Clinton legacy reality check

Posted by: ST on August 16, 2005 at 11:22 pm

On the same day we read about Bill Clinton’s wish that he had been President for six more months in order to find out that OBL was behind the USS Cole bombing so he could have attacked Afghanstian, we read this, from the NYTimes:

State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996

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.

(Sidenote: Since when did Judicial Watch become a “conservative advocacy group”? Ok, on with the rest.)

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.

Critics of the Clinton administration have accused it of ignoring the threat posed by Mr. bin Laden in the mid-1990′s while he was still in Sudan, and they point to claims by some Sudanese officials that they offered to turn him over to the Americans before ultimately expelling him in 1996 under international pressure. But Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had “not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.”

The newly declassified documents do not directly address the question of whether Sudan ever offered to turn over Mr. bin Laden. But the documents go well beyond previous news and historical accounts in detailing the Clinton administration’s active monitoring of Mr. bin Laden’s movements and the realization that his move to Afghanistan could make him an even greater national security threat.

Just more evidence that this guy was not “obsessed” with OBL, as he’s asserted.

I think the Clinton approach to handling terror could be summed up here (hat tip: reader/commenter Mr. LCVRWC): See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Conservative Outpost trackbacked with Daily Summary
  • 3 Responses to “Clinton legacy reality check”

    Comments

    1. Bachbone says:

      1) The most interest Bubba showed in handling terror was dodging lamps hurled at him by St. Hillary.

      2) Neither Clinton would recognize the truth if it came printed in red passages in their Bibles.

      3) Even Forrest Gump knew that “stupid is as stupid does.” So, how stupid is Slick to assert things he must know can be refuted? I’ll bet Linda Tripp is not the sole person to recognize that you’d better have a stained dress, notes or some other sort of evidence stashed away to avoid being slimed by the Clinton machine.

      4) Fasten your seat belts, ’cause it may get to be a bumpy ride. (Apologies to Ms. Davis.)

    2. lcvrwc says:

      Hmmm. I just realized that in light of all of the stories coming out these days about how he put the country at risk, I suspect Clinton is setting himself up in a position to spin those stories in such a way that he comes out smelling at least, if not like a rose, like a freshly cleaned washroom. I can’t figure out exactly how he’ll do that, but then again, I can’t really think like scum.