Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clinton Nixed OBL Indictment for Black Hawk Down
NewsMax.com ^ | 5/03/04 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Posted on 05/03/2004 10:07:09 AM PDT by kattracks

The Clinton administration prepared a secret indictment of Osama bin Laden in 1995 in connection with the Black Hawk Down attack two years before, but never filed it - a witness before the 9/11 Commission is set to testify on Friday.

"[U.S. Attorney for New York's Southern District] Mary Jo White was already working on a secret indictment against bin Laden as early as the late part of 1995," Clinton administration diplomatic troubleshooter Mansoor Ijaz told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg on Sunday.

Clinton officials, said Ijaz, had "evidence in their hands" implicating bin Laden in the Oct. 1993 Mogadishu attack that killed 18 U.S. Army Rangers.

But they "weren't willing to use it to seek an indictment," he insisted.

Ijaz, who is scheduled to testify before the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors, said the investigation needs to focus on the question, "What caused that indictment not to be handed down?"

As early as 1994, said Ijaz, Sudanese officials had "made it clear [to U.S. officials] that they had very strong indications that bin Laden was closely behind and involved with the Mogadishu terrorist operations."

"At that time [the Clinton administration wasn't] willing to open all of that up," Ijaz maintained.

"But when the early 1996 decision came from the Sudanese to send their defense minister over [to negotiate bin Laden's extradition to the U.S.], there was no question that the Clinton administration was made very clear that bin Laden had casual ties in real terms to the group that killed our 18 [Rangers] in Black Hawk Down."

"Had they been able to take advantage of [Sudan's 1994 offer to share intelligence on bin Laden], the Clinton Justice Department could have indicted bin Laden, which would have enabled them to bring him to the United States," Ijaz contended.

In 2002, President Clinton confirmed to a New York business group that Sudan had indeed offered to extradite bin Laden, but explained, "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."

But Ijaz said he personally briefed Clinton on Sudanese evidence of bin Laden's involvement in the Mogadishu attack.

"I took it directly to the president," he told Malzberg. "I put it on the table. I did it because the Sudanese were only able to do it at the lower levels of our government because nobody wanted to listen to them."

"And one of the things I'm going to tell the 9/11 Commission next Friday," the one-time White House operative warned, "is precisely what happened in my conversation with Bill Clinton personally, where I told him these things were possible - and what he said to me."

Though Ijaz has said he hopes to eventually testify in public, he's not leaving it up to the 9/11 Commission to get the word out.

"It's going to shock the nation when I bring all this out in a book - precisely how ignorant these people were about what they were doing," he told Malzberg.

Get Steve Malzberg's exclusive NewsMax.com column emailed directly to you at www.newsmax.com/malzberg.



TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911commission; clintonfailures; clintonlegacy; coverup; impeachedx42; whitewash; x42
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last

1 posted on 05/03/2004 10:07:09 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ALOHA RONNIE
Don't miss this.
2 posted on 05/03/2004 10:08:23 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eaker
"OBL" ping
3 posted on 05/03/2004 10:09:46 AM PDT by thackney (Life is Fragile, Handle with Prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"It's going to shock the nation when I bring all this out in a book - precisely how ignorant these people were about what they were doing," he told Malzberg.

I too am stunned by how incompetent the Clinton administration was.

4 posted on 05/03/2004 10:12:06 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Arkancide
5 posted on 05/03/2004 10:18:26 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Only difference between the liberals and the Nazis is that the liberals love the Communists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I wonder what else is under that rug.
6 posted on 05/03/2004 10:19:48 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: kattracks
Why isn't Ijaz testifying in public? What doesn't the witch hunt committee want the public to hear?
8 posted on 05/03/2004 10:21:09 AM PDT by kevkrom (The John Kerry Songbook: www.imakrom.com/kerrysongs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
If nothing else, this might tell us that Clinton had OBL on the wrong side of the "wall". If he was in the "criminal" side, then info developed about his terrorist intentions could not be communicated to the intelligence people.
9 posted on 05/03/2004 10:22:47 AM PDT by Henk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Bump!! Dynamite-- if it only gets some legs!!
10 posted on 05/03/2004 10:22:59 AM PDT by BobFromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
Mansour needs to stay away from parks and small aircraft until several copies of his book are stashed with a number of people. Of course, one guy (Jerry Parks?) was gunned down driving in Arkansas.
11 posted on 05/03/2004 10:24:17 AM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
.

