NOT TRUE: Sudan offer to turnover OBL

[Mickey]

The allegation that Sudan offered to turn over OBL back in 1995 and the Clinton administration refused has been treated as gospel fact by many on the right and is a charge that has been hurled around here more times than I care to remember. It was complete garbage of course but like so many of these kinds of allegations by both sides, the refutation of the groundless allegation comes too long after the charges were screeched over and over to do much good. For what it is worth, here is the final word on that piece of right wing radio crapola from the bipartisan 911 Comm.:

 

"In late 1995, when Bin Ladin was still in Sudan, the State Department and the CIA learned that Sudanese officials were discussing with the Saudi government the possibility of expelling Bin Ladin. U.S.Ambassador Timothy Carney encouraged the Sudanese to pursue this course.The Saudis, however, did not want Bin Ladin, giving as their reason their revocation of his citizenship.6 Sudan’s minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel Bin Ladin. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment out-standing.7

 

7. The CIA official who had one-on-one discussions with Erwa said that Erwa never offered to expel bin Ladin to the United States or render him to another country. Mark interview (March 12, 2004). For Carney’s instructions and the lack of a U.S. indictment, see Timothy Carney interview (Dec. 4, 2003). On the indictment issue and the supposed Sudanese offer to give up Bin Ladin, see Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004).

 

In early May 1996, the CIA received intelligence that Bin Ladin might be leaving Sudan.Though this reporting was described as “very spotty,” it would have been passed along to the DCI’s office because of high concern about Bin Ladin at the time. But it did not lead to plans for a U.S. operation to snatch Bin Ladin, because there was no indictment against him. Ron interview (Mar. 18, 2004); Frank interview (Mar. 18, 2004). It appears, however, that if another country had been willing to imprison Bin Ladin, the CIA might have tried to work out a scenario

for apprehending him. CIA cable, May 8, 1996.The Sudanese government did not notify the United States that Bin Ladin had left the country until about two days after his departure. DOS cable, Nairobi 07020,“Sudan: Foreign Minister on Developments,” May 21, 1996.

 

President Clinton, in a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association, said that the United States did not accept a Sudanese offer and take Bin Ladin because there was no indictment. President Clinton speech to the Long Island Association, Feb. 15, 2002 (videotape of speech). But the President told us that he had “misspoken” and was, wrongly, recounting a number of press stories he had read. After reviewing this matter in preparation for his Commission meeting, President Clinton told us that Sudan never offered to turn Bin Ladin over to the United States.President Clinton meeting (Apr.8, 2004). Berger told us that he saw no chance that Sudan would have handed Bin Ladin over and also noted that in 1996, the U.S. government still did not know of any al Qaeda attacks on U.S. citizens. Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004).

 

Alleged Sudanese offers to cooperate on counterterrorism have been the subject of much recent controversy. After repeatedly demanding that Sudan stop supporting terrorist groups, in 1993 the U.S. government designated

the country a state sponsor of terrorism. Diplomatic discussions continued but had little impact on Sudanese support for terrorism or on other issues, such as human rights. In the fall of 1995, the United States conducted a Sudan policy review and, supported by a vocal segment of Congress, the White House sought to pressure and isolate the Sudanese. Susan Rice interview (Jan. 9, 2004).

 

After Bin Ladin left Sudan in May 1996, some State Department officials, including Ambassador Carney, criticized the NSC’s hard-line policy, which he felt provided no “carrots” for Sudanese moderates to cooperate on counterterrorism. He also faulted the NSC for not reopening the U.S. embassy in Khartoum (closed in early 1996) when security concerns there were reevaluated. State’s Sudan desk officer agreed, noting that the embassy was an excellent vehicle for gathering information on terrorists.According to one State official, NSC policymakers’ views

were too firmly set to engage and test the Sudanese on counterterrorism.Timothy Carney interview (Dec.4,2003);David Shinn interview (Aug. 29, 2003); Stephen Schwartz interview (Dec. 30, 2003).

 

But supporters of the tough line, such as the NSC’s Susan Rice, argued that any conciliatory statements from Khartoum belied its unhelpful actions. For example, she noted, though Sudan did eventually expel Bin Ladin, his al Qaeda network retained a presence in the country. Susan Rice interview (Jan. 9, 2004). In addition, the CIA’s Africa Division, whose operatives had engaged the Sudanese on counterterrorism in early 1996, would conclude that “there is no indication that Sudanese involvement with terrorism has decreased in the past year.”They saw the Sudanese gestures toward cooperating as “tactical retreats” aimed at deceiving Washington in hopes of having sanctions removed. CIA memo,Walter to Acting DCI,“Africa Division’s Recommendations Regarding Sudan,” Dec. 17, 1996.The CIA official who ran the Sudanese portfolio and met with the Sudanese on numerous occasions told us the Sudanese were not going to deliver, and the perceived moderates “were just flat-out lying.” Mark interview (May 12, 2004).

