Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Has this LA Times article been discussed amidst all the Bush Bashing?

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.

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.

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.

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.

*

Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Some real perspective on the Clinton's attempt to assasinate Bin Laden... not an opinion piece.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/911.commission/index.html

Cohen, a former Republican senator who headed the Pentagon under Clinton, said the U.S. military was prepared to kill or capture bin Laden and other key al Qaeda leaders whenever there was "actionable intelligence." But he said the process was like chasing "mercury on a mirror."

Cohen said that three times in 1998 and 1999, airstrikes in Afghanistan to kill bin Laden had to be scrubbed because of doubts about the intelligence and concerns about civilian casualties.

"Each time, the munitions and people were spun up," he said. "They were called off because the word came back, 'We're not sure.' "

But even Albright expressed frustration about the reluctance to push ahead with military force against al Qaeda and bin Laden.

"From my perspective, the Pentagon did not come forward with viable options in response to what the president was asking for," she said.

Details on plans to kill bin Laden revealed

The 9/11 commission's executive director, Philip Zelikow, provided more details Tuesday on the three aborted attempts to kill bin Laden, based on information gathered during the commission's inquiry.

One of those planned strikes, in Afghanistan in February 1999, was called off because then-White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke warned that it would have risked the lives of visiting officials from the United Arab Emirates, a U.S. counterterrorism ally, Zelikow said.

To this day, the lead CIA official in the field that day believes that "this was a lost opportunity to kill bin Laden before 9/11," Zelikow said.

Another planned attack, in May 1999, was scrubbed because CIA Director George Tenet said the intelligence was based on a single, uncorroborated source and the attack carried the risk of civilian deaths, Zelikow said.

I hear Bush is having alot of success finding Osama in Iraq.
 

fjord

Senior member
Feb 18, 2004
667
0
0
Reagan administration adopted bin Laden = poster boy of Afghanistan freedom fighters against the Soviet Union.

Add lots of heavy fanning of flames of Islamic radical fanaticism.

We reap what we sow.

Short-sighted, ill-conceived miopia. History repeats itself, over and over.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
not surprised riporin would bring up the long discounted sudan connection. sudan wasn't going to hand over bin laden to the us in the first place. 2nd their false offer was to other states that would refuse any offer. its just a pointless clinton bash with discredited trash as ussual.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: fjord
Reagan administration adopted bin Laden = poster boy of Afghanistan freedom fighters against the Soviet Union.

Add lots of heavy fanning of flames of Islamic radical fanaticism.

We reap what we sow.

Short-sighted, ill-conceived miopia. History repeats itself, over and over.

I'd like to see where we armed Bin Laden or when he was a freedom fighter in Afghanistan. OBL gave some money to the Mujahadeen, but that was about it. We armed tribes that are now part of the Northern Alliance, but stupidity has led many to think we armed the prior Taliban government or Bin Laden. No such thing was done. The common misconception is that because Bin Laden funded the same mujahdeen that we were giving him money, or that they later became his people. While some of those tribes may have later formed SOME of the Taliban, MUCH of them disliked the Taliban. People who say we armed the Taliban only have a cursory knowledge of the whole weapons and money process that went on in the 1980's. Just about every single one of those tribes we funded were rival tribes, and they only banded together to fight the Soviets. Same with the Northern alliance and all the tribes that were against the Taliban. The Taliban was a common enemy, so when was started helping them and attacking the Taliban they banded together. Some are extremists, but nowhere near the extremism that OBL or the Taliban were. Some of those same people that took Bin Laden's money are now fighting against him.

It is silly to think that our polices back then were not effective for the situation that existed. Hindsight is 20/20 but I've yet to see even the best revisionist come up with a more workable and effective plan than we had back then. Anything about a US/Bin Laden/Taliban link during the 1980's is due to the same myopia that you rail against.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Clinton had 8 years to deal with attacks against our country and her citizenry--the Cole bombing, the embassy bombings, military barracks in Saudi Arabia, the list goes on. Once he was busted shoving cigars up interns crotches, he decided to bomb an aspirin factory and 'take a stand'...his inaction cost the life of thousands of Americans.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Guess ol' JohnGalt has forgotten that, sitting in prison right now, are the culprits behind the 1993 and 1998 bombings.

As for the USS Cole, by the time the evidence was sufficient to warrant going after Al Qaeda, Bush and Co. were in charge. And what was Rumsfeld's response? "Too much time" had passed.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Guess ol' JohnGalt has forgotten that, sitting in prison right now, are the culprits behind the 1993 and 1998 bombings.

