Mickey

The allegation that Sudan offered to turn over OBL back in 1995 and the Clinton administration refused has been treated as gospel fact by many on the right and is a charge that has been hurled around here more times than I care to remember. It was complete garbage of course but like so many of these kinds of allegations by both sides, the refutation of the groundless allegation comes too long after the charges were screeched over and over to do much good. For what it is worth, here is the final word on that piece of right wing radio crapola from the bipartisan 911 Comm.: "In late 1995, when Bin Ladin was still in Sudan, the State Department and the CIA learned that Sudanese officials were discussing with the Saudi government the possibility of expelling Bin Ladin. U.S.Ambassador Timothy Carney encouraged the Sudanese to pursue this course.The Saudis, however, did not want Bin Ladin, giving as their reason their revocation of his citizenship.6 Sudan’s minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel Bin Ladin. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment out-standing.7 7. The CIA official who had one-on-one discussions with Erwa said that Erwa never offered to expel bin Ladin to the United States or render him to another country. Mark interview (March 12, 2004). For Carney’s instructions and the lack of a U.S. indictment, see Timothy Carney interview (Dec. 4, 2003). On the indictment issue and the supposed Sudanese offer to give up Bin Ladin, see Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004). In early May 1996, the CIA received intelligence that Bin Ladin might be leaving Sudan.Though this reporting was described as “very spotty,” it would have been passed along to the DCI’s office because of high concern about Bin Ladin at the time. But it did not lead to plans for a U.S. operation to snatch Bin Ladin, because there was no indictment against him. Ron interview (Mar. 18, 2004); Frank interview (Mar. 18, 2004). It appears, however, that if another country had been willing to imprison Bin Ladin, the CIA might have tried to work out a scenario for apprehending him. CIA cable, May 8, 1996.The Sudanese government did not notify the United States that Bin Ladin had left the country until about two days after his departure. DOS cable, Nairobi 07020,“Sudan: Foreign Minister on Developments,” May 21, 1996. President Clinton, in a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association, said that the United States did not accept a Sudanese offer and take Bin Ladin because there was no indictment. President Clinton speech to the Long Island Association, Feb. 15, 2002 (videotape of speech). But the President told us that he had “misspoken” and was, wrongly, recounting a number of press stories he had read. After reviewing this matter in preparation for his Commission meeting, President Clinton told us that Sudan never offered to turn Bin Ladin over to the United States.President Clinton meeting (Apr.8, 2004). Berger told us that he saw no chance that Sudan would have handed Bin Ladin over and also noted that in 1996, the U.S. government still did not know of any al Qaeda attacks on U.S. citizens. Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004). Alleged Sudanese offers to cooperate on counterterrorism have been the subject of much recent controversy. After repeatedly demanding that Sudan stop supporting terrorist groups, in 1993 the U.S. government designated the country a state sponsor of terrorism. Diplomatic discussions continued but had little impact on Sudanese support for terrorism or on other issues, such as human rights. In the fall of 1995, the United States conducted a Sudan policy review and, supported by a vocal segment of Congress, the White House sought to pressure and isolate the Sudanese. Susan Rice interview (Jan. 9, 2004). After Bin Ladin left Sudan in May 1996, some State Department officials, including Ambassador Carney, criticized the NSC’s hard-line policy, which he felt provided no “carrots” for Sudanese moderates to cooperate on counterterrorism. He also faulted the NSC for not reopening the U.S. embassy in Khartoum (closed in early 1996) when security concerns there were reevaluated. State’s Sudan desk officer agreed, noting that the embassy was an excellent vehicle for gathering information on terrorists.According to one State official, NSC policymakers’ views were too firmly set to engage and test the Sudanese on counterterrorism.Timothy Carney interview (Dec.4,2003);David Shinn interview (Aug. 29, 2003); Stephen Schwartz interview (Dec. 30, 2003). But supporters of the tough line, such as the NSC’s Susan Rice, argued that any conciliatory statements from Khartoum belied its unhelpful actions. For example, she noted, though Sudan did eventually expel Bin Ladin, his al Qaeda network retained a presence in the country. Susan Rice interview (Jan. 9, 2004). In addition, the CIA’s Africa Division, whose operatives had engaged the Sudanese on counterterrorism in early 1996, would conclude that “there is no indication that Sudanese involvement with terrorism has decreased in the past year.”They saw the Sudanese gestures toward cooperating as “tactical retreats” aimed at deceiving Washington in hopes of having sanctions removed. CIA memo,Walter to Acting DCI,“Africa Division’s Recommendations Regarding Sudan,” Dec. 17, 1996.The CIA official who ran the Sudanese portfolio and met with the Sudanese on numerous occasions told us the Sudanese were not going to deliver, and the perceived moderates “were just flat-out lying.” Mark interview (May 12, 2004). In February 1997, the Sudanese sent letters to President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright, extending an invitation for a U.S. counterterrorism inspection mission to visit Sudan.The Sudanese also used private U.S. citizens to pass along offers to cooperate. Mansoor Ijaz interview (May 7, 2004); Janet McElligot interview (Oct. 20, 2003). But these offers were dismissed because the NSC viewed Sudan as all talk and little action. U.S. officials also feared that the Sudanese would exploit any positive American responses, including trips to the region by U.S. officials, for their own political purposes. See Joint Inquiry interview of David Williams, June 26, 2002.Today, Sudan is still listed as a state sponsor of terrorism."

