-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Great? Maybe not, but the gist of it came through in flying
colors. One can only wonder what on God's earth the Liberals
were whining about? ABC must've censored all those parts out
before airing it. I saw nothing that wasn't about status quo.
But how will part 2 of 2 fare? It will be interesting to see.
Enjoy!
Daniel Joseph Min
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRQTl85ljD7YrHM/nEQL4qwCgyAOMtyVeH0Tayh0bWN/FXGkxMScAoLDK
HitymDJbu7tDx6CtLeGP9jVC
=36Jy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
| User: "transporter" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 07:04:53 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:10:06 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <hd0Og.217922$TD2.172869@fe08.news.easynews.com>:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:37:21 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <klXNg.553581$zw6.480370@fe02.news.easynews.com>:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:23:11 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <PfWNg.273106$os2.12706@fe06.news.easynews.com>:
JTEM wrote:
transporter wrote:
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure
and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that
he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Sudan wanted off the list of terrorist supporting states,
STFU you lying *****!
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml
Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden
and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism,
one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.
Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996
to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence,
focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound
threats to national security.
Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin
Laden arrested.
Mansoor Ijaz had no authority
P_R_O_V_E_ IT!
How about you prove your claim
Done.
Nope.
Yup, DONE.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 07:09:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 00:04:53 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <F01Og.267276$TP1.254143@fe04.news.easynews.com>:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:10:06 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <hd0Og.217922$TD2.172869@fe08.news.easynews.com>:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:37:21 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <klXNg.553581$zw6.480370@fe02.news.easynews.com>:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:23:11 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <PfWNg.273106$os2.12706@fe06.news.easynews.com>:
JTEM wrote:
transporter wrote:
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.
Sudan wanted off the list of terrorist supporting states,
STFU you lying *****!
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml
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.
Mansoor Ijaz had no authority
P_R_O_V_E_ IT!
How about you prove your claim
Done.
Nope.
Yup, DONE.
Looky there, yet another neo-con moron who can't back up his claims.
Oh, wait. Did I say 'another'? I should have said 'as usual'.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 03:49:37 PM |
|
|
transporter wrote:
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.
This is an out-right lie, a total fabrication that not only
contradicts the 9/11 commission, but the Bush
administration itself.
Bush, as I demonstrated, said that Clinton was "Focused"
on Bin Laden, and it was a "Mistake" to be "Focused"
on Bin Laden.
It was only AFTER 9/11 that you maggots invented the
'Clinton was soft' fantasy, to cover your own worthless
asses.
The truth hurts, don't it? If it didn't you wouldn't lie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "I Ms Individual Rights" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 04:57:34 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote :
transporter wrote:
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.
This is an out-right lie, a total fabrication that not only
contradicts the 9/11 commission, but the Bush
administration itself.
Bush, as I demonstrated, said that Clinton was "Focused"
on Bin Laden, and it was a "Mistake" to be "Focused"
on Bin Laden.
It was only AFTER 9/11 that you maggots invented the
'Clinton was soft' fantasy, to cover your own worthless
asses.
The truth hurts, don't it? If it didn't you wouldn't lie.
A lieberal calling conservatives liars? The irony of it!
--
Up with liberty!
Down with liberalism, socialism and communism!
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "I Ms Individual Rights" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 04:31:32 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote :
transporter wrote:
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.
This is an out-right lie, a total fabrication that not only
contradicts the 9/11 commission, but the Bush
administration itself.
Bush, as I demonstrated, said that Clinton was "Focused"
on Bin Laden, and it was a "Mistake" to be "Focused"
on Bin Laden.
"Focused" doesn't mean squat when he had 5 chances to kill Bin Laden and
failed!
The only thing he was focused on was Monica's mouth in his pants under
the desk!
--
Up with liberty!
Down with liberalism, socialism and communism!
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 04:55:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:31:32 -0500, I Ms Individual Rights
<I-MsIndividualRights@One.rts> wrote in message
<Xns983D9DF37D2F5IndividualRightsOner@216.196.97.142>:
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote :
transporter wrote:
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.
This is an out-right lie, a total fabrication that not only
contradicts the 9/11 commission, but the Bush
administration itself.
