Clinton skeletons burst out of cupboard unlocked by the FBI (new details)

IN THE summer of 1998, as the Monica Lewinsky scandal closed in around him, Bill Clinton was hosting an official White House dinner when he told his guests he needed to visit the bathroom.

Excusing himself, he left the table. But, unknown to his guests, he walked in humiliated fury not to the bathroom, but to the White House Map Room. Waiting for him were FBI doctors and a federal prosecutor, there to take his blood sample to see of it matched the DNA on Ms Lewinsky’s now infamous semen-stained dress.

This extraordinary episode, which remained secret until yesterday, is recounted in an explosive new book by Louis Freeh, the FBI Director during the 1990s.

Mr Freeh writes for the first time about his appalling relationship with the President who appointed him, and the endless stream of scandals that made Mr Clinton the constant target of FBI investigations.

“The problem was with Bill Clinton — the scandals and the rumoured scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended,” Mr Freeh writes in My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror.

“Whatever moral compass the President was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out. We were preoccupied in eight years with multiple investigations.” The scandals included the Whitewater inquiry and Mr Clinton’s affairs with Ms Lewinsky, Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers.

The need to obtain Mr Clinton’s blood sample was the most unsavoury element of the FBI’s investigation of the Lewinsky saga, Mr Freeh says.

The White House intern, whose affair with Mr Clinton led to impeachment proceedings, had kept a Gap dress stained with his “genetic material” as proof of their relationship. She later revealed its existence to Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel investigating the former President. The dinner party subterfuge was “like a bad movie”, Mr Freeh writes. “But we did it, very carefully, very confidentially.”

John Harris, a Washington Post reporter, provides more detail about the Map Room encounter in his biography of Mr Clinton, The Survivor.

“Clinton’s face was flushed with anger as he rolled up his sleeve while one of his Navy physicians drew the sample. A prosecutor and federal agent fixed their gaze on the vial the entire time, fearful that Clinton’s team might try a surreptitious switch.” Such was the mutual distrust between Mr Starr and Mr Clinton that the former President’s lawyer ordered a second blood sample in case Mr Starr resorted to dirty tricks, according to Mr Harris.

Mr Freeh also writes of a conversation between Mr Clinton and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of the Khobar Towers bombing that killed 19 US servicemen in Dhahran in 1996. He claims that Mr Clinton used the occasion to solicit a donation for his presidential library.

Mr Freeh says that Mr Clinton refused to insist that the Crown Prince allow the FBI to question suspects held in custody in Saudi Arabia. “Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the Crown Prince he understood the Saudis’ reluctance to co-operate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library.”

Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House Speaker and erstwhile Clinton nemesis, said on the Fox television network: “If Louis Freeh is prepared to swear on oath that he knows that President Clinton was asking foreign leaders for money . . . this has to be a criminal offence of the first order.”

Mr Freeh was appointed by Mr Clinton in 1993, but relations between the two became poisoned. Mr Freeh writes that to distance himself from the scandals, he refused a White House pass that would have allowed him access without signing in. “I wanted all my visits to be official,” he said.

They clashed repeatedly, including over an FBI inquiry into alleged Chinese efforts to funnel campaign donations to Democrats, an inquiry that Mr Freeh never told Mr Clinton about. Mr Clinton soon referred to the FBI chief as “F****** Freeh”, seeing him as an agent for the Republicans.

Mr Freeh resigned from the FBI in 2001, three months before the September 11 terrorist attacks. He was harshly criticised by the commission that investigated the atrocity.

Jay Carson, Mr Clinton’s spokesman, said: “This is clearly a total work of fiction, written by a man who’s desperate to clear his name. It’s unfortunate that he’d stoop to this level in his desperate attempt to rewrite history. Freeh’s claims about library fundraising are more untruths from a book that’s chock-full of them.”

Daniel Benjamin, a former Clinton aide, said that the former President “pushed the Crown Prince quite hard” over the Khobar Towers investigation, and won Saudi co-operation that led to indictments.

Daniel Benjamin - jounalist for the Wall Street Journal & Time Magazine & director of counterterrorism on Clinton's National Security Council

"the period of the transition was so acrimonious and so contentious"

Because CLINTON REFUSED LEAVE!!!

******

Daniel Benjamin, from the preliminary reports from the commission, from a full day of testimony detailing the Clinton administration, the transition in the early days of the Bush administration, did either government understand what they were dealing with with al-Qaida?

DANIEL BENJAMIN: I think both administrations understood in part what it was dealing with in terms of al-Qaida. I think that by the latter years of the Clinton administration, certainly the White House understood, I think, parts of the CIA understood quite well, parts of DOD, the Defense Department, understood quite well. There were some of the farther reaches of the bureaucracy did not understand quite well and the FBI in this period was really sort of an independent actor, so you had a lot of concentrated effort to keep -- keep the effort up and to try to find bin Laden and to try to destroy the command-and-control structure of al-Qaida but of course it was a very difficult time.

There wasn't the basis for an invasion and we had a hard time finding the necessary intelligence so it's a very frustrating period. As for the new team, I think that Secretary Powell, for example, who I know listened to several briefings and was very concerned about this problem did take it seriously but I think overall we had a real problem. That is that the period of the transition was so acrimonious and so contentious and there was so much...

