Newly released 9-11 documents show missed opportunities to get OBL

CaféAuLait

This Space for Rent
Oct 29, 2008
7,777
1,971
245
Pacific Northwest
On December 20, 1998..Scheuer replies to Schoen the following day. "This is the third time you and your officers have put UBL in this government's sights and they have balked each time at doing the job. ... They spent a good deal of time yesterday worrying that some stray shapnel might hit the Habash mosque and 'offend' Muslims."


Another memo from Scheuer, in May 1999, complained: "For the past forty months the CIA, and especially the do (Directorate of Operations) has been in this endeavor virtually alone. ... until the african bombings [of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998] the u.s. military did not believe that ubl was a problem."

"Having a chance to get ubl three times in 36 hours and foregoing the chance each time has made me a bit angry," he writes.

Declassified documents shed light on scramble to 'hit' bin Laden before 9/11 – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

Yet somehow it was all Bush's fault? :confused:
 
Last edited:
This isn't new info. Clinton refused, more than once, when the military literally had UBL in their gun sights. And I do mean literally... in the fucking crosshairs... and he would not give the order.

I do not hold Clinton responsible for 9/11... but if the left want to play the 'blame game'... he's your guy.
 
This isn't new info. Clinton refused, more than once, when the military literally had UBL in their gun sights. And I do mean literally... in the fucking crosshairs... and he would not give the order.

I do not hold Clinton responsible for 9/11... but if the left want to play the 'blame game'... he's your guy.

Not only that, but he Sudan I think it was basically had him once, and offered him up to us, and Clinton's Retarded Response was that he didn't think Legally we could take him.

LOL
 
This isn't new info. Clinton refused, more than once, when the military literally had UBL in their gun sights. And I do mean literally... in the fucking crosshairs... and he would not give the order.

I do not hold Clinton responsible for 9/11... but if the left want to play the 'blame game'... he's your guy.

I know it's now new info, however the documents have just been released instead of just being cited in the 9-11 report. Prior to this no one, other than government officials had seen them and in some cases many questioned if they were real, in a hyper partisan effort to blame Bush.
 
This isn't new info. Clinton refused, more than once, when the military literally had UBL in their gun sights. And I do mean literally... in the fucking crosshairs... and he would not give the order.

I do not hold Clinton responsible for 9/11... but if the left want to play the 'blame game'... he's your guy.

Not only that, but he Sudan I think it was basically had him once, and offered him up to us, and Clinton's Retarded Response was that he didn't think Legally we could take him.

LOL

Yea, I think you're right... certainly one of the sub-Saharan countries had him and SaxBoy in the White House say 'thanks but no thanks'. Shame. We coulda saved a lot of lives.
 
This is old news. Clinton dropped the ball for various reasons, Bush was unable to get him, and Obama finally got him.

Bush didn't really want to get him... because we needed to deal with Afghanistan first... we needed an excuse to go in and knock them into submission first. This is not about a pissing contest between Presidents.... even though the left want it to be. International affairs are always far more complex than partisan twits make them out to be.
 
By 1999, the Counterterrorism Center at the CIA had built up an impressive database on al Qaeda, and developed a healthy respect for its growing capabilities and meticulous planning. An internal study produced after the embassy attacks showed that al Qaeda had begun preparations to bomb the Nairobi mission fully five years before the actual attack. And a report in January 1999 — widely circulated within the Clinton administration — described al Qaeda as similar to a "global criminal syndicate" with a complex organizational structure and a presence in some 60 countries.

The search for bin Laden wasn't immune from the cycle of politics and budgets, either. In May 2000, the head of the bin Laden unit warned: "Need forward movement on supplemental soonest due to expected early [Congressional] recess due to conventions, campaigning and elections. Due to budgetary constraints ... CTC/UBL [Counterterrorism Center/Osama bin Laden Unit] will move from offensive to defensive posture."

Eyeah.."Clinton's" fault.

Republican congress would not let covert units engage Al Qaeda because the CIA would not verify that Osama Bin Laden was behind the Cole.

And actually? They were to busy trying to impeach him..while laughing about attempts on Bin Ladens life using what Congress left him..missiles.
 
This is old news. Clinton dropped the ball for various reasons, Bush was unable to get him, and Obama finally got him.

More like Obama happened to be the one in the White House when the CIA finally had put all the pieces in place.
 
By 1999, the Counterterrorism Center at the CIA had built up an impressive database on al Qaeda, and developed a healthy respect for its growing capabilities and meticulous planning. An internal study produced after the embassy attacks showed that al Qaeda had begun preparations to bomb the Nairobi mission fully five years before the actual attack. And a report in January 1999 — widely circulated within the Clinton administration — described al Qaeda as similar to a "global criminal syndicate" with a complex organizational structure and a presence in some 60 countries.

The search for bin Laden wasn't immune from the cycle of politics and budgets, either. In May 2000, the head of the bin Laden unit warned: "Need forward movement on supplemental soonest due to expected early [Congressional] recess due to conventions, campaigning and elections. Due to budgetary constraints ... CTC/UBL [Counterterrorism Center/Osama bin Laden Unit] will move from offensive to defensive posture."

Eyeah.."Clinton's" fault.

Republican congress would not let covert units engage Al Qaeda because the CIA would not verify that Osama Bin Laden was behind the Cole.

And actually? They were to busy trying to impeach him..while laughing about attempts on Bin Ladens life using what Congress left him..missiles.

Damn, you really can be quite a sucker, huh?
 
when Clinton did try to get OBL do you remember what the right said about it?



wag the dog
 
This isn't new info. Clinton refused, more than once, when the military literally had UBL in their gun sights. And I do mean literally... in the fucking crosshairs... and he would not give the order.

I do not hold Clinton responsible for 9/11... but if the left want to play the 'blame game'... he's your guy.

Not only that, but he Sudan I think it was basically had him once, and offered him up to us, and Clinton's Retarded Response was that he didn't think Legally we could take him.

LOL

Yea, I think you're right... certainly one of the sub-Saharan countries had him and SaxBoy in the White House say 'thanks but no thanks'. Shame. We coulda saved a lot of lives.

I do not hold Clinton responsible for 9/11... but if the left want to play the 'blame game'... he's your guy.

contradiction.
 
The first attack on the World Trade Center happened on Clinton's watch and he called it a "foolish act by foolish people" and then went back under the desk with Monica. Clinton's A.G. told members of the CIA and FBI not to share information or risk arrest. The 9-11 terrorists, some of which were in the US illegally, were attending flight school under the noses of the FBI and CIA and every other phony intelligence agency. Clinton was offered Bin Ladin on a silver platter and declined.
 

Forum List

Back
Top