Perhaps you chose to ignore what I said in the thread I started about that tape: "Again, the best response for us and especially news networks with global coverage (mainly CNN), is to give as little publicity to this tape as we can and still not overly restrict information and analysis. Sure it should be covered but it need not be saturated." Having the public ignore what he has to say in terms of our election is not tantamount to advocating that AQ and terrorists be ignored. That is a point so obvious that I didn't think it had to be made but then again, I forgot how many people there are on this board who are so desparate to play "gotcha" that you can't leave even the most obvious notion unsaid. Seriously, do you think it is a fair reading of my post to conclude that I advocated that the authorities and those charged with getting this guy simply ignore him? Do you really think that is what I meant or did you simply see an opportunity to spin what I said into a cheap shot? I'm thinking it was the latter. You do not give a terrorist free network advertising around the clock worth millions. You might as well send him a check made payable to the order of Al Queda. If you have an argument that having talking heads use the tape to garner votes for their preferred candidate somehow enhances our security, I'd love to hear it. That is clearly the use of the tape I am condemning. Taking that condemnation and spinning it into one against the analysis of the tape from the standpoint of security is as silly as it is a transparent effort at contrived, partisan attack.

Unfortunately, there are plenty, too many, muslims listening to him. If all he was doing was listening to himself, he could have made a lot more tapes, having them come out daily. The fact that AQ has hit as many targets as it has for as long as it has despite the Afghan and Iraqi wars demonstrates conslusively that enough people listen to him, follow him and are inspired by him to make him and AQ extremely dangerous. In studying our enemy, you can't be too "technical", details matter. We are not the audience he intends to reach.

If all the pointless gnasing of teeth over who this freak wants to win this election has run its course, perhaps we can now look at this tape more intelligently. It would seem to me that we are failing to see things beyond our own limited perspective given how understandably we are caught up in our Presidential election. OBL can't be so stupid as to think that any American gives a flying fig what he thinks beyond a limited number of morons who are disproportionately represented on this board. To be fair, perhaps the craziness of this election is only momentarily causing even the best and brightest among us to temporarily lose their minds. Seriously, it seems to me that this statement is tailored to the people he most needs to reach, the Muslims who think he is too crazy to ever have their support. If his movement is to succeed, it needs lots and lots and lots of volunteers. A statement on the eve of our election is clearly going to get a blitz of coverage world wide. If free advertising was his goal, he certainly achieved that at least. His statement is, relatively, more "peaceful" than is usually the case. He must be trying to appeal to Muslims who agree with his politics but not his methods. Maybe he is hoping to take his movement mainstream. Again, the best response for us and especially news networks with global coverage (mainly CNN), is to give as little publicity to this tape as we can and still not overly restrict information and analysis. Sure it should be covered but it need not be saturated.

