NYT: State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996

[DeepModem Mom]

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.

The declassified documents, obtained by the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act request and provided to The New York Times, shed light on a murky and controversial chapter in Mr. bin Laden's history: his relocation from Sudan to Afghanistan as the Clinton administration was striving to understand the threat he posed and explore ways of confronting him.

Before 1996, Mr. bin Laden was regarded more as a financier of terrorism than a mastermind. But the State Department assessment, which came a year before he publicly urged Muslims to attack the United States, indicated that officials suspected he was taking a more active role, including in the bombings in June 1996 that killed 19 members American soldiers at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Two years after the State Department's warning, with Mr. bin Laden firmly entrenched in Afghanistan and overseeing terrorist training and financing operations, Al Qaeda struck two American embassies in East Africa, leading to failed military attempts by the Clinton administration to capture or kill him in Afghanistan. Three years later, on Sept. 11, 2001, Al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in an operation overseen from the base in Afghanistan....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/international/asia/17osama.html?hp&ex=1124251200&en=9cef90371f9626b0&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. And if memory serves, Clinton wanted to go after him...

but the republican controlled senate told him no fucking way.

[Gloria]

2. When Clinton finishes riding on Bush I's yacht, maybe he should

blow Bush II away with a brief explanation of all this to debunk all the RW spin and media complicity, so that the Dem party doesn't bleed to death from all this "Dems are sissies" crap....

[KoKo]

5. Either Clinton, himself, or someone who served in his Administration bette

get on top of this right away. It's a total scam from NYT's but i'm with you Gloria. We've had ENOUGH BLEEDING. It's time for PUSH BACK. And time to call out this rag NYT's. I can't believe I ever had respect for that piece of trash paper.

Still...the ball is in the Dems Court. If they don't come out and slam back then what the hell is going on, there? :shrug:

[krkaufman]

3. I like how that paragraph skips right from the embassy bombings...

... to 9/11, skipping over the eight months of Bush wholly ignoring the al Qaeda threat -- starting with the January transition meetings highlighting al Qaeda as threat #1, and including several threat warnings and the August "bin Laden Determined to Strike US" PDB.

[AtomicKitten]

22. doncha know

the republicans don't count 9/11 as a failure by Bunnypants, it's Clinton's failure, and Bush has kept us safe. Their circuitous logic makes me dizzy.

And our media is worthless. They have their noses so far up Bush's arse. And they have the nerve to refer to them as the "liberal media."
Pahleeze.

[KoKo]

4. Ohhh...Mz Condi couldn't wait to send out "declassified documents" from

Clinton Administration (that we were told Chimp put a hold on) just to make a "Clinton Connection abotu Osama."

AND this comes from the Whore of Whores the New York Times whose own reporter is cooling her butt in jail after she stovepiped Chalabi's lies all over their newspaper aiding and abetting Bush's War.

Sheesh...they must be getting "UBER Desperate" to pull out this crap.

How come our own Dems can't get anything released on their crooks yet they manage to come up with this crap.

[brentspeak]

6. The article doesn't specify just WHO chose not to go after bin Laden

It says "the government". But WHO in the government? Certain members of the Clinton administration? Doesn't say. Clinton himself? It doesn't say. High-ups in the CIA? Doesn't say. The Repub-controlled Senate Committee on Intelligence? Of course the article won't say that.

The "government"...

[jsamuel]

7. Um, DUH?

[Chicago Democrat]

8. Clinton Bombed Afghanistan While Henry Hyde's Whores Said 'Wag the DOG!'

God I hate these people. Yes Clinton didn't kill Bin Laden... He tried. What did Cowboy Bush do? NOTHING!



BUSH DID NOTHING!


Clinton at least sent some missles.

[Chicago Democrat]

9. Article title should be: Scummy Right Wing Org. Fishing for Trash

Latches onto a TRIVIAL OBVIOUSITY and tries to make NEWS! Also "Paper of Record" is trashy as the NYPOST.


THAT SHOULD BE THE TITLE

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. In the mean time, Bin Laden is still at large, Iraq is in chaos

and oil is headed to $100/barrel. So what was that again?

[sue_66]

11. The Freepers are going wild over this

They are saying Clinton had four years to go after Bin Laden, hmmm, so has Bush, and in 1996 Bin Laden was not responsible for 3000 american deaths.

[DeepModem Mom]

35. Thanks for posting, sue_66 -- welcome to DU!

[CityDem]

12. Swift Boat Vets - Redux

Clinton and the dems better get on top of this story before the whores in the media make it sound like Clinton was piloting one of the planes on 9/11. Once the media snowball begins to roll, the truth will be left behind and the Clinton administration will be left holding the bag. How convenient for this to come out in the times at the same time this Able Danger bs is surfacing. Too much of a coincidence for me.

