Full Version: What went on in the Sudan?
Was this an offer to turn over Bin Laden? Should he have been sought as a top political priority back then? Or was he just one of many terrorist operatives in 1996? Was this opportunity lost because of a failure of the Clinton administration? Because of the Saudi government? Both? Neither?
Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan's Offer to Arrest Militant Fell Through After Saudis Said No
Does this only look bad in hindsight or was it a clear foreign policy failure?
Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
QUOTE
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.
Sudan's Offer to Arrest Militant Fell Through After Saudis Said No
QUOTE
In a document dated March 8, 1996, the Americans spelled out their demands. Titled "Measures Sudan Can Take to Improve Relations with the United States," the two-page memorandum asked for six things. Second on the list -- just after an angry enumeration of attacks on the CIA station in Khartoum -- was Osama bin Laden.
"Provide us with names, dates of arrival, departure and destination and passport data on mujahedin [holy warriors] that Usama Bin Laden has brought into Sudan," the document demanded. The CIA emissaries told Erwa that they knew of about 200 such bin Laden loyalists in Sudan.
During the next several weeks, Erwa raised the stakes. The Sudanese security services, he said, would happily keep close watch on bin Laden for the United States. But if that would not suffice, the government was prepared to place him in custody and hand him over, though to whom was ambiguous. In one formulation, Erwa said Sudan would consider any legitimate proffer of criminal charges against the accused terrorist. Saudi Arabia, he said, was the most logical destination.
"Provide us with names, dates of arrival, departure and destination and passport data on mujahedin [holy warriors] that Usama Bin Laden has brought into Sudan," the document demanded. The CIA emissaries told Erwa that they knew of about 200 such bin Laden loyalists in Sudan.
During the next several weeks, Erwa raised the stakes. The Sudanese security services, he said, would happily keep close watch on bin Laden for the United States. But if that would not suffice, the government was prepared to place him in custody and hand him over, though to whom was ambiguous. In one formulation, Erwa said Sudan would consider any legitimate proffer of criminal charges against the accused terrorist. Saudi Arabia, he said, was the most logical destination.
Does this only look bad in hindsight or was it a clear foreign policy failure?
If Clinton chose not to accept Bin Laden's extradition because he didn't want to ruffle Saudi feathers, I would say hes guilty of bad judgement as well as misplaced loyalty.
It would be a farce to claim that slick willy was impotent in the matter; that the Saudis dictated our lack of interest in an already widely known terrorist head. His name first came up in the Iran-contra scandal, and we've known what a threat he was for a long time.
And his name also resurfaced in the 1st WTC attack investigation. Clinton knew what was up, and as with the barracks bombing, the USS Cole attack, the embassy bombings, and Somalia, he just didn't do anything.
There is no escaping that Clinton's rejection of Sudan's extradition offer was one in a whole series of expensive blunders.
It would be a farce to claim that slick willy was impotent in the matter; that the Saudis dictated our lack of interest in an already widely known terrorist head. His name first came up in the Iran-contra scandal, and we've known what a threat he was for a long time.
And his name also resurfaced in the 1st WTC attack investigation. Clinton knew what was up, and as with the barracks bombing, the USS Cole attack, the embassy bombings, and Somalia, he just didn't do anything.
There is no escaping that Clinton's rejection of Sudan's extradition offer was one in a whole series of expensive blunders.
Clinton's error in judgement on the extradition of Bin Laden could have prevented more deaths of U.S. citizens and others. Also, the War on Terror would have been a lot easier without Bin Laden in the loop
Clinton officials said they didnt trust Sudan. The terror camps had been set up in Sudan with the full knowledge of the islamist government in the early 90s. Maybe handing over bin ladin would have been a symbolic gesture to get their name off the terror list. We know that Bin ladin wasnt the only terror leader or organization present in Sudan at the time and an attempt had even been made on bin ladins life by the leader of another islamic terror group. Maybe he was more trouble than he was worth and after handing him over the Sudanese planned to continue supporting other terror leaders.
Hard to blame clinton for taking a risk with North Koreas word and then condemn him for not trusting nuts like the Sudanese government. Unless clinton is always wrong, no matter what..... which is true for some irrational republicans.
Btw, terrorism against the US predates clinton by decades (case the younguns cant remember)
Hard to blame clinton for taking a risk with North Koreas word and then condemn him for not trusting nuts like the Sudanese government. Unless clinton is always wrong, no matter what..... which is true for some irrational republicans.
