Clinton’s lawyers get in on the act, demand of ABC that Path to 9-11 be pulled

Posted by: ST on September 9, 2006 at 7:06 pm

This gets more disturbing by the day:

Here’s letter one.

Here’s letter two.

What will Clinton’s lawyers do if P2911 is not pulled?

I am so beside myself with rage over the fascist-like demands that have occured in the last couple of days by Democrats that I find myself unable to write about the issue today in a way that wouldn’t make even a sailor blush. Thankfully, Jules Crittenden (have you noticed I’ve become a big fan of his?) has taken aim at the Democrats’ rank hypocrisy on the issue of ‘being concerned about accuracy in the name of the public interest’ and has demanded that they practice what they preach. It’s a three pager, but well worth the read.

Update I:
ABC Stands By Its 9/11 Story — Almost
After minor edits in response to Democratic critics, the miniseries will air as scheduled. It’s already set off a bitter election-year dispute.

Update II: Click here and here to see how this issue still has the moonbats screeching as loud as they can.

Update III: Rick Moran writes:

The overwhelming number of people who reviewed this film have said that it does NOT blame Bill Clinton for 9/11. My point has always been that the left is opposing the showing of this film because 1) Clinton actions are criticized and 2) Bush’s actions aren’t criticized enough. The latter being the main point of anger for liberals in that it goes against everything they have tried to lie about for the past 5 years. They want the enduring image of 9/11 to be George Bush sitting in a classroom reading a children’s book not the towers collapsing or people jumping out of buildings. Anything that goes against The Narrative is a threat to expose the entire tissue of lies, exaggerations, misrepresentations, conspiracy fantasies, and deliberate falsehoods perpetrated over the last 5 years with the help of an all too willing media and a vast network of former government officials always willing to shift blame for their own inadequacies in the face of Islamic terrorism.

Yep.

Something else I just thought about: If this film were to go line item for line item in terms of how many times the Clinton admin let Binnie get away, the film would have had to have been much longer than two parts.

Update IV: Here are clips of the disputed scene (Hat tip: ST reader DS)

Update V: Allah has linked up to the clips as well, and also points to a link to an interview with the CIA operative mentioned in the 9-11 Commission’s report (named “Mike” in the report, but his actual name is Michael Scheuer) whose story was the basis for the scene in question.

Update VI: Scheuer minces no words. Here’s what he said in the last part of the interview:

“His [OBL’s] innards, sir, should be splattered all over the desert of southern Afghanistan. There’s no reason why Osama bin Laden is alive today except President Clinton and his national security advisors refused to press the button.”

Ouch.

Related/Flashback: Mansour Ijaz 12/5/2001 – Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize. From that article (emphasis added):

President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger and Sudan’s president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan 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.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

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

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.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to “baby-sit” him–monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials 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.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him 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.

Some of these men are now among the FBI’s 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim’s bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan’s religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan’s intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan’s data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they’d get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries–ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000–three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen–I 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.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden’s 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.

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.

Col. Buzz Patterson, USAF Retired, and carrier of the ‘nuclear football’ during the Clinton admin from 1996-1998, from his book Dereliction of Duty – Chapter 7 (Hat tip: Flopping Aces – emphasis added)):

The White House Situation Room was buzzing. It was fall 1998 and the National Security Council (NSC) and the “intelligence community” were tracking the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, the shadowy mastermind of terrorist attacks on American targets overseas. “They’ve successfully triangulated his location” yelled a “sit Room” watch stander. We’ve got him.”

Beneath the West Wing of the White House, behind a vaulted steel door, the Sit Room staff sprang into action. The watch officer notified National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, “Sir, we’ve located bin Laden. We have a two-hour window to strike.”

Characteristic of the Clinton Administration, the weapons of choice would be Tomahawk missiles. No penetrating bombers or high-speed fighter aircraft flown by our Air Force and Navy forces. No risk of losing American lives.

