igloo Posted September 1 Report Share Posted September 1 'Losing bin Laden'Robert Novak (archive)September 1, 2003 | Print | SendWASHINGTON -- On Oct. 12, 2000, the day of the devastating terrorist attack on the USS Cole, President Clinton's highest-level national security team met to determine what to do. Counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke wanted to hit Afghanistan, aiming at Osama bin Laden's complex and the terrorist leader himself. But Clarke was all alone. There was no support for a retaliatory strike that, if successful, might have prevented the 9/11 carnage.This startling story is told for the first time in a book by Brussels-based investigative reporter Richard Miniter to be published this week. "Losing bin Laden" relates that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Atty. Gen. Janet Reno and CIA Director George Tenet all said no to the attack. I have contacted enough people attending the meeting to confirm what Miniter reports. Indeed, his account is based on direct, on-the-record quotes from participants. Miniter, who was part of the Sunday Times of London investigation of Clinton vs. bin Laden, has written a bitter indictment of the American president (its subtitle: "How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror"). But by the time of the Cole disaster with only weeks left in his presidency, Clinton had focused on the terrorist threat. The problem of the Oct. 12 meeting was the caution common to all councils of war. Arguments by participants sound valid, but collectively they built a future catastrophe.Al Qaeda's bombing of the billion-dollar U.S. destroyer fulfilled Dick Clarke's prediction of the terrorists seeking U.S. military targets. Hours after the attack, Clarke presided over a meeting of four terrorism experts in the White House Situation Room. He and the State Department's Michael Sheehan agreed this almost certainly was bin Laden's doing, but the FBI and CIA representatives wanted more investigation.That deadlock preceded a meeting of Cabinet-level officials that same day. Clarke proposed already targeted retaliation against bin Laden's camps and Taliban buildings in Kabul and Kandahar. At least, they would destroy the terrorist infrastructure. A quick strike might also get Osama bin Laden. "Around the table," Miniter writes, "Clarke heard only objections." As related by Clarke, the meeting exemplified ministerial caution.Atty. Gen. Reno, told by the FBI that the terrorists were still unidentified, argued that retaliation violated international law. Reno and the CIA's Tenet wanted more investigation. Secretary of State Albright is quoted as saying that with renewed Israeli-Palestinian fighting, "bombing Muslims wouldn't be helpful at this time." (Albright later told Miniter she would have taken a different position if she had "definitive" proof of bin Laden's involvement.)Defense Secretary Cohen's position at the meeting is most surprising. The only Republican in the Clinton Cabinet was architect of missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan after the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. Clarke remembers Cohen saying the attack on the Cole "was not sufficiently provocative" and that heavy bombing of Afghanistan might cause upheaval in neighboring Pakistan. When I contacted him, Cohen said he did not recall this meeting but that "certainly I regarded the Cole as a major provocation."The State Department's Sheehan, formerly with Special Forces and now with the New York City Police Department, did not blame Bill Cohen. "It was the entire Pentagon," he told Miniter, adding he was "stunned" and "taken aback" by the lack of Defense Department desire to retaliate. After the meeting, Sheehan told Clarke, prophetically: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"At the Cabinet-level meeting, only Dick Clarke wanted retaliation. Indeed, he was viewed as a hothead, always demanding bombs away. So much pain has been inflicted, and so much blood has been spilled since then, that the meeting has faded from the memory of its participants -- until stirred up by Clarke in Miniter's book.Less than a month after the Cole disaster, CIA analysts had concluded bin Laden was behind it (though the FBI was still clueless). Osama bin Laden had virtually claimed credit for the most successful attack on a U.S. naval vessel since World War II. He and his gang had escaped to plan greater misery for America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted September 3 Author Report Share Posted September 3 Losing bin LadenGary Aldrich (archive)September 2, 2003 | Print | SendOn September 1, 2003 syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote an article announcing a new book entitled, Losing Bin Laden. Mr. Novak revealed a secret meeting discovered and reported in the book, by its author, Richard Miniter which took place in the Clinton White House after the bombing of the USS Cole. The meeting in October, 2000, occurred twenty-six days before voters decided who would succeed Bill Clinton. Why did Clinton and his advisors ignore a proper military response and allow Osama Bin Laden to live on? Could it be so that Al Gore would have an easy transition to the White House? After all, military actions can produce messy political ramifications if done wrong. Clinton had already bombed one