| Author |
Message |
    
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 900
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 11:29 pm: | 
|
First off, CJC seems to have left out some good parts from the WaPo article.
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2002/national-reporting/works/100301a.html
Like maybe CJC forgot the Headline:
“U.W. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts
To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed
Sudan's Offer to Arrest Militant Fell Through After Saudis Said No”
Hmm the Saudis said no—OK. Lets read some more and see what turns up:
"The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time," said Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who was deputy national security adviser”
----------------------------------------------
Lets look at newsmax- Why not?
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002 12:05 a.m. EDT
Clinton Admits: I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer
Mansoor Ijaz, the Pakistani-American businessman who says he was rebuffed by the Clinton White House after negotiating a deal for the extradition of Osama bin Laden to the U.S. in 1996, has gained an important new witness who backs his story - none other than ex-President Clinton himself.
Former Clinton administration officials such as senior National Security Council aide Nancy Soderberg have described Ijaz as an unreliable witness. Former Clinton spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri recently slammed him as "a liar" and "a crackpot."
From here-
http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/showinside.pl?a=2002/8/10/230919
Well newsmax starts out its article with this Mansoor Ijaz guy, I wonder who he works for?
WOW, he works for FOX NEWS-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,46241,00.html
He started at FOX in Dec. of 2001. His FOX Bio states:
“As a private American citizen, Ijaz negotiated Sudan’s counterterrorism offer to the Clinton administration in April 1997.”
But- the WaPo article says that happened much earlier, 14 months earlier.
“The Sudanese offer had its roots in a dinner at the Khartoum home of Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Othman Taha. It was Feb. 6, 1996 -- Ambassador Timothy M. Carney's last night in the country before evacuating the embassy on orders from Washington.”
-------------
Media matters has reviewed the 9-11 commission report which debunks the story too-
http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf
“Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.
Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all”
Drudge also picks up the story-
www.drudgereport.com/matt91h.htm
As well as CNS-
http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/archive/200309/FOR20030904h.html
Now this guy has a completely different story—
By Richard Miniter
Washington Times | September 8, 2003
President Clinton's first opportunity to defeat Osama bin Laden came late in the afternoon of March 3, 1996, in an Arlington, Virginia, hotel suite. It was the first attempt by the Clinton Administration to deal decisively with the arch-terrorist. It lasted less than 30 minutes.
Sudan's then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa flew in for a secret meeting with Timothy M. Carney, the U.S. ambassador to Sudan,
From here-
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9721
--------------
Interestingly enough, when I googled the WEB, I got tons of hits, whole sentences appeared identical. But When I googled just NEWS-- I got nothing.
So lets review- the WaPO says the Saudis said no.
The 9-11 commision said no.
The guy who claims credit for the offer now works for FOX NEWS.
But Drudge, CNS, NEWSMAX say CLinton did it.
 |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 409
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 10:13 am: |
|
FOJ-
I hope this didn't take you to long to put together-nothing better to do on a Friday night?
Let me simplify this issue. Did terrroism exist in the 1990s-2000? Did terrorist attacks against American interest occur in the 1990s-2000?
You need help answering the last question?
*February 26, 1993 A bomb explodes in the basement of the World Trade Center in New York, killing 6 and wounding more than a thousand.
*June 25, 1996 A fuel truck explodes outside the United States military's Khobar Towers building, killing 19 military personnel and wounding 515.
*August 7, 1998In near simultaneous explosions at U.S. Army Special Forces Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, Al Qaeda terrorists kill 291 and wound 5,000 in Kenya and kill 10 and wound 77 in Tanzania.
*October 12, 2000 The U.S.S. Cole, a destroyer in the United States Navy, is rammed by a boat full of explosives in the harbor of Aden, Yemen. 17 sailors are killed and 39 more are injured. Al Qaeda is suspected.
So my question to you, if the Bubba Administration was so concerned by terrorist threats (warning the incoming Dubya Administration) how come they failed to do anything about it?