Berger ambled down the stairwell and entered the Sit Room. He picked up the phone at one of the busy controller consoles and called the President. Amazingly, President Clinton was not available. Berger tried again and again. Bin Laden was within striking distance. The window of opportunity was closing fast. The plan of attack was set and the Tomahawk crews were ready. For about an hour Berger couldn’t get the commander-in-chief on the line. Though the President was always accompanied by military aides and the Secret Service, he was shomehow unavailable. Berger stalked the Sit Room, anxious and impatient.

Finally, the President accepted Berger’s call. There was discussion, there were pauses- and no decision. The President wanted to talk with his secretaries of defense and state. He wanted to study the issue further. Berger was forced to wait. The clock was ticking. The president evenutally called back. He was still indecisive. He wanted more discussion. Berger alternated between phone calls and watching the clock.

The NSC watch officer was convinced we had the right target. The intelligence sources were conclusive. The President, however, wanted a guaranteed hit or nothing at all.

This time, it was nothing at all. We didn’t pull the trigger. We “studied” the issue until it was too late- the window of opportunity closed. Al-Qaeda’s spiritual andorganizational leader slipped through the noose.

This lost bin Laden hit typified the Clinton Administration’s ambivalent, indecisive way of dealing with terrorism. Ideologically, the Clinton Administration was committed to the idea that most terrorists were misunderstood, had legitimate grievances, and could be appeased, which is why such military action as the Administration authorized was so halfhearted, and ineffective, and designed more for “show” than for honestly eliminating a threat.

Update VII: Quotes from Richard Miniter, author of Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror (emphasis added):

[K-LO]: Bill Clinton was actually offered bin Laden? Could you set the scene a little and clue us in on why, for heavens sakes, he would not take advantage of such opportunities?

Miniter: On March 3, 1996, U.S. ambassador to Sudan, Tim Carney, Director of East African Affairs at the State Department, David Shinn, and a member of the CIA’s directorate of operations’ Africa division met with Sudan’s then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa in a Rosslyn, Virginia hotel room. Item number two on the CIA’s list of demands was to provide information about Osama bin Laden. Five days later, Erwa met with the CIA officer and offered more than information. He offered to arrest and turn over bin Laden himself. Two years earlier, the Sudan had turned over the infamous terrorist, Carlos the Jackal to the French. He now sits in a French prison. Sudan wanted to repeat that scenario with bin Laden in the starring role.

Clinton administration officials have offered various explanations for not taking the Sudanese offer. One argument is that an offer was never made. But the same officials are on the record as saying the offer was “not serious.” Even a supposedly non-serious offer is an offer. Another argument is that the Sudanese had not come through on a prior request so this offer could not be trusted. But, as Ambassador Tim Carney had argued at the time, even if you believe that, why not call their bluff and ask for bin Laden?

The Clinton administration simply did not want the responsibility of taking Osama bin Laden into custody. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is on the record as saying: “The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States.” Even if that was true — and it wasn’t — the U.S. could have turned bin Laden over to Yemen or Libya, both of which had valid warrants for his arrest stemming from terrorist activities in those countries. Given the legal systems of those two countries, Osama would have soon ceased to be a threat to anyone.

After months of debating how to respond to the Sudanese offer, the Clinton administration simply asked Sudan to deport him. Where to? Ambassador Carney told me what he told the Sudanese: “Anywhere but Somalia.”

In May 1996 bin Laden was welcomed into Afghanistan by the Taliban. It could not have been a better haven for Osama bin Laden.

Steven Simon, Clinton’s counterterrorism director on the National Security Council thought that kicking bin Laden out of Sudan would benefit U.S. security since “It’s going to take him a while to reconstitute, and that screws him up and buys time.” Buys time? Oh yeah, 1996 was an election year and team Clinton did not want to deal with bin Laden until after it was safely reelected.

Update VIII: Feb. 15, 2002: Clinton admits he passed up an offer to get bin Laden and explains why. He would later claim to the 9-11 Commission that his reported admission was a “misquote.”

