Clinton balked at Sudan offer to arrest bin Laden

Washington Post via DallasNews.com ^ | 10/03/2001 | Barton Gellman

[CommiesOut]

WASHINGTON

[Attillathehon]

Don't forget pardoning the Puerto Rican Terrorists to aid his wife's campaign.

[SKYDRIFTER]

Actually, I think in the case that got the attention, the money was actually returned. That's not to say Hitlery has morals worth citing, but she's politically aware, once she's caught. Bill doesn't even care about being caught; ask Hitlery.

[LSJohn]

I posted this because I fear the Saudis are not as reliable allies as we usually think.

I see you did your own research after this post, and came up with some pretty good answers.

The bottom line is that the upper echelons of the Saudi royal family are pretty good allies, when they can be. They have a very tenuous grip on power which is threatened not only by a declining economy (national income -- GDP -- is not growing nearly as fast as the population) but by radical Islamic elements and less favored members in the wings of the royal family itself. If they are perceived as getting too close to us without getting anything in return, they think they'll be dethroned, and they're probably right.

One glimmer of good news in all this is that it might cause OPEC to implode with each member increasing production. Saudi Arabia will probably benefit more from such a development than any other ME country, and will benefit even more if we embargo oil shipments by a couple of the other ME producers.

[LSJohn]

...the title is a LITTLE overblown: it was the Saudis who broke the deal, not the U.S.

What if the Clinton Administration chose Saudi Arabia because it was well known that the Saudis couldn't agree?

[LSJohn]

"Let us all please remember that before he became a distinguished member of Clinton's cabinet, that he was a lobbyist for RED China."

Some of us haven't forgotten. Wonder why so many in our country have...

Some of us haven't forgotten Nancy Dorn either, and she can't be blamed on the Demon-craps

[Askel5]

Thanks for the flag.

Let us all please remember that before he became a distinguished member of Clinton's cabinet, that he was a lobbyist for RED China.

Comments like this blow my mind. I realize they've worked real hard -- staging brown paper bag events at Buddhist temples, even -- to Clue us in but the overwhelming control of, responsibility for and perpetuation of our appeasement and enrichment of China can be laid at the feet of the GOP.

I cannot for the life of me understand all this blaming of Clinton. That's like assuming the Bush-Reagan FDA and Elizabeth Dole were in no way integral to washing his hands of tainted blood and protecting his bloody legacy through two -- count 'em -- TWO election cycles whilst we concentrated on the Bimbo Eruptions that only served to perpetuate the abyss between "private" and "public" morality and primed the Wisdom of the American People to eschew his being hung for "private" lapses with interns in the Oval Office.

How stupid can we be?

[a history buff]

Until I read that Prince Turki was the Taliban's patron, I discounted all reports of our complicity in attacks on our own. Now, knowing that people who were in office by our grace funded those protecting those who blew up our embassies and ships, I am beginning to make assumptions.

[liberallarry]

"If they are perceived as getting too close to us without getting anything in return, they think they'll be dethroned, and they're probably right."

What can we give them in exchange for the right to use their bases to attack bin Laden, and probably other Arab countries?
A current post says that the allies called off a first attack because of cold feet by Saudi Arabia (and 2 others). Rumsfield is personally going over there to investigate. That means it's serious.
bin Laden has said that one of his principal goals is to destabilize friendly Arab regimes. If he forces a revelation of the extent of his support in Saudi Arabia it will force a crisis.
Or at least that's my current understanding.

[independentmind]

Now, knowing that people who were in office by our grace funded those protecting those who blew up our embassies and ships, I am beginning to make assumptions.

I see it as a miscalculation that backfired. Someone decided that we needed access to cheap oil, both from the mid-east and the Caspian, more than we needed to protect our own citizens against terrorism. After all, terrorism can be handled, as is evidenced by the the Homeland Security recommendations made months before the 9/11 attacks. I don't for a minute think that such utilitarian calculations are beyond the brilliant minds that run our foreign policy.

[liberallarry]

"I cannot for the life of me understand all this blaming of Clinton"

I can't understand it. Period.

The Republic is facing one of its greatest challanges and all some of these people can do is yell "Clinton did it!".

I think they would rather go down with the ship yelling that than do something positive to keep it from sinking.