Bush, as I demonstrated, said that Clinton was "Focused"
on Bin Laden, and it was a "Mistake" to be "Focused"
on Bin Laden.
"Focused" doesn't mean squat when he had 5 chances to kill Bin Laden and
failed!
But since that's a lie, you can go back under your bridge now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "transporter" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 06:20:58 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:31:32 -0500, I Ms Individual Rights
<I-MsIndividualRights@One.rts> wrote in message
<Xns983D9DF37D2F5IndividualRightsOner@216.196.97.142>:
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote :
transporter wrote:
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.
This is an out-right lie, a total fabrication that not only
contradicts the 9/11 commission, but the Bush
administration itself.
Bush, as I demonstrated, said that Clinton was "Focused"
on Bin Laden, and it was a "Mistake" to be "Focused"
on Bin Laden.
"Focused" doesn't mean squat when he had 5 chances to kill Bin Laden and
failed!
But since that's a lie,
***** AND DIE YOU LYING VERMIN!!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 06:29:35 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:20:58 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <un0Og.266574$TP1.81645@fe04.news.easynews.com>:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:31:32 -0500, I Ms Individual Rights
<I-MsIndividualRights@One.rts> wrote in message
<Xns983D9DF37D2F5IndividualRightsOner@216.196.97.142>:
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote :
transporter wrote:
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.
This is an out-right lie, a total fabrication that not only
contradicts the 9/11 commission, but the Bush
administration itself.
Bush, as I demonstrated, said that Clinton was "Focused"
on Bin Laden, and it was a "Mistake" to be "Focused"
on Bin Laden.
"Focused" doesn't mean squat when he had 5 chances to kill Bin Laden and
failed!
But since that's a lie,
***** AND DIE YOU LYING VERMIN!!!!!
Mmm hmm. Witness the vaunted neo-con power of argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 07:03:13 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> Spat the
Words
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:20:58 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <un0Og.266574$TP1.81645@fe04.news.easynews.com>:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:31:32 -0500, I Ms Individual Rights
<I-MsIndividualRights@One.rts> wrote in message
<Xns983D9DF37D2F5IndividualRightsOner@216.196.97.142>:
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote :
transporter wrote:
Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture
Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies and is
responsible for the spread of terrorism, one of the
ex-president's own top aides charges.
This is an out-right lie, a total fabrication that not only
contradicts the 9/11 commission, but the Bush
administration itself.
Bush, as I demonstrated, said that Clinton was "Focused"
on Bin Laden, and it was a "Mistake" to be "Focused"
on Bin Laden.
"Focused" doesn't mean squat when he had 5 chances to kill Bin Laden
and failed!
But since that's a lie,
***** AND DIE YOU LYING VERMIN!!!!!
Mmm hmm. Witness the vaunted neo-con power of argument.
It doesn't seem like he has much to say.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 07:09:53 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:03:13 -0500, Perseid
<eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
<Xns983DB7A72C8DDrrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136>:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> Spat the
Words
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:20:58 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <un0Og.266574$TP1.81645@fe04.news.easynews.com>:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:31:32 -0500, I Ms Individual Rights
<I-MsIndividualRights@One.rts> wrote in message
<Xns983D9DF37D2F5IndividualRightsOner@216.196.97.142>:
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote :
transporter wrote:
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.
This is an out-right lie, a total fabrication that not only
contradicts the 9/11 commission, but the Bush
administration itself.
Bush, as I demonstrated, said that Clinton was "Focused"
on Bin Laden, and it was a "Mistake" to be "Focused"
on Bin Laden.
"Focused" doesn't mean squat when he had 5 chances to kill Bin Laden
and failed!
But since that's a lie,
***** AND DIE YOU LYING VERMIN!!!!!
Mmm hmm. Witness the vaunted neo-con power of argument.
It doesn't seem like he has much to say.
He never has.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "I Ms Individual Rights" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 07:59:24 PM |
|
|
Perseid <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote :
Mmm hmm. Witness the vaunted neo-con power of argument.
It doesn't seem like he has much to say.
You do? What, like marxist propaganda?
--
Up with liberty!
