1
   

9/11 Panel Cites Bush, Clinton Inaction

 
 
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 09:35 am
9/11 Panel Cites Bush, Clinton Inaction
Mar 23, 10:09 AM (ET)
By HOPE YEN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Clinton and Bush administrations' decision to use diplomatic rather than military options against al-Qaida allowed the Sept. 11 terrorists to elude capture years before the attacks, a federal panel said Tuesday.

The Clinton administration had early indications of terrorist links to Osama bin Laden and future Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as early as 1995, but let years pass as it pursued criminal indictments and diplomatic solutions to subduing them abroad, it found.

Bush officials, meanwhile, failed to act immediately on increasing intelligence chatter and urgent warnings in early 2001 by its counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to take out al-Qaida targets, according to preliminary findings by the commission reviewing the attacks.

"We found that the CIA and the FBI tended to be careful in discussing the attribution for terrorist attacks," the bipartisan report said. "The time lag between terrorist act and any definitive attribution grew to months, then years, as the evidence was compiled."

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, appearing on CBS's "The Early Show" Tuesday, said, however, the commission will not make any final judgments about the Clarke allegations or other assertions until it has reviewed all the evidence.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the commission that "President Clinton and his team did everything we could, everything we could think of, based on the knowledge we had, to protect our people and disrupt and defeat al-Qaida."

The preliminary report said the U.S. government had determined bin Laden was a key terrorist financier as early as 1995, but that efforts to expel him from Sudan stalled after Clinton officials determined he couldn't be brought to the United States without an indictment. A year later, bin Laden left Sudan and set up his base in Afghanistan without resistance.

In spring 1998, the commission found, the Saudi government successfully thwarted a bin Laden-backed effort to launch attacks on U.S. forces in that country.

The Clinton administration turned to the Saudis for help. Clinton designated CIA Director George Tenet as his representative to work with the Saudis, who agreed to make an "all-out secret effort" to persuade Afghanistan's Taliban rulers to expel Bin Laden.

Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal, using "a mixture of possible bribes and threats," received a commitment from Taliban leader Mullah Omar that bin Laden would be handed over.

But Omar reneged on the agreement during a September 1998 meeting with Turki and Pakistan's intelligence chief.

"When Turki angrily confronted him Omar lost his temper and denounced the Saudi government. The Saudis and Pakistanis walked out," the report said.

In conclusion, the report said "from the spring of 1997 to September 2001, the U.S. government tried to persuade the Taliban to expel bin Laden to a country where he could face justice," the report said. "The efforts employed inducements, warnings and sanctions. All these efforts failed."

The report was part of the commission's two-day hearing focusing on the two administration's failed responses to the threat from al-Qaida.

Scheduled to testify Tuesday were Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, as well as their counterparts in the Clinton administration, William Cohen and Albright. They were appearing as part of the panel's review of failures in diplomatic and military strategy.

The hearing comes following explosive allegations in a book released Monday by Clarke, Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator and a holdover from the Clinton administration, who is expected to testify Wednesday.

He said that he warned Bush officials in a January 2001 memo about the growing al-Qaida threat after the Cole attack but was put off by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who "gave me the impression she had never heard the term (al-Qaida) before."

The commission's report Tuesday said Clarke pushed for immediate and secret military aid to the Taliban's foe, the Northern Alliance. But Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, proposed a broader review of the al Qaida response that would take more time. The proposal wasn't approved for Bush's review until just weeks before Sept. 11.

The 10-member commission had invited Rice to testify, but she has declined on the advice of the White House, which cited separation of power concerns involving its staff appearing before a legislative body.

Other potential diplomatic failures cited by the commission:

- The United States in 1995 located Mohammed in Qatar. He was then a suspect in a 1995 plot to plant bombs on American airliners in Asia. FBI and CIA officials worked on his capture, but first sought a legal indictment and then help from the Qatari government, who they feared might tip Mohammed off. In 1996, Qatari officials reported Mohammed had suddenly disappeared.

- The U.S. government pressed two successive Pakistani governments from the mid 1990s to pressure the Taliban by threatening to cut off support. But "before 9-11, the United States could not find a mix of incentives or pressure that would persuade Pakistan to reconsider its fundamental relationship."

- From 1999 through early 2001, the United States pressed the United Arab Emirates, the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off ties, with little success.

Scheduled to testify Wednesday are CIA director George Tenet; Rice's predecessor, Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger; and a new witness added Tuesday to fill Rice's slot, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. On that day, the panel will review intelligence and national policy coordination.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 577 • Replies: 3
No top replies

 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:21 am
Bush will have to sacrifice Condi Rice to save himself
Its clear from a portion of today's hearing that Condi Rice is trying every way possible to avoid having to testify before the Committee. The committee rejected Rice's efforts to have deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage testify in her place. Rice is trying to hide behind the confidential relationship between her and Bush to avoid testifying---but it won't work. The committee reiterated its insistence that she appear to testify and presented legal precedence for such testimony. Armitage really squirmed following the demand that he take this message back to Rice and to Bush.

Hearing Rice testify under oath will be interesting because if she continues to lie about events she can be charge with lying to congress.

If Bush had to choose whom to take the fall, I'm sure he would prefer Colin Powell. But Powell is not the key person; Condi Rice is. Therefore, Bush will have to sacrifice Rice to try to save himself. Condi Rice will end up being the "fall guy."

BBB
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:24 am
I thought powell was set up to be the Fall guy? Or was it Cheney? I can't keep track of so many Liberal conspriracy theories...
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 06:58 pm
I watched most of it today and what I gathered is that the Clinton administration was activily engaged in trying to catch Bin Laden, but they were too careful. I can see why they would not want to cause a lot of deaths unless they were sure of what they were going after and that it was there when they could get there. They didn't want to upset the surrounding countries. They didn't have complete "actionable proof" of the cole bombing until after they left office.

As for the Bush administration what I gathererd from them is that though they were completly briefed on everything they were busy changing everything before they acted on anything. Rumsfeild at one point said that they wouldn't have had the support they needed to attack Afghanistan until 9/11 (which the clinton administration agreed and said the same) but then he turned around and said that they would have acted even if 9/11 had not of taken place and that they had everything ready by the 4th (I forget exactly the 4th of what) and that was why they were ready to go when they needed to.

If you ask me, I think neither administration could have done too much before 9/11, it is after 9/11 that is the more worrisome. Colon Powell admitted that Iraq was mentioned the day after the attacks and that to me tells me that Richard Clark is telling the truth.

(I know that I am not too precise, to say the least)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » 9/11 Panel Cites Bush, Clinton Inaction
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 02:35:24