Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize [Archive]

View Full Version : Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

Live Steam

05-27-2004, 05:37 AM

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden_files/blackpix.gif Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=165 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD width=165 bgColor=#ffffff colSpan=5> </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD width=5 bgColor=#ffffff> </TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#f2e7ba>http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden_files/empty.gif</TD><TD width=4 bgColor=#ffffff>http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden_files/empty.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top width=150><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#f2e7ba> Times Headlines </TD></TR><TR><TD class=spacer3> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=spacer10> </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD class=relatedlinks>The U.S. Can't Allow Justice to Be Another War Casualty (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-000099962dec17.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcomment%2Dop inions)
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=spacer10> </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD class=relatedlinks>Ghost of a Tribunal Should Haunt Ashcroft (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-000099964dec17.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcomment%2Dop inions)
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=spacer10> </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD class=relatedlinks>Bush Was Right to Abandon Treaty (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-000099961dec17.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcomment%2Dop inions)
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=spacer10> </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD class=relatedlinks>Culture Shock (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-000099592dec16.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcomment%2Dop inions)
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=spacer10> </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD class=relatedlinks>Hate Hits the Mainstream (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-000099588dec16.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcomment%2Dop inions)
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=spacer5> </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD class=relatedlinks>more > (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion)

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD width=5 bgColor=#ffffff> </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD width=5 bgColor=#ffffff> </TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#f2e7ba>http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden_files/empty.gif</TD><TD width=4 bgColor=#ffffff>http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden_files/empty.gif</TD><TD width=150 bgColor=#ffffff></TD><TD width=5 bgColor=#ffffff> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
By MANSOOR IJAZ
December 5, 2001

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.

thatsmybush

05-27-2004, 05:44 AM

When things go bad==BLAME CLINTON.

He is the neosporine salve to republican road rash.

Notice you forgot how Bush allowed him to slip through at Tora Bora.

But I never take stock in anyone who just cuts and pastes.

Live Steam

05-27-2004, 05:47 AM

Let him slip through? At least he tried to capture him. Clinton could have had him handed to him without the loss of any American life. Tora Bora was a war zone. He "slipped away"! He wasn't allowed to walk away like Clinton allowed.

mohair_chair

05-27-2004, 05:50 AM

Guess I won't be voting for Clinton in the next election. Oh, wait, he's not running! Well, certainly he should resign his office. Oh, wait, he's been out of office for almost four years? Well that's odd. I guess the only thing left to do is spit on his grave. Oh, wait, he's still alive? I'm confused.

thatsmybush

05-27-2004, 05:53 AM

Actually, it seems as though a misdirected offensive. That put the northern alliance and tribes in charge rather than the US Military led to the debacle. A serious military mistake in retrospect. Besides since our wonderful war in Iraq (which I am sure Clinton is to blame for) the Al Q's enrollment has swelled to 18,000 commited fundies. WAY TO GO!! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

M.J.

05-27-2004, 05:59 AM

mickey-mac

05-27-2004, 06:01 AM

Bill Clinton is out of control!

gregario

05-27-2004, 06:07 AM

Man, I heard that Martin Van Buren guy sucked too! We're STILL paying for his screw-ups.

Dude, I didn't like Clinton either, and yes, if what you put forth is true, they blew it. When does the statute of limitations kick in? You're strongest skill is your hindsight.

thatsmybush

05-27-2004, 06:14 AM

Your right about the "little magician" elected in 1936 he exaserbated north south tensions and incurred the banking crisis of 1937. His policies in economics led to devalued currency and general malaise in the economy. Not a great track record but he was Old Hickory's V.P. so he had that going for him.

Live Steam

05-27-2004, 06:19 AM

Yes one Clinton is not in office any more, though he remains in the news every day and is advising the Democrat candidate that is seeking the highest office. Another Clinton is also seeking to occupy that office in one form or another. The article is important because it shows how wrong the Democrats can be. They prophesize doom and gloom from our actions, yet fail to see what their inaction has caused. It seems that they, the liberals of this country, have been wrong on many occasions. Their errors in judgment have placed this country in danger. We are now forced to take the fight to the enemy. They will not go away on any peaceable terms. If a democracy is able to grow and flourish in the middle of their breeding grounds, then we will have a fighting chance to win the hearts and minds of the people there. They hopefully will see that extreme Islam is not the answer. They can live in peace and prosperity by choosing to be involved in their own destinies, through the democratic process. They need to see and live the alternative. They only know how to live under fear and hate. Maybe, just maybe, a flower will grow in the desert.

thatsmybush

05-27-2004, 06:28 AM

That is a wonderful dream your having. Its nice not to be invaded with reality, you must sleep well at night.