As for the USS Cole, by the time the evidence was sufficient to warrant going after Al Qaeda, Bush and Co. were in charge. And what was Rumsfeld's response? "Too much time" had passed.

You are right; Clinton did everything he could to prevent future attacks against our nation--blame Rumsfeld and Bush.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Clinton had 8 years to deal with attacks against our country and her citizenry--the Cole bombing, the embassy bombings, military barracks in Saudi Arabia, the list goes on. Once he was busted shoving cigars up interns crotches, he decided to bomb an aspirin factory and 'take a stand'...his inaction cost the life of thousands of Americans.

It wasn't an aspirin factory. It was much more than that. I believe the UN said it made more than half of the vaccines and medicines that Sudan used. The owner sued and has his assets unfrozen. The "link" to Bin Laden was never proved and the British never even believed us either. They never took away his passport to England and he owns a home there. Hardly a single country supported us there. Myopia abounds in this thread. Clinton had "faulty" intelligence and tried to "cover" things up. CNN article

Doesn't that article sound so familiar? Both the Republicans and Dems are playing politics with this.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
not surprised riporin would bring up the long discounted sudan connection. sudan wasn't going to hand over bin laden to the us in the first place. 2nd their false offer was to other states that would refuse any offer. its just a pointless clinton bash with discredited trash as ussual.

Discounted and discredited by whom?
 

DBL

Platinum Member
Mar 23, 2001
2,637
0
0
How come republicans have a hard time remembering that Clinton sent a few dozen Tomahawks into Afghanistan in an attempt to kill bin Laden and that republicans ridiculed him for it? I distinctly remember the accusations that Clinton was only doing it in an effort to draw attention away from the Lewinsky situation.

This situation was such a big deal at the time but today it's forgotten. Do you consider that criticizing Clinton at the time may have had an effect as to future efforts and responses to bin Laden?





 

tec699

Banned
Dec 19, 2002
6,440
0
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: conjur
Guess ol' JohnGalt has forgotten that, sitting in prison right now, are the culprits behind the 1993 and 1998 bombings.

As for the USS Cole, by the time the evidence was sufficient to warrant going after Al Qaeda, Bush and Co. were in charge. And what was Rumsfeld's response? "Too much time" had passed.

You are right; Clinton did everything he could to prevent future attacks against our nation--blame Rumsfeld and Bush.


The attacks against our nation happened under Bush and Rumsfeld, so thety are the ones to blame. Under Clinton we had low unemployment, etc... Under Bush the opposite has occured.

The twin tower massacre was Bush's fault. Plain and simple.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: tec699
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: conjur
Guess ol' JohnGalt has forgotten that, sitting in prison right now, are the culprits behind the 1993 and 1998 bombings.

As for the USS Cole, by the time the evidence was sufficient to warrant going after Al Qaeda, Bush and Co. were in charge. And what was Rumsfeld's response? "Too much time" had passed.

You are right; Clinton did everything he could to prevent future attacks against our nation--blame Rumsfeld and Bush.


The attacks against our nation happened under Bush and Rumsfeld, so thety are the ones to blame. Under Clinton we had low unemployment, etc... Under Bush the opposite has occured.

The twin tower massacre was Bush's fault. Plain and simple.

Unless you are trolling that is honestly a very illogical opinion to have. So I guess if 9/11 had happened the day after Bush's inauguration it would have been his fault?
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
All things put aside, I believe Bush has a better chance to get Bin Laden than Clinton, or Kerry will have. Democrats would rather negotiate with terrorists than do anything that might offend the muslim wackos.

KK
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Clinton definitely deserves some blame. Granted, I wonder if he would have done a better job if the GOP hadn't invested $60m in US tax dollars trying to figure out Arkansas real estate or where Clinton spilled his seed?

I think Clarke's basic premise is that Clinton tried but did not succeed which raised the urgency with which Al Qaeda should be addressed in the Bush administration. Alas, Bushies never embraced the sense of urgency. Bush admits it in Woodward's book. Rice admits it but somehow believes urgency doesn't matter. I'm glad she's a PhD and not an MD. Wolfowitz felt Iraq was urgent . . . and apparently he was not alone.

Clarke's criticisms that the administration did not urgently address the threat from Al Qaeda AND was preoccupied with Iraq have essentially been confirmed by the administration . . . not to mention O'Neill said the same thing.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Damn that Clinton. I'm definately not voting for him this november!

