Comments on: U.S. Strike Aided Bin Laden-Taliban Ties?
Newly Declassified Documents Suggest 1998 Training Camp Attack Cemented Alliance
Add a Comment See all 104 Comments
- If you actually read the article, written by a Clinton insider, You will see that the negotiations continued past 1998. Crimes? Bin Laden''''s network was blowing stuff up since 1993.
Posted by mbcsmith at 09:43 AM : Aug 21, 2008
And is still blowing up stuff eight years later while DUMBYA is busy falling off his bike and choking on his pretzels. Not to mention the biggie...the 9-11 attacks. Nice going DUMBYA...Right mbcsmith? - Reply to this comment
- leftyintexas, tooo funny! leftwingers like you never blame or critisize! LOL! Nothing like calling the kettle black!.
hungry, what a brainwashed moron you are. Isn''t it time for morning prayer? - Reply to this comment
- No. The rest is mbcsmith''''s version of history.
Posted by leftyintexas at 09:49 AM : Aug 21, 2008
When in doubt, cut paste, post, cut paste, post.
If you do it often enough, maybe people will believe it.
The Dumbya ones anyways. - Reply to this comment
- If you actually read the article, written by a Clinton insider, You will see that the negotiations continued past 1998. Crimes? Bin Laden''''s network was blowing stuff up since 1993.
Posted by mbcsmith at 09:43 AM : Aug 21, 2008
Bin Laden had NOTHING to do with WTC 1993 - that was proven during the trial. (And the FBI tried DESPERATELY to tie him to it, but couldn''t.)
So what did bin Laden and his network do to America, that would have gave Clinton reason to take him into custody? - Reply to this comment
- And the rest is history!
Posted by mbcsmith at 09:41 AM : Aug 21, 2008
No. The rest is mbcsmith''s version of history. - Reply to this comment
- Third, why aren''''''''t you decrying the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations for making bin Laden into a "terrorist superpower" by providing him with arms, ammo, and CIA training?
Posted by hungry1968
----------------------------
-------------------------
Darnit you beat me to it! 8)
Posted by careyana at 09:39 AM : Aug 21, 2008
What really strikes me as incredible, is that bin Laden''s driver was just on trial for aiding terrorists. When he was first taken into custody, he was arrested and his car searched, and they found several SA-7 surface to air missiles in his possession.
SA-7 surface to air missiles that were being used to shoot down OUR helicopters and planes, that were given to them by Reagan and Bush!!
Way to arm the enemy, traitors!!! - Reply to this comment
- So what exactly was bin Laden wanted for in 1996 that would have gave Clinton reason to take him into custody?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by hungry1968 at 09:41 AM : Aug 21, 2008
If you actually read the article, written by a Clinton insider, You will see that the negotiations continued past 1998. Crimes? Bin Laden''s network was blowing stuff up since 1993. - Reply to this comment
- L.A. Times 12/5/01
The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden''''s extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.
Clinton''''s failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger''''s assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.
And the rest is history! - Reply to this comment
- Posted by mbcsmith at 09:30 AM : Aug 21, 2008
I didn''t ask for a copy and spam recycled news article.
In that article, Mansoor Ijaz DOES NOT mention WHAT Clinton should have taken bin Laden into custody for. What crimes did he commit against our country?
With 20/20 hindsight, SHOULD HE? Of course - no one is disputing that. But you can''t arrest someone because they MIGHT do something bad in the future.
So what exactly was bin Laden wanted for in 1996 that would have gave Clinton reason to take him into custody? - Reply to this comment
- Clinton was the biggest failed presidency in U.S. history. He didn''''t recognize this as anything more than a police matter and let the terrorists grow stronger until they attacked us.
Posted by mbcsmith at 09:24 AM : Aug 21, 2008
While DUMBYA was President.... Right mbcsmith? ''Always deny and shift the blame'' the motto of the republicon party. - Reply to this comment
- L.A. Times 12/5/01
But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan''''s religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan''''s intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.
Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan''''s data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they''''d get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.
And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States'''' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.
(cont) - Reply to this comment
- L.A. Times 12/5/01 (cont)
Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.
The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.
But Saudi officials didn''''t want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden''''s personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.
Some of these men are now among the FBI''''s 22 most-wanted terrorists.
The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim''''s bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.
Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.
(cont) - Reply to this comment
- L.A. Times
December 5, 2001
Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn''''t respond.
By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.
I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan''''s president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt''''s Islamic Jihad, Iran''''s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.
Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.
The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.
As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster. (cont) - Reply to this comment
- Third, why aren''''t you decrying the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations for making bin Laden into a "terrorist superpower" by providing him with arms, ammo, and CIA training?
Posted by hungry1968
-----------------------------------------------------
Darnit you beat me to it! 8) - Reply to this comment
- Well, the 2000 recession and stock market collapse pretty much says it all for old Billdo''''s economic policies.
Posted by mbcsmith at 09:26 AM : Aug 21, 2008
The stock market SOARED until president ding dong took over. His policies started the collapse of the stock market in May 2001 - 4 months into his first term.
And his buddies at Enron, ("Kenny Boy", etc), completed the demise of our economy, by preventing share owners from selling their stocks, while the stock market was collapsing in June and July 2001, and they cashed in. That ripple effect was felt THROUGHOUT the entire economy.
And his then inaction in preventing 9/11, IN SPITE of ALL OF THE WARNINGS, really damaged our economy.
And that was just in the first 9 months!!! - Reply to this comment
- Right, and it''''s an obvious attempt by the Bush administration to protect their legacy by blaming Clinton for Osama beig such a bad guy. The Bush administration is trying to imply that if Clinton hadn''''t pushed Osama into the Taliban''''s arms, 9-11 might not have happened. In other words, 9-11 was Clinton''''s fault, according to the Bush history revisionists.
But its a weak attempt since its obvious that Osama was already in the arms of the Taliban since they were already protecting him in their country. Nice try, Bush.
As Bush gets closer to the end of his presidency, expect more lame attempts like this to blame the disaster of the Bush "legacy" on Clinton and the Democrats.
The Bush administration gets sadder by the day
------------------------------------------------
Don''t forget to annoy the trolls and mention that bin Laden would have never had his notoriety if Reagan hadn''t been funding him for all those years! - Reply to this comment
- Clinton was a total failure as president. While he was having sexx in the oval office Bin Laden was bombing our embassies.
Posted by mbcsmith at 08:59 AM : Aug 21, 2008
While Bush was reading to school kids, Bin Laden was flying planes into the twin towers.
After McVeigh, Clinton tried to get congress to pass sweeping anti-terrorism legislation. Alot of it was similar to the Patriot Act. Republicans poo-pooed it because it infringed on civil rights and UNDERMINED DUE PROCESS! - Reply to this comment
- Well, the 2000 recession and stock market collapse pretty much says it all for old Billdo''''s economic policies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by mbcsmith at 09:26 AM : Aug 21, 2008
Shouldn''t be throwing stones in glass houses,,,
And you call Bush successful?
Well if you are looking to destroy America, well then I guess he is. De-valued the dollar to almost worthlessness, and you point out a small market hic-cup? Incredible.
I could point out more, like food prices out the wa-zoo, etc, etc,,but somehow I believe, I''d be waisting my time. - Reply to this comment
- The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden''s extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.
Clinton''s failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger''s assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.
And the rest is history! - Reply to this comment
- But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan''s religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan''s intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.
Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan''s data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they''d get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.
And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States'' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.
(cont) - Reply to this comment