Down with liberalism, socialism and communism!
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
14 Sep 2006 06:59:13 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, I Ms Individual Rights <I-
MsIndividualRights@One.rts> Spat the Words
Perseid <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote :
Mmm hmm. Witness the vaunted neo-con power of argument.
It doesn't seem like he has much to say.
You do? What, like marxist propaganda?
You miss individual rights ? You voted for the Bush monkey...
you have no one to blame but yourself.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 08:51:44 PM |
|
|
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
Perseid <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote :
Mmm hmm. Witness the vaunted neo-con power of argument.
It doesn't seem like he has much to say.
You do? What, like marxist propaganda?
Wow, you libertarians truly are nuts.
Marxist propaganda goes a bit like this
<commie> Arise ye starvers from your slumbers
Arise ye criminals of want
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of cant
Away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise arise
We'll change henceforth the old tradition
Spurn the dust to win the prise
</commie>
Citing a senate report to show that bush and co are lying about
Clinton, however, is simply showing a dedication to the truth.
You've also all showed that you libertarians are incapable of any form
of civility towards your betters.
--
Up with liberty!
Down with liberalism, socialism and communism!
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "transporter" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 07:15:10 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> Spat the
Words
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:20:58 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <un0Og.266574$TP1.81645@fe04.news.easynews.com>:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:31:32 -0500, I Ms Individual Rights
<I-MsIndividualRights@One.rts> wrote in message
<Xns983D9DF37D2F5IndividualRightsOner@216.196.97.142>:
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote :
transporter wrote:
Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture
Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies and is
responsible for the spread of terrorism, one of the
ex-president's own top aides charges.
This is an out-right lie, a total fabrication that not only
contradicts the 9/11 commission, but the Bush
administration itself.
Bush, as I demonstrated, said that Clinton was "Focused"
on Bin Laden, and it was a "Mistake" to be "Focused"
on Bin Laden.
"Focused" doesn't mean squat when he had 5 chances to kill Bin Laden
and failed!
But since that's a lie,
***** AND DIE YOU LYING VERMIN!!!!!
Mmm hmm. Witness the vaunted neo-con power of argument.
It doesn't seem like he has much to say.
I
t appears you have no ears to listen, dolts.
Go read yer nostrarotty qautrains and levitate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "transporter" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 07:05:39 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:20:58 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <un0Og.266574$TP1.81645@fe04.news.easynews.com>:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:31:32 -0500, I Ms Individual Rights
<I-MsIndividualRights@One.rts> wrote in message
<Xns983D9DF37D2F5IndividualRightsOner@216.196.97.142>:
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote :
transporter wrote:
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.
This is an out-right lie, a total fabrication that not only
contradicts the 9/11 commission, but the Bush
administration itself.
Bush, as I demonstrated, said that Clinton was "Focused"
on Bin Laden, and it was a "Mistake" to be "Focused"
on Bin Laden.
"Focused" doesn't mean squat when he had 5 chances to kill Bin Laden and
failed!
But since that's a lie,
***** AND DIE YOU LYING VERMIN!!!!!
Mmm hmm.
Drop dead you enemy of America.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/jweinstein/050408
Anyway, in case you haven't heard, which you probably haven't, former
Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger '67, from here on known
as Sandy Burglar or any other variation that I should wittily use,
admitted to stealing classified documents. Now while this obviously is
not nearly as serious a story as the Jeff/James Gannon/Guckert "scandal"
— sense the sarcasm — I think it still carries some significance.
Months ago, when these charges first came up, many on the political left
immediately defended Cornell's kleptocrat, claiming the charges were
overblown. Now, I must admit that many things liberals said months ago
have turned out to be baloney. Not the least of which was what Swiping
Sandy himself said at Cornell in October as reported by The Sun: "The
situation in Iraq is bad and not getting better." WHOOPS!!!
Anyway, it isn't a crime to be chronically wrong. If it were, there
would be a lot of liberals in jail. But it is a crime to burgle. And to
burgle classified documents is serious business. And to shred some of
these burgled documents is even worse. What's the deal, Sandy Burglar?
Maybe I have gotten ahead of myself. So let's start from the beginning.