 

In February 1997, the Sudanese sent letters to President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright, extending an invitation for a U.S. counterterrorism inspection mission to visit Sudan.The Sudanese also used private U.S. citizens to pass along offers to cooperate. Mansoor Ijaz interview (May 7, 2004); Janet McElligot interview (Oct. 20, 2003). But these offers were dismissed because the NSC viewed Sudan as all talk and little action. U.S. officials also feared that the Sudanese would exploit any positive American responses, including trips to the region by U.S. officials, for their own political purposes. See Joint Inquiry interview of David Williams, June 26, 2002.Today, Sudan is still listed as a state sponsor of terrorism."

[IUBillsFan]

Berger told us that he saw no chance that Sudan would have handed Bin Ladin over and also noted that in 1996, the U.S. government still did not know of any al Qaeda attacks on U.S. citizens. Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004).

 

Maybe the info that proved Clinton right were some of the docs that ended up in Sandy's pants...

[swede316]

This s the first time I've ever heard of this..and believe me I'm in the know.

[Wacka]

I guess that Clinton is lying to his own party in the tape of him at a demo fundraiser where he said he was offered OBL 3 times but "had nothing to hold him on" and that he tried to get Saudia Arabia to take OBL.

I have heard this tape numerous times. Clinton has never said that it wasn't him on the tape.

[RkFast]

So?

 

Clinton STILL did not do enough to combat terrorism. His response to the Khobar Towers bombing, the Cole Bombing and the Somalia Massacre were PRIMARY reasons why bin Laden did 9/11 as said by bin Laden himself.

[Mickey]

I guess that Clinton is lying to his own party in the tape of him at a demo fundraiser where he said he was offered OBL 3 times but "had nothing to hold him on" and that he tried to get Saudia Arabia to take OBL.

I have heard this tape numerous times. Clinton has never said that it wasn't him on the tape.

94228[/snapback]

You know better than the commission. Why should I get the facts from a bipartisan group who took an oath and investigated all the evidence for months and months when I can get them from an anonymous poster on the internet?

 

Clinton was speaking off the cuff about events that occurred 6 or 7 years beforehand without a chance to review any thing written besides stories then being written about Erwa's claims. Of course, I suppose the CIA officer involved who actually interviewed Erwa could be lying. I suppose the bipartisan commission could be on the take.

 

Give it up.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

You know better than the commission.  Why should I get the facts from a bipartisan group who took an oath and investigated all the evidence for months and months when I can get them from an anonymous poster on the internet?

 

Clinton was speaking off the cuff about events that occurred 6 or 7 years beforehand without a chance to review any thing written besides stories then being written about Erwa's claims.  Of course, I suppose the CIA officer involved who actually interviewed Erwa could be lying.  I suppose the bipartisan commission could be on the take. 

 

Give it up.

94275[/snapback]

 

What a tool you've become. Descending to Tenny/blzrul levels more and more everyday.

[Terry Tate]

I don't like the "well, he said it, but he mispoke" defense - the left would never allow that type of thing to fly with a republican. In Bill Clinton's own words:

 

"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."

 

Bill Clinton at the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002

 

Listen to the audio here.

 

RECOGNIZE that Sudan was absolutely full of crap in their dealings with us, and it's unlikely that they would have been handing him over that easily.

 

IMO, what this issue drives home for me is the extreme difficulties that arise when dealing with terrorism as a law enforcement issue. What we really needed at the time was to have Saudi Arabia jail him (like THAT was going to happen), and then work on proceedings to bring him here. When he went to Afghanistan, the Taliban was obviously not going to do this either, so from a legal standpoint, we were pretty helpless.

 

So I believe Bill Clinton when he says there was no deal presented - but that's the problem with the approach at the time.

[gmac17]

Mickey,

 

What are your thoughts on the Clinton audio? I understand the 9/11 commission findings, but it seems as though there is more to it. Why would clinton say that?

 

And if the 9/11 commission is the official gospel there are a number of people who need to apologize about the uranium in africa stuff....

[Alaska Darin]

I guess that Clinton is lying to his own party in the tape of him at a demo fundraiser where he said he was offered OBL 3 times but "had nothing to hold him on" and that he tried to get Saudia Arabia to take OBL.

I have heard this tape numerous times. Clinton has never said that it wasn't him on the tape.

94228[/snapback]

Well, Clinton is a known liar...