Prior:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

21 Responses to “Clinton’s lawyers get in on the act, demand of ABC that Path to 9-11 be pulled”

Comments

  1. Baklava says:

    All I can say is “wow”.

  2. I. M. Nieman says:

    I am having a hard time with this issue:
    1. If Clinonistas are being misquoted, I have experienced it first hand and I understand why they might complain.
    2. I get tried of the liberal whining all the time, I resent their threatening ABC with legal action and or some threats about their FCC license.
    3. ABC is a for profit company and I understand those in power there not wanting to hurt their bottom line and their investors and giving in to pressure.
    4. I believe elected, even ex-elected officials are fair game and they are not above critcism.

    So, I am not sure where I would come down on this issue!

  3. forest hunter says:

    Perhaps they could be issued a free (they’ll like that part!) set of cajones, then STFDASTFU, while the majority of America has a look at this documentary. Lawyers continue to demonstrate their allegiance to the almighty buck and fight to get as much as they can, I mean fight to win the baseless case.

    Blatant hypocrisy and lies are standard issue, so my guess is the anatomical additions would have no impact.

  4. forest hunter says:

    I can’t get the letter links to go…….is it just me?

  5. Severian says:

    Wow…just wow! That Crittenden piece is about the best, most succinct and comprehensive listing of the Democrat and liberal lies, obsfucations, misdirections, and blatant propaganda I’ve ever seen.

    Remember Patterson, the keeper of the “Nuclear Football” that was Clinton’s military aid and nuke code carrier, he had to be near Clinton at all times. I’ve read his book “Dereliction of Dutiy” and it supports the things the ABC movie allegedly shows. That Clinton was not interested in really taking care of problems like Bin Laden and was distracted and disinterested in general. Can’t recall the link now, but others have made this connection, and ABC has supposedly even gotten with Patterson and used his book as part of the references for the movie.

    Hopefully this tempest will spread beyond the blogosphere, and that someone will manage to get MSM coverage of this out there. Talk radio will help of course, even though it often preaches to the choir. I can’t believe the Dems are stupid enough to push this and be so Draconian in their threats, downright Orwellian, right before a major election. Either they’re nuts, or have grossly miscalculated, or they are terrified of The Narrative coming apart completely. I’ve tended to notice that people who are habitual liers and cheats often have to work night and day to maintain their elaborate house of cards their falsehoods and dishonesty have built for them, and are usually petrified that it’ll fall apart. The Dems are acting exactly like that.

  6. Yep – I’ve read that book and remember the part you’re talking about, Sev. Talk about making your blood boil. It was hard for me to go any further in the book after reading that. His whole admin was full of wasted opportunities, because Bubba was primarly interested in, ahem, personal affairs, rather than foreign affairs – if you catch my meaning.

  7. NC Cop says:

    No, S.T., I don’t catch your meaning. What personal affairs?? :d:d:d:d

  8. sanity says:

    Lookie Lookie what is being missed….

    Flashback: NBC Reported Missed Bin Laden Opportunity by Clinton in March 2004

    In the middle of all the controversy surrounding ABC’s upcoming docudrama “The Path to 9/11” something very important has been lost: Regardless of the protestations of the left, there were indeed some missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden before our nation was attacked. In fact, on March 16, 2004, the NBC “Nightly News” did a report on one such chance the Clinton administration passed on.

    NewsBusters

    To borrow a line from the church lady…

    “Isn’t that special?”

    ….for those of you who remember SNL when it was still funny.

  9. sanity says:

    Clinton is all about wanting to get in the news, well mr. clinton, here is your chance to be immortalized in a movie….

    I hope everything that had to deal with bin laden and the times coming up to it, get brought to light on everything clinton did to either forestall, delay, or bomb and during what times he decided to do it.

    Perhaps we will see a correlation on clintons activities, investigations and sudden interest in doing something to get out of bad light……

    Or perhaps we will see that he is more interested in golf than national security?