So you were not trying to convince people that OBL is pro-Kerry? Just mentioning it in passing I suppose? So I was right, your basic defense is that you aren't the only one. Not only that, this is the third time you have been willing to entertain this inquiry. I am sticking with my point: Right or left, the only sane response to this guy is to ignore him and anyone who gives a tinker's damn about what a terrorist thinks of our politics is beyond foolish. It is pretty ironic. Some of the same people who play Mussolini from the Balcony on the issue of "letting the French decide our security policies" are only too willing, though they do not realize it, to let Osama-freaking-bin-freaking-laden have a say in who the next President of the United States is going to be. My own feeling, based on my experiences on this board anyway, is that the vast number of threads started on this topic have been by the right using what they perceive to be the preference of terrorists as a reason to hate Kerry. To the extent the left has responded and more rarely, been the first to jump into this particular lake of mud, they are equally foolish.

Why so you care so much what terrorists think? Why not just register them and let them vote if their opinion is that important to you? I think this is quite possibly the most idiotic discussion that could possibly be had on this board. Plenty of very intelligent people have pointed out that a credible argument could be made that AQ wants Bush to win this election badly(OBL for Bush) and I have no problem with the idea that a credible argument could be made the other way. I do have a problem with people being willing to engage in this inquiry. No one can really know the answer to a question that stupid. The point is that you empower this freak by even speculating on such a thing. All over the news since this tape came out I have heard one conservative talking head after another go on about how OBL wants Kerry to win. If you have to use OBL to get votes and you are willing to do so, then the right is A) in much more trouble than I thought in this election and B) absolutely without any shame whatsoever. For those who want to make the opposite argument, that OBL is using reverse psychology, you are little better than the frantic right. Is this the nation that we have become? A nation that is so divided and so afraid of the consequences of the other guy winning that we are willing to embrace the influence of the most evil person on the planet to maybe, possibly get a tiny edge up? There is but one sane response to have to this: Flip him off and then ignore him. What if OBL made a tape and nobody watched it?

So that is your response, that you aren't the only one? Here you are, making the argument again for the umpteenth time. Don't blame others for your foolishness. This not even close to the first time you have engaged in this ridiculous inquiry. You empower him and his followers by listening to him and trying to use him to get votes. It is painful to watch people let themselves be used by our worst enemy. The reason he makes these tapes is the same reason he kills innocent people, to influence us and our policy in the middle east. When it comes to influencing you, he is pretty successful as he is with everyone, right and left, who insists on entertaining this inquiry.

Ubelievable, you people are still interested in who this SOB wants to win this election. Are you so desperate that you need to get help from Osama Bin Laden to make an argument that Bush should be re-elected? The amount of time wasted on arguing on this board over who Osama hates the most is an indictment of the level of stupidity that masqerades as thought around here. OBL would be happy to know that you care so much for his opinion.

Crippled beyond repair? I wish. Ask the loved ones of the 49 Iraqi National Guard troops that were killed the other day if AQ is crippled beyond repair. Ask the subway riders in Madrid or the dead in Bali if AQ has been crippled beyond repair. We have a lot more work to do, a lot. For example, finally killing that SOB would be nice.

See? Right and left can agree on some things. Does this mean we have to sing a duet of "Ebony and Ivory"?

Let me just say this in the nicest way I can because I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings: Anyone who gives a rats a$$ who OBL thinks should be President is a complete and total brainless idiot. Why do you think he makes these tapes? Because he knows there are some people stupid enough to give a sheet what he says. Way to hand him a victory morons.