RAY SUAREZ: Not to mention short.

DANIEL BENJAMIN: Not to mention short -- so much disdain for the outgoing administration on the part of the new team that there was a reluctance to believe that the threat was as big as it was made up to be -- as big as the Clinton administration personnel and also the permanent civil servants claimed. There was I think a period in which there just was a lot of disbelief.

snip

Remember, the number of people who had been killed by terrorism in the decade of the '90s was fewer than the number of people killed by bee stings or lightning and so there was a very different perspective on the nature of the threat. It was believed to be good theater -- very important for nationalist groups that were trying to get recognition but not a central threat to the United States. Catastrophic terror as a phenomenon had not yet occurred.

******

I THOUGHT THERE WAS NO CONNECTION OF OSAMA BIN LADEN TO IRAQ according to the MEDIA & the CLINTON groupies!!!

Read below...

******

Wouldn't the bombing of a plant with well-documented connections to Iraq's chemical weapons program, undertaken in an effort to strike back at Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, seem to suggest the Clinton administration national security officials believed Iraq was working with al Qaeda?

(DANIEL) Benjamin, who has been one of the leading skeptics of claims that Iraq was working with al Qaeda, doesn't want to connect those dots.

Instead, he describes al Qaeda and Iraq as unwitting collaborators. "The Iraqi connection with al Shifa, given what we know about it, does not yet meet the test as proof of a substantive relationship because it isn't clear that one side knew the other side's involvement. That is, it is not clear that the Iraqis knew about bin Laden's well-concealed investment in the Sudanese Military Industrial Corporation.

snip

It does sound less than satisfying to one Bush administration official. "So, when the Clinton administration wants to justify its strike on al Shifa," this official tells me, "it's okay to use an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. But now that the Bush administration and George Tenet talk about links, it's suddenly not believable?"

The Clinton administration heavily emphasized the Iraq link to justify its 1998 strikes against al Qaeda. Just four days before the embassy bombings, Saddam Hussein had once again stepped up his defiance of U.N. weapons inspectors, causing what Senator Richard Lugar called another Iraqi "crisis." Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering, one of those in the small circle of Clinton advisers involved in planning the strikes, briefed foreign reporters on August 25, 1998. He was asked about the connection directly and answered carefully.

Q: Ambassador Pickering, do you know of any connection between the so-called pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum and the Iraqi government in regard to production of precursors of VX?

PICKERING: Yeah, I would like to consult my notes just to be sure that what I have to say is stated clearly and correctly. We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program.

Ambassador Bill Richardson, at the time U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, echoed those sentiments in an appearance on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," on August 30, 1998. He called the targeting "one of the finest hours of our intelligence people."

"We know for a fact, physical evidence, soil samples of VX precursor--chemical precursor at the site," said Richardson. "Secondly, Wolf, direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden and the Military Industrial Corporation--the al Shifa factory was part of that. This is an operation--a collection of buildings that does a lot of this dirty munitions stuff. And, thirdly, there is no evidence that this precursor has a commercial application. So, you combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan's leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you've got a pretty clear cut case."

snip

But the media failed to understand the case, according to Daniel Benjamin, who was a reporter himself before joining the Clinton National Security Council. "Intelligence is always incomplete, typically composed of pieces that refuse to fit neatly together and are subject to competing interpretations," writes Benjamin with coauthor Steven Simon in the 2002 book "The Age of Sacred Terror." "By disclosing the intelligence, the administration was asking journalists to connect the dots--assemble bits of evidence and construct a picture that would account for all the disparate information. In response, reporters cast doubt on the validity of each piece of the information provided and thus on the case for attacking al Shifa."

Now, however, there's a new wrinkle. Bush administration officials largely agree with their predecessors. "There's pretty good intelligence linking al Shifa to Iraq and also good information linking al Shifa to al Qaeda," says one administration official familiar with the intelligence. "I don't think there's much dispute that [Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation] was al Qaeda supported. The link from al Shifa to Iraq is what there is more dispute about."

According to this official, U.S. intelligence has obtained Iraqi documents showing that the head of al Shifa had been granted permission by the Iraqi government to travel to Baghdad to meet with Emad al-Ani, often described as "the father of Iraq's chemical weapons program." Said the official: "The reports can confirm that the trip was authorized, but the travel part hasn't been confirmed yet."

So why hasn't the Bush administration mentioned the al Shifa connection in its public case for war in Iraq? Even if one accepts Benjamin's proposition that Iraq may not have known that it was arming al Qaeda and that al Qaeda may not have known its chemicals came from Iraq, doesn't al Shifa demonstrate convincingly the dangers of attempting to "contain" a maniacal leader with WMD?

According to Bush officials, two factors contributed to their reluctance to discuss the Iraq-al Qaeda connection suggested by al Shifa. First, the level of proof never rose above the threshold of "highly suggestive circumstantial evidence"--indicating that on this question, Bush administration policymakers were somewhat more cautious about the public use of intelligence on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection than were their counterparts in the Clinton administration. Second, according to one Bush administration source, "there is a massive sensitivity at the Agency to bringing up this issue again because of the controversy in 1998."

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.