Documents Show State Department Warned Clinton About Bin Laden

[dotcoma]

Fox News Article http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166004,00.html
The Documents http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2005/Usama.pdf

The State Department warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Usama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him more fertile ground to spread radical Islam, according to newly declassified documents. The documents, released by the legal advocacy group Judicial Watch on Wednesday, say that bin Laden would feel comfortable moving from Sudan to Afghanistan, which "has become an even more desirable location for extremists. Afghanistan may be an ideal haven as long as bin Laden can continue to run his businesses and financial networks." In the top-secret assessments that summer, State Department intelligence analysts said bin Laden's "prolonged stay in Afghanistan — where hundreds of 'Arab mujahedeen' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate — could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum" in Sudan. Bin Laden was becoming an "increasingly confident" militant leader, as seen in press interviews, the intelligence analysts said in the documents, and they "could foreshadow future support for terrorist attacks against UK and French interests." At that time, the Saudi-born bin Laden was viewed as more of a financier of terror rather than a ringleader; the State Department assessment came a year before bin Laden publicly urged Muslims to attack the United States. The documents also show that intelligence analysts even then believed that bin Laden may have played a role in the Khobar Towers bombings just a month earlier. In that attack, a truck bomb destroyed an apartment building in the Khobar Towers military housing complex near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 20 people, mostly U.S. service members, and wounding 372.

Easy to have 20/20 hindsight as they say, but I think the government really messed up when they ignored this growing hive of fundementalism in Afghanistan.

[Matt W]

Errr...what, exactly, was that missile shot at bin Laden? A 'friendly knock'?

[PatrickHenry]

Interesting book that tells the entire "official story" from the Soviet invasion up until September 10, 2001: Ghost Wars by Steve Coll. Very detailed and informative, if unwitting of the huge conspiracy behind 9/11. Pulitzer Prize winner, 2005. Everyone should read it.

[Trotsky]

Yes, the truely unbiased Fox news......hmmmmmm do the State Dept have an official statement regarding this? With a reputable source like Reuters or the BBC?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Trotsky Yes, the truely unbiased Fox news......hmmmmmm do the State Dept have an official statement regarding this? With a reputable source like Reuters or the BBC?

The Judicial Watch link pretty much confirms the story. Judicial Watch is a government watch dog like the Brookings Institute. I really doubt you are going to find them revising the story for easy digestion.

[Trotsky]

Quote by: Milton Bradley The Judicial Watch link pretty much confirms the story. Judicial Watch is a government watch dog like the Brookings Institute. I really doubt you are going to find them revising the story for easy digestion.

Thats all I need to know!

[righthand]

[center]Government Health Warning - Judicial Watch ...Government Health Warning - Judicial Watch[/center]

This should be on any story from fox news. This is particularly so when no none else is carrying the story.

When I first saw this posting, I had two reactions. The first was a genuine reaction that didn't everyone know this already. Then I realized that this was akin to West Wing reaction to the real Downing Street Minutes/Memo, where they claimed that this - the Memo - was old news, not worth commenting on, so no story. It took the glorious 'majors' two weeks to catch up with the rest of the country. This was the ultimate proof the compliant 'majors' were in effect government agencies. the Newsweek Koran spoof was another setup to demand absolute compliance.

I have a clear recall of how Clinton had been very worried about Osama bin Laden. How the man tasked with watching him was fobbed off when he tried to warn the incoming bush administration, as was his job. Clinton played down statements blaming bush for 9/11. The incomers had treated even government officials as if they were tainted, by not accepting updates on Osama. In the blame game for 9/11, this eventually will be the biggest sin that georgie will be remembered for when the dust settles after his time. Icon, bush tries badly to play golf while ...

My second reaction was this was a planted story on ice awaiting its moment. Hey presto, that Sheehan bitch, she's hogging the news. Get her. Find some family bimbo to bad mouth her. And here's a story we've being keeping in reserve. Get onto that Judicial Watch gang, we pay them enough. Get them to issue a press release about Clinton. That will shut them up.

The other 'majors' have seen this all before. They've been burnt before by the Judicial Watch gang. They cannot say anything but sing dumb. Their silence is compliance.

Of course, the sinister purpose behind this is not only the fox item. As we saw on 'Latest News', as intended they infected probably every forum, blog, web site, anything with their fox-light mindless postings to deflect away from what should have been the forums hottest story. TG, very few took the bait. By even posting real alternatives to kill it, the effect is to keep it from sinking. The real point is can it happen again!

Evidence?

Judicial Watch: Fake News, Real News Things are only beginning to get interesting in the debate surrounding John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court. There was a great editorial in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday entitled, "Nefarious Ties" about the Washington Post's breathless, front-page article accusing (?!) Roberts of belonging to the Federalist Society. This subversive group, says the Journal (quoting the Post): "was founded in l982 by conservatives who disagreed with the leftist tilt in the nation's law schools. The group sponsors legal symposia and similar activities and serves as a network for rising conservative lawyers." It really is just so silly. It's not like it was the Hitler Youth. Are you shocked? We are, but only by the reaction of the Post.

Funding In 2002, Judicial Watch received $1.1 million from The Carthage Foundation and a further $400,000 from The Sarah Scaife Foundation. The year before the Scaife Foundation had given $1.35 million and Carthage $500,000. In all, between 1997 and 2002, Judicial Watch received $7,069,500 (unadjusted for inflation) in 19 grants from a handful of foundations including. The bulk of this funding came from just three foundations � the Sarah Scaife Foundation, The Carthage Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.

Activities Although at one point Judicial Watch was held in high public regard, it is now generally viewed by the public as a Conservative front organization attempting to pursue an openly right-wing agenda. Judicial Watch often speaks out on issues not pertaining to the Judiciary. The group claims it monitors the Judicial branch of the United States government for corruption, and what it views as unconstitutional behavior. However, Judicial Watch's statements and activities indicate a right-wing bias, compared to that of nonpartisan groups like Annenberg Political Fact Check (| factcheck.org). The group usually aligns with the United States Republican party and the Bush Administration or criticizes it from the right. A sample of Judicial Watch activities taken on July 26, 2005 include: Suing the town of Herndon, Virginia to stop a "day laborer" program on the grounds that it may provide employment for illegal aliens. Suing the U.S. Senate to disallow the filibuster in their debates over confirmation of judicial nominees, coinciding with proposed efforts by

I'm an Irishman. I never heard of Judicial Watch before today. Is the poster of this thread asking me to accept that the background these leeches was unknown to him. An .8 sec Google produced the above damming info. If I wasn't suspicious of the story I would not have Goggled. How many were conned by this plant by fox news.

[center]I DO NOT EXPECT TO GET CONNED BY VOLCONVO 'LATEST NEWS' [/center]
I VALUE 'Latest News' HIGHLY. It's a GREAT idea. I'd bet that I got the detail of the format wrong more than most. Maybe I use it more than most. It has been said.All but once, I was wrong and learnt. Onetime I used Reuters and went to Miscellaneous. I would not dream of putting into the Forum any story that I had suspicions of, never mind into 'Latest News'. Then this.

I fell very bad about this abuse of 'Latest News'.