MONSOOR IJAZ gets PRIVATE 9/11 Testimony, demands IN PUBLIC

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1117043/posts







Remember the Lost and Suffering on September 11, 2001

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33

.

12 posted on 05/03/2004 10:26:02 AM PDT by ALOHA RONNIE (Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.LZXRAY.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
I agree with you about the appearance of the Clinton administration's incompetence. However, I offer two other possibilities as to why he might not be too eager to get OBL.

1. He is a married politician who cannot keep his britches up. That simple fact makes him a very inviting target for blackmail. Because of the consequences, it's never "just about sex" for someone in his position.

2. Saddam was spreading lots of money around with the UN's corrupted Oil for Food program. The dollar amounts are staggering and I would not be a bit surprised to find Clinton getting some of that money. If he would take some "campaign donations" from the Chicoms, then why not from Saddam? Taking out OBL wouldn't keep Saddam's money coming in, either directly to Clinton or to his buddies.

Just some thoughts...

13 posted on 05/03/2004 10:27:38 AM PDT by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
But.. Bubba Slick said he didn't accept the offer of Osama on a platter because as of 1996 Osama hadn't yet committed a crime against the US.
Bubba can only say that if he feels the deaths of US servicemen by terrorism is not a crime.
14 posted on 05/03/2004 10:27:51 AM PDT by Darksheare (Fortune for the day: I call upon the gods of STERNO and MATCHLIGHT to take care of the evil DUers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Ijaz's general point about the incompetence of the last administration is a good one, but on this issue I don't see what the big deal is.

If the Clinton administration had handed down a criminal indictment in the aftermath of Somalia, I think everyone who lurks on this site would have been f#&%ing outraged.

15 posted on 05/03/2004 10:29:12 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Why am I not surprised?
16 posted on 05/03/2004 10:30:30 AM PDT by Wneighbor (Texas. Land of opportunity! No restrictor plates here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Why was dear Billy protecting the KLA in Kosovo? Why did Gorelick destroy domestic security a month before the Oklahoma City bombing? Why did Billy refuse to arrest bin Laden? Why, indeed.

Is the Socialist Internationale working with the terrorists?

17 posted on 05/03/2004 10:30:49 AM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
when I bring all this out in a book

As much as we WANT to believe the worst about the Clintons, I think we should show the same reservations as some of the hacks who are writing books to smear President Bush. This could be just so much trash.

18 posted on 05/03/2004 10:32:00 AM PDT by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dark Wing
ping
19 posted on 05/03/2004 10:39:08 AM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Henk
Is this why Gorelich refused recommendations to change policy concerning the "wall"?

(New) Memos show Gorelick involvement in 'wall'

20 posted on 05/03/2004 10:43:17 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"And one of the things I'm going to tell the 9/11 Commission next Friday," the one-time White House operative warned, "is precisely what happened in my conversation with Bill Clinton personally, where I told him these things were possible - and what he said to me."

And what what Clinton's answer???

21 posted on 05/03/2004 10:43:24 AM PDT by Mo1 (Make Michael Moore cry.... DONATE MONTHLY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Who's got a link to the "If Osama Was A Piece of Ass Clinton Wiould Have Nailed Him" sign?

That should be a regular feature of these "Clinton Helped OBL Get Off" threads.