[The_Casual_Observer]

13. Won't happen. story will die, Bin Laden is still out there

200 Billion later.

[ngGale]

14. This media propaganda campaign ...

seems to be working. I can't take it anymore, if I hear 'it's all Clinton's fault' one more damn time. "Wag The Dog" - I agree, the Dems better hop all over this bunch of crap. Why do I have the feeling they won't? :wtf:

[fujiyama]

15. The State Department?

Yeah right. Everything I've read about the State Dept shows it to be corrupt and everything is done for "stability". Sibel Edmonds basically confirms it. They frequently back dictators when it serves their purpose. They would never do anything to bother a foreign government, because it would "disturb political relations".

Foggy Bottom is full of itself.

Oh and I'm sick of the fuckin whores at NYT. The worthless bastards dropped the ball before 9/11 too. Maybe those fuckers should have reported more on terrorism related events in South Asia (namely Pakistan and Afghanistan) than clamoring over Clenis and a fuckin real estate deal.

As far as I know, Clinton attempted to capture and kill bin Laden. Bush went on vacation for some eight months.

[Olney Blue]

16. An important lesson of 9/11:

it happened on Bush's watch.

[Sgent]

17. Gonna get flamed....

If Clinton knew that Bin Laden was:

1) In Afganistan
2) Responsible for the embassy bombings

Then he should have gone after him with the full force and power of the US. Lobbing a few bombs doesn't cut it. I disagree with * on a lot of things -- going after Bin Laden in AFG is not one of them (the way he's managed to fuck it up though is a different issue).

[leetrisck]

18. Connect all to Louis Freeh & republican congress

and all out attempts to derail Clinton. Nothing mattered to them except to get rid of Clinton. Richard Clarke's book is a great source.

[Gunit_Sangh]

19. re: gonna get flamed

Don't you remember what was going on at the time?

The f'n repugs were hell bent to impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job. Do you *really* think they would have passed a Use of Force resolution giving Clinton the authorization to invade Afganistan after all the "WAG THE DOG" comments every f'n repug yelled on every talking bobble-head show for launching missiles in an attempt to get him?

At least he tried to do something. That's more than * did.

Remember the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole? That happened 3 or 4 weeks prior to the 2000 election. While everyone knew bin Laden was behind the attack, the formal report was not delivered to the White House until Feb 2001. And what did cheneybush do? Nada, zippo, nothing.

[whyzayker]

20. According to Clarke's book...

"Against all enemies" - there was the situation in '96 or '98 (been awhile since I read it) where CIA knew bin Laden's location. Clinton wanted to bomb the camp but Tenet and other officials were worried because a member of Saudi royalty was supposed to be visiting bin Laden at the camp as well. They just weren't sure when. Hence, CIA wouldn't allow the attack.

[tanyev]

26. Oh, sure.

And that Republican congress would have fallen all over themselves to "support the President", wouldn't they?

[leetrisck]

21. Why would Weldon be the "only" one to know about this?

He's written a book.

[wellst0nev0ter]

23. *Sigh* Such Short Memories. . .

August 21, 1998, Friday, Late Edition - Final

Striking Against Terrorism

The United States has every right to attack suspected terrorists if there is credible evidence showing that they were involved in attacks against American citizens or were planning such attacks. That seems to be the case in the missile attacks ordered by President Clinton in the Sudan and Afghanistan, an impression strengthened by quick support from House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senator Orrin Hatch and other leading Republicans. But since these attacks were ordered from a White House weakened by scandal, Mr. Clinton needs to take extra care to reassure the country that the attacks were not timed to help repair his shaken Presidency.

<snip>

Mr. Clinton and his national security team seemed at pains yesterday to demonstrate that he had not unleashed American power to deflect attention from the Lewinsky case. Mr. Clinton pointedly noted that he had ordered the attack on the unanimous recommendation of his aides. Samuel Berger, the national security adviser, reported that military planning began on Aug. 12, and Mr. Clinton authorized preparations for the attack last Friday.

These accounts were reassuring. Still, the picture of Mr. Clinton striding purposefully back into the White House yesterday as Commander in Chief could not help but supplant the image of an emotionally wounded first family departing for Martha's Vineyard on Tuesday. Mr. Clinton can dispel any lingering doubts about his motivation by providing the House and Senate intelligence committees with a complete briefing on the bin Laden information and instructing his aides to fill out the partial accounts they have given about the raids.

[DeepModem Mom]

28. Thanks, wellst0nev0ter -- is that from the NY Times? nt

[wellst0nev0ter]

36. The Very Same (eom)

[wellst0nev0ter]

37. Wait, This One's Even Better

Is Life Imitating Art? 'Wag the Dog' Springs to Many Minds

By FRANK BRUNI

NEW YORK -- When the news that the United States had bombed terrorist targets swept through her midtown Manhattan office Thursday, Valerie David felt a predictable knot of emotions: sorrow for the loss of lives, concern about the precision of the attacks, fear about where this would all lead.

But it was threaded with what she described as a surreal, almost comical sense of deja vu.

" 'Wag the Dog'," Ms. David, a copy editor for Avon Products, explained, stifling a chuckle. "Everybody at the office was talking about it -- how ironic it was that life was imitating art. We all noticed it."

In the movie, the president's handlers invent a war to distract public attention from his sexual transgressions. In real life, was the Clinton administration doing something similar?

MORE. . .