Dems appear to want to play the blame game. Fine, but let's assign the blame properly.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
not surprised riporin would bring up the long discounted sudan connection. sudan wasn't going to hand over bin laden to the us in the first place. 2nd their false offer was to other states that would refuse any offer. its just a pointless clinton bash with discredited trash as ussual.

Discounted and discredited by whom?

your only source, the self serving pakastani american Ijaz has no credibility.

Here is what Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor, and Daniel Benjamin, past director for counterterrorism on the NSC (and now senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies) had to say about Ijaz:

Berger had to meet only once with Ijaz to determine that he was an unreliable freelancer, pursuing his own financial interests. Ijaz was an investment banker with a huge stake in Sudanese oil.

Ijaz had urged Berger to lift sanctions against Sudan. Why the sanctions? Because Sudan was and remains a notorious sponsor of terrorism. Also, the Sudanese regime is the leading state sponsor of slavery and is considered by many to be genocidal. And totally untrustworthy. Ijaz, however, was arguing their case. As Benjamin said of Ijaz, "Either he allowed himself to be manipulated, or he's in bed with a bunch of genocidal terrorists."

Ijaz said that Sudan was ready to hand over Bin Laden. The U.S. does not conduct diplomacy through self-appointed private individuals. When the U.S. talked to Sudan, there was no such offer. The U.S. pursued every lead and tried to negotiate. Nothing.

But the story does have a happy ending. Ijaz now has a job as foreign affairs analyst for the Fox News Channel.
 

fjord

Senior member
Feb 18, 2004
667
0
0
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: fjord
Reagan administration adopted bin Laden = poster boy of Afghanistan freedom fighters against the Soviet Union.

Add lots of heavy fanning of flames of Islamic radical fanaticism.

We reap what we sow.

Short-sighted, ill-conceived miopia. History repeats itself, over and over.

I'd like to see where we armed Bin Laden or when he was a freedom fighter in Afghanistan. OBL gave some money to the Mujahadeen, but that was about it. We armed tribes that are now part of the Northern Alliance, but stupidity has led many to think we armed the prior Taliban government or Bin Laden. No such thing was done. The common misconception is that because Bin Laden funded the same mujahdeen that we were giving him money, or that they later became his people. While some of those tribes may have later formed SOME of the Taliban, MUCH of them disliked the Taliban. People who say we armed the Taliban only have a cursory knowledge of the whole weapons and money process that went on in the 1980's. Just about every single one of those tribes we funded were rival tribes, and they only banded together to fight the Soviets. Same with the Northern alliance and all the tribes that were against the Taliban. The Taliban was a common enemy, so when was started helping them and attacking the Taliban they banded together. Some are extremists, but nowhere near the extremism that OBL or the Taliban were. Some of those same people that took Bin Laden's money are now fighting against him.

It is silly to think that our polices back then were not effective for the situation that existed. Hindsight is 20/20 but I've yet to see even the best revisionist come up with a more workable and effective plan than we had back then. Anything about a US/Bin Laden/Taliban link during the 1980's is due to the same myopia that you rail against.


Yes hindsight is 20/20. But shortsighted foreign policy seems to be in vogue these past few administrations. I'm afraid Carter, Reagan, and Bush I will have to share much of the blame on this one. And in particular, Reagan.

While funding of bin Laden is a complex issue--that possibly gives the CIA a narrow avenue for plausable deniability, that alows them to claim they did not directly give funds to OBL--

It remains unquestioned that bin Laden was given logistical and political support by the CIA-- and quite a bit more through a network that started in Pakistan. Confidential CIA issue, and they aren't confessing voluntarily.
link

I don't think anyone, from Carter on down denies the strategy in Afgahnistan;

"This would be consistent with the reports from ex-CIA officials and researchers
who have worked on the subject, which indicate that the CIA never directly provided any help to
the Mujahedeen, as Vincent K. Pollard correctly hints. Instead, CIA and Special Operations units
worked directly with Pakistan's ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) and SSG (Special operations
command, General Pervez Musharraf having, at some point, served with this outfit). They provided
training, equipment and funding to the Pakistanis, who in turn relayed all that to the Mujahedeen
movement inside Afghanistan. It was a two-step strategy."

Seeds Of Terrorism Planted In Afghanistan During Reagan-Bush Administration

"...It was the Americans, after all, who poured resources into the 1980s war against the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul, at a time when girls could go to school and women to work. Bin Laden and his mojahedin were armed and trained by the CIA and MI6, as Afghanistan was turned into a wasteland and its communist leader Najibullah left hanging from a Kabul lamp post with his genitals stuffed in his mouth..."

link
link


Context on where/how/why bin Laden emerged, in relation to the US