22 posted on 05/03/2004 10:46:08 AM PDT by Doctor Raoul (How can they call it a "Peace March" when they unconditionally support those who kill our soldiers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Not to worry. This won't get much mention in
The Gorelick-Clinton Report

You know, the final report to be issued by the 9-11 Commission, named after the author
and editor of the final report, respectively.
23 posted on 05/03/2004 10:47:37 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun; Carl/NewsMax; leadpenny; VOA; Fred Mertz; kristinn; miss print; Clinton Is Scum; ..
.

NEVER FORGET


My fellow Battle of IA DRANG-1965 Veteran RICK RESCORLA was known as 'The Last Man Out' after his getting everyone else out of Tower 2 after its 1993 Bombing.

RICK RESCORLA went back up a Tower 2 for his final sweep for stragglers on the morning of 9/11, just like he did in 1993, knowing that this time it would probably come crashing down on him and it did.

The very next day MONSOOR IJAZ was on the FoX News Channel stating that the previous day's Terrorist Attacks could have been prevented if only CLINTON White House had not refused the 3 Offers he had brokered with the Sudan during the 1990's to give us OSAMA bin LADEN on a silver platter.

At week's end it was announced on our "WE WERE SOLDIERS ONCE and YOUNG" webstite..

http://www.lzxray.com

that RICK RESCORLA was Missing In Action at the World Trade Center.

And I hit the roof ...and immediately got on National Talk Radio and online to tell the American People:

"Don't you dare let the CLINTONS get away with THIS one"..!!!

That WEEK THAT WAS began with the death of my own father 2 days before the 9/11 Attacks.


My only concern now is ..what kind of new Terrorist Attacks are coming our way with MONSOOR IJAZ finally getting his day in the sun against BILL CLINTON..?


Pray and Prepare.



Signed:.."ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer / Veteran-"WE WERE SOLDIERS" Battle of IA DRANG-1965

http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_collection.htm
(IA DRANG-1965 Photos)


NEVER FORGET
24 posted on 05/03/2004 10:48:48 AM PDT by ALOHA RONNIE (Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.LZXRAY.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GBA
Saddam was spreading lots of money around with the UN's corrupted Oil for Food program. The dollar amounts are staggering and I would not be a bit surprised to find Clinton getting some of that money. If he would take some "campaign donations" from the Chicoms, then why not from Saddam? Taking out OBL wouldn't keep Saddam's money coming in, either directly to Clinton or to his buddies.

Just in case you missed it...

Marc Rich Tied to U.N. Oil for Food Scandal (NewsMax)

FNC reports Marc Rich tied to UN Oil for Food Scandal

BTW...it was reported on April 19, 2004 that Hollywood fundraiser Aaron Tonken will be a star witness against the Clintons in a federal grand jury probe into Mr. Clinton's Marc Rich pardon.

25 posted on 05/03/2004 10:49:12 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kattracks


Wish he were testifying in public.
26 posted on 05/03/2004 10:51:54 AM PDT by Republican Red ("I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Rich Lowry wrote in his book, "Legacy", that when Clinton came into office and brought with him the supposed "most brilliant" team of cabinet members ever assembled. I think 3 are Rhodes Scholars (whatever that means). Rich said that this group didn't just believe they were the most qualified to run the country, they DESERVED to be in charge.

Rich purports that this is part of the anger factor .. the fact that the stupid public cannot see how brilliant these people are and that the stupid public has rejected their leadership, and elected a COWBOY.
27 posted on 05/03/2004 10:52:59 AM PDT by CyberAnt (The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Simple. Klinton did not care. He was in to power in the WH and sex. He did not care about what happened to our military people. He should be tried for gross dereliction of duty.
28 posted on 05/03/2004 11:02:42 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American Way! Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
And when OBL was indicted the interesting twist was the links w/ Iraq.

US Government - Bin Laden and Iraq Agreed to Cooperate on Weapons Development
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts
29 posted on 05/03/2004 11:05:32 AM PDT by ironman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
No! Ijaz has been all over the TV - and mostly on FOX - telling this information. It's too late to shut him up. Arkancide only works if the person hasn't revealed what he knows; like Vince Foster and Ron Brown.