Apparently the explosives were still there on April 18, 2003 with IAEA seals intact according to the video tape from a Minnesota local TV station that had a crew traveling with the 101st Airborne. I am no weapons inspector and certainly, more evidence is likely to be developed over the next few days so I don't think this tape is necessarily dispositive of the issue. Even so, this tape is obviously a critical piece of evidence. Those who ignore it are pretty much playing ostrich. Again, it may not be dispositive but it certainly can't be ignored. Judge for yourself: Video Shows Explosives Were There

Perhaps you are not aware that Richio has already started three threads proclaiming Kerry a liar and exonerating the administration of any errors or goof-ups of any kind in this episode the instant the news hit the wires. I'd like to consider this new evidence and tell him about it but he would just start weeping and whining that I was changing the subject. Several embeds have said the same things these guys are saying, that they never searched the place as they were just passing through. I don't how it will turn out but the right side reaction is typical, they just can't admit a mistake, learn from it and move on. Reality is a b*tch. In drips and drabs, more info on this is coming out so we will just have to see what develops. Still too early to reach any firm conclusions.

I don't know whose faut it is, I don't even know if we screwed up or not. The latest has a bunch of embeds saying that when we were there in April, we didn't search the place at all but just moved on without leaving any guard behind. The info is new and complicated so we just have to see what happens. You didn't, you jumped right up with accusations against Kerry and "proof" exonerating the administration. Wait and see. If it turns out we did screw up, Bush gets blamed. He is the head guy, the CinC, the bucks stops there. Right or wrong, that is the way it is. A couple of choppers collide in the desert, its Jimmy Carter's fault because he was the commander in chief. That is that . Worse scenario for the President: if the administration knew back then, why are we finding out about it now, 18 months later?

His position now is not at all in line with the party plank on this issue. I recall vividly how he fought his own party to prevent the plank setting the party line against civil unions because as a man of principal rather than one who panders to his base, there is no way he would sit idle while such an injustice occurred. Certainly he wouldn't simply let this plank go in without a fight and then, at the eleventh hour, announce his opposition to it as he fights to get back to the middle in a desperate attempt to secure votes from moderates. He wouldn't brazenly pander to the base and to moderates with such flip floppery, would he? Funny just checked the transcript of his remarks at the convention, he didn't mention that he supports civil unions then. Hmmmmm, must have been a simple over sight. Interesting enough, brother Jeb stated that he was against legalizing civil unions just this past March. Did he not get the memo? Here is the party platform on the subject which clearly says no gay marriage and no equivalent: "We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. ...We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage." Typical. Rev up the base at the convention and then scurry to the middle before the general election. I don't fault him, it is smart politics. What bothers me is the pretense the right keeps trying to maintain with a straight face that their guy is above all that. Bull ****. He is a handshakin', pork passin', baby kissin' panderin' pol' just like all the rest.

I guess I don't get it. Why would the President, Condi Rice and this administration have to find out from the IAEA today something our own troops and NBC embeds knew 18 months ago? Would troops looking for 380 tons of explosives that were under seal in January of '03 in April not bother telling anyone that "oh by the way" those 380 tons vanished? I am sure it takes some time for these things to make it up the chain of command but 18 months???? These are soldiers not mailmen.

This thing is a day old and already it is a rat's nest of insufficient information upon which to base a conclusion. All the more reason to wait it and out and see what information is developed before jumping up on a soap box and making accusations. I think Richio liked this one so much he started not one, not two but three threads on it. Madon. Stamp a big "WE DON'T KNOW" on this and wait.

I trust my dog and that is about it. Good ol' Rufus. Pity he can't hold office.

The idea that the majority of Iraqis do not want us there is not a meaningless distinction. It is the difference between being an occupying force and a liberating force. What would you call our troop presence there? Honestly, I am not sure what to call it. The press uses the phrase "coalition forces stationed in ......" or refer to the Iraq war as if it isn't finished. The war is over, our occupation is what goes on. You don't hear that phrase in our media "the occupation" but isn't that what we are doing now, occupying? I am not passing judgment on the wisdom of the war or the occupation, I am just suggesting that we call it what it is. "The American Occupation of Iraq" Not a very attractive image is it?