aspirin factory – was he worried about bombing a second?It’s important to note that what happened during that remarkable meeting may have sealed the fate of more than 3,000 innocent Americans. Those lives were lost in New York, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia as a result of Osama Bin Laden’s carefully orchestrated attack. After the USS Cole bombing, Bill Clinton had a prime opportunity to kill Osama, and possessed solid evidence about his location.In fact, according to Miniter, Clinton passed up 11 other chances to kill Osama Bin Laden. Some would say Clinton’s failure to take out this deadly terrorist is his real legacy. Today, Bill Clinton is quick to disclose how he “obsessed†over the problem of Osama Bin Laden. But was his obsession, as he puts it, more about how to avoid possibly unpopular and dangerous foreign policy decisions? I hope Mr. Clinton and his advisors never forget that September 11, 2001 changed our lives forever. We live in constant fear, while we agonize about the latest bombings and assassinations of our military personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the many dangers facing Americans in these and other Middle Eastern countries. Mr. Novak’s article was certainly news by any measure, but why isn’t anybody except The Washington Times and some Internet sites covering it? The fact that it’s a book critical of the Clinton Administration should not play a part in whether major news organizations cover the bigger story. Yet, a quick scan of the major U.S. newspapers for news about this remarkable meeting failed to produce any evidence that they’ve even heard about it.The Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Miami Herald, Los Angeles Times, and Boston Herald are all silent on the matter. Major newspapers have a responsibility to help citizens understand how it was possible for the U.S. to be attacked on 9/11 in such a spectacular fashion. Citizens are still worried about how the U.S. government failed to accurately assess Bin Laden as a deadly threat.But even if some newspapers believed this news to be “oldâ€, The Washington Post and the Miami Herald certainly have a stake in reporting it, considering participants in the October 2000 meeting are members of their own communities, and one still serves a sitting president in a senior position.A key participant in the meeting was current C.I.A. Director George Tenet. Can one assume that The Washington Post will eventually report that President Bush’s current C.I.A. director attended a meeting during which counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke recommended attacks on well-researched sites in Afghanistan, hoping to take out Osama and his training camps? Janet Reno, George Tenet, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright all said “no†to the attack possibilities, each for different reasons. Of course, Attorney General Janet Reno is a prominent member of the Miami community, and citizens who live there certainly have an interest in knowing how influential she was in discouraging the president from acting when Osama Bin Laden succeeded in blowing up our warship. So, where is the Miami Herald’s story?Isn’t it news that all of these senior Clinton advisors, and the president himself, declined a military response when there was ample evidence to support one? The fact that we did not kill Osama Bin Laden when we had the cause and the opportunity is newsworthy, especially in light of the world we are now forced to live in.Director Tenet, according to witness reports, wanted to conduct more investigation, even though Mr. Clarke thought there was sufficient evidence to blame Osama. Cohen was quoted as saying that the attack on our ship which nearly caused it to sink, and took the lives of 17 sailors, “was not sufficiently provocative.†Cohen now denies he said this, but one wonders what it would take to provoke him.Major news organizations should not avoid reporting news simply because a conservative book publisher is the source. When I released my book in 1996, I alleged a national security collapse taking place in the Clinton White House. I also presented facts that Bill Clinton continued to behave as a reckless womanizer. The mainstream media first attacked me and my book, using Clinton Administration talking points, then completely ignored my allegations. But, history has proven that Clinton was a national security disaster and a reckless womanizer.It’s irresponsible for the mainstream media to ignore a major news story simply because they don’t care for the politics of a book publisher. Their failure to cover this breaking story will just add to a growing stack of evidence that the mainstream media is hopelessly biased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seximofo2k Posted September 4 Report Share Posted September 4 You should do the follow up on Bush losing him as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted September 5 Author Report Share Posted September 5 Originally posted by seximofo2k You should do the follow up on Bush losing him as well If you have one , post it....Perhaps the only thing you can come up with, is a flawed military strategy when the U.S. thought they had him in the Tora Bora mountains.......but at least the U.S. was pursuing himBut to try and compare 8 years of Clinton and Bin Laden to Bush is absurd, ridiculous, and a waste of time.......If you are trying to seek "balance" by blaming two Presidents, I suggest you pick another topic....you are way off base...What part of the above did you not understand?.....Scary that you miss the point when it is bashing you in the face......The left and Dems were so interested in what "Bush knew", did they fail to remember Clinton's massive failures?.......It is fairly easy to make the arguement that this "balanced" debate you seek should not exist if Clinton did his job.......end of story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seximofo2k Posted September 5 Report Share Posted September 5 Damn your right I forgot Democrats always wrong republicans always right thats how it goes???? It must be that big liberal media conspiracy.