[texasbluebell]

Thanks for the tip. I've just been checking it out in old threads. Very interesting.

[LSJohn]

What can we give them in exchange for the right to use their bases to attack bin Laden, and probably other Arab countries?

That's not the kind of cooperation we need, and it's too high-profile support. I'm talking about behind-the-scenes cooperation to identify and target individuals and groups who are a terrorist threat to us. There are lots of things we can give them, including the bone Bush threw them with the independent Palestinian state remark, technology, military equipment, trade agreements, forgiveness of loans, and cash.

A current post says that the allies called off a first attack because of cold feet by Saudi Arabia (and 2 others).

I don't buy it.

Rumsfield is personally going over there to investigate. That means it's serious.

No, that means Rumsfeld is desirous of or willing to have it seen as serious. It may or may not be. Remember that most of what you read about U.S. military actions before the fact will be deceptive, and although we are not the primary targets of the deceptions, we can be fooled also. Claiming we wanted to attack from Saudi Arabia and that they wouldn't let us accomplishes two things:

1) Constitutes a military feint;

2) Allows the Saudi leadership to appear (to their own citizens and to other Muslim countries) that they are being tough with us and not willing to provide assistance which isn't "proper."

bin Laden has said that one of his principal goals is to destabilize friendly Arab regimes.

It is his primary goal and the primary goal of the fanatical jihadists about whom we have to worry most. What they probably hoped for was our over-reaction -- attacking Muslim civilians in retribution -- and the "exposure" of Muslim regimes which wouldn't join a coalition against us in response to that.

I'm not a fan of GW, but so far he has wisely avoided several possible pitfalls and traps in our reaction to WTC2.

[LSJohn]

Maybe it was a miscalculation that didn't backfire.

Cui bono?

Saudi Arabia is increasing production, breaking the OPEC limits. Others will do likewise in response. Oil futures are down since the attacks. (We've had no crude supply problems for some time -- the shortages, to the extent they've been real, have been the result of refining capacity shortfalls.)

Maybe it was a foregone conclusion that something like this would eventually happen and rather than focussing attention and resources to preventing it they were focussed on how to respond in the aftermath (domestically, at least.)

[independentmind]

Maybe it was a foregone conclusion that something like this would eventually happen and rather than focussing attention and resources to preventing it they were focussed on how to respond in the aftermath (domestically, at least.)

I don't doubt for a minute that it was a forgone conclusion, but I fundamentally disagree that the passive approach was the right one. And I do not believe that anyone with the interests of the U.S. imperium in mind, would have traded an increased flow in oil production for the damage wrought to our economy by the 9/11 attacks.

[independentmind]

I don't know how Clinton fits into the entire China picture yet. Again, I go back to my three-way analysis. From a national security point of view, many mistakenly, IMO believed that increased trade with China would eventually cause the existing system to implode.(and voila, a non-Communist China would no longer be a threat). Then we have our political/corporate interests who saw China primarily in terms of potential profits. And finally, we have our enemies, who want us to believe that China is not a threat.

[liberallarry]

Thanks for the info. It gives me a lot to think about.

[Askel5]

I want face time with the Counselor on the oil question. Maybe we could drive to Cowtown, USA together or something. I'll include a list of cites in a post later today so he can give me his take on same.

[LSJohn]

[Hope you realize I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here; not claiming I know or understand]

And I do not believe that anyone with the interests of the U.S. imperium in mind, would have traded an increased flow in oil production for the damage wrought to our economy by the 9/11 attacks.

Two possibilities which could render your point invalid -- or at least irrelevant or moot.

1) I'll bet even the terrorists didn't expect the WTC buildings to collapse, so the damage to our economy was potentially far greater than anticipated;

2) The negative economic impact may be only in the short- and long-term. Massive rebuilding, and war, will temporarily stimulate the economy, lessening, IMO, the impact of an economic downturn which was inevitable, and already underway.

I would've flagged Askel5 to this but since you and I both used the term "economy," smoke would be pouring out of her ears before she reached the end. Oh, heck with it, I'll do it anyway . . . . . . . . . . . maybe the smoke will bring a good-lookin' fireman over.

[Askel5]

Also haven't forgotten his offer once to arrange a "Latin American" themed lunch for me.