If a middle east leader, inorder to gain legitimacy with his people, has to be anti-US, we are losing the part of the war that leads to fanatics with box cutters even though we are defeating armies.

Or the Repulican controlled Congress. I recall vividly the republican outcry that we weren't doing enough to prevent terrorism and how completely they supported Clinton when he tried to kill Osama. Not. Of course, we were pretty busy investigating the lean of the Presidential Pric% so golly, who had the time?

Maybe so bib, fact is NBC quoted a source from the Pentagon that these explosives, the ones everyone is arguing about (including RDX) were there and intact in March and that it was lost because we screwed up the security. That source may be talking out of his a$$ but until this thing is vetted, there is no basis for charges to be flying around like bat ****. That is what makes this board so aggravating. The second a fart bubble breaks the surface to lay some stink on Kerry or Bush, there is someone like Richio ready to inhale nice and deep until he is so giddy with crap he has to post it here for us all to smell. Yeeech.

I am looking at the facts dumb a$$, all of them, including the one you keep ignoring. The very same source you quote also quotes a Pentagon source that says in March, long before the April incident with the embeds, the weapons were there and intact and got away because of a lack of security by the US. What is your answer to that crap-meister? Unlike you, my position on this is that we don't know yet what happened and that there are plenty of unanwered questions that will need time to sort out. I haven't accused the administration or anyone else of anything. You are the raving idiot that goes off half-cocked the split second any scrap of news can be twisted by you into an attack on Kerry. If it turns out that nothing on this was our fault or the administration, I'll have nothing to apologize for because I haven't accused anyone of anything. You on the other hand have accused, tried, convicted Kerry and presented as cold hard fact your whole preferred outcome on this story using the facts that help you and igoring the ones that don't. Heck, even the source you are relying on considers the issue a mystery. What is it that you know that NBC, the reporters your are relying on don't know? I haven't even mentioned how often you have dismissed them as a source with any credibility at all. If we knew they were not there in April of '03, why is Condi Rice and the President finding out about it only now, in Ocotober of '04? The President is calling for an investigation, what is there to investigate if they have been gone since before we got to the site back in April of last year and we knew that all along? Why is he calling for an investigation now? Why didn't we investigate back then? For the fourth time at least, this story is young and we will likely see more information come out before this thing is settled. Under those circumstances, the wise choice seems to me to wait and see rather than raving accusations, waving fingers and snickering like an aging whore with a new john. Stop whining that the topic is being changed. Your crappy posts are a running topic here and this story just the latest manifestation. I have addressed both, your bs and the story itself. This is just another of many examples from your missives on Kerry having had an affair (proved incredibly wrong) to your numerous posts that "Eureka, WMD's Have Been Found, Take that Libs" (every one of which was shown, within a day or so, to be totally false). You simply don't care if you are right or wrong, it doesn't matter to you. As long as you can vomit up some bile, you seem to be pretty pleased with yourself. You are an embarassment even to many of the conservatives on this board.

Of course, another scenario is he is saying what he believes to be true and is fed up with what he percieves to be "great neglect" on our part. Even if it is just a ploy, you have to wonder why it is that inorder to be popular with his own people, he has to attack and blame the US. I thouhgt the Iraqi people were by and large pro-US but that the demon networks refuse to report it that way. *Gasp*, could those reports be true? Could the Iraqi's be blaming us for their misery?

Allawi now says that the ambush of those 49 Iraqi national guard trainees was due to "great negligence" by US Forces and the Times interprets his comment as "major neglect". Either way, he is blaming us. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it a fact that basically we don't know what the $%$@# happened and are investigating with an eye towards the possibility of the guard being infiltrated? Unless Allawi has some factual information that hasn't been shared with the US or the Press, where does he get off making this accusation? On a political note, do those of you on the right who were kissing his butt when he was praising Bush during his recent visit here have a little different view of him now?