You might want to look into how Iran turned from, "the model of western style society in the middle east and buffer against Soviet aggression." From 1953-to 1979. Into people who rid themselves of the Shaw in 1979. What was the problem, it seems men and women alike didn't want westernization. Women threw away partial voting rights and college educations to put on the vail. (as their last act of free thought). While men sought to supplant free thought with male dominance so apparent in Islam.

Look at the trevails of G.Britain in Iraq when they were granted protectorate status of the region after WWI. Even with a colonial "pacification" army they were forced to throw up their hands.

And it is not just the dems that get it wrong.

(See the republicans who were against the Marshall Plan in 1947, even under threat of World wide Communist domination)
(See Nixon loosing to Cuba in Angola in 1975, his arming of Pol Pot in Cambodia, etc.)
(The 1973 ouster of Allende in Cuba ("we set the limits of diversity" kissinger is said to have mocked) that installed one of the cruelset regimes in all of S. America)

These are but a few examples I have many many more, both repubs and dems failures in foreign policy.

Live Steam

05-27-2004, 06:32 AM

So you believe that people of the 21st Century ME cannot change? They cannot embrace a system of self governance? They are incapable of understanding human rights and equality? Please explain.

Bocephus Jones

05-27-2004, 06:42 AM

So you believe that people of the 21st Century ME cannot change? They cannot embrace a system of self governance? They are incapable of understanding human rights and equality? Please explain.

They are going to understand it if we have to bomb every last man, woman and child over there dammit!

RedMenace

05-27-2004, 06:45 AM

thatsmybush

05-27-2004, 06:46 AM

22 Middle Eastern countries-Zero democracies.
The belief in Islamic law as the highest form of law prevents "New England Style Democracy." Why?

Because it does not allow for the rule of law seperate from religion. As religious law dictates, women are subserviant, people who oppose the religion are not equal and dismissed. This does not allow the governing rule of law that was so important to our own founding fathers as well as Hobbs, Locke, Rousseau and other enlightened philosphers that all believed that law must set itself above other tenets.

Such beliefs allow and nurture a system of Monorchists or Theocracies not Democracy (or in our case a Republican form of government.)

Alexander Hamilton wrote of revolutions this way (I believe prophetically so in the case of Iraq)== "Tis only to consult our own hearts to be convinced that nations like individuals revolt at the idea of being giuded by external compulsion."

gregario

05-27-2004, 06:52 AM

They are going to understand it if we have to bomb every last man, woman and child over there dammit!

Let's beat them into submission! Then maybe they will see that OUR way, the AMMERIKAN WAY is the way towards the truth and the light. Damn straight, Bubba. Now pass me another Bud and let's watch some wrassling!

Live Steam

05-27-2004, 06:53 AM

Turkey and Egypt are examples of working republics in the ME.

thatsmybush

05-27-2004, 06:53 AM

"Pave Paradise, put up a parking lot." Joni Mitchell not any of those crap remakes.

RedMenace

05-27-2004, 06:57 AM

Turkey and Egypt are examples of working republics in the ME.
Although the "President for Life" concept tied to a one-party system admittedly meets the Republican definition of a republic.

thatsmybush

05-27-2004, 06:58 AM

Egypt? Please, as far as Turkey few associate them as "true middle eastern" also the fact that they continue to "quiet" the non-turkish minority (kurds, etc.) places them far from the pantheon of true democratic liberalism. The slant towards a single party system also is a problem.

If these are your strongest bullets in your "republican" gun well...perhaps you shouldn't argue every point. The occasional concession of points well made may serve you well.

AJS

05-27-2004, 07:10 AM

LS -

Before you spread more disinformation & bullshit, I'll take the trouble to type an excerpt from Richard A. Clarke's book "Against All Enemies", (as opposed to mere cutting & pasting).

From Chap. 9, pp. 225-226:

Clinton left office with bin Laden alive, but having authorized actions to eliminate him and to step up attacks on al Qaeda. He had defeated al Qaeda when it had attempted to take over Bosnia by having its fighters dominate the defensive of the breakaway state from Serbian attacks. He had seen earlier than anyone that terrorism would be the major new threat facing America, and therefore had greatly increased funding for counterterrorism and initiated homeland protection programs. He had put an end to Iraqi and Iranian terrorism against the United States by quickly acting against the intelligence services of each nation.