FoJ-we can go on and on about this, but as the 911 CR states both Clinton and Bush didn't do enough to deal with terrorism. But to hold Bush the only one liable is downright absurd.
The important thing is what do we do now?
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14447
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 10:16 am: |
|
Q: So my question to you, if the Bubba Administration was so concerned by terrorist threats (warning the incoming Dubya Administration) how come they failed to do anything about it?
A: Because they weren't. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3030
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 10:16 am: |
|
They did. Clinton warned Bush of Bin Laden. Remember the memo "Bin Laden preparing to attack the US?" Written by the Clinton administration, unread by the Bush, Jr. admin.
Clinton discussed Tora Bora with Bush. Bush was warned. Where have you been?
And Bush didn't notice the first bombing of the WTC?
Come on....!!!
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 412
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 10:43 am: |
|
Tulip-
You have got to be joking!!!!!!
Are you even capable of putting aside your irrational hatred for everything "Con/Republican" for even a minute? What are so mad at your parents about?
Get your nose out of "The Nation" or the NYT and think for once.
As I said in my last post, the 911CR said BOTH Clinton and Bush, let me repeat, BOTH, BOTH BOTH BOTH...and one more time ladies and gentlemen...BOTH Clinton and Bush could of done more in regards to terrorism...
WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT!
Let's face facts, ok? Bubba did squat and so did Dubya....
At this point in the game , it doesn't matter any more...WHAT DO WE DO NOW!?
As i always tell my team of 15 employees I manage, instead of complaining how others do someting offer solutions of your own...
By the looks of it Tulip, I wouold of canned you along time ago....
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3035
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 10:44 am: |
|
What the heck does slk support or believe in, anyway?
Has he/she/it taken a position on anything other than to beat everyone up?
Anyone...? |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 417
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 11:03 am: |
|
Tulip-
You sound like OBL on his last tape...put into a corner and now can only offer ad homienen (sp) attacks while drumming up support....at least trying to...
As I said on the other 2 boards, ask me and you shall receive... |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3041
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 11:19 am: |
|
I thought you had to go out to the coffee shop!!
Asking someone what they believe in is not ad hominem. It's a simple question. Usually, people are happy to talk about themselves. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 901
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 11:20 am: |
|
SLK-- ya we could go on and on about this-- If we could get the facts straight.
To your credit you tried to cut thru the BS and say that both Bubba & W, should have done more. That is an environment I would work with you in.
But the prior enviroment where falsehoods are propagated by stenographers of RNC spin- Or DNC spin for that matter-- is not a reasonable enviroment.
When both sides cut thru the BS, then we can talk.
But SLK- If you and CJC are going to post info that goes from outright lies to editing a WaPo article to suit your agenda. Well that is not cutting thru the BS, that is shoveling the BS hard and fast.
And frankly seeing that CJC edited the WaPo headline from her post, makes it clear as to what he motivation was. Darn if the facts get in the way. Let me put it this way: What possibly was going thru her mind at the time? Doesnt that speak to the character & integrity of a person when they decide to edit the facts out of an article, because it doesnt support their story line.
I know that there are MOL members who would publically apologize when it became clear that a mistake was made.
I have seen it happen. I have tried to show respect anyone who does that.
SO we now know that the assertation that Clinton nixed the Sudan offer is BS.
|
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1447
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 11:32 am: |
|
foj, I think you miss the point. According to the WaPo you link, Clinton could have physically brought Bin Laden here from Sudan , but offer the following rationale why they didn't.
"Clinton administration officials maintain emphatically that they had no such option in 1996. In the legal, political and intelligence environment of the time, they said, there was no choice but to allow bin Laden to depart Sudan unmolested.
"The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States," said Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then. "
This is consistent with his recorded comment.
I agree with Rice's comment about both admins. " We were not on war footing"
|
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 903
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Credit Guy for actually reading the article.
And one of your quotes was the one I used, see my OP. And just to be clear the WaPO link was first posted by CJC.
Guy, legit take on the WaPo article, but in light of the other citations . . . .
. . what do you think?
