State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996 By ERIC LICHTBLAU Published: August 17, 2005 WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show. In what would prove a prescient warning, the State Department intelligence analysts said in a top-secret assessment on Mr. bin Laden that summer that "his prolonged stay in Afghanistan - where hundreds of 'Arab mujahedeen' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate - could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum," in Sudan.
If a Republican had been in office for four years following this warning, during which time ObL attacked two US emabassies and a US warship, I suspect the more-hysterical and partisan of our resident drama queens could have come up with an idea or two. Strange they aren't so creative when viewing history prior to Bush's inauguration.
Well, once more why I don't blame Clinton as much as I do Bush....and yes, I am a hysterical and partisan drama queen, why do you ask? (1) Clinton responded about as much to the embassy bombings as the GOP Congress and the country would have allowed him to - with the much maligned tossing cruise missiles at camels approach. If anyone wants to blame Clinton for not being politically strong enough to lead the country to stronger action, that's completely valid. Monica was his own fault, after all. (2) The Cole happened ten days before the election. Had Clinton started a war then, the country would have assumed he was trying to influence the result. He wouldn't have been the Commander-in-Chief to prosecute said war, in any case - unless he had it wrapped up by January 2001. Keep in mind George W. Bush didn't do anything in response to the Cole, either. (3) Or, in fact, anything at all. Bush had every warning, and then some, about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda that Clinton had. He had none of the political baggage that Clinton carried. He had a strongly GOP house and a hawkish Democratic Senate. I think Clinton did everything that he could have realistically done, given the circumstances - some of which, like the hostile Congress and suspicious press, were of his own making. There's no way you can say that about Bush. Bush also was the man in charge on 9/11, and the man who ignored the August 6th PDB. If Clinton gets x amount of blame, Bush gets x cubed.
It was Abu Nidal Who was in Baghdad actually for years There was a great chance to get UBL in Sudan Sadly cigars and head from fat broads was more important
You google that up in the same place you googled up the "new" story about the Blackwater contractors being killed last year ?
This thread is just another retread of a pretty tired argument, that somehow, Clinton could've nabbed Bin-Laden, prevented 9/11, and saved Western Civilization from the global threat of terrorism but he was too busy bangin' interns. So going by the timeline presented here, Clinton had 4 years to find and nab Bin Laden, he failed. Bush has had 4 years since 9/11 to nab Bin Laden. He was given express license to strike and find Bin Laden since Al-Qaeda's connection to 9/11 was firmly established. He has also failed. This article accomplishes nothing other than to give Bush apoligists another opportunity to try and pass blame through the space-time continuum and absolve themselves of the blood that has been shed on their watch.
I didn't ask. But thanks for sharing. "as the GOP Congress and the country would have allowed him to"? I realize it's expedient to say that, but how do you know that? Why are you -- and those like you -- so unwilling to attrribute significant responsibility to Clinton's lack of will or inability to make the case for decisive action? My point is, if he had been a Republican, I doubt you would be defending him right now. Why? Well, I'm guessing it has something to do with your self-professed partisan, melodramatic, royal femininity. The timing is relevant, but not in the way you think. I'm more concerned with what Clinton didn't do to prevent it over the course of years before it happened. Why aren't you and others like you? Well, I'm guessing it's the same reason noted above. Yes, Bush had every warning Clinton had, plus one. And he had also been in office for eight months prior to 9/11 compared to Clinton's eight years. If the roles had been reversed, would I be correct in guessing you and those like you would still be putting the burden of blame on Bush? Why is that? So, Clinton is in office for eight years, and then Bush for eight months, but you blame Bush exponentially more than Clinton for 9/11? But, of course! Do you also blame Clinton exponentially more than Bush Senior for the WTC attack of February 1993, or is that different?