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted September 5 Report Share Posted September 5 Originally posted by seximofo2k Damn your right I forgot Democrats always wrong republicans always right thats how it goes???? It must be that big liberal media conspiracy.... maybe we should all becme republicans and do away with this communist, terrorist-sympathizing, un-american two party system of ours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted September 5 Author Report Share Posted September 5 Originally posted by seximofo2k Damn your right I forgot Democrats always wrong republicans always right thats how it goes???? It must be that big liberal media conspiracy.... Completely off topic....completely.....Stick with the point....re-read the articles, look at the data, and get the point--if you can....DO you have the capacity to do that?In addition, you were the one who brought up Bush, and questioned how he lost bin laden.......Stick to the topic........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted September 5 Author Report Share Posted September 5 Originally posted by bigpoppanils maybe we should all becme republicans and do away with this communist, terrorist-sympathizing, un-american two party system of ours You too.....stick to the topic and the main data point......Address the data that is being presented, not offering tangents used to disguise the fact that you do not have a compelling counter-arguement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seximofo2k Posted September 6 Report Share Posted September 6 Originally posted by igloo Completely off topic....completely.....Stick with the point....re-read the articles, look at the data, and get the point--if you can....DO you have the capacity to do that?In addition, you were the one who brought up Bush, and questioned how he lost bin laden.......Stick to the topic........ Sad you must start insulting people every time you debate. Actually I brought up Bush to try to shed light on the fact that you can't put the sole blame on Clinton and the democrats. Noone on either side did anything to address the terror issue in the 90's. You blame Clinton for not doing enough but the republicans neglected the issue as well. The fact is the hardline stance against Alqueda did not begin until 3000+ died in those two towers which is a shame for both parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted September 6 Author Report Share Posted September 6 Originally posted by seximofo2k Sad you must start insulting people every time you debate. Actually I brought up Bush to try to shed light on the fact that you can't put the sole blame on Clinton and the democrats. Noone on either side did anything to address the terror issue in the 90's. You blame Clinton for not doing enough but the republicans neglected the issue as well. The fact is the hardline stance against Alqueda did not begin until 3000+ died in those two towers which is a shame for both parties. lost...completely lost......Was it not Clinton in the White House for 8 years, EIGHT YEARS, when Al Qaeda became stronger and stronger, while he continued to ignore a growing problem........EIGHT YEARS retard....Funny how the media and the Dems though pressed on with the failed "What Bush Knew" campaign....nah, not a liberal media bias......Was it not Clinton who made decisions that actually made Al Qaeda grow more confiedent with each terrorist attackWas it not Clinton who failed to be more pro-active in the fight against terrorism, despite the CIA and Counter-Terrorism chief begging him to take a hard stancePerhaps 3,000 lives would not have been lost, as you mentioned, had Clinton did his job....Can you grasp that?......Or perhaps maybe the Bush haters who continually object to his pre-emptive doctrine can learn a lesson that hoping threats go away is not a sound strategy, as the U.S painfully learnedDId you read the articles that were posted?.....Again, re-read the articles before you vomit more of your ignorance......BTW--if you have read most books on AL Qaeda and terrorism, you would see the common theme across all reading material how the Clinton White failed miserably to face the threat posed by AL Qaeda, and at times, actually emboldened their cause with half-ass measures...Do me a favor, STFU on a topic you have no clue about... