07 AM PST by doug from upland (Don't wait until it is too late to stop Hillary -- do something today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax; risk; Ragtime Cowgirl; LindaSOG
.


Remember the Lost and Suffering on September 11, 2001

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33
(Photos & Thread)


.



6 posted on 03/24/2004 8:10:02 AM PST by ALOHA RONNIE (Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.LZXRAY.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Imagine if it had been bush 1 who did this. We would have breaking news on cnn right now. The media bias is getting so extreme as to be a national security wish.
7 posted on 03/24/2004 8:11:32 AM PST by RolandBurnam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
Slapping liberals around with the Clinton legacy could become an olympic sport.
8 posted on 03/24/2004 8:12:08 AM PST by cripplecreek (Aye, fight and you may die, run, and you'll live...at least a while)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RolandBurnam
not national security "wish" I meant "issue"
9 posted on 03/24/2004 8:12:14 AM PST by RolandBurnam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
.

In a new Time of War...
In a new Century...
With an Enemy that is now...
Just around the corner and...
Up your street:



.."IS it SAFE?" = HILLARY on Senate Armed Services Committee..

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=629

.
10 posted on 03/24/2004 8:12:52 AM PST by ALOHA RONNIE (Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.LZXRAY.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
A good example of this is found in HEART OF A SOLDIER [a great book]. Dan Hill, a famous SF soldier, planned to bring Bin Laden's head home in a bag.... CIA/FBI/White House insisted Bin Laden be taken aliive and canceled the mission.
11 posted on 03/24/2004 8:19:22 AM PST by Lexington Green (Hanoi John - Hanoi John - The Benedict Arnold of Vietnam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
He's really building a legacy -- not the one he would like -- but a legacy nonetheless!!
12 posted on 03/24/2004 8:19:33 AM PST by Polyxene (Too bad ignorance isn't painful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RolandBurnam
It really makes you wonder whose side the democrats and the liberal media are on? It really does.
13 posted on 03/24/2004 8:19:36 AM PST by smiley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Oh yeah, I expect it will be the lead story on Dan Rather's nightly news.
14 posted on 03/24/2004 9:33:54 AM PST by Warren (Or)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
He wanted Bin Laden taken alive and the Branch Davidians (men, women, and children were collateral. Nice, Bill, really nice.
15 posted on 03/24/2004 9:37:24 AM PST by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smiley
It really makes you wonder whose side the democrats and the liberal media are on? It really does.

As if we really need to wonder any more. The anti-Americanism that used to be a trait in liberals is now a pathology that completely overwhelms any sensibilities they may once have possessed.

16 posted on 03/24/2004 9:37:27 AM PST by dirtboy (Howard, we hardly knew ye. Not that we're complaining, mind you...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RolandBurnam
I agree with you . This media bias is a national security risk. They are totally irresponsible in their quest to bring down the Bush administration. If we are hearing this crap, so is our enemy.
17 posted on 03/24/2004 9:41:28 AM PST by ladyinred (democrats have blood on their hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
This is at the same time he vetoed the partial birth abortion ban, showing more regard for the life of a murderer than the lives of pre-born human innocents.

Interesting.
18 posted on 03/24/2004 9:45:41 AM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Clinton legacy ping
19 posted on 03/24/2004 10:05:08 AM PST by thoughtomator (Voting Bush because there is no reasonable alternative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ALOHA RONNIE; Alamo-Girl

 Arabia in the Media, (link no longer works)

(July, '99, almost a year after Clinton launched missiles at the Taliban on the eve of his testimony re. Monica Lewinski)

