evince
Truthmatters
no lying shit heap
Comey Had 'Concerns' Over Outing Russian Hackers
- Thread starter Althea
- Start date
no lying shit heap
evince
Truthmatters
Retirement[edit]
In early 2001 Richard A. Clarke, the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, wanted to move to another position; he insisted O'Neill was the best person to replace him. O'Neill proved reluctant not least because of the relatively low salary.[3] When O'Neill heard of upcoming leaks to the New York Times about the May 2000 incident in which his briefcase had been stolen, he decided to retire in favor of a higher-paying job in the private sector, as chief of security at the World Trade Center.[3]
An August 19, 2001 New York Times report[8] by James Risen and D.Johnston suggested that O'Neill had been the subject of an "internal investigation" at the FBI. The report suggested that O'Neill was responsible for losing a briefcase with "highly classified information" in it, containing among other things "a description of every counterespionage and counterterrorism program in New York." The briefcase was recovered shortly after its disappearance. The FBI investigation was reported to have concluded that the suitcase had been snatched by local thieves involved in a series of hotel burglaries, and that none of the documents had been removed or even touched.[8]
Several people came to O'Neill's defense, suggesting that he was the subject of a "smear campaign".[8] One of O'Neill's associates claimed later that O'Neill believed the source for the Times story was FBI official Thomas J. Pickard.[9] The Times reported that O'Neill was expected to retire in late August.
O'Neill has been described as having a close working relationship with Ali Soufan.[10]
O'Neill started his new job at the World Trade Center on August 23, 2001.[3] In late August, he talked to his friend Chris Isham about the job. Jokingly, Isham said, "At least they're not going to bomb it again," a reference to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. O'Neill replied, "They'll probably try to finish the job."[3]
In early 2001 Richard A. Clarke, the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, wanted to move to another position; he insisted O'Neill was the best person to replace him. O'Neill proved reluctant not least because of the relatively low salary.[3] When O'Neill heard of upcoming leaks to the New York Times about the May 2000 incident in which his briefcase had been stolen, he decided to retire in favor of a higher-paying job in the private sector, as chief of security at the World Trade Center.[3]
An August 19, 2001 New York Times report[8] by James Risen and D.Johnston suggested that O'Neill had been the subject of an "internal investigation" at the FBI. The report suggested that O'Neill was responsible for losing a briefcase with "highly classified information" in it, containing among other things "a description of every counterespionage and counterterrorism program in New York." The briefcase was recovered shortly after its disappearance. The FBI investigation was reported to have concluded that the suitcase had been snatched by local thieves involved in a series of hotel burglaries, and that none of the documents had been removed or even touched.[8]
Several people came to O'Neill's defense, suggesting that he was the subject of a "smear campaign".[8] One of O'Neill's associates claimed later that O'Neill believed the source for the Times story was FBI official Thomas J. Pickard.[9] The Times reported that O'Neill was expected to retire in late August.
O'Neill has been described as having a close working relationship with Ali Soufan.[10]
O'Neill started his new job at the World Trade Center on August 23, 2001.[3] In late August, he talked to his friend Chris Isham about the job. Jokingly, Isham said, "At least they're not going to bomb it again," a reference to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. O'Neill replied, "They'll probably try to finish the job."[3]
Shut your nigger whore mouth:
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer Edit
After Weldon's assertions were disputed, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a member of the Able Danger team, identified himself as Weldon's source. Shaffer claimed that he alerted the FBI in September 2000 about the information uncovered by the secret military unit "Able Danger", but he alleges three meetings he set up with bureau officials were blocked by military lawyers. Shaffer, who at the time worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency, claims he communicated to members of the 9/11 Commission that Able Danger had identified two of the three cells responsible for 9/11 prior to the attacks, but the Commission did not include this information in their final report.[27]
Shaffer specifically states that in Jan 2000, Able Danger data-mining revealed the existence of a 'Brooklyn' Al-Qaeda cell connected to the "Blind Sheik" Omar Abdel-Rahman, as well as two other cells overseas. Shaffer & Philpott examined this chart of Al Qaeda suspected operatives, containing names & photos, and Philpott pointed out one particular sinister and "scary looking dude" -- Mohammed Atta.[9]
Shaffer's lawyer, Mark Zaid, has revealed that Shaffer had been placed on paid administrative leave for what he called "petty and frivolous" reasons and had his security clearance suspended in March 2004, following a dispute over travel mileage expenses and personal use of a work cell phone.[28] These allegations are claimed to have been pursued in bad faith & breach of process, in relation for Shaffer talking to the 9/11 Commission. Army investigations subsequently found these to be ill-grounded, and cleared his promotion.