Back in July, it was revealed that Sandy Berger was under investigation
for taking highly classified documents out of the National Archives.
There to review documents before testifying in front of the 9/11
commission, employees at the National Archives began to suspect that
Berger was pilfering some of the documents. They had seen him hiding the
documents, among other places, in his pants.
As a former National Security Advisor, he certainly knew the rules about
dealing with highly classified documents. Yet, when confronted with the
charges last July, he released a statement saying the following:
"In the course of reviewing over several days thousands of pages of
documents on behalf of the Clinton administration in connection with
requests by the Sept. 11 commission, I inadvertently took a few
documents from the Archives ... When I was informed by the Archives that
there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had
except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded."
It is hard to imagine how this former National Security Advisor could
"inadvertently" take classified documents from the National Archive on
several occasions and even harder to fathom how anyone could
"inadvertently" stick classified documents down their pants. As Byran
York noted in the National Review at the time this story first broke,
"Any person who is authorized to remove such documents from a special
secure room is required to do so in a locked case that is handcuffed to
his or her wrist." You just don't forget rules like that.
Nonetheless, at the time these charges first publicly surfaced, critics
railed against the charges as a political smear against Berger. After
all, he said he "immediately returned everything" he had "except for a
few documents" that he had "apparently discarded."
In Berger's world, "discarding" is evidently synonymous with
"shredding." In pleading guilty to the misdemeanor charges less than a
week ago, Berger admitted that he not only took documents from the
National Archives intentionally, but actually shredded some of the
documents — documents pertaining to the Clinton Administration's
handling of terrorism — with scissors. Nothing inadvertent about that.
Berger's penalty was rather light. He was ordered to pay $10,000 and
have his National Security clearance revoked for three years. At the
very least, it seems like his actions should preclude him from ever
regaining his National Security clearance, if not require some jail
time. He got a slap on the wrist to say the least.
With the legal part settled, the biggest questions still remain: Why did
Sandy Burglar steal the documents? More importantly, why did he destroy
some of them? These are questions no one has been able to answer as of
yet. However, it would be hard to believe that the answers to the
questions are innocent. So what was Sandy Shredder hiding?
Some crimes are worse than others and even the same types of crime can
be put on a spectrum from bad to worse. This is certainly true of
burgling. On one end of the spectrum lies The Hamburlgar, who only stole
McDonald's hamburgers, and even then, only during TV commercials. On the
other side of the specturm lies Syria, which stole Lebanon. Certainly,
Sandy Berger's burgle is not as serious as Syria's, but it is also not
as innocent as those burgles of the Hamburglar.
But which of these two extremes is it closer to? Well that depends on
the answers to the aforementioned unanswered questions. One way or
another, though, the public will find out. We deserve to know what the
bumbling burglar Sandy Berger was trying to cover up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "transporter" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 06:20:25 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
transporter wrote:
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.
This is an out-right lie,
YOU ARE THE LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/354
SEPTEMBER 28, 1997. Sudan's April policy shift to make cooperation on
terrorism issues unconditional sparked a heated debate at the State
Department, where foreign-service officers believed the U.S. should take
a new approach to Khartoum, and lobbied the incoming Secretary of State
— still untainted by her politicized and yet-to-be-confirmed staff — to
have a fresh look. On September 28, after four months of deliberate and
exhaustive interagency reviews, Sec. Albright announced that up to eight
U.S. diplomats would return to Sudan to pressure its Islamic government
to stop harboring Arab terrorists, and furthermore, to gather
intelligence on terrorist groups operating out of Sudan — including
Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
OCTOBER 1, 1997. As the reengagement policy was taking shape, Rice, the
incoming Assistant Secretary for East Africa, informally confronted the
same foreign-service officers who had recommended returning diplomats to
Sudan to Albright and vowed that the new policy directive would not
stand. On October 1, State Department spokesman Jamie Rubin sheepishly
announced an abrupt reversal of the September 28 Albright decision. Rice
was confirmed by the Senate on October 9, 1997. To this day, neither
Berger nor Albright nor Rice have explained to the American people why a
deliberative decision of the U.S. government, made through interagency
review, was overturned in such a cavalier fashion by a narrow clique of
Clinton advisers when Sudan's April offer to cooperate on terrorism
issues had been made unconditionally.
