CLINTON AND BIN LADEN

Is it possible for the New York Times to report a story without asserting a liberal bias?

No.

In the Times, when writing about the early warnings the Clinton administration received on Osama bin Laden, Eric Lichtblau attempts to do damage control for what happened on Bill's watch.

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.

That first paragraph is straightforward enough, but then the spin begins.

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.

Notice how Judicial Watch is cited as a "conservative" advocacy group. That's code for "beware of a vast right-wing conspiracy."

The documents deal with that "murky" time when Clinton's administration was struggling to understand how dangerous bin Laden was and trying to figure out what to do about him. In effect, the Times gives Clinton a pass. He didn't ignore the threat. He was actively pondering it.

Right.

We know that no liberal publication gives Bush an inch on anything. The President is pummeled day in and day out. Meanwhile, the Times and the lib media work to present the Clinton presidency as Camelot II.

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.

Grudgingly, the Times admits there is proof that Clinton was aware of the bin Laden threat; but it finds no evidence that Sudan offered to hand over bin Laden.

Michael F. Scheuer, who from 1996 to 1999 led the Central Intelligence Agency unit that tracked Mr. bin Laden, said the State Department documents reflected a keen awareness of the danger posed by Mr. bin Laden's relocation.

"The analytical side of the State Department had it exactly right - that's genius analysis," he said in an interview when told of the declassified documents.

..."The thinking was that he was in Afghanistan, and he was dangerous, but because he was there, we had a better chance to kill him," Mr. Scheuer said. "But at the end of the day, we settled for the worst possibility - he was there and we didn't do anything."

Clinton's State Department gave "genius analysis."

So what?

Sorry. That doesn't cut it. Scheuer can put a happy face on things, but even he must admit that at the end of the day the Clinton administration "didn't do anything."

Judicial Watch provides a somewhat different take on the revelations of the newly declassified documents in the statement it released.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released two declassified “Top Secret” State Department documents that warned Clinton administration officials of the activities and influence of Osama bin Laden following his alleged “expulsion” from Sudan in May 1996. The documents, authored by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, discuss bin Laden’s travels, his prolonged stay in Afghanistan, financial networks, anti-Western threats in press interviews, ties to the Khobar Towers bombing and bin Laden’s “emboldened” threats against U.S. interests.

The State Department documents were produced to Judicial Watch last week in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed with the State Department on December 11, 2001 concerning the government of Sudan’s reported offer to share intelligence files on Osama bin Laden. The Clinton administration also reportedly rebuffed an offer by Sudanese officials to turn bin Laden himself over to the U.S.

According to the declassified documents, bin Laden’s many passports and his private plane allow him considerable freedom to travel “with little fear of being intercepted or tracked.” Bin Laden reportedly even traveled to London where he gave a press interview subsequent to his departure from Sudan. The report also warns that bin Laden’s prolonged stay in Afghanistan “could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum.” One analysis document, dated July 18, 1996, asks the provocative question: “Terrorism/Usama bin Ladin: Who’s Chasing Whom.”

The documents predict that even if bin Laden were forced to keep on the move, it would prove no more than an inconvenience since, “. . . his informal and transnational network of businesses and associates remains resilient.” The report goes on to explain that bin Ladin on the move, “. . .can retain the capability to support individuals and groups who have the motive and wherewithal to attack U.S. interests almost worldwide.”

“This is not a case of hindsight being 20/20,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These documents prove the Clinton administration knew the danger Osama bin Laden posed to the United States back in 1996 and yet failed to take any meaningful action to stop him.”

Do I believe that Clinton and those in his administration foresaw bin Laden's attacks on U.S. interests, culminating in the slaughter of September 11, 2001, and chose to do nothing?

Of course not.

Had Clinton and his people known what was to come, I'm one hundred percent certain they would have pursued bin Laden.

Unfortunately, they didn't. Decisions were made by the Clinton administration that allowed bin Laden and his terrorist network to flourish.

Next time you hear a lib say how the evil Bush administration policies have made us less safe, think about what kind of impact the Clinton administration had on our national security.

His administration's failure to employ an aggressive strategy to get bin Laden in the mid-1990s may prove to be one of the greatest single mistakes ever made in American history.

Read the actual Clinton State Department Documents.

Source: Judicial Watch