As Lt. Col. Shaffer received a memorandum of OPCON status from Joint Task Force (JTF) 121, confirming his attachment to this element 1 November through 1 December 2004, and participating in the 75th Ranger Regiment's nighttime air assault of 11 November 2003, the controversy of his wearing the 75th Ranger Regiment patch as his "combat patch" is closed in his favor. In the Army Reserve, Lt. Col. Shaffer is now assigned as the G6 of the 94th Division (Prov), Ft. Lee, VA.
Congressman Weldon asked for a new probe into the activities undertaken to silence Lt. Col. Shaffer from publicly commenting on Able Danger and Able Danger's identification of the 9/11 hijackers. Weldon called the activities "a deliberate campaign of character assassination."[29]
Shaffer has also told the story of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) opposition to Able Danger, prior to 9/11, based on the view that Able Danger was encroaching on CIA turf. According to Shaffer, the CIA representative said, "I clearly understand. We're going after the leadership. You guys are going after the body. But, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is, CIA will never give you the best information from "Alex Base" or anywhere else. CIA will never provide that to you because if you were successful in your effort to target Al Qaeda, you will steal our thunder. Therefore, we will not support this."[30]
Navy Captain Scott Phillpott Edit
Capt. Scott Phillpott confirmed Shaffer's claims. "I will not discuss this outside of my chain of command", Phillpott said in a statement to Fox News. "I have briefed the Department of the Army, the Special Operations Command and the office of (Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence) Dr. Cambone as well as the 9/11 Commission. My story has remained consistent. Atta was identified by Able Danger in January/February 2000", he was quoted as saying.[31]
James D. Smith Edit
Shaffer's claims were also confirmed by James D. Smith, a civilian contractor who worked on Able Danger. In an interview with Fox News, Smith reported that the project had involved analysis of data from a large number of public sources and 20 to 30 individuals.[32]
Smith stated that Atta's name had emerged during an examination of individuals known to have ties to Omar Abdel Rahman, a leading figure in the first World Trade Center bombing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger
Former President Bill Clinton turned down an offer from the Sudanese government to arrest and hand over Osama bin Laden because his administration did not accept that a country regarded as a sponsor of terrorism wanted to change, a leading regional analyst believes.
After the U.S. declined to take the al Qaeda terrorist leader, Sudan sent him to Afghanistan, according to Akasha Alsayeed Akasha, a Sudanese scholar based in Nairobi.
Debate on Clinton's handling of the global terror threat has been rekindled by publication of a book called "Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror," by investigative reporter Richard Miniter.
It says the Clinton administration turned down offers by Khartoum to share intelligence information on al Qaeda operatives and to arrest bin Laden himself.
The Saudi-born terrorist, whose whereabouts are unknown, has been linked to attacks against Americans starting in 1992, including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the 1998 bombing of East African U.S. embassies, up to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Commenting on the U.S. reluctance to cooperate with Sudan in the counter-terror field, Akasha told CNSNews.com that the Clinton administration had underestimated Khartoum's determination to end relations with terrorist networks around the world.
An example of its willingness to do so, he said, was seen in Sudan's decision to hand over Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, the fugitive terrorist known as "Carlos the Jackal" to the French authorities in 1994.
Bin Laden had moved to Sudan after Saudi Arabia expelled him in 1991.
After Washington turned down the bin Laden offer in 1996, Sudan reportedly favored sending him to Saudi Arabia, but Riyadh refused to accept him, fearing he may overthrow the government, Akasha said.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...because-he-didnt-want-work-sudan-analyst-says
After the U.S. declined to take the al Qaeda terrorist leader, Sudan sent him to Afghanistan, according to Akasha Alsayeed Akasha, a Sudanese scholar based in Nairobi.
Debate on Clinton's handling of the global terror threat has been rekindled by publication of a book called "Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror," by investigative reporter Richard Miniter.
