If 99 people tell you a truth you don't want to hear, are you going to listen to that one guy whose "reality" matches your bias? If you're a right-winger, you'll focus on that one guy. And there's always a guy.
Sean Hannity still repeats the fabricated story that Sudan offered Osama Bin Laden's head to Bill Clinton. The sole source for this yarn was "a Pakistani-American named Mansoor Ijaz, an investment banker with a big stake in Sudanese oil." Fox News later hired him to pretend to be a foreign affairs analyst.
There's always that one guy...
A right-wing conspiracy theory holds that American forces did find WDMs in Iraq. Unfortunately, both the W administration and the Satanic Liberal Conspiracy have joined forces to hide the truth. The only "evidence" for the theory comes from one AFOSI guy named Dave Gaubatz.
There's always that one guy...
Last time those happy funsters at AFOSI came to my attention, they were peddling nutty yarns about captured flying saucers. Near as I could tell, they did so purely as a test to see which disinformation tactics work best. Here's the prob, Davey: When Col. Hennessey and the rest of his smart-alecks played those silly games, they didn't make life easy for everyone else coming out of AFOSI, credibility-wise. Sorry...!
2 comments:
sofla said...
While I know what you mean about the right wingers and that one guy, there may be more truth to this story than you grant it.
My understanding is that the 9-11 Commission said there was no evidence that any Sudanese OFFICIAL had made a formal tender or proffer of OBL to Clinton on behalf of the official Sudanese government.
That doesn't rule out all entreaties that effectively entailed the same thing, it seems to me (only denying a narrow category of such offers), and indeed, Clinton himself has given a slightly different version of the story in public remarks. So perhaps, CLINTON is that 'one guy'?
What did he say? He said that although an offer to turn over OBL had been made from Sudan (he didn't specify if by official or non-official channels), there would have been no basis in law for OBL to be charged or tried, and therefore, by the rule of law prior to the Bush doctrine of indefinite or permanent imprisonment without charges, Clinton would have been forced (if he followed the law) to eventually, and sooner than later, RELEASE OBL. (So, clearly, he shouldn't take him if that would be the inevitable outcome).
Therefore, as CLINTON HIMSELF tells the story, he pressured the Saudis to take him into custody on our behalf, if you will, and despite strenuous and repeated efforts along those lines, they declined.
That is the story that Clinton has narrated in public about these events.
It is not QUITE the story that the right wants to tell, but SORTA IS! At least, their version is closer to the Clinton version than I'm taking YOURS to be, Joe.
I do not claim to be an ace investigator, and more or less by accident (ok, by listening, haltingly and painfully, to the Sean Insanity program!), I happened to hear audio from Clinton giving this version of the story.
A stronger SOUNDING denial can be cobbled together (no SUDANESE GOVERNMENT AGENT ever offered him to Clinton), but in the light of Clinton's own words, the offer WAS indeed credibly made (by other, related parties, who fall outside the official government agent category).
This 'one-bridge-too-far' denial, sounding like NO offer was made, despite Clinton's fairly detailed explanation of exactly such an offer, is like the CIA denying involvement by saying 'no CIA officer was involve,' but neglecting to deny (because it was true) that a CIA CONTACT AGENT was involved.'
I hope this makes your cut, because I'm interested in your response.
[If it doesn't would you please e-mail your response to pschuman@bellsouth.net? And omit this last parenthetical request if you publish the comment? Thanks in advance!)
sofla said...
Ok, this is the way the WaPost described it:
U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed
Sudan's Offer to Arrest Militant Fell Through After Saudis Said No
By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 3, 2001; Page A01
The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.
The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.
------------------
This account reconciles the two different story lines here, I think.
That is, it seems true that Sudan offered to arrest bin Laden and turn them over to the Saudis (not to the US), and that this offer came not from any Sudan official, but a backchannel person, going (privately) between the Sudan president and the CIA.
However, at the same time, this doesn't appear to mean bin Laden wasn't available to the US if we'd wanted him to be. Or else, this offer, supposedly ONLY to the third party country, could not have occasioned the consideration of the US's taking him into custody-- AS IT APPARENTLY DID.
Both the reporting in this WaPost piece and the Clinton remarks detail the considerations of the US government, Clinton, the FBI, et al., as to whether we'd want to take OBL ourselves. If this were not a live option at the time, that whole discussion would have been moot. It appears it was indeed a live option, which is why Clinton mentioned the issues WITH taking him into custody into the US.
Post a Comment