9/11 Report Concludes Clinton 'Misspoke' on Sudan Offer

NewsMax ^ | 7/22/04 | Carl Limbacher et al

[pookie18]

Saw him with Linda Vester on Dayside in the last 7-10 days.

[Portnoy]

Clinton misspoke and Sandy inadvertantly stuffed several classified documents down his pants on multiple visits. Hoe dare we state otherwise. LOL

Paging Mr. Orwell. Mr. Orwell to the white courtesy phone...

[Robert357]

when ex-President Clinton gave a detailed account in 2002 of how he turned down an offer from Sudan to have Osama bin Laden arrested, he simply "misspoke."

When one is a pathelogical liar and has no redeeming moral values, then NOTHING they say should be believed. It doesn't matter what Clinton says as what he says can not be trusted, big or small. If one wants to know what happened, they need to go to official records (assuming they haven't been destroyed.) This is why the Sandy Berger thing is significant. What Bill says doesn't matter, nobody expects him to tel the truth anyway.

[Toespi]

"A Commission spokesman told NewsMax last month that it has no plans to release its copy of Clinton's videotaped remarks."

This tells us all we need to know.

[joesnuffy]

"Slick Willie"....with plenty of friends on both sides of the fence to grease the skids for him..
imo

[keysguy]

Bubba, "can you really get more chicks wearing that towel and robe, what about the beard?"

[DHerion]

I wonder if there was a deal to get a unanimous report, we'll go easy on Bush if you go easy on Clinton.

[keysguy]

NOw you are on it.

[sr4402]

Another pass to our Criminal in Cheif. When will our nation learn that it shouldn't matter whether what party you belong to, error are errors. The Dems should be screaming for Sandy Burgers head, but they are defending him to the hilt. Even though Sandy confessed, they don't demand accountability with their own. The same was true with Bill Clinton. The dems haven't changed their spots since Bill and I pray they don't through the next election.

[Freemyland]

"But the President told us that he had 'misspoken' and was, wrongly, recounting a number of press stories he had read."

Let's see if I have this right. For twelve years I have heard all these stories about Clinton's brilliance and absolute mastery in recalling details and facts. Now I'm told he cannot distinguish between a personal recollection and stories he has read in the press. This whole damn commission can go screw itself it thinks I and my fellow citicens are so stupid and gullible.

[tkathy]

Didn't Clinton claim he misscrewed with Monica? Thank God these poopheads are out of power.

[Dead Corpse]

It doesn't THINK that, it KNOWS it.

the public has let our government get away with this kind of crap for decades. There ain't a damn thing you can do about it either.

[Shermy]

"...President Clinton, in a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association, said that the United States did not accept a Sudanese offer and take Bin Ladin because there was no indictment. President Clinton speech to the Long Island Association, Feb. 15, 2002 (videotape of speech). But the President told us that he had “misspoken” and was, wrongly, recounting a number of press stories he had read. After reviewing this matter in preparation for his Commission meeting, President Clinton told us that Sudan never offered to turn Bin Ladin over to the United States. President Clinton meeting (Apr.8, 2004). Berger told us that he saw no chance that Sudan would have handed Bin Ladin over and also noted that in 1996, the U.S. government still did not know of any al Qaeda attacks on U.S. citizens. Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004).

[COBOL2Java]

Not, let's see what we have. Clinton makes an admission ON TAPE that he failed to snap up bin Laden. Then he gets to back out by saying that he "misspoke"?

I think it's called a Mulligan. They give 'em to Clinton all the time...

[rolling_stone]

I rate the 9/11 report right up there with the Warren Commission report and the magic bullet, nothing like having the wolf write about Goldilocks..

Throw in the Waco testimony from the FBI as a close third for more lies from our government...What the heck has happened to this Nation, it's third world corrupt.

Berger should get the maximum penalty for trying to rewrite history. I hope like heck someone breaks big time and opens up this can of worms...Anything less and this Nation will loose what is left of its credibility and perception of equal justice for all....Right now it looks like if you are wealthy or powerful or a poor illegal alien, you can do anything and get away with it, but try being a hard working middle class person and you will get the book thrown at you...

[Reactionary]

The usual from the pigs who rule.

Get used to the humiliation. Your intelligence and your decency mean nothing.

[conservative in nyc]

See Footnote 7 to chapter 4:

The CIA official who held one-on-one discussions with Erwa said that Erwa never offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States or render him to another country. Mark interview (May 12, 2004). For Carney’s instructions and the lack of a U.S. indictment, see Timothy Carney interview (Dec. 4, 2003). On the indictment issue and the supposed Sudanese offer to give up Bin Ladin, see Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004).