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5086
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 9:39 am: |
|
Foj -- speaking of BS, I linked to the entire article for all to see. If I didn't want people to see the article in it's entirety, I wouldn't have done it. Why pull out something in a left-leaning publication that suits my argument? Because same publication usually gives the evidence in a small paragraph or at the end of the story. This is why I read articles in the NY Times backwards. Stuff that doesn't fit the story's pre-ordained conclusion is at the end. Headlines are written by someone other than the reporter many times, and one could easily recast the article accurately as saying "Berger Passed on Bin Laden. Sez FBI Didn't Have the Goods."
I'm no liar, and no wacko. I don't think you're a liar.
And thanks for balancing Newsmax with Media Matters. Both fine, reputable organizations. If you post something factually incorrect from Media Matters, does that make you a liar? Personally, I don't use either as a source without expressed reservations of doing so.
And back to the issue:
Politically, Clinton couldn't move on Bin Laden in 1996 or 97? He was just reelected for goodness sakes. And the politics improved for going into Bosnia with UN Approval and Kosovo without it later? Politically it was great in 1998, when he launched missiles? That doesn't make sense. Besides, worldwide opinion was supposedly wonderful for Clinton. That's what the papers said anyway.
FBI intelligence didn't have the evidence to prosecute him in a court of law. Law enforcement matter, don't cha know. There's the problem.
Berger said they didn't move on the offer and spun why he didn't move. FACT REMAINS -- there was an offer and Clinton didn't take it to see where it could lead to direct US termination of an enemy.
Has Bush made some mistakes in hindsight in the fight on terror? Certainly. Did Clinton? He didn't really even get into this ring after being invited to. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 912
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 9:30 pm: |
|
CJC So whats your take on Mansoor Ijaz ?
|
Eponymous
Citizen
Username: Eponymous
Post Number: 20
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 1:35 am: |
|
You may remember that Clinton got a lot of heat for his bombing of Iraq because of the way it was timed with the various impeachment activity. To wit:
Dec. 18, 1998 - As U.S. warplanes drop bombs over Baghdad, the House begins debating articles of impeachment against President Clinton.
Dec. 19, 1998 - House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment against the president.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/01/08/politics/main262484.shtml>
One of the ways in which the impeachment affected his ability to do his job. |
crabby
Citizen
Username: Crabbyappleton
Post Number: 440
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 9:07 am: |
|
silly Repubs. So self-serving as to screw up our country. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4256
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 12:44 am: |
|
eponymous, please clarify: are you saying the bombing was a mistake or the impeachment? |
Eponymous
Citizen
Username: Eponymous
Post Number: 25
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 1:14 am: |
|
tom wrote:
"eponymous, please clarify: are you saying the bombing was a mistake or the impeachment?"
tom,
I didn't say either was a mistake. I simply pointed out that there was much suspicion at the time of Clinton's ordering of this bombing because of the coincidence with the whole impeachment process. For example, a NYT article by Caryn James (their TV critic) on 17 Dec 1998 read in part:
From early morning, the cable news channel had a split personality, leaping back and forth between the impeachment debate that had been planned for today in the House of Representatives and the probability of an attack on Iraq.
Among other cultural lessons, the day demonstrated how swiftly ''wag the dog'' has entered the language as a shorthand phrase for a war staged to distract attention from a sex scandal. (NBC even briefly showed a clip of the film ''Wag the Dog.'') The issues were so intertwined that even President Clinton could not avoid a reference to his domestic crisis in his televised address, carried by all the networks, about why he had ordered the missile attack.
In late August of that same year, Clinton had retaliated against bin Laden, partly for the bombing of the US embassy in Kenya, by bombing a plant in Sudan and some targets in Afghanistan; Clinton also made some very strong comments about catching bin Laden. Then too questions were raised about the timing of the attacks, coming as they did days after his speech about Monica Lewinsky. (IIRC, this attack by the US was the event that brought bin-Laden to the attention of many Americans.)
Just trying to bring some context to the Iraq- and Al Qaeda-related activities of the previous administration. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page