But .. what I think is important for people to realize is that ever since the 9/11 panel changed Ijaz's testimony from public (under oath), to private (not under oath), Ijaz has been lobbying the public to demand that he testify in public. The panel doesn't want him under oath, so they can deny what he says. I have sent my share of emails regard Ijaz's testimony.

But .. I see Ijaz is now making the rounds of the conservative shows, exposing the dems ineptness. While the panel tried to keep this private, Ijaz is all over the place pretty much telling what his testimony will be.

I'm glad to hear he's writing (or written) a book. It will be on my list of MUST BUYS.
30 posted on 05/03/2004 11:05:41 AM PDT by CyberAnt (The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Gee, they're going to hear the testimony on FRIDAY. Now why doesn't that surprise me. The Toon admin loved dumping stuff on Fridays, too, didn't it?
31 posted on 05/03/2004 11:07:34 AM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red
He can report on what was said in public. What they ask, and what he told them. The committee doesn't have a gag order, does it? Someone ought to book Ijaz that night and report on what was said in great detail.
32 posted on 05/03/2004 11:09:05 AM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I really think Ijaz's point is, as wrong headed as Clinton
was in handling terrorism as a law enforcement problem,
having taken that tack, a criminal indictment of OBL
would have represented at east SOME
sort of action on the Clinton administration's part.
33 posted on 05/03/2004 11:13:31 AM PDT by MamaLucci (Libs, want answers on 911? Ask Clinton why he met with Monica more than with his CIA director.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mich0127
BUMP!
34 posted on 05/03/2004 11:14:56 AM PDT by jmstein7 (Real Men Don't Need Chunks of Government Metal on Their Chests to be Heroes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StarFan; Dutchy; Timesink; Gracey; Alamo-Girl; RottiBiz; bamabaseballmom; FoxGirl; Mr. Bob; ...

FoxFan (Mansoor Ijaz) ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.

35 posted on 05/03/2004 11:14:56 AM PDT by nutmeg (Why vote for Bush? Imagine Commander in Chief John Fin al-Qerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alisasny; BobFromNJ; BUNNY2003; Cacique; Clemenza; Coleus; cyborg; DKNY; Doctor Raoul; ELS; ...
ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

36 posted on 05/03/2004 11:15:57 AM PDT by nutmeg (Why vote for Bush? Imagine Commander in Chief John Fin al-Qerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Interesting!
37 posted on 05/03/2004 11:19:23 AM PDT by Mich0127 (Massachusetts: the land of the pathetic..namely Kerry and Kennedy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
"It's going to shock the nation when I bring all this out in a book - precisely how ignorant these people were about what they were doing," he told Malzberg.

I too am stunned by how incompetent the Clinton administration was.

What is also stunning is how the "mainstream" media ignores witnesses such as Mansoor Ijaz, and continues to give the members of the Clintoon administration a pass...

38 posted on 05/03/2004 11:19:33 AM PDT by nutmeg (Why vote for Bush? Imagine Commander in Chief John Fin al-Qerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
Bump!! Let's keep this one going!
39 posted on 05/03/2004 11:21:13 AM PDT by BobFromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
Bump!
40 posted on 05/03/2004 11:26:42 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
I've been following this guy for a long, long time. He seems very credible to me. I can't wait to hear what he has to say about the klinton administration and the Ben Laden debacle. I'm reading "Losing Ben Laden" right now and the information in there is amazing. What an education I'm getting on the history of terrorism. I strongly recommend this book.
41 posted on 05/03/2004 11:38:19 AM PDT by mrtysmm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
During his first term in office, the evidence suggests that a number of people who threatened to expose clinton were killed. But around about his second term, clinton evidently figured out that these killings were becoming embarassing in themselves and, more important, that they weren't necessary.

Why should clinton kill someone to keep him from talking, when he could rely on the news media to cover up for him?
42 posted on 05/03/2004 11:41:14 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
<yawn>

When I Peter Jennings discussing this, then I'll believe it's important.

I'll also believe hell has frozen over!