Because of the intensity of the political oppositionthat Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in "Wag the Dog" tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. for similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI Director who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover terrorists in the United States. He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing. Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct. He had tried that in Somalia, and the military had made mistakes and blamed him. In the absence of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more. Nonetheless, he put in place the plans and programs that allowed America to respond to the big attacks when they did come, sweeping away the political barriers to action.

When Clinton left office many people, including the incoming Bush administration leadership, thought that he and his administration were overly obsessed with al Qaeda. After all, al Qaeda had killed only a few Americans, nothing like the hundreds of Marines who had died at the hands of Beirut terrorists during the Reagan administration or the hundreds of Americans who were killed by Libya on Pan Am 103 during the first Bush's administration. Those two acts had not provoked U.S. military retaliation. Why was Clinton so worked up by al Qaeda and why did he talk to President-elect Bush about it and have Sandy Berger raise it with his successor as National Security Advisor, Condi Rice? In January 2001, the new administration really thought Clinton's recommendation that eliminating al Qaeda be one of their highest priorities, well, rather odd, like so many of the Clinton administration's actions, from their perspective.

Maybe you ought to read the REAL story from someone who was actually smack in the middle of the foreign and terrorism policy of both administrations for many years, not just someone who had a marginal role in the Council of Foreign Relations.

Live Steam

05-27-2004, 07:15 AM

It seems that you are a sheep being lead by a looser who did nothing to protect this country. This sever terror threat grew under his supervision. He now wants to paint a different picture to deflect responsibility away from himself. His book is not Gospel. His book is self-serving BS. Man are you a lemming! Mansoor Ijaz worked for Clinton too. What reason does he have to lie? I would believe a man who has nothing to gain from his statements than a man who is trying to sell a book.

thatsmybush

05-27-2004, 07:26 AM

I find it a wonderful set of coincidences between those who speak out against the Bush administration being defamed, character assasinated etc. Clark, O'neill, Woodward now Zinni is being called a pacifist who was against the war from the outset. (Like Powell). The moral of the story speak out against the regime and get destroyed.

I think of others like Molotov, Melenkov, Zhukov, Beria and others who worked with Khrushchev in his rise and destalinization program until they saw that he too was someone they had to deal with. They were all discredited thrown out as despots, or "capitalists." The artists that took his freedoms too were denounced (even though he had never read the offending material.)

Sounds far fetched. Too often it seems that what this government wants is one party rule, zero dissent a BANANA REPUBLICAN.

AJS

05-27-2004, 07:30 AM

Live Steam

05-27-2004, 07:32 AM

Well let them say their peace without dollars attached to their story. Then maybe they would be more credible. Until then they are profiteering opportunists who lost their jobs because of incompetence.

AJS

05-27-2004, 07:35 AM

What the hell are you talking about??? Yet MORE disinformation I suppose???

:confused:

thatsmybush

05-27-2004, 07:37 AM

Zinni (retired with honors and I believe given another star for good measure)
Clark (resigned)
O'Neill (resigned)
Shinseki( was retired for saying we needed more troops)
Army war college who called for hundreds of thousands of more troops (still active as a college I believe)

You make it worse when you willfully distort the truth. Worse still you make it less of a challenge. I now feel like I am in a conversation with a little boy who just was told there was no santa claus.

Live Steam

05-27-2004, 07:39 AM

Obscure? Do you know what you are talking about?

