U.S. Sudan Ambassador Confirms Clinton Snubbed Bin Laden Deal

Former ambassador to the Sudan Tim Carney confirmed Tuesday night that the Clinton administration refused an offer from the Sudanese government to hand over terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden in the late 1990's - directly contradicting former Clinton administration officials who have attacked the story as baseless.

"In fact, what was offered (by the Sudanese) was to expel bin Laden to Saudi Arabia and the Saudis, because he was such a hot potato, simply refused to handle him," Carney told Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes.

"Then, as I understand it, there was an offer to send him to us," Carney recalled. The Clinton administration rebuffed the overture because, Carney said, "we did not have an indictment (against bin Laden) at the time."

Carney's account corroborates the claims of Pakistani-American freelance diplomat Mansour Ijaz, who has maintained for months that the Clinton administration had blown a crucial opportunity to take bin Laden out of circulation and ultimately foil the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

While the press has largely ignored Ijaz's claims, former Clinton officials have launched a fierce campaign to undermine his credibility and keep him from testifying to Congress.

"He's lying," former Clinton spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said in May. "The guy has absolutely no credibility."

Asked to respond to Ijaz's account in January, Clinton National Security Counsel adviser Nancy Soderberg told Fox News Channel's Laurie Dhue, "He's living in a fantasy land. There was no such Sudanese offer."

Ijaz has said that former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and former Assistant Secretary of State for African affairs Susan Rice, as well as former Attorney General Janet Reno and ex-President Clinton himself, all deserve blame for mishandling the Sudanese offer to turn over bin Laden.

He has dared the Senate Intelligence Committee to take his sworn testimony about the episode as part of their probe into pre-9-11 intelligence failures. But so far Democrats who control the investigation have declined to do so. (See: Bin Laden-gate Witness Dares Dems: Depose Me on Clinton 9-11 Cover-Up)

Recently Ms. Rice lashed out at former ambassador Carney, painting him as a disgruntled Clinton-hater with an ax to grind.

"He was unfortunately very angry at the Clinton adminsitration for the decision to close his embassy in Khartoum soon after he got there and perhaps that anger colors his recollections," she claimed.

But Ijaz and Carney may have picked up a powerful new ally last weekend, when Secretary of State Colin Powell seemed to endorse their version of events, which they detailed in a Washington Post op-ed piece on Sunday.

Alluding to Ijaz and Carney's account to respond to criticism from former Vice President Al Gore that the Bush administration had so far failed to capture Osama bin Laden, Powell told "Fox News Sunday," "I notice the previous administration didn't even make a serious try to get him."

Said Tim Carney:

"In fact, what was offered (by the Sudanese) was to expel bin Laden to Saudi Arabia ... and the Saudis, because he was such a hot potato, simply refused to handle him,"

In Saudi Arabia, the leadership, in general, are revolting from the decadence which they believe to have resulted from the peoples' too close a proximity to the American media [generation]. As such, the leaders feel threatened by "Americanization." The Saudis, however by their methods, seem to be intent upon committing suicide in the name of trying to "save" their Royal butts from "Western Culture."

Furthermore, the Saudis are afraid that the communist-supported fascist-Islamic revolution which over-threw the Shah of Iran, has grown enough in Arabia to over-throw the House of Saud.

Also, the Saudis figured to appease Saddam Hussein, whenafter the last throw of cruise missiles by Bill Clinton's attempt to diffuse the concentration of the American public upon his Impeachment Trial in the U.S. Senate ... Saddam appeared, at the minimum, to win ... and so the Saudis upped the price of oil as tribute to Saddam.

In a similar vein, the Saudis are attempting to appease the fascists among their neighbors, among their subjects, and among themselves --- by attacking western culture and the United States of America.

When the Saudis ought to be busting their butts, to gather up all the Taliban and Al-Qaeda before they do further harm.

Here's why.

In the event that a "human wave" attack, here, by these folks who "hate us," running fuel-laden fire trucks or tankers into local schools, or hospitals, or shopping malls, or apartment complexes ... how are Americans going to react?

The Bush [still running 75% of the Clinton] Administration will attempt to control the people.

The people, much to the surprise of the Bush [still running 75% of the Clinton] Administration, are going to feel differently. They're going to be lookin' around for who caused such a thing, and President Bush's pleadings on behalf of the House of Saud will not hold, nor control much of, the wrath.

Yet, the Saudis support[ed] Osama bin Laden.

The Saudis believe in using terrorism as an economic means; they will support terrorism, which is actually a sub-class of piracy, wherever it will effectively obstruct the "oil bidness" competition.

The Saudis are undeniably members of the Axis of Terrorism against which the United States is at war.

Save the people of Saudi Arabia who would rather fight for their peace and liberty, and a judicial system which is not a direct, as well as absolute, branch of Islam ...

Saudi Arabia is a relatively benign dictatorship, for now, having arrived their by not facing down the fascism within that has been coiling up to strike the whole of it.

At the same time, the fascists, there are, are loose upon the planet and wish not to be challenged on their missions of forcing subjigation.

Frustrated at losing control over their kingdom, the Saudis are taking it out on everybody else.

Too many among them wish to posture before the world well enough to cover their designs to gain the very weapons of mass destruction which we are all supposed to abhor in the hands of Saddam.

In the hands of the Saudis, we are going to be suffering the lot of think tanks in the Beltway who have suddenly been the beneficiaries of Saudi largesse --- and they will say that we can trust the Saudis.

The problem is not really that Saddam Hussein might develop nuclear weapons; the problem is that the Saudis have come close enough to buying them outright.

Israel is fast becoming the young child lashed to the front of a North Korean battle tank.

Failure of the United States to directly affect military power upon the enemies among the mid-Easteners who have attacked us, has left such peoples feeling quite heady about their purposes.

Nuclear weapons are no safer in the hands of the Saudis, than they are in the hands of the Saddamis.

The Beltway theorists who fancy that open trade with "the people" will elevate them to sufficient economic well-being that they will in turn affect truth, justice, and the way of democratic-republics that is that truth and justice will be enforced by these same people instead of their former dictators ... is a nice theory; but it has yet to be proven to work when the dictators are still in charge, in Red China, and in Saudi Arabia, who are the two most prominent foreign powers mucking about in support of terrorism in order that their energy axis "wins."

The dependency of the people upon their rulers, in those two countries, can be relied upon to be queued at the necessary time, to affect the level of revolution against real justice and liberty and the self-determination of such people.

We had thought that the Saudis wished us no ill-will, but having seen the destruction, here, to the contrary, what might be the most outstanding differences between the dictatorship their and in Red China?

After a review of the totalinarism of both, there is but the Red Chinese veneer that they "come in peace" and the Saudi appearance to believe in God but certainly not a loving God.

If the Saudis were our friends, they could have themselves captured Osama bin Laden and most of his cohorts, very early on; nope, instead, the Saudis have found terrorism useful and are continuing to aid it; much as the Red Chinese are aiding the "Islamic" revolutionaries of the Southwest Pacific Rim.

Both the Saudis and the Red Chinese know that the weak gut of business, will trade as a first priority over all such considerations which would otherwise give pause.

See: Islam - Study Warns of Stagnation in Arab Societies, New York Times, July 2, 2002, by Barbara Crossette (posted by swarthyguy).

See: [Arab] Businessmen hit out at US move to target Saudis, Arab News, July 1, 2002, by Dhafir Al-Julfan (posted by SJackson).

See: Are too many Muslims in denial about September 11?, The Telegraph (U.K.), by Barbara Amiel, Mar. 4, 2002 (posted by Pokey78).

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.