In early May 1996, the CIA received intelligence that Bin Ladin might be leaving Sudan. Though this reporting was described as “very spotty,” it would have been passed along to the DCI’s office because of high concern about Bin Ladin at the time. But it did not lead to plans for a U.S. operation to snatch Bin Ladin, because there was no indictment against him. Ron interview (Mar. 18, 2004); Frank interview (Mar. 18, 2004). It appears, however, that if another country had been willing to imprison Bin Ladin, the CIA might have tried to work out a scenario for apprehending him. CIA cable,May 8, 1996. The Sudanese government did not notify the United States that Bin Ladin had left the country until about two days after his departure. DOS cable, Nairobi 07020,“Sudan: Foreign Minister on Developments,” May 21, 1996.

President Clinton, in a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association, said that the United States did not accept a Sudanese offer and take Bin Ladin because there was no indictment. President Clinton speech to the Long Island Association, Feb. 15, 2002 (videotape of speech). But the President told us that he had “misspoken” and was, wrongly, recounting a number of press stories he had read. After reviewing this matter in preparation for his Commission meeting, President Clinton told us that Sudan never offered to turn Bin Ladin over to the United States. President Clinton meeting (Apr.8, 2004). Berger told us that he saw no chance that Sudan would have handed Bin Ladin over and also noted that in 1996, the U.S. government still did not know of any al Qaeda attacks on U.S. citizens. Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004).

Alleged Sudanese offers to cooperate on counterterrorism have been the subject of much recent controversy. After repeatedly demanding that Sudan stop supporting terrorist groups, in 1993 the U.S. government designated the country a state sponsor of terrorism. Diplomatic discussions continued but had little impact on Sudanese support for terrorism or on other issues, such as human rights. In the fall of 1995, the United States conducted a Sudan policy review and, supported by a vocal segment of Congress, the White House sought to pressure and isolate the Sudanese. Susan Rice interview (Jan. 9, 2004).

After Bin Ladin left Sudan in May 1996, some State Department officials, including Ambassador Carney, criticized the NSC’s hard-line policy, which he felt provided no “carrots” for Sudanese moderates to cooperate on
counterterrorism. He also faulted the NSC for not reopening the U.S. embassy in Khartoum (closed in early 1996) when security concerns there were reevaluated. State’s Sudan desk officer agreed, noting that the embassy was an excellent vehicle for gathering information on terrorists. According to one State official, NSC policymakers’ views were too firmly set to engage and test the Sudanese on counterterrorism. Timothy Carney interview (Dec.4, 2003); David Shinn interview (Aug. 29, 2003); Stephen Schwartz interview (Dec. 30, 2003).

But supporters of the tough line, such as the NSC’s Susan Rice, argued that any conciliatory statements from Khartoum belied its unhelpful actions. For example, she noted, though Sudan did eventually expel Bin Ladin, his al Qaeda network retained a presence in the country. Susan Rice interview (Jan. 9, 2004). In addition, the CIA’s Africa Division, whose operatives had engaged the Sudanese on counterterrorism in early 1996, would conclude that “there is no indication that Sudanese involvement with terrorism has decreased in the past year. ”They saw the Sudanese gestures toward cooperating as “tactical retreats” aimed at deceiving Washington in hopes of having sanctions removed. CIA memo,Walter to Acting DCI,“Africa Division’s Recommendations Regarding Sudan,” Dec. 17, 1996.The CIA official who ran the Sudanese portfolio and met with the Sudanese on numerous occasions told us the Sudanese were not going to deliver, and the perceived moderates “were just flat-out lying.” Mark interview (May 12, 2004).

In February 1997, the Sudanese sent letters to President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright, extending an invitation for a U.S. counterterrorism inspection mission to visit Sudan. The Sudanese also used private U.S. citizens to pass along offers to cooperate. Mansoor Ijaz interview (May 7, 2004); Janet McElligot interview (Oct. 20, 2003). But these offers were dismissed because the NSC viewed Sudan as all talk and little action. U.S. officials also feared that the Sudanese would exploit any positive American responses, including trips to the region by U.S. officials, for their own political purposes. See Joint Inquiry interview of David Williams, June 26, 2002. Today, Sudan is still listed as a state sponsor of terrorism.

[pookie18]

Not one mention of the name of Mansoor Ijaz who testified on 5/7. Here's an idea of what he said...

http://www.nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz200403230855.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz200404150832.asp