SEPTEMBER 12, 1997 and DECEMBER 5, 1997. On the very day Rice was
delivering testimony for her Senate confirmation, Sudan's ambassador to
the U.S., Mahdi Ibrahim, met with David Williams, special agent in
charge of the FBI's Middle East and North Africa Department. Faced with
the growing prospect that political reconciliation was impossible with
forces at the National Security Council and State Department lined up
adamantly against Sudan, Ibrahim decided to take matters directly to the
intelligence community and discuss how the FBI could take advantage of
Sudan's offer to cooperate independently of the administration. A
second, and critically important, meeting took place on December 5.
FEBRUARY 5, 1998. On the basis of those two FBI meetings in Washington,
Sudan's intelligence chief, al-Mahdi, made a final, almost desperate
attempt to reach out to U.S. intelligence officials in order to turn
over data on the people and evidence of their planning against U.S.
targets in the region. He wrote officially to Williams "…with reference
to your meeting with Ambassador Mahdi Ibrahim on Sept. 12 and Dec. 5
1997, I would like to express my sincere desire to start contacts and
cooperation between our service and the FBI…" The letter was sent at the
very moment that Iraq was reaching out to al Qaeda leaders resident in
Khartoum. Did al-Mahdi know something serious was amiss in the radical
Islamist community he was closely monitoring? Apparently so. He would
later recount to Vanity Fair correspondent David Rose in a January 2002
expose that had the FBI come to Khartoum in February 1998 to analyze the
data on terrorists Khartoum was actively monitoring, the U.S. embassy
bombings would probably not have occurred.
FEBRUARY 19, 1998. Iraqi intelligence plans the trip of a senior al
Qaeda operative and trusted bin Laden aide to visit Baghdad.
MARCH 1998. The al Qaeda operative visits Baghdad for two weeks. The
visit sets the stage for Farouk Hijazi to travel to bin Laden's
Afghanistan hideouts in December 1998.
JUNE 24, 1998. Theoretically, the February Sudanese offer to the FBI
should have been evaluated on merits that did not take the Clinton
administration's political viewpoint on Sudan into consideration,
particularly since it differed from President Bashir's April offer at a
political level, in that it was made at an intelligence-to-intelligence
level. After all, the U.S. executive branch is not supposed to interfere
with the FBI's job. Or so we thought. On June 24, Williams finally
replied to al-Mahdi "… I am not currently in a position to accept your
kind invitation. I am hopeful that future circumstances might allow me
to visit with you…." Future circumstances was code, as I found out later
from career officials at State involved in the discussions at the time,
for a point at which the politicizing that had come to characterize
Clinton administration terrorism policies would end. Blockages created
by State's East Africa department under Rice, and by Berger at the
National Security Council, remained as both vehemently argued against
allowing FBI delegations to visit Khartoum under any circumstances.
U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed six weeks later.
Cruise-missile attacks against Sudan and Afghanistan, based on faulty
and inaccurate intelligence, followed and ignited the fires burning
inside radical Islam's criminal core. As we now know, planning for the
September 11 attacks on America began soon thereafter.
I believe that as we continue to unravel the spaghetti strings that
bound al Qaeda and Saddam's regime together in the coming months, we are
going to learn that Iraq provided expertise, financial, logistical and
intelligence support to al Qaeda terrorists in an unprecedented manner.
The terrorists, emboldened by their state sponsorship, were able to then
carry out their suicide missions almost with impunity.
The silence of Clinton officials charged with the responsibility of
securing U.S. interests around the world, when faced with this
compelling timeline of facts, is still deafening. The American people
deserve candid answers for the difficult questions posed by their
actions in addressing the growing threat of terrorism, and failing
repeatedly to respond to meaningful offers of assistance from the very
nations who because of their sponsorship of terrorism, best understood
those who rose up to attack us.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anonyma" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
11 Sep 2006 08:25:15 AM |
|
|
In article <B9W749EO38971.0345601852@twistycreek.com>
Expert *****<anon@comments.header> wrote:
-----BEGIN
Quit morphing, *****!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