And Reagan for running out of Lebanon after the bombing, showing that terrorism could impact US foreign policy.... Look, this entire country slept for decades in the face of terrorism and there is more than enough blame to go around for everyone--multiple Presidents, Congress, the press and the public. And that is shown from one simple statistic--the number of times Bush and Gore mentioned 'terrorism' during the 2000 Presidential election --- 0. Bush didn't think it was worth talking about, Gore didn't think it was worth talking about, the media didn't think it was worth talking about and the public didn't demand or push anyone to talk about it. America did NOT concern itself with terrorism until 9/11/2001
I'm not. Monica Lewinsky pretty much prevented Clinton from enacting a foreign policy where any American life was at stake. Hard to do much militarily under those circumstances. And that was his own fault. Because a lot of this falls under the heading of "Why didn't he invent a time machine to go back and kill Hitler?" Invading Afghanistan before 9/11 was completely out of the question. That left lobbing cruise missiles where he thought he was. There was one example where Bin Laden was being feted by a bunch of emirs from our UAE ally. We could have cruise missiled him then, of course. I think this was before the embassy bombings, but still. We'd also have taken out a bunch of worthless oil royals. Now, it would have prevented 9/11...unless the families of the dead royals took umbrage, of course...but I can understand why Clinton didn't take that action. Richard Clarke and Sandy Berger have been slimed by the right-wing machine, but you can't say they didn't warn Bush, Rice, and the rest of the administration. Hell, Clarke was IN the administration at the time. It wasn't just one extra warning, thanks for asking. The FAA alone had over fifty: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/11/911.memo/ You would be incorrect. If a cop is sleeping on duty, you don't blame the guy on the previous shift. Is now a good time to point out that Bush did nothing...absolutely, completely, and utterly nothing...about Al Qaeda before 9/11? Even a little thing like letting American air force bases know something like this was being planned would have helped. Well, yeah. I mean, given my tiny outrage over the 1993 attack. Hell, even Republicans at the time didn't blame Clinton for that, did they? But no, it certainly wasn't the responsibility of George H.W. Bush. I can't even imagine the point you're trying to make here.
This thread can be a Clinton-bashing or a Clinton-excusing thread. It probably depends on the color of your stripes. In any case, I'm not one of those who think Monica Lewinski had any significant bearing on Clinton's actions, or lack thereof, in the pursuit of bin Laden. My first post merely addresses the fact that there are many here who can tirelessly blame one (mostly Bush), but not the other. Even though one, Clinton, had far more opportunity to act then the other, they nevertheless place the preponderance of blame on Bush. Do you think saying as much, which is patently obvious anyway, amounts to me defending Bush's actions since the attacks or, as you say, deflecting attention from "the blood on his watch"? I think Bush is a frickin' moron -- in more areas than one -- who has opened the book one of the most shameful chapters in our history. But that doesn't let Clinton off the hook for failure to prevent 9/11, any more than it reqires one to disproportionately blame Bush for 9/11. Of course, I prefer solids to stripes, which may explain why I lack the same reflexive aversion to spreading blame around that so many here seem to have.
Documents Show State Department Warned Clinton About Bin Laden Wednesday, August 17, 2005 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166004,00.html WASHINGTON — The State Department warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Usama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him more fertile ground to spread radical Islam, according to newly declassified documents.
Simply your willingness to criticize Clinton's role while ignoring the role of others and for correctly criticizing the lefties for their unfairly blaming GWB while making no note that the creator of this thread is clearing doing the same thing from the opposite party. I'm sick of both sides trying to blame the other for 9/11 (and I'm a professionally partisan Dem). You only seem interested in pointing out the mistakes of one side. I quoted you and not whoever was making the counter arguments because your post led me to my point well and I don't know how to quote multiple posts. PS, I just saw your later post and generally agree with you. I misread your intentions.
As much as I appreciate your facsination with all things me, I will not be sending you naked pictures of me for your time in 'raq.
