Clinton Denies Taped Bin Laden Admission, Blames 'Misquote'

NewsMax.com ^ | April 9, 2004 | Carl Limbacher

[small voice in the wilderness]

Prevaricate Gate

[Stallone]

HE LIED IN TESTIMONY!

AGAIN!

[Stallone]

It's a lie.

Clinton could only play that game in a 9/10 world.

CORNER THE WEASEL ON THIS AND DON'T LET GO, PUBBIES!

[kcar]

Does anyone know if the Rapist was under oath? Otherwise, why did they waste precious lifespan talking to the Big Creep?

[Lucky2]

I'm so sick of clintoon and his lies I just want to throw up. It just amazes me that that twit Bob Kerrey is shocked that the bent one told another whopper. I'm just wondering what algore said...

[techcor]

This is similar to when he (under oath) said he couldn't recall if Riadi had offered him a million dollar donations. The networks lied on his behalf and said that he had testified that Riadi had not made the offer. Always remember the networks will actually lie for him. I wish Hannity or Limbaugh would look into that incident , too.

[Destro]

What you posted does not disprove one word I said - that Sudan was suckering us with fake negotiations so Osama could escape to Afghanistan.

[kcvl]

a day after (FORMER) President Clinton told commissioners that intelligence wasn't strong enough to justify a retaliation against al-Qaida for the 2000 bombing of a Navy ship.

How much MORE intelligence did he need?!


September 02, 2003

Bill Clinton's failure on terrorism

By Richard Miniter

Part one of an exclusive four-part series of excerpts.

Clinton administration counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke attended a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and others. Several others were in the room, including Leon Fuerth, Gore's national security advisor; Jim Steinberg, the deputy National Security Advisor; and Michael Sheehan, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism. An American warship had been attacked without warning in a "friendly" harbor — and, at the time, no one knew if the ship's pumps could keep it afloat for the night. Now they had to decide what to do about it.

Mr. Clarke had no doubts about whom to punish. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had compiled thick binders of bin Laden and Taliban targets in Afghanistan, complete with satellite photographs and GPS bomb coordinates — the Pentagon's "target decks." The detailed plan was "to level" every bin Laden training camp and compound in Afghanistan as well as key Taliban buildings in Kabul and Kandahar. "Let's blow them up," Clarke said. . . . Around the table, Clarke heard only objections — not a mandate for action.

This is how Clarke remembers the meeting, which has never before been described in the press. . . . Attorney General Janet Reno insisted that they had no clear idea who had actually carried out the attack. The "Justice [Department] also noted, as always, that any use of force had to be consistent with international law, i.e. not retaliation but self protection from future attack," Clarke told the author. Reno could not be reached for comment.

Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet joined Reno in insisting on an investigation before launching a retaliatory strike. Tenet "did not want a months-long investigation," CIA spokesman Bill Harlow said. "He simply believed that before the United States attacked, it ought to know for sure who was behind the Cole bombing." While Tenet noted that the CIA had not reached a conclusion about what terror group was behind the surprise attack on the USS Cole, "he said personally he thought that it would turn out to be al Qaeda," Clarke recalls.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was also against a counterstrike — but for diplomatic reasons. "We're desperately trying to halt the fighting that has broken out between Israel and the Palestinians," Albright said. Clarke recalls her saying, "Bombing Muslims wouldn't be helpful at this time." Some two weeks earlier, Ariel Sharon had visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which touched off a wave of violence known as the "second Intifada" and threatened to completely destroy the Clinton Administration's hopes for Middle East peace settlement.

Mr. Clarke remembers other objections from the State Department. "State noted that we had been bombing Iraq and Serbia and were getting the reputation internationally as a mad bomber nation that could only address its problems that way." "It would be irresponsible," a spokeswoman for Albright told the author, for the Secretary of State, as America's chief diplomat, not to consider the diplomatic impact of a missile strike that might try but would quite likely fail to kill bin Laden.

Albright urged continued diplomatic efforts to persuade the Taliban to turn over bin Laden. Those efforts had been going on for more than two years and had gone nowhere. It was unlikely that the Taliban would ever voluntarily turn over its strongest internal ally. . . .

