|
Lopez: In sum, how many times did Bill Clinton lose bin Laden? Miniter: Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration: 1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.  |
And it could be that Clinton was a lazy f'ker who avoided anything the least bit controversial.
Bill couldn't care less about Osama, he was more concerned about what to do with his cigars while getting bj's in the oval office.
Knowing his mindset after hearing him bloviate for the last 15 years, I have the theory that he had neither the intellectual nor the organizational capability to deal with it.
bump
Why did Blowjob clinochio ignore the terrorist threat?
Simple. He just didn't give a s*&t. All he was interested in was the power of the office of the POTUS. That and getting bjs by Monica. Beyond that, he simply didn't care.
Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com
Thursday, Dec. 6, 2001
Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism, one of the ex-president's own top aides charges.
Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996 to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence, focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound threats to national security.
Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin Laden arrested.
Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, hoping to have terrorism sanctions lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and "detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas," Ijaz writes in today's edition of the liberal Los Angeles Times.
These networks included the two hijackers who piloted jetliners into the World Trade Center.
But Clinton and National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger failed to act.
"I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities," Ijaz writes.
"The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."
Thank Clinton for 'Hydra-like Monster'
"As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster," says Ijaz, chairman of a New York investment company and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Ijaz's revelations are but the latest to implicate the Clinton administration in the spread of terrorism. Former CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson today also noted the failure of Clinton to do more than talk.
Among the many others who have pointed out Clinton's negligence: former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, former Clinton adviser Dick Morris, the late author Barbara Olson, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iraqi expert Laurie Mylroie, the CIA and some of the victims of Sept. 11.
And the list grows: members of Congress, pundit Charles R. Smith, former Department of Energy official Notra Trulock, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, government counterterrorism experts, the law firm Judicial Watch, New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler, the liberal Boston Globe --and even Clinton himself.
The Buck Stops Nowhere
Ijaz's account in the Times reads like a spy novel. Sudan's Bashir, fearing the rise of bin Laden, sent intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996. They offered to arrest bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or to keep close watch over him. The Saudis "didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them."
"In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere."
That's when bin Laden went to Afghanistan, along with "Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for al-Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks."
If these names sound familiar, just check the FBI's list of most-wanted terrorists.
The Clinton administration repeatedly rejected crucial information that Sudan had gathered on these terrorists, Ijaz says.
In July 2000, just three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen, Ijaz "brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies - an ally whose name I am not free to divulge - approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials."
This offer would have brought bin Laden to that Arab country and eventually to the U.S. All the proposal required of Clinton was that he make a state visit to request extradition.
"But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family - Clintonian diplomacy at its best."
'Purposeful Obfuscation'
Appearing on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor" on Wednesday night, Ijaz said, "Everything we needed to know about the terrorist networks" was in Sudan.
Newsman Bill O'Reilly asked how Clinton and Berger reacted to the deals Ijaz brokered to bring bin Laden and company to justice. "Zero. They didn't respond at all."
The Clintonoids won't get away with denials, he said. "I've got the documentation," including a memorandum to Berger.
"This was purposeful obfuscation," he asserted.
O'Reilly wondered why the White House didn't want information about the terrorists. Ijaz said that was for the American people to judge, but when pressed he suggested that Clinton might intentionally have allowed the apparently weak bin Laden to rise so he could later make a show of crushing him.
Concludes Ijaz in the Times: "Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history."
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
bttt
|
Lopez: In sum, how many times did Bill Clinton lose bin Laden? Miniter: Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration: 1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen. |
Who knows what went though Clintoon's mind. I'm afraid if Hillery makes it to the WH, we'll all find out.
Methinks clinton stood up hard, and firm regarding terrorism when Monica Lewinsky was in the room (or under his desk).
5.56mm
WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
"WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?"
Uh, 'cause his brains were in his johnson?
