Posted on 08/16/2005 8:29:36 PM PDT by Homer1
Edited on 08/16/2005 8:47:35 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You asked why The New York Times printed this.
Certainly not because their reporters dug it out, that's for sure. The much maligned Judicial Watch handed the State Dept documents to The New York Times on a silver platter, and I guess they couldn't not cover it!
But did you notice, the NYT could not credit Judicial Watch without the prerequisite "conservative" adjective attached.
And the NYT did not identify the Clinton administration officials who failed to respond to calls. (I'm guessing Bill, Madeleine, Jamie Ruben, and their worker bees are still crafting the official CYA response.
I would like to know when Judicial Watch turned the State Dept documents over to the NYT, how long they've had to get Clinton administration replies.
Your # 21 is very informative! thanks!
ref your #36:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/politics/17intel.html?pagewanted=1
"Officer Says Military Blocked Sharing of Files on Terrorists
A Democratic member of the commission, Richard Ben-Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor, said in an interview on Tuesday that while he could not judge the credibility of the information from Colonel Shaffer and others, the Pentagon needed to "provide a clear and comprehensive explanation regarding what information it had in its possession regarding Mr. Atta."
"And if these assertions are credible," Mr. Ben-Veniste continued, "the Pentagon would need to explain why it was that the 9/11 commissioners were not provided this information despite requests for all information regarding Able Danger."
(I'm salivating to think Ben-Veniste might get what he asks for!)
Looks like Sandy Berger left some important documents behind.
ref your #36:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/politics/17intel.html?pagewanted=1
"Officer Says Military Blocked Sharing of Files on Terrorists
A Democratic member of the commission, Richard Ben-Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor, said in an interview on Tuesday that while he could not judge the credibility of the information from Colonel Shaffer and others, the Pentagon needed to "provide a clear and comprehensive explanation regarding what information it had in its possession regarding Mr. Atta."
"And if these assertions are credible," Mr. Ben-Veniste continued, "the Pentagon would need to explain why it was that the 9/11 commissioners were not provided this information despite requests for all information regarding Able Danger."
(I'm salivating to think Ben-Veniste might get what he asks for!)
Drip,drip,drip...
Keep the stories coming...
Hillary's chances in 08'
Are going to be nothing !!!
My distrust of the Times is very deep. I cannot believe that this is straight, impartial reporting.
Possibilities for the underlying meaning to this story:
1. They are trying to set up Zekilow as the fall guy.
2. They are trying to get Condi; a later story will accuse her of ignoring a briefing.
3. There is something worse in these documents that is being hidden by printing this story as a diversion.
4. They are trying to go the "old news" route on behalf of Hillary.
I DO NOT TRUST THE NEW YORK TIMES. And what about Judith Miller, who is still in jail? Who was her source? I notice she has disappeared from the spotlight.
And WHY would Judicial Watch turn these documents over to the Times? Why would they think the Times can be trusted? Why not turn them over to the Washington Times, or the Wall Street Journal? I find this entire story and its source very weird.
Well, just consider, if Judicial Watch had turned the document over, only to the Washington Times, or FOXNews, or Rush, the MSM would have ignored it. They can't very well ignore The Mother Ship NYT.
But believe me, I'm not discounting your well-founded suspicions.
I still am suspicious, though. The Times would have to run 20 years of impartial stories before I trusted them again.
Anyone get the hardcopy of the NYT? Wonder what page this was on. Good post.
His family had publicly disowned him and Saudi Arabia revoked his citizenship.
So the the whole "we didn't know he was such a big threat" thing is a crock.
.
You are correct, Freeper kabar.
HANNITY is playing http://www.Newsmax.com CARL LIMBACHER's personally recorded tape of CLINTON admitting to refusing just 1 Sudan Offer to give us OSAMA bin LADEN on a Silver Platter. It was Taped months after the Attacks of Sept. 11th.
Sorta like CLINTON's finally having to publically admit just one SeXual interlude with his mistress of 12 years GENNIFER FLOWERS.
Starting the day after the Attacks of Sept. 11th I was blessed to promote .. thanks to the existance of http://www.Freerepublic.com and Talk Radio/TV .. MONSOOR IJAZ's stunning disclosure on National TV that the previous day's attacks could have been prevented if only the CLINTON White House hadn't refused his 3 personally brokered deals to bring OSAMA here from the Sudan before he could hit us hard here at home.
By the End of that week that was things got real personal for me as my fellow "WE WERE SOLDIERS" Veteran RICK RESCORLA had turned up missing at the World Trade Center's Tower II ...after his having saved 1,000's of lives there. Just like he had already saved the lives of many during our 1965 Vietnam Battle & the 1993 Bombing of the World Trade Center.
http://www.RickRescorla.com
http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24361
"My Fellow Americans, don't you dare let the CLINTONS get away with THIS one"
....has been my Call every since.
....WELL..???
.
I may have dreamed this, but....somewhere in the back of my mind is a foggy memory of an article which said Clinton and Bin Laden's paths crossed in England (?Maybe when Clinton was at Oxford?)
I also recall there was a picture of the two of them together in a group fo five or so.
I may be confusing 2 stories, but would appreciate if anyone could confirm or deny.
"HANNITY is playing http://www.Newsmax.com CARL LIMBACHER's personally recorded tape of CLINTON admitting to refusing just 1 Sudan Offer to give us OSAMA bin LADEN on a Silver Platter. It was Taped months after the Attacks of Sept. 11th"
ALOHA RONNIE, I sure would like to listen, but I can't find it on that link. Help me, please.
Fox and Friends (FOX News) is talking about it now and hitting Clinton hard. They are pulling no punches. Tony Snow has been talking about it on his radio show and will talk about it again today (follow the FR Tony Snow Thread).
.
NEVER FORGET
OSAMA's Al Qaeda attempted to "Sink the COLE" the very night before AL GORE was scheduled to lose his 2nd Presidential TV Debate in a row. An Event that probablly would have resulted in the sponsoring League of Women Voters cancelling that TV Debate out of respect for now suddenly dead Americans and a sunken U.S. Navy vessel, a la "Remember the Maine."
Recall, please, how that same League of Women Voters came so very close to cancelling AL GORE's 3rd scheduled Presidential TV Debate Loss in St. Louis, Missouri out of respect for the newly dead Governor of the State of Misssouri who's small plane had crashed nearby the night before..?
NEVER FORGET
Living here on the east coast, knowing that so many of our neighbors lost their lives, knowing that CLINTON KNEW......
This article explains that nonsense article in New York Magazine.
No doubt that NYSlimes gave Clinton a heads up on this story.
Of course, John Loftus trying to downplay the whole CLINTON KNEW aspect of this story.
.
Please see my post #172
AR
.
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.