The Washington Times
Politicized intelligence . . .
http://images.washtimes.com/images/clear.gif
http://images.washtimes.com/images/twt-grey2.gif
By Mansoor Ijaz
http://images.washtimes.com/images/twt-grey2.gif
LONDON. — Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism czar for Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, testifies today before the commission investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States. He is well-qualified to do so because few individuals over the last decade, inside or outside government, better understood the Islamic extremism threat in all its dimensions.
But rather than deliver a factual recounting and analysis of intelligence failures and politically charged antiterrorism policies that plagued his years as coordinator for counterterrorism operations, he has chosen to characterize the Bush White House as indifferent to the threat posed by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network prior to the September 11 attacks without consideration for the failures on his watch during the Clinton years. This is inaccurate and adds nothing to our understanding of how distant terrorists could plan and carry out such daring and effective attacks.
Mr. Clarke's premise that Bush national security officials neither understood nor cared to know anything about al Qaeda is simply untrue. I know because on multiple occasions from June until late August 2001, I personally briefed Stephen J. Hadley, deputy national security adviser to President Bush, and members of his South Asia, Near East and East Africa staff at the National Security Council on precisely what had gone wrong during the Clinton years to unearth the extent of the dangers posed by al Qaeda. Some of the briefings were in the presence of former members of the Clinton administration's national security team to ensure complete transparency.
Far from being disinterested, the Bush White House was eager to avoid making the same mistakes of the previous administration and wanted creative new inputs for how to combat al Qaeda's growing threat.
Mr. Clarke's role figured in two key areas of the debriefings — Sudan's offer to share terrorism data on al Qaeda and bin Laden in 1997, and a serious effort by senior members of the Abu Dhabi royal family to gain bin Laden's extradition from Afghanistan in early 2000.
• Fall 1997: Sudan's offer is accepted by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, then rejected by Mr. Clarke and Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger.
Sudan's president, Omar Hasan El Bashir, made an unconditional offer of counterterrorism assistance to the vice chairman of the September 11 Commission, then Rep. Lee Hamilton, Indiana Democrat, through my hands on April 19, 1997. Five months later on Sept. 28, 1997, after an exhaustive interagency review at the entrenched bureaucracy level of the U.S. government, Mrs. Albright announced the U.S. would send a high-level diplomatic team back to Khartoum to pressure its Islamic government to stop harboring Arab terrorists and to review Sudan data on terrorist groups operating from there.
As the re-engagement policy took shape, Susan E. Rice, incoming assistant secretary of state for East Africa, went to Mr. Clarke, made her anti-Sudan case and asked him to jointly approach Mr. Berger about the wisdom of Mrs. Albright's decision. Together, they recommended its reversal.The decision was overturned on Oct. 1, 1997.
Without Mr. Clarke's consent, Mr. Berger is unlikely to have gone along with such an early confrontation with the first woman to hold the highest post at Foggy Bottom.
U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by al Qaeda 10 months later. Files with detailed data on three of the embassy bombers were among the casualties of Mr. Clarke's decision to recommend missile attacks on an empty Khartoum pharmaceutical plant rather than get Sudan's data out almost a year earlier to begin unraveling al Qaeda's network.
To this day, neither Mr. Berger nor Mr. Clarke has explained to the American people why a deliberative decision of the U.S. government, made by interagency review, was overturned in such cavalier fashion by a small clique of Clinton advisers in the face of Sudan's unconditional April 1997 offer to cooperate on terrorism issues. If he was interested in facts, why did Mr. Clarke spurn the recommendations of his own intelligence and foreign policy institutions that the Sudanese offer be explored? Why did he not act on the Sudanese intelligence chief's direct approach to the FBI, of which he was aware, in early 1998 just prior to the final planning stages of the embassy bombings?
• Spring 2000: Abu Dhabi's offer to get bin Laden out of Afghanistan falls flat.
In late 1999, after a barrage of threats from al Qaeda's senior leadership against the Abu Dhabi royal family, a senior family member approached the Taliban foreign minister and Mullah Omar to discuss mechanisms for getting bin Laden out of Afghanistan. Mr. Clarke, who enjoyed close relations with the Abu Dhabi family, was brought into the loop early to prevent separation between Washington and Abu Dhabi on such a sensitive matter.
While Mr. Clarke was skeptical of the idea at first, he played ball long enough to understand the real intentions of the Taliban regime. Smart enough, except when the deal got real.
As the strategy started taking shape in earnest — a personal request from President Clinton to Sheikh Zayed, Abu Dhabi's ruler, seeking help to get bin Laden coupled with a $5 billion pan-Arab Afghan Development Fund that would be offered in return for bin Laden taking residence under house arrest in Abu Dhabi, with the possibility of extraditing him later to the United States — Mr. Clarke again scuttled the deal by opting instead for the militaristic solution. He pushed for armed CIA predator drones to hunt bin Laden in the remote mountains of northeastern Afghanistan.
Abu Dhabi was left with a black eye. The Taliban became even more aggressive in allowing al Qaeda to plan and carry out terrorist operations from Afghan soil. Another chance to capture the world's most notorious terrorist had been lost.
Mr. Clarke's selective memory serves no interest but his own agenda. He personifies the politicizing of intelligence by pointing fingers during the political high season for failures that not only occurred on his watch but also were due partly to his grand vision he would one day personally authorize a drone operation to kill bin Laden.
Mr. Clarke, as he testifies today, should remember he served at the pleasure of the American people. He was appointed to defend us against the very terrorists he repeatedly assessed inaccurately. A grateful nation recognizes the difficulty of his task but we ask that he stick to facts rather than inject vitriol and untruths into a debate that must yield answers to help protect our children in the future.

thatsmybush

05-27-2004, 07:47 AM

The Washington Times-that bastion of media centrism.