It says the Clinton administration turned down offers by Khartoum to share intelligence information on al Qaeda operatives and to arrest bin Laden himself.
The Saudi-born terrorist, whose whereabouts are unknown, has been linked to attacks against Americans starting in 1992, including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the 1998 bombing of East African U.S. embassies, up to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Commenting on the U.S. reluctance to cooperate with Sudan in the counter-terror field, Akasha told CNSNews.com that the Clinton administration had underestimated Khartoum's determination to end relations with terrorist networks around the world.
An example of its willingness to do so, he said, was seen in Sudan's decision to hand over Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, the fugitive terrorist known as "Carlos the Jackal" to the French authorities in 1994.
Bin Laden had moved to Sudan after Saudi Arabia expelled him in 1991.
After Washington turned down the bin Laden offer in 1996, Sudan reportedly favored sending him to Saudi Arabia, but Riyadh refused to accept him, fearing he may overthrow the government, Akasha said.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...because-he-didnt-want-work-sudan-analyst-says
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/clinton-passed-on-killing-bin-laden/
Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.
FULL QUESTION
Was Bill Clinton offered bin Laden on "a silver platter"? Did he refuse? Was there cause at the time?
FULL ANSWER
Let’s start with what everyone agrees on: In April 1996, Osama bin Laden was an official guest of the radical Islamic government of Sudan – a government that had been implicated in the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993. By 1996, with the international community treating Sudan as a pariah, the Sudanese government attempted to patch its relations with the United States. At a secret meeting in a Rosslyn, Va., hotel, the Sudanese minister of state for defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, met with CIA operatives, where, among other things, they discussed Osama bin Laden.
It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower," flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa’s claims were not in fact present for the meeting.
Wright and the 9/11 Commission do agree that the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. One Clinton security official told The Washington Post that they had "a fantasy" that the Saudi government would quietly execute bin Laden. When the Saudis refused bin Laden’s return, Clinton officials convinced the Sudanese simply to expel him, hoping that the move would at least disrupt bin Laden’s activities.
Much of the controversy stems from claims that President Clinton made in a February 2002 speech and then retracted in his 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In the 2002 speech Clinton seems to admit that the Sudanese government offered to turn over bin Laden:
Clinton: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got – well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.
Clinton later claimed to have misspoken and stated that there had never been an offer to turn over bin Laden. It is clear, however, that Berger, at least, did consider the possibility of bringing bin Laden to the U.S., but, as he told The Washington Post in 2001, "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." According to NewsMax.com, Berger later emphasized in an interview with WABC Radio that, while administration officials had discussed whether or not they had ample evidence to indict bin Laden, that decision "was not pursuant to an offer by the Sudanese."
So on one side, we have Clinton administration officials who say that there were no credible offers on the table, and on the other, we have claims by a Sudanese government that was (and still is) listed as an official state sponsor of terrorism. It’s possible, of course, that both sides are telling the truth: It could be that Erwa did make an offer, but the offer was completely disingenuous. What is clear is that the 9/11 Commission report totally discounts the Sudanese claims. Unless further evidence arises, that has to be the final word.
Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.
We have to be careful about engaging in what historians call "Whig history," which is the practice of assuming that historical figures value exactly the same things that we do today. It’s a fancy term for those "why didn’t someone just shoot Hitler in 1930?" questions that one hears in dorm-room bull sessions. The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996.
Correction: We originally answered this question with a flat ‘yes’ early this week, based on the account in "The Looming Tower," but an alert reader pointed out to us the more tangled history laid out in the 9/11 Commission report. We said flatly that Sudan had made such an offer. We have deleted our original answer and are posting this corrected version in its place.
– Joe Miller
Sources
"1996 CIA Memo to Sudanese Official." Washington Post, 3 Oct. 2001.
9/11 Commission. 9/11 Commission Report Notes. 21 Aug. 2004. 17 Jan. 2008.
9/11 Commission. "Chapter 4: Responses to al Qaeda’s Initial Assaults." 21 Aug. 2004. 9/11 Commission Report. 17 Jan. 2008.
NewsMax.com. "Berger Flashback: Hard Spin on Sudan Offer," 19 July 2004.
Clarke, Richard. Testimony before the House and Senate Intelligence Committee. Lindsey Graham, Chair. 11 June 2002.
Clinton, William. Speech to the Long Island Association. Long Island, NY, Feb. 2002.