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seximofo2k Posted September 8 Report Share Posted September 8 Originally posted by igloo lost...completely lost......Was it not Clinton in the White House for 8 years, EIGHT YEARS, when Al Qaeda became stronger and stronger, while he continued to ignore a growing problem........EIGHT YEARS retard....Funny how the media and the Dems though pressed on with the failed "What Bush Knew" campaign....nah, not a liberal media bias......Was it not Clinton who made decisions that actually made Al Qaeda grow more confiedent with each terrorist attackWas it not Clinton who failed to be more pro-active in the fight against terrorism, despite the CIA and Counter-Terrorism chief begging him to take a hard stancePerhaps 3,000 lives would not have been lost, as you mentioned, had Clinton did his job....Can you grasp that?......Or perhaps maybe the Bush haters who continually object to his pre-emptive doctrine can learn a lesson that hoping threats go away is not a sound strategy, as the U.S painfully learnedDId you read the articles that were posted?.....Again, re-read the articles before you vomit more of your ignorance......BTW--if you have read most books on AL Qaeda and terrorism, you would see the common theme across all reading material how the Clinton White failed miserably to face the threat posed by AL Qaeda, and at times, actually emboldened their cause with half-ass measures...Do me a favor, STFU on a topic you have no clue about... HA well i will say that you do give me a good laugh when u post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted September 8 Author Report Share Posted September 8 Originally posted by seximofo2k HA well i will say that you do give me a good laugh when u post. Looks like you have replaced Sassa as the resident clown.......and as a suggestion, don't speak when you do not know what you are talking about, as evident on this thread......having your shit shoved back up your ass must hurt ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted September 8 Report Share Posted September 8 Originally posted by igloo Was it not Clinton in the White House for 8 years, EIGHT YEARS, when Al Qaeda became stronger and stronger, while he continued to ignore a growing problem........EIGHT YEARS retard....Funny how the media and the Dems though pressed on with the failed "What Bush Knew" campaign....nah, not a liberal media bias...... well if we are going to continue to blame past presidents....why dont we blame Reagan and the GOP for helping Bin Laden create Al Qaeda in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted September 8 Author Report Share Posted September 8 Originally posted by bigpoppanils well if we are going to continue to blame past presidents....why dont we blame Reagan and the GOP for helping Bin Laden create Al Qaeda in the first place? Nice try but your facts are wrong....as usual...So for today's educational lesson and homework assignment, I suggest you go research which President made the decision to support the resistance to the Soviet invasion....And as usual, your statement that the GOP ( or Dems )"created" AL Qaeda is reckless----get educated on bin Laden before you make inaccurate statements (and not from hate-America far left publications that spin conspiracy theories)......And as usual, once again you introduce yet another topic instead of addressing the issue at hand....Clinton and his disgraceful Presidency that watched an emerging threat get stronger and bolder, yet hoped he could ignore it until the "next guy" would have to deal with it.....From another article:President Bush vowed to stay the course, but noted that it is only recently that America has done so. “During the last few decades the terrorists grew bolder, believing if they hit America hard, America would retreat and back down.†Perhaps the President had in mind al-Qaeda’s attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, when President Clinton and Al Gore backed down. Perhaps he had in mind al-Qaeda’s attack on American troops in Somalia, when President Clinton and Al Gore backed down.Perhaps he had in mind the attack on the Khobar Towers, a dormitory housing American soldiers, where President Clinton and Al Gore backed down.Perhaps he had in mind the attack on the USS Cole, when President and Al Gore backed down.Better yet, why don't you read the book before drawing any conclusions...I know it may be a revolutionary idea for you to actually get educated on a subject before commenting, but why don't you give it a shot...After reading the book and the data presented, your opinion would be more easily accepted and founded..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted September 8 Author Report Share Posted September 8 Originally posted by igloo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted September 8 Report Share Posted September 8 Originally posted by igloo And as usual, once again you introduce yet another topic instead of addressing the issue at hand....Clinton and his disgraceful Presidency that watched an emerging threat get stronger and bolder, yet hoped he could ignore it until the "next guy" would have to deal with it..... and it didnt grow under Bush Sr...when he stabbed Bin Laden and Afganhistan in the back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted September 9 Author Report Share Posted September 9 Originally posted by bigpoppanils and it didnt grow under Bush Sr...when he stabbed Bin Laden and Afganhistan in the back? Son, quit now...you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.