Posted on 05/17/2002 12:50:42 PM PDT by Elkiejg
The man who negotiated a deal for Osama bin Laden's extradition to the United States six years ago is daring Senate Democrats to call him as a witness in the upcoming probe into the government's 9-11 intelligence failures, saying he can blow the lid off the Clinton administration's cover-up of the episode.
Mansoor Ijaz, a major Clinton financial supporter who hammered out the 1996 bin Laden agreement with the government of Sudan only to have the White House turn the offer down, issued the challenge Thursday during an interview with nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity.
"I'm saying this point blank," Ijaz announced in impassioned tones. "Clinton, Berger, Albright, Susan Rice - any of them that want to come and take us on. I've got the paperwork to back up what I've said and they know it. And they know they can't run and hide."
Ijaz complained that since Sept. 11, he has yet to be called by either the House or Senate intelligence committees to give sworn testimony.
"[Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman] Bob Graham is a friend of mine and he knows what I've got in my files. And they know where to find me if they really want to find out the truth about what was possible at that time."
Ijaz charged that Senate Democrats don't want to call him, in order to protect the previous administration.
"I'm absolutely convinced," he told Hannity, "that the Democrats are desperately trying to find a way to deflect the attention from the complicity of the Clinton administration in letting this terrorism problem get so far out of hand."
The former Clinton negotiator described the missed opportunity to get bin Laden and fingered former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and former Attorney General Janet Reno as having key roles in the deadly foul-up.
"By May of 1996 the Sudanese had decided to get rid of bin Laden because he was becoming a problem there as well. They called the Clinton administration one last time and said, 'If you don't want him to go to Saudi Arabia, we're prepared to hand him over to you guys directly.'"
"And the Clinton administration's response to that was 'We don't have enough legal evidence against him,'" Ijaz explained.
Besides Berger and Reno, "Clearly the president had to have had a hand in making that decision," he added. "There's no question in my mind that he was involved in those decisions as well. There's no question about that at all."
The former Clinton negotiator suggested that Congress depose other witnesses who could corroborate and expand upon his account.
"The American people should know that I have even persuaded a senior Sudanese intelligence official, who was later the intelligence chief, that if it became necessary he would come to the United States and testify in closed hearings about precisely what they were prepared to do," he said. "And he would bring the data with him."
Another witness suggested by Ijaz: former Clinton administration ambassador to the Sudan, Tim Carney.
"Frankly, [Carney] can take the American people a couple of steps further in terms of taking them inside the deliberations that went on and telling people precisely how the politicizing of the intelligence took place at that time."
Ijaz also charged that Clinton officials deliberately went out of their way to stifle FBI anti-terrorism probes.
"The FBI, in 1996 and 1997, had their efforts to look at terrorism data and deal with the bin Laden issue overruled every single time by the State Department, by Susan Rice and her cronies, who were hell-bent on destroying the Sudan," he said.
The Bush administration takes a different approach entirely, according to Ijaz.
"I can tell you personally that I have dealt with the Bush administration's national security team." he told Hannity. "These are people who immediately react to information that is brought to their attention that is necessary and important for people to know. ... There is no comparison to the Clinton administration."
Pearl trusted this guy. What really irks me is that Ijaz absolves himself of any responsibility of convincing Pearl not to go. He knows Pakistan, he's travelled there and knew this was not the time or the place for someone like Daniel Pearl to be going there.
Ex-Clinton Chief Spokesman Helps Pakistan
WASHINGTON -- President Clinton's chief spokesman during the campaign finance investigations is now serving as a foreign agent for Pakistan, representing the Islamabad government at a time when White House officials are making key decisions on how to address the threat of a nuclear arms buildup between Pakistan and India.
Lanny Davis, who left as special White House counsel in February to resume his position as a partner with the powerhouse Washington lobbying and law firm of Patton Boggs, also has not registered with the Justice Department as a foreign agent, according to a Globe review of federal records. Davis said yesterday that he believed he had not yet billed his client enough money to require registration but planned to register soon.
I do not recall (Clinton S.O.P.)
What would be so outrageous about a reporter from a MAJOR newspaper seeking out the expertise and contacts from a well-known Pakistani in order to get a story? I suspect this happens all the time. That doesn't make Ijaz responsible for Pearl's death!
A former Clinton administration flunky. I don't recall just what her function was, just that she was one of the many spin meisters working up at the big house with the boss. Just another no-talent that erned her kneepads and now get to "consult".
And Ijaz, involved in the Pearl affair, is getting everybody juiced up about a four year old story that's relevant to what; that the clintonistas screwed up, covered up lots and lots about terrorist threats and generally ignored it or did not do nearly anywhere as much as they could have. Is that surprising to anyone here?There's nothing new in it. The timing is suspicious.
If he ends up before a Senate committee, I hope someone asks him Pearl.
I believe it is only coincidental that the Pearl story broke at the same time as the 9/11 story.
He is certainly knowledgable and involved in these affairs - how else could he muster contacts for Pearl, strike deals with Sudan/Al Qaida, discuss peace Kashmir extremists. His father is reported to have been involved in the Pakistani Nukee program.
His only credentials and appeal now seem to be his quick switch to the current administration and slandering the Democrats. I'd watch his charitable organization here closely!
You are impugning him without a shred of evidence, on the basis of free floating confabulation. Ijaz is a pro-American, staunch anti-Islamist with knowledge and connections in a region where we especially need good guys like him. He cooperates closely with both reporters and the American government. Why do you attack those helping to fight the common foe WITHOUT EVIDENCE, and in contradiction to Ijaz's record, behavior and words?
Note that Ijaz has and is making a strong effort in the media to clue the public into what Pearl was working on, i.e. the connections between Islamists and terrorists in Pakistan and Western Muslim terrorists like Reid. Would someone on the side of the Islamists (and therefore suspect in setting up Pearl) be harping loudly on such themes? Of course not. Look at the facts, man. The tinfoil has fallen over your eyes.
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.