RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Clinton Spared Bin Laden?

Quote:

---

President Clinton had at least three chances before 9/11 to try to kill Osama bin Laden - but never took his shot, a new congressional report revealed yesterday.

"We had a round in our chamber and we didn't use it. That's how I see it," snapped former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey (Neb.), a member of the Sept. 11 presidential commission.

The missed chances were:

• In December 1998, intelligence suggested bin Laden was at a location in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Missile strikes were prepared, but Clinton's advisers decided not to recommend a launch because no one had seen bin Laden for a couple of hours.
  
  
• Intelligence reports put bin Laden near a hunting camp in rural Afghanistan with princes from the United Arab Emirates in February 1999 - but Clinton policymakers worried that a strike might kill one of the princes or other officials. A CIA official called the incident "a lost opportunity to kill bin Laden before 9/11."
  
  
  
• Again in Kandahar, in May 1999, sources reported bin Laden's location over five nights - but there was no attack because of doubts about intelligence and the "risk of collateral damage."
  
  
• In a fourth instance, in July 1999, the intelligence was too sketchy to support a strike.

The revelations about U.S. inaction sparked charges at yesterday's hearing of the Sept. 11 commission that several golden opportunities were blown to nail the world's terror mastermind.

"From 1993, when the World Trade Center was hit the first time, through September 2001, al Qaeda never suffered a military response from us, other than Aug. 20th," said Kerrey, referring to the missile strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998.

Clinton has agreed to talk privately with commission leaders, but hasn't done so yet. He and President Bush refuse to testify before the commission publicly.

---

Quote:

---

In December 1998, intelligence suggested bin Laden was at a location in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Missile strikes were prepared, but Clinton's advisers decided not to recommend a launch because no one had seen bin Laden for a couple of hours.

---

Quote:

---

Again in Kandahar, in May 1999, sources reported bin Laden's location over five nights - but there was no attack because of doubts about intelligence and the "risk of collateral damage."

---

Quote:

---

In a fourth instance, in July 1999, the intelligence was too sketchy to support a strike.[/LIST]

---

Quote:

---

The revelations about U.S. inaction sparked charges at yesterday's hearing of the Sept. 11 commission that several golden opportunities were blown to nail the world's terror mastermind.

Clinton's defense secretary, William Cohen, defended the White House.

"I just don't think it was feasible," he said.

"Better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all," replied Kerrey, who faulted both Clinton and President Bush for failing to go after bin Laden.

An effort that actually was undertaken to kill bin Laden failed in August 1998, two weeks after al Qaeda thugs bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The cruise-missile assault on a camp in Afghanistan came up empty as bin Laden and others fled before the bombs hit.

Federal investigators yesterday revealed that after that attack, at least one top Pakistani general promised to alert the Taliban to missile assaults on Afghanistan.

Gen. Hamid Gul, a retired chief of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency, contacted Taliban leaders in 1999 and said he'd provide three or four hours' warning of a U.S. missile attack, according to a report by the commission.

Any heads-up from Gul would have given bin Laden plenty of time to change locations.

But Kerrey still insisted that the failure by the Clinton and Bush White Houses to effectively strike when they could have created the impression the United States was timid and lacked resolve.

"From 1993, when the World Trade Center was hit the first time, through September 2001, al Qaeda never suffered a military response from us, other than Aug. 20th," said Kerrey, referring to the missile strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998.

After the hearing, the commission chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean, told The Post he was especially interested in the blown opportunity that arose in February 1999, when bin Laden and others were hunting houbaras, desert birds.

"That was too bad," Kean said.

Speaking at the White House yesterday, President Bush said he would have acted more quickly against al Qaeda if he had information before Sept. 11, 2001, that a terror attack against New York City was imminent.

In his first response to criticism raised in a new book by his former counterterrorism adviser, Richard Clarke, Bush denied that he ignored bin Laden and al Qaeda before the attacks while focusing on Saddam Hussein.

"The facts are these. [CIA Director] George Tenet briefed me on a regular basis about the terrorist threat to the United States of America, and had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on Sept. 11, we would have acted," Bush said.

The startling 9/11 commission report released at yesterday's hearing also faulted Clinton and Bush for sitting on plans for dealing with Taliban-run Afghanistan. It also hit Clinton for never asking Sudan to turn over bin Laden when he lived there, and for allowing two detailed plans for going after bin Laden to sit on the shelf.

Although there's no evidence that killing bin Laden would have prevented the terror hijackings of 9/11, several commission members were angry that bureaucratic bungling allowed the counterterrorism efforts to stall for years.

Yesterday's hearing provided some evidence that the Bush administration was more focused on Iraq and on military "transformation" than on international terrorism.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld admitted that he received a terror briefing from Cohen but couldn't remember any details.

