State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996

NY Times ^ | August 17, 2005 | ERIC LICHTBLAU

[Homer1]

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.

[Howlin]

U.S. yanked bribe plan to capture Bin Laden (hillary!, Albright might object)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1176908/posts


Richard Clarke Flashback: Clinton Dropped Ball on Bin Laden
NewsMax.com ^ | 3/20/04 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff


Posted on 03/21/2004 12:33:41 AM EST by kattracks



Former Clinton White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke is preparing to tell the Independent Commission Investigating the Sept. 11 Attacks this week that the Bush administration failed to act on a Clinton administration plan to attack Osama bin Laden.

And in a "60 Minutes" interview set to air Sunday night, Clarke blasts Bush for doing "a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

But just a year ago Clarke was singing a different tune, telling reporter Richard Miniter, author of the book "Losing bin Laden," that it was the Clinton administration - not team Bush - that had dropped the ball on bin Laden.

Clarke, who was a primary source for Miniter's book, detailed a meeting of top Clinton officials in the wake of al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

He urged them to take immediate military action. But his advice found no takers.

Reporting on Miniter's book, the National Review summarized the episode:

"At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden."

The list of excuses seemed endless:

"Reno thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it.

"Tenet wanted to more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was.

"Albright was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims, and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process.

"Cohen, according to Clarke, did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."

And what about President Clinton? According to what Clarke told Miniter, he rejected the attack plan. Instead Clinton twice phoned the president of Yemen demanding better cooperation between the FBI and the Yemeni security services.

Clarke offered a chillingly prescient quote from one aide who agreed with him about Clinton administration inaction. "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?" said the dismayed Clintonista.

Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 commission will surely boost sales for his new book, "Against All Enemies," which his publisher is releasing on the eve of his appearance before the panel.

The book's bombshell news hook is Clarke's claim that after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush wanted him to look for evidence of Iraqi involvement.

But it's not clear how much politics has tempered his recollections. Clarke certainly sounded partisan on the morning of December 15, when, as the nation was celebrating Saddam Hussein's capture, he was complaining that the brutal dictator's apprehension was actually bad news.

"I don't think it's going to have a near-term positive effect on security," Clarke told ABC's "This Week."

"In the short term, we may have actually a worse problem," he insisted.

[Enchante]

Then there's that tape of Clinton speaking in Long Island, early 2002, and describing how he had the offer from Sudan, that they would turn over Bin Laden in that same time period in 1996, but Clinton thought only the Saudis should take on that hot potato, the Saudis refused, and Clinton allowed Bin Laden to slip out of our reach into Afghanistan.....[the 9/11 Commission was informed of this tape but in their report they assert that no such offer from the Sudanes was ever made]..... then Clinton spent the next 4 years fecklessly saying he would like to do something about terrorism but never actually doing much at all.... every plan and every opportunity to nail Bin Laden was passed up.

[bnelson44]

OK, that does it! The only explanation is that a good part of the editorial board of the paper is on vacation this week!

[mylife]

Ya gotta wonder where Binny boy is now.

We know he whats to expand the caliphate globally. My first thoughts where indonesia, then of course theres that entire european continent...Bosnia etc.

The bastard mat be alive or dead, but somewhere they are working on expanding "The Base"

[Lancey Howard]

(( ping ))

Check this out.

[airborne]

I thought he was going to "take Bin Laden out"?

He meant, "take him out ... to a McDonalds."

[Keith in Iowa]

>>>OK .. why is the Slimes reporting this...This is ... well very out of character for them

Break out the industrial umbrellas! You'll need all the protection you can get from the winged swine flitting about...

[359Henrie]

Did they warn him about dalliances with pigs also? Miss that memo Bill?

[TX Bluebonnet]

"The thinking was that he was in Afghanistan, and he was dangerous, but because he was there, we had a better chance to kill him," Mr. Scheuer said. "But at the end of the day, we settled for the worst possibility - he was there and we didn't do anything."

That about sums it up

[pj_627]

Have the floodgates finally opened?.....or maybe I'm just dreaming.

pattyjo

[Just mythoughts]

Unless somebody else is doing the leaking, I heard Joe Biden on the tube today and he is running for prez.

[AmericanVictory]

You are correct, sir!

[mplsconservative]

Incredible bump!

What motive does the NY Slimes have for revealing the truth?

I don't trust the 5000 pound Old Grey Lady as far as I could throw her.

[Cosmo]

So I guess my next question is, what page is this story on?

[gpapa]

A companion piece in the NYT, dated 8-17-05, is about Able Danger.

[Howlin]

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

For the story behind the story...

Monday, Sept. 13, 2004 3:39 p.m. EDT Flashback: Rather Nixed Tape of Clinton on bin Laden Last week wasn't the first time one-time journalist Dan Rather tried to foist bogus evidence on his "60 Minutes" audience in a bid to boost his favorite Democrat. Just three months ago, Rather allowed ex-President Bill Clinton to get away with claiming he had no knowledge of a 1996 offer from Sudan to have Osama bin Laden arrested – even after his producers had been warned that Clinton was on tape admitting the offer was real. Story Continues Below Rather had been chosen by Clinton for the rollout interview of his presidential memoir, "My Life," so the former newsman wasn't too anxious to see his exclusive go south by pressing his guest on uncomfortable topics like the bin Laden blunder. Rather introduced the topic in a voice-over: "President Clinton says he was, quote, 'obsessed' with bin Laden during his time in office and denies he refused opportunities to capture the al-Qaida leader." Then "60 Minutes" cut to Clinton: "To the best of my knowledge, it is not true that we were ever offered him by the Sudanese, even though they later claimed it. I think it's total bull." That's not what Mr. Clinton claimed two years earlier, comments to which Rather and his team were alerted three days before they allowed the ex-president to fib on "60 Minutes." "We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again," the ex-president told a Long Island business group in February 2002. "They released [bin Laden]. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." When offered a recording of Clinton contradicting the account he gave Rather before the interview was aired, a "60 Minutes" producer told NewsMax: Thanks, but no thanks. Instead, the once-respected newsman gave his audience information he had reason to believe was false. Three weeks later, CNN's Christiane Amanpour had the courage to ask Clinton the question Rather would not. AMANPOUR: Sometime in 1996, or - you spoke to a group of people in Long Island about this whole controversial issue of Sudan. CLINTON: Actually, it was 2001. [In fact, it was 2002.] AMANPOUR: OK. Was Sudan asked to extradite him? Did you miss the opportunity to have him extradited? CLINTON: And I mis - what I said there was wrong. What I said was in error. I went back now and did all this research from my book. And I'd said that we were told we couldn't hold him, implying that we had a chance to get him, but we didn't. That's not factually accurate. [End of Excerpt] No wonder Dan Rather didn't want to ask. To hear the recording Dan Rather pretended not to know about, Click Here. Editor's note:

To hear the actual tape, go to HERE and scroll to the bottom and punch CLICK HERE.

[gpapa]

Page 1. International Section. Jump on NYT Front Page.

[Theresawithanh]

Biden, running for president? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

IF he gets the nomination, we'll have a fun time with our "caption this" threads again, just like with Msr. Kerie!

[Enchante]

"What motive does the NY Slimes have for revealing the truth?"

None at all, unless it is done for tactical or strategic reasons -- i.e., to pre-emptively release what the libs realize is coming out anyway, to control the spin cycle, and/or to get whatever scandal is coming over and done with now (they hope) so that they can go back to their usual agenda.