Btw, terrorism against the US predates clinton by decades (case the younguns cant remember)
QUOTE(santasdad @ Aug 9 2003, 09:33 AM)
Clinton officials said they didnt trust Sudan. The terror camps had been set up in Sudan with the full knowledge of the islamist government in the early 90s. Maybe handing over bin ladin would have been a symbolic gesture to get their name off the terror list. We know that Bin ladin wasnt the only terror leader or organization present in Sudan at the time and an attempt had even been made on bin ladins life by the leader of another islamic terror group. Maybe he was more trouble than he was worth and after handing him over the Sudanese planned to continue supporting other terror leaders.
Where is your source saying Clinton didn't trust Sudan over this?
Clinton should have taken Bin Laden and worried about Sudan later. Bin Laden was a killer.
QUOTE
Btw, terrorism against the US predates clinton by decades (case the younguns cant remember)
But most of that time, it wasn't agaionst America. The United States was attacked repeatedly by Bin Laden's organization and it was Clinton's duty as Commander-in-Chief to take out the man who was threatening the United States. Clinton took an oath that the would defend and protect the Constitution of the United States:
Presidential Oath
QUOTE
"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Not really a secret that the Clinton Admin was unsure how to deal with Sudan but heres the first link that came up on google from the Wash Post.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mid...st/ladnsudx.htm
Some reference to it in the "conflicting agendas" section.
There was terrorism against america that went unanswered before 9/11 including the Pan Am 103 bombing by libya, the beirut marine bombing, many kidnappings and murders of americans, etc.....all under Reagan and Bush. Weve been sending mixed signals for 25 years or more.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mid...st/ladnsudx.htm
Some reference to it in the "conflicting agendas" section.
There was terrorism against america that went unanswered before 9/11 including the Pan Am 103 bombing by libya, the beirut marine bombing, many kidnappings and murders of americans, etc.....all under Reagan and Bush. Weve been sending mixed signals for 25 years or more.
I was watching the profile of Bin Laden on the history channel- they were talking to a retired CIA guy about Bin Laden. He didn't blame any president, but rather the failure of the intelligence community, to make a paradigm shift from one type of state sponsored terrorism to the lone rogue wealthy terroist like bin laden. He said that the intelligence community wanted nothing to do with Bin Laden, but rather was more interested in the overthrow of the state sponsored terrorist sites and was afraid to anger thier former allies like afghanistan. Let's not forget that Ronnie Raygun trained, armed and pointed bin laden on the world!
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 9 2003, 07:46 PM)
I was watching the profile of Bin Laden on the history channel- they were talking to a retired CIA guy about Bin Laden. He didn't blame any president, but rather the failure of the intelligence community, to make a paradigm shift from one type of state sponsored terrorism to the lone rogue wealthy terroist like bin laden. He said that the intelligence community wanted nothing to do with Bin Laden, but rather was more interested in the overthrow of the state sponsored terrorist sites and was afraid to anger thier former allies like afghanistan.
The Intelligence community is good to blame because the info probably went from one place to another, changing the information in the process. Also, some info was left out of the equation because at the time it seemed unnecessary.
But you also have to blame a person, not just a group. Clinton is that person. Clinton never took Sudan's offer. That was a mistake.
QUOTE
Let's not forget that Ronnie Raygun trained, armed and pointed bin laden on the world!
Whoa!
Hold the phone. Do you have any solid evidence of this?
Some of Osama & his top enchlon may have been trained but that was during the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Did he have a terrorist group formed during that time? nope
QUOTE
Was this an offer to turn over Bin Laden? Should he have been sought as a top political priority back then? Or was he just one of many terrorist operatives in 1996? Was this opportunity lost because of a failure of the Clinton administration? Because of the Saudi government? Both? Neither?
Hindsight makes Osama Bin Laden look like a much more important target. People are quick to seize on "if only..." arguments. I think we are playing the blame game here, quite natural and human after something as traumatic as 9/11.
Bin Laden was one of many characters the CIA was interested in and fingered for anti-American activities. At the time, he wasn't important enough to jeopardize other interests such as politics with Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern governments. Whether you like that or not, competing interests have to be balanced in international politics and our heads of state make what they think are the best decisions at the time. Vilifying them for it later with the benefit of seeing how things played out is just taking a cheap shot (which tends to break down along partisan lines in my humble opinion). If Sudan had Bin Laden in their custody after 9/11 and offered him to us, our government would never pass it up or acquiese to the desires of Saudi Arabia.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.