Rumsfeld also echoed Cohen yesterday, arguing that missile strikes against bin Laden terror training camps might have been interpreted as "a sign of weakness."

Cohen and other military leaders have ridiculed those camps as "jungle gyms" not worthy of the cost of "expensive bombs."

The commission's report also notes that Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, had defended the lack of action against bin Laden, arguing that in each case, military force was shelved because there were too many doubts about missing bin Laden or killing innocent people around him.

"If the shot missed bin Laden, the United States would look weak and bin Laden would look strong," Berger said in an interview with panel investigators.

Berger is slated to testify today, along with Clarke.

Clinton has agreed to talk privately with commission leaders, but hasn't done so yet. He and President Bush refuse to testify before the commission publicly.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Kerry is on record as saying he wants to return to those failed tactics.

That's something to consider in this year's election.

---

Quote:

---

rexstardust said:
I still can't believe Clinton didn't go after Bin Laden after he attacked the USS Cole.

---

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:
[the G-man said]Kerry is on record as saying he wants to return to those failed tactics...What exactly did Kerry say? Is there an article that quotes him on this?

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
But....this points out the flaw in the tactic used by Clinton (and Bush) pre-9/11: to wit, that we should treat Al Queda and bin Laden as criminals, to be dealt with through law enforcement and intelligence gathering as opposed to as miltary targets.

---

Quote:

---

...and on this very message board, whomod was still arguing that bin Laden was innocent and the rest of the posters were fucktards

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:
[the G-man said]Kerry is on record as saying he wants to return to those failed tactics...What exactly did Kerry say? Is there an article that quotes him on this?

---

From the Washington Post:

I think that there has been an exaggeration [in the threat of terrorism]...The war on terror is ... primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation

---

This was actually in reference to WMD's & the linkage between 9/11 & Iraq. Way misleading

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
But 9/11 was planned on Bill's watch.

However, for the sake of argument, what should either Bush or Clinton have done pre-9/11 to stop it? Institute the types of "Homeland Security" measures that liberals constantly attack as draconian?

---

"The Buck stops here", eh?

Then wasn't the 1st WTC attack planned on George HW. Bush's watch? Yesterday I heard some nut on AM radio argue your argument. Clinton of course was responsible for 9/11 because it happened on his watch and for the 1st WTC attack in '92 because he was the just elected president at the time.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

But of course it's thems "liberals" who are hate filled and irrational.

Quote:

---

whomod said:
Clinton of course was responsible for 9/11 because it happened on his watch and for the 1st WTC attack in '92 because he was the just elected president at the time.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

---

Quote:

---

Rob Kamphausen said:
no, placing blame on presidents does not help at all.

not only does it not help anything, its impossible to say that you could have predicted what was going to happen.

sure, after its all said and done, evidence trails might lead in specific directions, and learning from that knowledge is nothing but beneficial. to find out why things happened the way they did.

it doesn't have to automatically be labeled "a failure," nor does bill clinton or george bush have to bear the blame on their shoulders alone. they both clearly made mistakes, or at least did things that, retrospectively, they should have done differently. to pretend one of them didn't is idiotic.

but the point remains, its odd that you sometimes have to remember and remind others that the bad guys were the terrorists.

---

Quote:

---

whomod said:
I'll place the blame 1st on the terrorists and secondly at the doorstep of the fucking Federal Beauru of *koff* Investigation and their ineffective beauracracy. After all they had alll the clues and didn't act on them nor inform the chain of command.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
No, if you read the transcript, both the moderator and the other candidates at that debate took Kerry to mean exactly what I said he meant. And Kerry never corrected them. In fact, he just kept driving his point home.

Maybe now he's engaging in one his famous "flip flops" about what he meant?

---

Quote:

---

That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.

But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

So, Clinton had eight years and at least three chances to get Bin Laden and he didn't...but Bush is the one who could have prevented 9/11?

Yeah...riiiiight....

---

Quote:

---

Chris Oakley said:


My sentiments exactly.If you ask me,Richard Clarke's going after the wrong President in his book.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
I wonder....does the level of animous whomod displays for Ms. Rice have anything to do with the fact that she is a proud, strong, successful African-American woman?

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
I wonder....does the level of animous whomod displays for Ms. Rice have anything to do with the fact that she is a proud, strong, successful African-American woman?

---

Yeah, G-Man. I'm the Grand Wizard of the L.A. branch of the KKK.

It seems Frist isn't the only Republican that's reaching, today.

“Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath,” Frist said in a speech from the Senate floor.

But he later told MSNBC that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between Clarke’s two appearances. He said, “Until you have him under oath both times, you don’t know.”

Frist has gone done quite a few notches in my book.

As for Dr. Condaleezza Rice, media darling/commission no-show, here's a paper she wrote pre-9/11 where she's zeroing in on terrorism as her top priority.