43 posted on 05/03/2004 11:50:32 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
The point is that the Clinton admin line about treating terrorism as a criminal matter is debunked - their negligence was not simply due to a lack of an acknowledged state of war, but goes far deeper than that. The Clinton admin actions seem to have deliberately avoided doing anything that would be effective.

Clinton, by giving us the "terror-fighting-by-law-enforcement" line is giving us yet a new meaning of "is". IF he was fighting terror by law enforcement, how come, in this case that cried out for that enforcement, there seemed to be a willing effort to prevent the government from being able to pursue OBL? Between the "wall", the lack of an indictment against OBL, turning down multiple Sudanese offers to turn him over, and the futile symbolic military actions (that handed cruise missile tech to the highest bidder jihadi scavengers could find), there is nothing in Clinton policy that could be regarded as a sincere fight against terrorism, effective or not.
44 posted on 05/03/2004 11:59:23 AM PDT by thoughtomator (yesterday Kabul, today Baghdad, tomorrow Damascus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: VOA
"Not to worry. This won't get much mention in
The Gorelick-Clinton Report"

Whether it gets a big mention in the report itself or not, does not mean it won't get big play elsewhere. Mansoor Ijaz is not a wallflower and I know his voice WILL be heard even if we have to wait for the book. My name will be one of the first on the order sheet.
45 posted on 05/03/2004 12:01:20 PM PDT by mrtysmm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red
I hope he is more accurate on these issues than he is on most of what he discusses on TV.
46 posted on 05/03/2004 12:08:15 PM PDT by lugsoul (Until at last I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
An *indictment* against UBL, for the Somalia travesty?! As Derrick Coleman (total waste of NBA talent) would say: Whoop-dee-damn-do!

The thought that some third-world savages would be impressed and/or intimidated by an *indictment* is beyond laughable. The ONLY thing that Clinton should have done at the time was make sure that UBL disappeared and would never again be heard from or cause any more problems. He knew damn well that UBL was nothing but trouble waiting to explode, and back then, it was before most people had heard of him and UBL could have just been made to go away without 99% of the public knowing or caring.

Instead we were led by effete wimps who put more value on stupid pieces of paper than on actually *accomplishing* things. As inarticulate as Bush may be at times, at least he gets things done, instead of just sitting there, pontificating and trying to pass off incessant navel-gazings as profound utterings.

If Clintigula had been President these past few years, he'd still be trying to cajole Mullah Omar into turning over UBL, as well as apologizing on a daily basis for whatever we did to offend the islamofascists and make them do this to us.

And while Bush came up here 3 days after the attacks and stood on smoldering metal to address the rescue workers, Clinton would have been cowering in a safe corner, crapping in his XXXL pants, and squinting his eyes while wagging his finger and vowing to "get" whoever was responsible for this.

47 posted on 05/03/2004 12:43:06 PM PDT by NYC GOP Chick ("If I could shoot like that, I would still be in the NBA" -- Bill Clinton, circa 1995)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"Oh he just has an ax to grind...", "He's just a disgruntled public servent...", "He's a registered Republican...", "He's a member of the VRWC...", "He was late on his taxes in 1973...", "He once granted an interview to Rush Limbaugh...", "His third cousin was arrested for marijuana in 1986...", "He's pro-life...", "He attended church regularly in the early 90s..."

Woodward and Bernstein still haven't produced their witness 32 years after the fact. Witness appleanty against Clinton have come forward only to be trounced in the press.

Get ready!
48 posted on 05/03/2004 12:52:20 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ironman
Re: message 29.

I just posted several links that have many articles and even the one in your link at #29, on the thread linked there.

I didn't notice until it was posted, that it was an old thread.
49 posted on 05/03/2004 12:53:05 PM PDT by nw_arizona_granny (Google search: name of America's enemy within (also try with 1425 in front of search))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kattracks

Here's why Clinton/Gore didn't want Osama coming from Sudan in 1996.