    I have no problem with them crack that can of worms and letting the light shine in on the clinton administration….

    I wonder in all this, what hillary is thinking…

    She has to be just LIVID!

  10. Baklava says:

    Reality is bad news for leftist revisionists facists trying to stop this movie. Thanks for the links ST. I watched each clip.

  11. Phil says:

    The real scary part of this all is not that it was all under the Clinton Regime but that the Democrats have all been this way as far back as I can remember, they would all lie and cheat and try to get away with anything that they could. Liberals are not only habitual Liers but are habitual theives and cheats as well.

    Remember the Clinton selling out our most top secret Missle technology to China for their 1996 Campain funds.

  12. CZ says:

    Rick Moran nailed it. He is one of my fravorite conservative bloggers. ^:)^

    Hard to believe he is the older (and much wiser) brother of ABC News’ Terry Moran?.

  13. Great White Rat says:

    As much as the Clintonistas are whining here, they ought to keep in mind that P2911 is, from all accounts, primarily based on the 911 Commission report. Richard Ben Veniste and Jamie Gorelick sat on that commission with their primary mission to make sure Clinton’s butt was covered. Now, if P2911 had been based on Buzz Patterson’s book, imagine the volume of the howls we’d be hearing about now.

    Great Crittenden column, BTW. I agree with Sev; that’s as comprehensive a list of lib lies as you’ll see anywhere.

  14. sanity says:

    rat it was my understanding that Patterson was an advisor to the movie, and that he was one of hte few that had an advance copy of the movie sent to him for his review.

  15. Great White Rat says:

    Sanity, yes, I know that…but everything I’ve heard so far says that the primary guding source was the 911 report. I’d had loved to see it the other way around – Patterson’s first-hand knowledge being primary and the 911 Commission filling in the background.

  16. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – Rove bet the Libturds would do anything to maintain the revisionist fairy tale based on the “almost perfect, other than that nettlesome blue dress thing” of the Clinton legacy. He was so very right. At a time when the last thing the Dems want is a public focused on the WOT, and conversely the percieved Demoratic weakness in the fight against terrorism, up pops a nationally televised “expose'” of Clintons hubiris, distraction with Monika, and general ineptness in the whole 8 years of al Qaeda attacks.

    – The Neo Liberal proggs are playing right into his hands. The louder, and more outlandish the response to the series, the worse they look. We all get to see their “tolorance” and just what they’d be more than willing to do to all of our liberties if they ever got into power. I’m hoping that the net result of all of the aniti-american progressive actiions will be to energize the Conservatives, and mainstream America to get out the vote in record numbers in the next two election cycles. We are the majority now, so theres not a reason in the world why we have to accept these sort of “soft Marxist” cultists in our government.

    – Bang **==

  17. Phil says:

    CZ

    CZ I tend to agree with you about Rick Moran. He is one heck of a top notch Conservative blogger. ^:)^^:)^

  18. Phil says:

    Also by the way, I think that from now on we should come up with a good name for our new found opponents on the War on Terror and just thinking and reading all of this I can’t come up with a better name for them than what ST wrote on this post.

    Liberal Facists or Lunatic Liberal Facists.:-w

  19. Dana says:

    Why is it that the Democrats were trying to get it pulled and the Republicans were not, when, if you saw part two, you’d see that the Bush Administration is treated no better than the Clinton Administration?

  20. Lorica says:

    Because we can stand in the light of truth, and know we are trying to make things better. Dems were only trying to protect the fragile fantasy that Clinton actually tried to do something about terrorism. They only know how to do that 1 way. Work themselves into a frenzied craze. – Lorica

  21. G Monster says:

    I actually fell asleep in Part 1, due to a long weekend. I did watch Part 2. I am curious how much of a part Richard Clarke had in the making this movie. Because from what I saw, Richard Clarke was portrayed as knowing it all. He was practically running the show. If I were a lefty I’d be curious about Richard Clarke’s part in telling this story also.