Gellman, Barton. "U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed." Washington Post, 3 Oct. 2001.
U.S. Grand Jury Indictment Against Usama bin Laden. United States District Court: Southern District of New York. 6 Nov. 1998.
Wright, Lawrence. "The Looming Tower." New York: Vintage Books, 2006.
Categories:
Ask FactCheck
Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.
FULL QUESTION
Was Bill Clinton offered bin Laden on "a silver platter"? Did he refuse? Was there cause at the time?
FULL ANSWER
Let’s start with what everyone agrees on: In April 1996, Osama bin Laden was an official guest of the radical Islamic government of Sudan – a government that had been implicated in the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993. By 1996, with the international community treating Sudan as a pariah, the Sudanese government attempted to patch its relations with the United States. At a secret meeting in a Rosslyn, Va., hotel, the Sudanese minister of state for defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, met with CIA operatives, where, among other things, they discussed Osama bin Laden.
It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower," flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa’s claims were not in fact present for the meeting.
Wright and the 9/11 Commission do agree that the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. One Clinton security official told The Washington Post that they had "a fantasy" that the Saudi government would quietly execute bin Laden. When the Saudis refused bin Laden’s return, Clinton officials convinced the Sudanese simply to expel him, hoping that the move would at least disrupt bin Laden’s activities.
Much of the controversy stems from claims that President Clinton made in a February 2002 speech and then retracted in his 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In the 2002 speech Clinton seems to admit that the Sudanese government offered to turn over bin Laden:
Clinton: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got – well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.
Clinton later claimed to have misspoken and stated that there had never been an offer to turn over bin Laden. It is clear, however, that Berger, at least, did consider the possibility of bringing bin Laden to the U.S., but, as he told The Washington Post in 2001, "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." According to NewsMax.com, Berger later emphasized in an interview with WABC Radio that, while administration officials had discussed whether or not they had ample evidence to indict bin Laden, that decision "was not pursuant to an offer by the Sudanese."
So on one side, we have Clinton administration officials who say that there were no credible offers on the table, and on the other, we have claims by a Sudanese government that was (and still is) listed as an official state sponsor of terrorism. It’s possible, of course, that both sides are telling the truth: It could be that Erwa did make an offer, but the offer was completely disingenuous. What is clear is that the 9/11 Commission report totally discounts the Sudanese claims. Unless further evidence arises, that has to be the final word.
Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.
We have to be careful about engaging in what historians call "Whig history," which is the practice of assuming that historical figures value exactly the same things that we do today. It’s a fancy term for those "why didn’t someone just shoot Hitler in 1930?" questions that one hears in dorm-room bull sessions. The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996.
Correction: We originally answered this question with a flat ‘yes’ early this week, based on the account in "The Looming Tower," but an alert reader pointed out to us the more tangled history laid out in the 9/11 Commission report. We said flatly that Sudan had made such an offer. We have deleted our original answer and are posting this corrected version in its place.
– Joe Miller
Sources
"1996 CIA Memo to Sudanese Official." Washington Post, 3 Oct. 2001.
9/11 Commission. 9/11 Commission Report Notes. 21 Aug. 2004. 17 Jan. 2008.
9/11 Commission. "Chapter 4: Responses to al Qaeda’s Initial Assaults." 21 Aug. 2004. 9/11 Commission Report. 17 Jan. 2008.
NewsMax.com. "Berger Flashback: Hard Spin on Sudan Offer," 19 July 2004.
Clarke, Richard. Testimony before the House and Senate Intelligence Committee. Lindsey Graham, Chair. 11 June 2002.
Clinton, William. Speech to the Long Island Association. Long Island, NY, Feb. 2002.
Gellman, Barton. "U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed." Washington Post, 3 Oct. 2001.
U.S. Grand Jury Indictment Against Usama bin Laden. United States District Court: Southern District of New York. 6 Nov. 1998.
Wright, Lawrence. "The Looming Tower." New York: Vintage Books, 2006.
Categories:
Ask FactCheck
Lol Clinton admits in that very article that he could have taken him but didn't:
Clinton: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got – well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.
The assertion that he had committed no crime against us is an overt lie he was responsible for the 93 WTC bombing and had declared war on the US in a fatwa in August of 96!
Last edited: