Gary Aldrich (archive)
September 2, 2003 | 
Print | 
Send
On September 1, 2003 syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote an article announcing a new book entitled, Losing Bin Laden. Mr. Novak revealed a secret meeting discovered and reported in the book, by its author, Richard Miniter which took place in the Clinton White House after the bombing of the USS Cole.
The meeting in October, 2000, occurred twenty-six days before voters decided who would succeed Bill Clinton. Why did Clinton and his advisors ignore a proper military response and allow Osama Bin Laden to live on? Could it be so that Al Gore would have an easy transition to the White House? After all, military actions can produce messy political ramifications if done wrong. Clinton had already bombed one aspirin factory – was he worried about bombing a second?
It’s important to note that what happened during that remarkable meeting may have sealed the fate of more than 3,000 innocent Americans. Those lives were lost in New York, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia as a result of Osama Bin Laden’s carefully orchestrated attack. After the USS Cole bombing, Bill Clinton had a prime opportunity to kill Osama, and possessed solid evidence about his location.
In fact, according to Miniter, Clinton passed up 11 other chances to kill Osama Bin Laden. Some would say Clinton’s failure to take out this deadly terrorist is his real legacy.
Today, Bill Clinton is quick to disclose how he “obsessed” over the problem of Osama Bin Laden. But was his obsession, as he puts it, more about how to avoid possibly unpopular and dangerous foreign policy decisions?
I hope Mr. Clinton and his advisors never forget that September 11, 2001 changed our lives forever. We live in constant fear, while we agonize about the latest bombings and assassinations of our military personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the many dangers facing Americans in these and other Middle Eastern countries.
Mr. Novak’s article was certainly news by any measure, but why isn’t anybody except The Washington Times and some Internet sites covering it? The fact that it’s a book critical of the Clinton Administration should not play a part in whether major news organizations cover the bigger story. Yet, a quick scan of the major U.S. newspapers for news about this remarkable meeting failed to produce any evidence that they’ve even heard about it.
The Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Miami Herald, Los Angeles Times, and Boston Herald are all silent on the matter. Major newspapers have a responsibility to help citizens understand how it was possible for the U.S. to be attacked on 9/11 in such a spectacular fashion. Citizens are still worried about how the U.S. government failed to accurately assess Bin Laden as a deadly threat.
But even if some newspapers believed this news to be “old”, The Washington Post and the Miami Herald certainly have a stake in reporting it, considering participants in the October 2000 meeting are members of their own communities, and one still serves a sitting president in a senior position.
A key participant in the meeting was current C.I.A. Director George Tenet. Can one assume that The Washington Post will eventually report that President Bush’s current C.I.A. director attended a meeting during which counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke recommended attacks on well-researched sites in Afghanistan, hoping to take out Osama and his training camps?
Janet Reno, George Tenet, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright all said “no” to the attack possibilities, each for different reasons. Of course, Attorney General Janet Reno is a prominent member of the Miami community, and citizens who live there certainly have an interest in knowing how influential she was in discouraging the president from acting when Osama Bin Laden succeeded in blowing up our warship. So, where is the Miami Herald’s story?
Isn’t it news that all of these senior Clinton advisors, and the president himself, declined a military response when there was ample evidence to support one? The fact that we did not kill Osama Bin Laden when we had the cause and the opportunity is newsworthy, especially in light of the world we are now forced to live in.
Director Tenet, according to witness reports, wanted to conduct more investigation, even though Mr. Clarke thought there was sufficient evidence to blame Osama. Cohen was quoted as saying that the attack on our ship which nearly caused it to sink, and took the lives of 17 sailors, “was not sufficiently provocative.” Cohen now denies he said this, but one wonders what it would take to provoke him.
Major news organizations should not avoid reporting news simply because a conservative book publisher is the source. When I released my book in 1996, I alleged a national security collapse taking place in the Clinton White House. I also presented facts that Bill Clinton continued to behave as a reckless womanizer. The mainstream media first attacked me and my book, using Clinton Administration talking points, then completely ignored my allegations.
But, history has proven that Clinton was a national security disaster and a reckless womanizer.
It’s irresponsible for the mainstream media to ignore a major news story simply because they don’t care for the politics of a book publisher. Their failure to cover this breaking story will just add to a growing stack of evidence that the mainstream media is hopelessly biased.