Posted on 07/02/2002 8:21:06 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Tuesday July 2, 2002; 11:12 p.m. EDT 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." "It's a joke. He's a crackpot," added Palmieri, now the chief spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee. (See: DNC Spokesgal Trashes bin Ladengate Accuser) 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."
Lie through your teeth for the party cause - get promoted.
That's some friggin' classy show they're running.
The bottom line is NOT that there was no indictment-the BOTTOM line was that clinton was not willing to GET AN INDICTMENT with the help of the Sudanese. I saw this interview-this ambassador actually was allowed to visit TWO terrorist training camps and reported this in person to the clinton administration officials who decided to DO NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The first excuse I heard of why the clinton s did nothing to get Osama was that there was no interest on the part of the American people. WHAT LEADER WAITS FOR THE PEOPLE TO SHOW INTEREST before HE OR SHE ACTS RESPONSIBLY? I thought at the time that was the sickest, sorriest excuse I had ever heard and felt SORRY for the parents who had lost children to Osama's filthy prior attacks.
Now that I know it is FACT that the clintons refused to take Osama because a formal indictment was not prepared....I just wonder WHY one wasn't.
The clintons, in a way, by this very action, were responsible for 9/11/ And they KNOW IT.
I wonder what it's like to be one of Bill Clinton's whores, yet never actually even get the benefit of some sexual action from him. That makes Palmieri even lower than Lewinsky.
Well, this is a bit of a problem for the Clintonites, isn't it? Sure, you can always use the "nuts and sluts" defense against one person, but two people saying the same thing is really quite problematic.
After all, it's not as though Billy has the apparatus to spin himself out of this one. And even the liberal networks are lagging!
I know! It's got to be a... conspiracy! Part of the new right-wing cabal dedicated to destroying the legacy of The Stainmaster and his sycophantic minions!
Probably because bin Laden paid them big bucks not to.
Perhaps, but considering the fact that George W. Bush was governor of the great state of Texas during this time frame, the real question is:
What did Governor Bush know and when did he know it?
Now that I know so much more about this Susan Rice character (potential murderer), I'm praying that this story and all the other dots connected to these scumbuckets gets more play.
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.