9-22-00 In March of 1996, the chairman of Occidental Petroleum, an 18 billion dollar oil company, was an overnight guest in the Lincoln bedroom of the White House. Two days after the sleepover, Occidental's Political Action Committee (PAC) gave $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee. In 1997, the Washington Post revealed that the Clinton administration created an exception to a law that stood in the way of a business venture that Occidental wanted to pursue in the country of Sudan. Further investigation has uncovered additional information on this matter.

The Anti-Terrorism Law, Lincoln Bedroom and $100,000

In 1996, Congress passed and Bill Clinton signed what became Public Law 104-132. This law prohibits anyone in the United States from doing business with countries who are classified as state sponsors of terrorism. At the time, Occidental was pursuing an oil exploration deal with the country of Sudan, which is classified as a state sponsor of terrorism.

There was a 6 week period between when Congress passed this legislation and when Bill Clinton signed it into law. It was during this window of time that the chairman of Occidental stayed at the White House and Occidental's PAC gave $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee. In addition to the timing of the sleepover and the donation, a 9 year review of Occidental's political contributions found the amount of this particular donation is unprecedented, doubling the size of any other donation they have made during this period.

Bill Clinton and the Exception

The anti-terrorism law would have put an end to Occidental's plans in Sudan, but it contained a provision allowing the executive branch to make exceptions. The law went into effect during August of 1996. On the same day that the law became operative, the Clinton administration established an exception that allowed U.S. corporations and individuals to do business with Sudan.

Three months after the exception was instituted, the government of Sudan barred Occidental from participating in the oil deal. Sudan did this as a result of a newspaper article that appeared in the Washington Post, which revealed that the Clinton administration was giving military support to three nations who were enemies of the government in Sudan.

After Occidental could no longer profit from the exception, Bill Clinton closed it. Less than a year after Sudan barred Occidental from the oil deal, Bill Clinton issued an executive order containing language that mirrors the provision in the anti-terrorism law that his administration had excepted. In the executive order, Clinton stated that the policies of the government of Sudan were an "extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States," and declared "a national emergency to deal with that threat." Less than a year earlier, the Clinton administration stated that there was "nothing improper" in allowing the oil deal between Occidental and Sudan.

Al Gore and Occidental

In June of 2000, Al Gore said, "It takes somebody who is independent from big oil to take on big oil, and I’m independent from them . . ." At the time when the story about the exception was published, some of Al Gore's extensive financial dealings with Occidental were not widely reported.

In addition to campaign contributions, Occidental has been a benefactor of Al Gore and his father for many years. After Gore's father was defeated for reelection in 1970, Occidental hired him at a salary of $500,000 a year. In 1972, Occidental purchased a farm in Tennessee and promptly sold it to Gore's father, who turned around and resold the farm to Al Gore. Over the next decade, Occidental paid Al Gore $20,000 a year for the rights to mine minerals on this land. The payments added up to more than what Gore bought the land for, and during this entire period, Occidental never did any mining there. Presently, Al Gore is the executor of his father's estate, which contains more than $500,000 worth of stock in Occidental.


Timeline and Links

3-14-96 Congress passes Antiterrorism bill (S. 735, Section 321).
3-27-96 Occidental chairman Ray Irani sleeps over White House.
3-29-96 Occidental's PAC donates unprecedented $100,000 to DNC.
4-24-96 Clinton signs Antiterrorism bill into law (Public Law 104-132).
8-23-96 Anti-terrorism law goes into effect.
8-23-96 Clinton administration Treasury Department creates exception to law, allowing Occidental to pursue oil deal in Sudan.
11-96 Sudan bars Occidental from oil deal.
1-23-97 Washington Post story published – Clinton administration says there was nothing improper in allowing Occidental to pursue deal.
11-3-97 Clinton issues Executive Order 13067 closing the exception. Calls Sudan an "extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States", and declares "a national emergency to deal with that threat."

http://www.justfacts.com/lincoln_gore.htm
50 posted on 05/03/2004 1:03:17 PM PDT by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson