President Turned Down Opportunities To Capture Osama Bin Laden
By Brian Yates (04/13/04)
Why didn’t the Bush Administration prevent 9/11? How could they have allowed terrorists to attack us on our own soil? What did they know, when did they know it, and when they did know it…why didn’t they do anything about it?
The charges of a lazy attitude towards counterterrorism on the part of the Bush Administration have been flying hot and heavy since the breaking of Richard Clarke’s silence. Under oath before the 9/11 commission, Clarke testified that “I believe the Bush Administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue but not an urgent issue,” when asked to compare the Clinton and Bush administrations’ respective attitudes toward terrorism.
After telling the commission that “the CIA said…that the attack would most likely occur overseas,” Clarke then testified that he, on the other hand, had the inside scoop: “I thought, however, that it might well take place in the United States.” Astonishingly, Clarke then went on to admit that there was no intelligence leading him to believe this: “The fact that we didn't have intelligence that we could point to that said it would take place in the United States wasn't significant in my view because, frankly, sir - I know how this is going to sound, but I have to say it - I didn't think the FBI would know whether or not there was anything going on in the United States by al Qaeda.”
So we’re supposed to believe that this guy, Clarke, just “knew” al Qaeda was going to attack the U.S. here at home? Just how stupid does Richard Clarke think the American people are? And if, in fact, he did “know” of the attacks before they happened; where was he to warn us? Why didn’t he run to 60 Minutes then? (Because that wouldn’t have sold any books.) If he knew that al Qaeda was going to attack the United States, doesn’t he feel some sort of obligation to inform us? I suppose his feigned apology during his testimony was supposed to take care of that.
If we’re going to pass the blame here; the Bush Administration is the wrong target. In fact, if you really want to point your finger, take a long look at Bill Clinton’s record on terrorism, and Osama bin Laden in particular.
Media darling Richard Clarke, terrorism chief under both Clinton and Bush, testified, according to the Washington Post, “that the Clinton administration treated terrorism as its highest priority but that the Bush administration did not consider it an urgent issue before the attacks.” The highest priority?
Testifying before the 9/11 commission, former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told committee members in response to questions concerning Clinton’s targeting of Osama bin Laden, “The President [Clinton] specifically authorized the use of force, and there should have been no confusion that our personnel were authorized to kill bin Laden.” She later added that “although we consumed all the intelligence we had, we did not get this information [on bin Laden’s exact whereabouts]; and instead, we occasionally learned where bin Laden had been or where he might be going…it was truly maddening.” It must have been, Madam Secretary.
Clinton defense chief William Cohen testified that, “The military gun was cocked for an extended period, but only once was the intelligence adequate to pull the trigger and launch strikes in an attempt to kill bin Laden.” A good follow-up to Cohen might be, “The gun might have been cocked, but was it loaded?”
Apparently, under Bill Clinton, the gun wasn’t loaded. Liberals have screamed themselves hoarse over President Bush’s failure to capture Osama bin Laden. Nary a word; however, has been said about Bill Clinton’s rejection of bin Laden not once, not twice, but three times. Time after time Clinton had perfect opportunities presented which would have handed him the most dangerous terrorist in the world. And time after time, Bill Clinton, the man to whom terrorism was “the highest priority” turned him down. What say you, Richard Clarke?
According to the London Times, in 1996 Sudan contacted the CIA “with an offer to hand over bin Laden.” This offer of extradition; however, was turned down by the Clinton administration. The reasoning? Sources at the White House under Clinton said, “There simply was not the evidence to prosecute Osama bin Laden. He could not be indicted, so it would serve no purpose for him to have been brought into U.S. custody.” At this same time though, the U.S. State Department was calling bin Laden “the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world.”
Later in 1996, Sudan informed American diplomats that they were going to expel bin Laden. They offered yet another opportunity for the U.S. to seize him. This offer was declined in a decision that “went to the very top of the White House.” When bin Laden left Sudan on May 18 “in a chartered C-130 plane” bound for Afghanistan, they stopped to refuel in Qatar, which is friendly with the U.S. He was allowed to proceed, however. Why? Administration sources say that “the clear focus of the American policy was to discourage the state sponsorship of terrorism. So persuading Khartoum [Sudan] to expel bin Laden was in itself counted as a clear victory.”
Finally, there’s the saga of Mansoor Ijaz. Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, negotiated several opportunities to nab bin Laden between 1996 and 2000. Ijaz, an American Muslim and Clinton supporter, said in an L.A. Times article he feels that “their [Clinton administration] counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.”
Clinton claims that there was no legal basis to bring bin Laden into custody back in 1996. However, in July 2000, just three months before the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, there was more than enough evidence. Ijaz presented the administration an offer to extradite bin Laden to an Arab country and begin the process that would bring him to the U.S. All Clinton had to do was make a state visit to personally request this extradition. This offer was shot down as well.
If you want to question actions the Bush administration took leading up to 9/11 it’s only fair to question the previous administration as well. The people who were there, dealing with this issue as their “highest priority”, for the past eight years.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Brian Yates