Secretary of Defense Cohen also did not favor a retaliatory strike, according to Mr. Clarke. The attack "was not sufficient provocation," Clarke remembers Cohen saying, or words to that effect. Cohen thought that any military strike needed a "clear and compelling justification," Clarke recalls. (Cohen, despite repeated phone calls over more than one week, failed to respond to interview requests.) Cohen also noted that General Anthony Zinni, then head of CENTCOM, was concerned that a major bombing campaign would cause domestic unrest in Pakistan (where bin Laden enjoyed strong support among extremists) and hurt the U.S. military's relationship with that nation.

Mr. Cohen's views were perfectly in accord with those of the top uniformed officers and Clinton's political appointees at the Pentagon, Sheehan told the author. "It was the entire Pentagon," he added. The chief lesson that the Defense Department seemed to draw from the assault on the USS Cole was the need for better security for its ships, what was invariably called "force protection." Listening to Cohen and later talking to top military officers, Sheehan, a former member of Special Forces before joining the State Department, told the author that he was "stunned" and "taken aback" by their views. "This phenomenon I cannot explain," he said. Why didn't they want to go hit back at those who had just murdered American servicemen without warning or provocation?

The issue was hotly debated. Some of the principals were concerned that bin Laden might somehow survive the cruise-missile attack and appear in another triumphant press conference. Clarke countered by saying that they could say that they were only targeting terrorist infrastructure. If they got bin Laden, they could take that as a bonus. Others worried about target information. At the time, Clarke said that he had very reliable and specific information about bin Laden's location. And so on. Each objection was countered and answered with a yet another objection.

In the end, for a variety of reasons, the principals were against Mr. Clarke's retaliation plan by a margin of seven to one against. Mr. Clarke was the sole one in favor. Bin Laden would get away — again.

Richard Miniter is the author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror." The excerpts are from that book.

[So Cal Rocket]

I'm just wondering what algore said...

Al Gore: "I invented the 9/11 Commission".

[Rome2000]

"9/11 Families Experience Day Of Anger Over Clinton Testimony".

How about a CNN poll question on whether the Clinton Administration could have done more to stop the terrorist attacks?

[CedarDave]

Clarke or Clinton lying? What a choice. Can we have a twofer?

[mewzilla]

Guess we know why Toon was questioned behind closed doors and NOT under oath.

[VeniVidiVici]

Too complex a concept?

I don't know what in the hell you are reading but it's not the same story I'm reading.

Sudan offered, Clinton said no.

What negotiations? Clinton said we had no basis on which to hold him. Why would he negotiate? The "scandal" is the fact that Clinton had the opportunity to get OBL and chose not to.

If you wish to conjure up some fantasy that Sudan was not acting in good faith, be my guest. Since that is not relevant to Clinton's actions, I don't care what they were doing.

[blackdog]

Clinton didn't say he never said that. He said he couldn't recollect saying that, that he must have been misquoted.

In Clinton-speak, that means......"Of course I said that, but if you make me say it now, some people in this room will be at room temperature in a week".

[Imal]

I guess what Mr. Clinton is trying to say is: "Don't believe everything you hear -- especially from me!"

[BlessedByLiberty]

Kerrey and the 9/11 Kerry for President Commission should subpoena this tape. They should, but they will not.

Perhaps Mr. Hannity should invite Sen. Kerrey on his programs and play it for him?

[tomball]

I had no intention of disproving anything you said. You asked a question. I only provided links that verified your point, and the fact that the previous administration was in a deliberate state of procrastination.

[Imal]

Why didn't they want to go hit back at those who had just murdered American servicemen without warning or provocation?

A question no one will ever answer to my satisfaction.

[rwfromkansas]

I liked when Condi reminded Kerrey of some of his statements on terrorism yesterday. That was sweet.

[BlessedByLiberty]

Wake me when the headline reads:

Clinton Tells The Truth...I want to watch chariots in the sky that day.

Seriously, this is but another gaffe on behalf of this commission. The fact that the subject came up indicates there is something to the claim. Clinton does not refute the substance of it, but says he can't recall suggests further probing is required. How could the Commissars, er commissioners, not have a copy of the tape as evidence to confront Clinton?

We've heard the tape played/or discussed on Hannity and O'Reilly.