Holder Backstabs CIA Anti-terror Operatives

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, Aug 25, 2009.

  1. You should notify those people that Bush ignored this while spending more time on vacation then any other president



    Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US


    Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US was the President's Daily Brief given to U.S. President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001. The President's Daily Brief (PDB) is a brief of important classified information on national security collected by various U.S. intelligence agencies given to the president and a select group of senior officials. The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda over a month before the September 11, 2001 attacks.



    Some arguments have focused on clear warnings in this letter, specifically that:

    the title was Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
    a large attack was planned
    the attack would be on United States soil
    target cities of attacks included New York City and Washington, D.C.
    the World Trade Center bombing was explicitly mentioned
    hijacked plane missions were anticipated
    people living in, or traveling to, the United States were involved
    recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York was witnessed.
     
    #11     Aug 25, 2009
  2. Opps. Perhaps you should take up your beef up with Mansoor Ijaz?


    Aide: Clinton Unleashed bin Laden
    Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com
    Thursday, Dec. 6, 2001

    Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism, one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.

    Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996 to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence, focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound threats to national security.

    Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin Laden arrested.

    Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, hoping to have terrorism sanctions 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,” Ijaz writes in today’s edition of the liberal Los Angeles Times.

    These networks included the two hijackers who piloted jetliners into the World Trade Center.

    But Clinton and National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy” Berger failed to act.

    ”I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities,” Ijaz writes.

    ”The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."

    Thank Clinton for 'Hydra-like Monster'

    ”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,” says Ijaz, chairman of a New York investment company and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

    Ijaz’s revelations are but the latest to implicate the Clinton administration in the spread of terrorism. Former CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson today also noted the failure of Clinton to do more than talk.

    Among the many others who have pointed out Clinton’s negligence: former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, former Clinton adviser Dick Morris, the late author Barbara Olson, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iraqi expert Laurie Mylroie, the CIA and some of the victims of Sept. 11.

    And the list grows: members of Congress, pundit Charles R. Smith, former Department of Energy official Notra Trulock, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, government counterterrorism experts, the law firm Judicial Watch, New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler, the liberal Boston Globe – and even Clinton himself.

    The Buck Stops Nowhere

    Ijaz's account in the Times reads like a spy novel. Sudan’s Bashir, fearing the rise of bin Laden, sent intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996. They offered to arrest bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or to keep close watch over him. The Saudis "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.”

    That’s when bin Laden went to Afghanistan, along with "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.”

    If these names sound familiar, just check the FBI's list of most-wanted terrorists.

    The Clinton administration repeatedly rejected crucial information that Sudan had gathered on these terrorists, Ijaz says.

    In July 2000, just three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen, Ijaz "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.”

    This offer would have brought bin Laden to that Arab country and eventually to the U.S. All the proposal required of Clinton was that he make a state visit to request 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.”

    'Purposeful Obfuscation'

    Appearing on Fox News Channel’s "The O’Reilly Factor” on Wednesday night, Ijaz said, "Everything we needed to know about the terrorist networks” was in Sudan.

    Newsman Bill O’Reilly asked how Clinton and Berger reacted to the deals Ijaz brokered to bring bin Laden and company to justice. "Zero. They didn’t respond at all.”

    The Clintonoids won’t get away with denials, he said. "I’ve got the documentation,” including a memorandum to Berger.

    "This was purposeful obfuscation,” he asserted.

    O’Reilly wondered why the White House didn’t want information about the terrorists. Ijaz said that was for the American people to judge, but when pressed he suggested that Clinton might intentionally have allowed the apparently weak bin Laden to rise so he could later make a show of crushing him.

    Concludes Ijaz in the Times: "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.”
     
    #12     Aug 25, 2009
  3. Bullshit.Bush was president for 8 months and had a months notice that Bin Laden was going to attack.9-11 was in no way Clinton's fault.

    9-11 happened on Bush's watch,the biggest terrorist attack in this countries history is Bush's legacy and Bush's legacy alone


    If Bin Laden hits the US tomorrow,Its Obamas fault,and Obamas fault alone
     
    #13     Aug 25, 2009
  4. What would you suggest Bush should have done after receiving a very generalized warning that terrorists might attack? Close the civil aviation system? Start profiling young arab men at airports? Round up all the arabs in this country illegally? Subject every flier to screening for weapons? Oops, we were already doing that.

    The fact is that there was little he could have done that would not have sent the democrats and media into a PC-driven frenzy. A new administration cannot just change everything at once either. For example, the Clinton Justice Department through Jamie Gorelick, who later distinguished herself at FNM, had forbidden sharing of intel and law enforcement data on terrorists. That policy was still in effect and prevented anti-terror officials from connecting the dots.

    At least we're getting somewhere now. Obama is prosecuting CIA officials who used harsh language on terrorists. The actual terrorists we caught are being let go over legal technicalities.
     
    #14     Aug 25, 2009
  5. Wallet

    Wallet

    I would say it's the terrorists fault.
     
    #15     Aug 25, 2009
  6. Then how come you don't hold Obama responsible for the economy?
     
    #16     Aug 26, 2009