Nah, I was really responding to the initial post and the article, trying to toss more blame in the other direction. Far more important than finding of blame is, as you say, what has been done since 9/11. In this I find Bush's response woefully inadequate, from a man that was woefully underprepared (and under-gifted) for a momental event such as 9/11. The blame game is pretty convoluted, as csc7 mentioned in a well-worded response. We could go back to Reagan in 1983 Beirut, Carter in 1979 Iran, or the CIA(OSS) working in the 1950's to stop the spread of communism in Persia. All of these policies have contributed in some respect to our situation now and while we could talk a lot about who bears responsibility for what, ultimately, it doesn't matter if we were asleep in April 1996, October 1983, or September 10, 2001. The point is, WE WERE ASLEEP. It's much more constructive to talk about what we have done since then, and in my mind, we have only exacerbated an extremely complex problem.
I see the blame-Monica crowd has members at both extremes of the political spectrum. You believe this is the extent of what Clinton could have done? Really? Maybe I just have more understanding of military capabilities than you. Maybe you lack imagination. Or maybe your partisanship prevents you from believing anything else; Clinton did all he could to stop bin Laden, was powerless to do more even after multiple attacks on US territory and military assets over the course of years, but Bush is exponentially more to blame for 9/11 eight months after he took office. Yeah, sounds reasonable. I realize you believe Bush is more responsible for 9/11 -- exponentially even -- than Clinton, and the fact that the FAA was receiving regular threat warnings proves it. How about when a cop sleeping on duty fails to prevent a murder, falls asleep again and fails to prevent another murder, falls asleep agains and fails to prevent another murder, and then the murderer kills someone else on the next cop's watch? Maybe it's just me, but I would have some blame for the first cop. You might too, if that first cop wasn't a member of your political party. You mean in his whole eight months in office? Gee, you got me there, more proof that Clinton is only fractionally as responsible for 9/11 as Bush. Drat! You mean there weren't as many frothy Reps blaming Clinton for 2/23 as there are frothy Dems blaming Bush for 9/11? I'm genuinely surprised to hear that. My memory fails me. When an event is in the planning stages years before it occurs, I definitely have the ability to assign responsibility to the administration on watch during most of that time, even more so when the attacker makes his intentions known and attacks multiple times beforehand. But I realize you cannot.
Yes, Grunt. His whole eight months in office. This seems to be what you're basing your argument on, but it's nonsense. To give Clinton equivalent blame for Bush for 9/11 is exactly as blinkered and partisan as blaming it entirely on Bush. If not more so - Clinton did SOMETHING, at least. Bush did nothing. Had Bush done something - anything - then maybe 9/11 would have been prevented. We'll never know, because Bush did nothing. So, yeah, I blame the guy who did nothing more than the guy who did something. Yeah, I blame the guy on duty more than the guy he replaced. I'm such a partisan drama queen. Even in hindsight, I can't think of what Clinton would realistically have done. Apparently, neither can you, or you simply haven't chosen to list any. So when you try to say both Bush and Clinton are equally responsible - and there are plenty who are trying to say Clinton was more responsible - based on Bush's tiny little eight months in office, it's not just blind partisanship. It's contrary to the historical record. Why weren't any of the FAA warnings implemented? They had fifty, all within Bush's miniscule eight months in office. And it wasn't just the FAA, either. Read and enjoy: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...11_timeline&before_9/11=warnings&startpos=100 By the way, guess who said this about Bin Laden: There was a significant difference in my attitude after September 11. I was not on point, but I knew he was a menace, and I knew he was a problem. I was prepared to look at a plan that would be a thoughtful plan that would bring him to justice, and would have given the order to do that. But I didn't feel that sense of urgency. Let's continue the cop metaphor: Clinton: Didn't catch the murderer, but tried. Bush: Mmm, donuts.
You're bragging about your boy shooting a few missiles in response to the first WTC attack, destruction of two embassies, and the attack on the USS Cole. Sorry, chief. It obviously -- very obvisouly -- was't enough. To think he handed that legacy to Bush, wiped his hands and you say, "He's off the hook, it's mostly Bushes fault!", is ridiculous. That's the historical record. The planning and preparation for 9/11 was going on for years, the enemy was known, had attacked us multiple times, and yet Clinton gets a hall pass when it comes to 9/11, which occured eight months after he left office, and Bush gets most of the blame.....very balanced perspective, Dan.