[DeepModem Mom]

38. Ah, Frank Bruni -- I think he reviews restaurants now for the Times.

Thanks again, well.

[The Backlash Cometh]

24. That's a bunch of crap.

The Clinton Administration, under Madelaine Albright, enforced a strict no trade policy against Afghanistan by 1997. To say that the Clinton Administration did nothing against bin Laden would be an incredible lie. The reality is, that many government agencies, including the Energy Department and probably the State Department, were on the side of the "Wag the Dog" delegation. They never supported Clinton in anything, so they really don't have any right to criticize him now.

[K-W]

29. The truely rediculous thing about this is

that the real people behind Bin Laden are in the white house right now.

[wishlist]

25. More Rovelike attempts by RWingers to boost Bush by blaming Clinton

Bill Clinton warned the Bushites that Bin Laden was his #1 terrorist concern and he put top priority on Bin Laden and AL Qaeda. But Bush & Co dropped the ball and took their eye off him to focus on Iraq.

RWingers know that Bush's support is eroding and his credibility is tanking right now due to Iraq backfiring, DSM and Rove scandals. They are pumping these stories about Bin Laden/Clinton Admin in order to divert attention from Bush's current problems as well as scapegoating for Bush's failures. It is also very important politically for the neocons to bolster support for Bushco's ongoing attempts to purge everyone in government that isn't a RW Bush loyalist.

If Curt Weldon was a Democrat, his allegations would have barely seen the light of day, let along the extensive publicity. I would be interested to know more about the source of this NY Times article and surprised if it is not someone with a pro-Bush agenda.

[leesa]

27. All this new BS info is just trying to associate OBL with Clinton

Is this a good sign? Is someone getting closer to the REAL culprits behind 9-11 rather than the phony Muslim hijackers bit?

[fshrink]

30. OBL is Dr. No.

He is a conscious, deliberate and meticulous product of US administration and its Saudi links, probably starting with Bush-pilot. Just like Saddam. Or the Taliban back then. Leverages used in the region for a number of covert strategies and operations. Products which can be easily turned into the indispensable nemeses that conservative traditionally need to impose and maintain their grip on society. Half-ass-Clinton probably tried to terminate him. The Idiot and his business-team were toying/negotiating with him and the Taliban in 2001 with an amazing amount of stupidity and arrogance. Information has been there all along and we just watch the boring and predictable unfolding of the WB version. The truth we will never know: we only deserve the show. The truth of the Power is to be preserved at all cost and by any of its servants. Since journalism is effectively dead and buried in this society, there is no alternative left than to "get over it". Which the American society is very good at.

[Bushwick Bill]

32. If People Only Knew...

Nafeez Ahmed's War on Freedom and War on Truth books blow the official story of 9/11 out of the water by chronicling the ongoing relationship between the CIA, bin Laden, the Saudis and the Pakistani ISI.

Oh, and if the right wants to go there with a new investigation into 9/11...let's do this, because they are covering up a hell of a lot more than the Clinton admin.

We could get into large numbers of "put" options on stocks of companies directly affected by the Sept. 11 attacks.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=650#a090601putsshorts
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=650#a090601suspicious
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html

or the fact that the head of Pakistani intelligence, Mahmoud Ahmad, wired Mohammed Atta $100,000 before the attacks and ate breakfast on Capitol Hill on the morning of 9/11.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-3259

or that several FBI agents in two offices (Minneapolis and Phoenix) as well as other individuals (most notably Robert Wright) were all over the hijackers and had their investigations spiked.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html
Some of these FBI agents got so upset their superiors wouldn't listen to them that they actually called up this guy who prosecuted Bill Clinton (David Schippers) to get through to the administration because they thought Schippers had clout with the administration. John Ashcroft ignored Schippers' calls.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html

or the 50 some odd FAA warnings.
"The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months prior to Sept. 11, 2001, about al-Qaida and its desire to attack airlines, according to a previously undisclosed report by the commission that investigated the terror attacks. The report by the Sept. 11 commission detailed 52 such warnings given to FAA leaders from April to Sept. 10, 2001, about the radical Islamic terrorist group and its leader, Osama bin Laden."
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/8916

or the several international warnings, including Vladimir Putin saying after 9/11 that in August 2001, he ordered Russian intelligence to warn the U.S. government "in the strongest possible terms" of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essaytheytriedtowarnus
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayairdefense
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53065,00.html

I could go on...

[robcon]

31. My understanding of the 1996 situation:

Bin Laden was being thrown out of Sudan by the government there. The Sudanese government would not give him over directly to the U.S., so we asked them to offer to send him to Saudi Arabia to get arrested there. But Saudi Arabia refused to arrest him on our behalf, despite our wishes. So bin Laden went to Afghanistan, where (eventually) he became in league with the Taliban when it took power there.

[underpants]

33. Lehman blew Hannity out of the water on this the day after 9/11 report

came out

Lehman said the
-source
-interediate
-the whole thing

were totally unreliable.

My question-if this is true wasn't it still true when W took office?

[2Design]

34. have you noticed many of the peter jennings old

interviews they keep showing are with clinton and making everything clinton fault too