You continue to cull information from an editorialist. It would be much like me citing from Maureen Dowd's columns.

Not only that you continually disregard any post that establishes that you are being FACTUALLY incorrect. Take a moment relax. Give your copy and paste button a rest, stop right clicking!!

RedMenace

05-27-2004, 07:47 AM

LOL! In czar's immortal words!

Live Steam

05-27-2004, 07:49 AM

Distort what truth? Yes they were forced to resign. No one gets fired in DC. So they go away unhappy little boys and write books in as payback. Why don't they make their case without profit as a motive? Isn't Zinni the general that conducted The Minica War? Wasn't he responsible for Op Desert Fox that bombed Iraq on the eave of the Monica scandal? He's some hero. He is also trying to sell a book. Like I said, if they are to be credable, they need to make their case without the prospects of prifit.

RedMenace

05-27-2004, 07:54 AM

Like I said, if they are to be credable, they need to make their case without the prospects of prifit.
What's wrong with profit? I'm the one that's supposed to be arguing the immorality of profit.

thatsmybush

05-27-2004, 07:59 AM

Shinseki and Zinni (incompetant Generals, how did they ever make it past corporal?
O'neill (How did he ever make millions running fortune 500 companies)
Clark (how did reagan not see through his incompetance for 8 years and why did they defer to him on 9/11 saying your the expert your in charge?)

Sounds like Bush had alot of incompetant advisors perhaps he has a few more as well.

But your right following your advice when Bush publishes his memoirs I promise not to believe a word of it.

Live Steam

05-27-2004, 08:05 AM

Let's be realistic about it, profit and motive are not compatible with the truth in this instance.

Live Steam

05-27-2004, 08:13 AM

Clark was a water boy in the Reagan administration. He was no top terrorist Czar. I laugh when I hear liberals cite his service under Reagan, as some proof of his conservatism. He is a liberal through and through. Clinton elevated him to prominence in that role. He obviously wasn't very good at what he did. How many attacks happened on his watch? If he knew OBL was so dangerous, why didn't he have any success in convincing Clinton that he had to go? Please he is a looser who is trying to deflect his hand in what happened. He is a disgruntled employee just as the rest are. Zinni? What did he ever do on the field of battle or anywhere else? Zinni was appointed by Secretary of State Colin Powell as a special envoy to bring peace to the Middle East. His efforts produced no peace, and he left this post about one year later. He was apparently more successful in the private sector on the board of Raytheon. Now he wants to sell a book attacking U.S. officials while America is at war. That pretty much sums up his brilliance.

RedMenace

05-27-2004, 08:17 AM

Let's be realistic about it, profit and motive are not compatible with the truth in this instance.
"In this instance" = "since the book criticizes Bush."

Presumably, and almost certainly, a book critical of Clinton written for profit WOULD be compatible with the truth.

LMFAO!

Steam, you never cease to amaze me.

Live Steam

05-27-2004, 08:26 AM

You don't see the not so subtle differences. A book written about Clinton after he is out of office may or may not have more credibility. Books written about a sitting president during an election cycle have only one purpose. Actually these books are pretty much unprecedented. Prior to this, no one would have had the unmitigated gall to do such a low down dirty deed. However we know that Democrats are capable of doing just about anything when they fear they are losing power. We also know that disgruntled ex-employees are too.

thatsmybush

05-27-2004, 08:29 AM

Well if he didn't bring peace to the middle east he has some esteemed company. Hard to knock a guy for not doing what no one has been able to accomplish in 4,000 years.

You failed to mentioned how Condi et al could have been duped by this "looser" by allowing him to run things on 9/11.

By the by he may be a "Loser" but I don't even want to know how you know whether or not he may be "looser".