Foreign Affairs Magazine 2000

http://www.foreignpolicy2000.org/library/issuebriefs/readingnotes/fa_rice.html

In the article Rice notes five key foreign policy priorities. Only the last made any mention of terrorism, but not al Qaida or Osama bin Laden.

Instead she wrote about North Korea, Iraq and Iran.

There's no mention of Afghanistan or the madrassas in Pakistan, the importance of knocking down terrorist financial networks, Islamist sleeper cells in American or Germany.

None of it.

Her words certainly support Clarke's view of things.

I'll add another in a growing chorus of REPUBLICANS speaking out against party but for country and honesty:

Quote:

---

Ray McGovern, CIA Security Analyst who met daily with Reagan and Bush Sr.

McGovern on Condoleezza Rice:

“Condoleeza Rice was not equipped to handle the situation before or after 9-11.”

---

Quote:

---

"candidly speaking, I didn't detect" a strong focus on terrorism. "That's not being derogatory. It's just a fact. I didn't detect any activity but what Dick Clarke and the CSG [the Counterterrorism Strategy Group he chaired] were doing."

---

Quote:

---

Rice revises statement in private session on 9/11

BY KENNETH R. BAZINET AND THOMAS M. DEFRANK

New York Daily News

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - A member of the 9/11 commission said Friday that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice indicated in a private session she was wrong to have once stated no one expected terrorists to use planes as missiles.

The White House reportedly also backpedaled Friday on whether President Bush pressed counterterror czar Richard Clarke the day after the attacks to find evidence that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was involved.

Clarke claimed the meeting occurred in the White House Situation Room and presidential aides said earlier this week the meeting never happened.

But CBS News reported last night that White House aides now concede the meeting "probably" occurred.

The conflicting versions of events before and after 9/11 will ensure that debate will continue through the weekend over Clarke's accusations that Bush downgraded the importance of counterterrorism.

Clarke, Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will all appear on talk shows Sunday to press their case.

Rice, who has refused to testify before the panel under oath and in public, met with the commission privately for four hours Feb. 7.

One issue was her May 16, 2002, statement at the White House when she said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use . . . a hijacked airplane as a missile."

Intelligence reports had detailed such plans as much as five years before 9/11.

Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the 9/11 panel, said that during a closed-door session Rice revised that statement.

"She corrected (herself) in our private interview by saying, `I could not anticipate that they would try to use an airplane as a missile,' but acknowledging that the intelligence community could anticipate it," Ben-Veniste said.

"No reports of the use of airplanes as weapons were briefed or presented to Dr. Rice prior to May 2002," said her spokesman Sean McCormack.

The White House is insisting that Rice get another shot before the panel to rebuff sensational charges by Clarke, but commissioners are still balking at Rice's position that she cannot testify under oath and in public because of executive privilege.

"This (latest discrepancy) is yet another reason why we need to have Dr. Rice come before us in public rather than at the highest classified level," said Democratic commissioner Tim Roemer, a former Indiana congressman.

Even some of Rice's associates as well as congressional Republicans think muzzling Rice is a political blunder. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday he supports the decision, but he added, "Personally, I think her voice is so good, so powerful that to have her come before the 9/11 commission publicly would be to the administration's benefit."

---

Quote:

---

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 20, 2002; Page A01


The Bush administration now had in its hands what one participant called "the holy grail" of a ***three-year quest*** [for you Neocons that means designed and started by the Clinton administration] by the U.S. government, a tool that could kill bin Laden within minutes of finding him. The CIA planned and practiced the operation. But for the next three months, before the catastrophe of Sept. 11, President ***Bush and his advisers held back.***

Bush and his top aides had higher priorities, above all, ballistic missile defense.

The [Bush] administration did not resume its predecessor's covert deployment of cruise missile submarines and gunships, on six-hour alert near Afghanistan's borders. The standby force gave Clinton the option, never used, of an immediate strike against targets in al Qaeda's top leadership. The Bush administration put no such capability in place before Sept. 11.

Bush did not speak again publicly of the dangers of terrorism before Sept. 11, except to promote a missile shield that had been his top military priority from the start.

Clarke asked Rice to let him begin an interagency review. As it began, he recommended five immediate steps.

Not much came of Clarke's immediate requests. It would be months before the new team's appointees arrived in force.

Army Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick, who had come from top posts on the Joint Staff and the Defense Intelligence Agency to manage Clinton's National Security Council staff, remained at the NSC nearly four months after Bush took office.

He noticed a difference on terrorism. Clinton's Cabinet advisers had met "nearly weekly" to direct the fight, Kerrick said. Among Bush's first-line advisers, "candidly speaking,****I didn't detect" that kind of focus****, he said. "That's not being derogatory. It's just a fact. ****I didn't detect any activity**** but what Dick Clarke and the CSG were doing."

---