The Boston Globe, on the 25th, said, "The 6-year-old boy watched intently as his father dusted off his favorite possession, a leather-bound scrapbook of Osama bin Laden, pausing at a photo of the Saudi dissident with a semiautomatic rifle tucked in the folds of his trademark white robe. ''Osama!'' his son squealed excitedly. ''That's me!'' The boy, whose name was changed to Osama last year, is one of hundreds of Pakistani children named for bin Laden since Aug. 20, 1998 - the day the United States launched missile strikes against alleged terrorist camps run by the Saudi millionaire in eastern Afghanistan. The attack sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. But the response was particularly heated in Pakistan, which sends thousands of Islamic guerrillas to similar training camps in Afghanistan. ''I love his bravery and gallantry,'' the boy's father, Niaz Ali Salar, said of bin Laden. ''He boosted the morale of Muslims throughout the world.'' The local leader of the radical Barelvi sect of Muslims, Salar said he hoped his son would ''live up to his name'' and lead the war against ''the enemies of Islam.'' In Mardan, a crumbling tobacco center 75 miles east of the Afghan border, Islamic priests deliver diatribes against ''evil America'' during Friday afternoon prayers.

In Pakistan, few buy Washington's vilification of bin Laden, whom it accuses of masterminding the Aug. 7, 1998, bombings of two US embassies in east Africa and several other terrorist attacks. ''He's a man on the run, whose only friends are the Taliban. How can he be a threat to the world's most powerful nation?'' said Sahib Zada Khalid Jan Binuri, head of Pakistan's most influential Islamic seminary. ''It's all spin control. If America tells me, `You are a terrorist,' what can I say?''

(character counts in a US President who's fighting evildoers!)


Creators Syndicate - www.creators.com 12/27/98 L. Brent Bozell III:

"Bill Clinton's decision to unleash the dogs of war as he tip-toes on the precipice of impeachment conjures up a vision of White House defense lawyer Greg Craig appearing before Congress declaring: "The President's military action was evasive, incomplete, misleading, even maddening - but it's not impeachable."

There's no dodging the suspicion that Clinton is seeking to save his bacon by dropping some megatonnage on Saddam Hussein. After all, it's just what he did when he bombed Osama bin Laden's alleged facilities in Sudan and Afghanistan this summer. Both actions were launched with little or no consultation with Congress, and with too little consultation with the service chiefs at the Pentagon. Oh my, how the talking heads like Alan Dershowitz and NBC anchor-in-training Brian Williams are going nuts over that suggestion. How vile! How unpatriotic! What hypocrites.

How about the Democrats? In 1983, Clinton defender John Conyers called for Reagan's impeachment for invading Grenada. (For good measure, he earlier called for impeachment over the Gipper's alleged "incompetence" in dealing with unemployment.) In 1984, as he ran for President, and again in 1986, Jesse Jackson suggested Reagan should be subject to an impeachment probe over U.S. actions in Nicaragua. Rep. Henry Gonzalez called for impeachment in 1983 over Grenada and again in 1987 over Iran-Contra. The National Organization for Women and the American Civil Liberties Union advocated impeaching Reagan in 1987.

The major media didn't thump the tub for impeachment, but did suggest forcefully that Reagan's actions were even worse than the Watergate offenses that got Richard Nixon impeached. 

For example, in the January 9, 1984 New York Times, then-Senior Editor John B. Oakes proclaimed: "President Reagan's consistent elevation of militarism over diplomacy creates a clear and present danger to the internal and external security of the United States. Presidents have been impeached for less." Oakes wasn't alone at the Times.

On December 12, 1986, columnist Tom Wicker offered an echo: "Mr. Reagan probably won't be impeached or forced to resign - though the offenses resulting from his policy, or his somnolence on the job, are more serious than any charge the House Judiciary Committee approved against Mr. Nixon."

So where are these noble folks today? Have you noticed how the words "War Powers Act" haven't been invoked much by the liberal media in the last, oh, six years, now that a President they favor is lobbing the bombs? Where are the calls for impeachment from John Conyers and Jesse Jackson? Where are the charges of abuse of power from the editorial pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post? Nothing but silence. Stinking dead silence.."

http://www.alamo-girl.com/0281.htm


20 posted on 03/24/2004 10:28:26 AM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl ("(We)..come to rout out tyranny from its nest. Confusion to the enemy." - B. Taylor, US Marine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson