gordontravels
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2005
- Messages
- 758
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- in the middle of America
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I'm sorry but I think the New York Times leans to the liberal side which ultra left-wing liberals love. Still, if you are willing to dig into this bastion of "all the news you need to know since it is only what we are going to tell you", you can find the occasional retort to those on the left that tout the Clinton years as "the best".
Where do you put blame? This is something we should all think about and hope we have enough information to get past our purely partisan positions. Here's some excerpts from the NYT's that came in on page A12 or somewhere in that vicinity. Not worthy of front page? Guess not. Anyway, I offer you excerpts from that very bastion - oh and this is from Eric Lichtblau, no Bush fan:
"State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996"
"State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam 'well beyond the Middle East,' but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show."
"The declassified documents, obtained by the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act request and provided to The New York Times, shed light on a murky and controversial chapter in Mr. bin Laden's history: his relocation from Sudan to Afghanistan as the Clinton administration was striving to understand the threat he posed and explore ways of confronting him. Before 1996, Mr. bin Laden was regarded more as a financier of terrorism than a mastermind. But the State Department assessment, which came a year before he publicly urged Muslims to attack the United States, indicated that officials suspected he was taking a more active role, including in the bombings in June 1996 that killed 19 members American soldiers at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia."
"Critics of the Clinton administration have accused it of ignoring the threat posed by Mr. bin Laden in the mid-1990's while he was still in Sudan, and they point to claims by some Sudanese officials that they offered to turn him over to the Americans before ultimately expelling him in 1996 under international pressure. But Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had 'not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.'
"The newly declassified documents do not directly address the question of whether Sudan ever offered to turn over Mr. bin Laden. But the documents go well beyond previous news and historical accounts in detailing the Clinton administration's active monitoring of Mr. bin Laden's movements and the realization that his move to Afghanistan could make him an even greater national security threat."
"Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said the declassified material released to his group 'says to me that the Clinton administration knew the broad outlines in 1996 of bin Laden's capabilities and his intent, and unfortunately, almost nothing was done about it.' Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, was highly critical of President Clinton during his two terms in office. The group has also been critical of some Bush administration actions after the Sept. 11 attacks, releasing documents in March that detailed government efforts to facilitate flights out of the United States for dozens of well-connected Saudis just days after the attacks."
Oh do remember that Judicial Watch is a "conservative" group that also complains about conservatives. I am just really surprised that the New York Times ran this article even on the well buried page it appeared on. Of course someone probably said, "Hey, what if someone else runs it and know we had it then maybe we would have to run it and they would have it first after we had it first so maybe we should run it but I didn't say that."
I'm sure there's more we don't know but then we have to wait for our media to tell us what they know but haven't told us. The thing I think about is that this was going on in 1996. It's 2005. :duel
Where do you put blame? This is something we should all think about and hope we have enough information to get past our purely partisan positions. Here's some excerpts from the NYT's that came in on page A12 or somewhere in that vicinity. Not worthy of front page? Guess not. Anyway, I offer you excerpts from that very bastion - oh and this is from Eric Lichtblau, no Bush fan:
"State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996"
"State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam 'well beyond the Middle East,' but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show."
"The declassified documents, obtained by the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act request and provided to The New York Times, shed light on a murky and controversial chapter in Mr. bin Laden's history: his relocation from Sudan to Afghanistan as the Clinton administration was striving to understand the threat he posed and explore ways of confronting him. Before 1996, Mr. bin Laden was regarded more as a financier of terrorism than a mastermind. But the State Department assessment, which came a year before he publicly urged Muslims to attack the United States, indicated that officials suspected he was taking a more active role, including in the bombings in June 1996 that killed 19 members American soldiers at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia."
"Critics of the Clinton administration have accused it of ignoring the threat posed by Mr. bin Laden in the mid-1990's while he was still in Sudan, and they point to claims by some Sudanese officials that they offered to turn him over to the Americans before ultimately expelling him in 1996 under international pressure. But Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had 'not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.'
"The newly declassified documents do not directly address the question of whether Sudan ever offered to turn over Mr. bin Laden. But the documents go well beyond previous news and historical accounts in detailing the Clinton administration's active monitoring of Mr. bin Laden's movements and the realization that his move to Afghanistan could make him an even greater national security threat."
"Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said the declassified material released to his group 'says to me that the Clinton administration knew the broad outlines in 1996 of bin Laden's capabilities and his intent, and unfortunately, almost nothing was done about it.' Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, was highly critical of President Clinton during his two terms in office. The group has also been critical of some Bush administration actions after the Sept. 11 attacks, releasing documents in March that detailed government efforts to facilitate flights out of the United States for dozens of well-connected Saudis just days after the attacks."
Oh do remember that Judicial Watch is a "conservative" group that also complains about conservatives. I am just really surprised that the New York Times ran this article even on the well buried page it appeared on. Of course someone probably said, "Hey, what if someone else runs it and know we had it then maybe we would have to run it and they would have it first after we had it first so maybe we should run it but I didn't say that."
I'm sure there's more we don't know but then we have to wait for our media to tell us what they know but haven't told us. The thing I think about is that this was going on in 1996. It's 2005. :duel