RedMenace

05-27-2004, 08:30 AM

Live Steam

05-27-2004, 08:33 AM

So what book was written about Clinton while he was still in office? I don't own any that I can think of :O)

RedMenace

05-27-2004, 08:42 AM

So what book was written about Clinton while he was still in office? I don't own any that I can think of :O)
only one quick cut-and-paste away from laying a big chunk of one on us, should the need arise!

thatsmybush

05-27-2004, 08:42 AM

Books were written about Reagan during his tenure in office including those that shed valuable light on Iran Contra. I would say that this would be a precedent. Jefferson attacked his own boss in print (Adams) while still sitting as V.P. (precedent).

Just a couple of examples to prove you wrong again.

Live Steam

05-27-2004, 08:43 AM

Sorry my typo bothered you so much. Did you mean "by the way"? Duped by Clarke? I don't think so. They had the good judgment to give him some back office job that pretty much put his nose out of joint. I ask you, did he have a good record as a terror Czar? This threat grew to immeasurable proportions under his purview. 911 happened on his watch. So did the Cole and the embacy bombings, as did the first attempt on the WTC.

Live Steam

05-27-2004, 08:48 AM

Iran Contra was during Reagan's second term. There is a subtle difference here. He was not seeking re-election. I am not familiar with what Jefferson did.

RedMenace

05-27-2004, 08:51 AM

only one quick cut-and-paste away from laying a big chunk of one on us, should the need arise!
And, DARN it, you must have forgot, you've quoted from it extensively, I do believe. Maybe I'm mistaken. This was published in 1997, during Clinton's term in office. So this, like, has no credibility, and is a low down dirty thing to write? Just trying to nail this concept down. LOL!

If you like, I can look for more, maybe even some you're DEFINITELY familiar with! LOL!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895264080/ref=pd_sim_books_1/002-3124686-0794416?v=glance&s=books#product-details

RedMenace

05-27-2004, 08:53 AM

Iran Contra was during Reagan's second term. There is a subtle difference here. He was not seeking re-election. I am not familiar with what Jefferson did.
Man, this is one slippery idea here. I'm working hard to understand it though.

thatsmybush

05-27-2004, 08:53 AM

The subtle difference is this--Lets say it all together now.

"I was wrong I made a blanket statement that was easily refuted by historical truth."

Look back to 1798 when the alien-sedition acts were passed in part to stop the vitriolic writings of one V.P Thomas Jefferson was writing under anonimity.

There of more examples all of which I am sure you would define as "subtle."

Sintesi

05-27-2004, 08:55 AM

bill105

05-27-2004, 09:01 AM

The Clarke book is the closest thing to "gospel" that has come out of the Bush admin. yet. Can you show where/how Clarke is fabricating any of this, or "painting a different picture" than what had actually taken place? But I guess until you've actually READ the book, you wouldn't know.

How do you know that this obscure Mansoor Ijaz fellow doesn't have something to gain, or perhaps an axe to grind?

I would put a lot more confidence in an actual policy wonk than some unknown underling that wants to crawl out from under a rock for some ulterior motive.

the only "gospel" clarke knows is that he'll be changing his stories when it suits his needs.

his latest example:

Former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke says he is solely responsible for allowing members of Osama bin Laden's family to flee the United States immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again," Clarke told The Hill newspaper yesterday.

The Hill said a political controversy has been brewing over who approved the six controversial flights that carried 140 Saudi citizens.

At the time the members of the Saudi elite were allowed to leave, the Bush administration was preparing to detain Muslims in the U.S. as material witnesses to the attacks.

Democrat leaders, including Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, had been pressing members of the 9-11 Commission to find out, "Who authorized the flight[s] and why?"

A Democrat who attended a May 6 closed-door meeting of the panel quoted a panel member, former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., as saying: "We don’t know who authorized it. We've asked that question 50 times."

Most of the 26 passengers aboard a Sept. 20, 2001, fight were relatives of Osama bin Laden, whom intelligence officials blamed for the attacks almost immediately after they happened, The Hill said.

Clarke told the paper responsibility for the Saudis' departure "didn't get any higher than me."

"On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn't get any higher than me," he said. "I decided it in consultation with the FBI."

But this new account of the events seemed to contradict Clarke's sworn testimony before the Sept. 11 commission at the end of March, The Hill said.

"The request came to me, and I refused to approve it," Clarke testified. "I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the – at the time – No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved … the flight."

Panel member Tim Roemer said yesterday in response: "That's a little different than saying, 'I claim sole responsibility for it now.'"

Moreover, the FBI has denied approving the flight, according to the Capitol Hill paper.

FBI spokeswoman Donna Spiser said, "We haven't had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights."

"We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to," she said. "We didn’t interview 100 percent of the [passengers on the] flight. We didn't think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest."

The Hill said when Roemer asked Clarke during the commission's March hearing, "Who gave the final approval, then, to say, 'Yes, you’re clear to go, it's all right with the United States government,'" Clarke seemed to suggest it came from the White House.

"I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all these decisions that we were making in those hours, which was the interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference," Clarke testified. "I was making or coordinating a lot of the decisions on 9-11 in the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. The two – since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House chief of staff's office."

Clarke told the Washington newspaper yesterday the furor over the flights is a "tempest in a teapot," arguing that since the attacks the FBI has never said any of the passengers should not have left.

"It's very funny that people on the Hill are now trying to second-guess the FBI investigation," Clarke said.

The 9-11 commission released a statement last month declaring the chartered flights were handled properly by the Bush administration, the Hill reported

gregario

05-27-2004, 09:17 AM

AJS

05-27-2004, 06:28 PM

They had the good judgment to give him some back office job that pretty much put his nose out of joint.

Sorry LS, but if I still had the book here I'd give you the exact quote. Clarke's version of this is that Rice didn't want him doing anymore what he had been doing so well for so long - finding out what the REAL terrorist threats were to the U.S., (al Qaeda) and reporting it to the President and in the Principal's Meetings. The Bush admin. didn't want to hear anything about al Qaeda, because they were bent on Iraq. Period. We see the evidence of that every day now, don't we?

Clarke was given the position of Special (or Senior) Advisor to the President on Cyber-Terrorism, hardly a "back office job". Clarke quit for the same reasons that a couple of other's in his position either quit or were let go by Bush, because they didn't go along with the Neo-Con's wanton power grabs and war-mongering, and Bush's refusal to attack al Qaeda.

Try not to insert your foot every time you open your mouth.

Wasn't he responsible for Op Desert Fox that bombed Iraq on the eave of the Monica scandal?

Which just goes to prove Clarke's assertion above that "Because of the intensity of the political oppositionthat Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in "Wag the Dog" tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life." So damned if he did something, and damned if he didn't, right LS?

and this...

He is also trying to sell a book. Like I said, if they are to be credable, they need to make their case without the prospects of prifit.

Like Fox News, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, National Review, et al, aren't into their disinformation campaign for a profit?

Actually, there are currently very few opportunities to get your message on the big TV news outlets and large newspapers, because so many of them are corporate (read: Right-Wing) controlled. So now if you want to spill the beans on these ba$tards, a self-authored book is the best way to reach a bigger audience.

Why do you think Mike Powell - the head of the FCC and Colin Powell's son - made it so a corporation can have a monopoly in any media market? It's INFORMATION CONTROL, STUPID.

But all of the books and interviews that have come out recently against Bush, they're ALL out just to make a profit, and the essence of their messages are nothing but lies, right LS?

The only liars I see are GWB, his pals, and his supporters like you.

Live Steam

05-27-2004, 07:54 PM

You really are a lemming. Aren't you? Yeah go ahead and believe what Clarke wrote about himself. LOL!!!

AJS

05-28-2004, 06:36 AM

Look who's calling someone a lemming - the biggest Right-Wing zombie of the RBR site..

:confused:

FYI, Clarke didn't just write about himself, which you would know if you'd bother to read it. But it's obvious that you can't handle even the slightest discord about your heroes. Refusing to face reality doesn't make it go away.

Like I've said elsewhere: enjoy your fantasy while it lasts.

Dave_Stohler

05-28-2004, 05:33 PM

If it weren't for Reagan and Bush Sr., Bin Laden would still be working in the accounting office of his family's construction business!!

AJS

05-28-2004, 06:17 PM

Welp, from Clarke's account, what initially really pissed off OBL was when Cheney, Clarke and the rest went to Saudi Arabia to get permission to base our troops there when Saddam invaded Kuwait. They had a pow-wow with virtually the entire Saudi royal family (literally dozens of them) and the King reluctantly said, 'OK, but you must leave once Kuwait is free.' The consensus is that OBL knew almost immediately of the agreement.

Since Saddam still constituted a threat even after the war, we didn't leave. OBL didn't make his disenchantment known to the Saudi's then, but went ahead and started his plans.