Posted on 06/22/2003 3:13:10 PM PDT by kattracks
Former national security advisor Sandy Berger admitted for the first time on Sunday that the Clinton administration rejected the possibility of prosecuting Osama bin Laden in the United States after the government of Sudan agreed to expel him in 1996.
Responding to ex-President Clinton's bombshell confession last year that he turned down a bid by Sudan for warmer relations that would have included the release bin Laden to the U.S., Berger confirmed to WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg, "We pushed the Sudanese government to break its links to terrorist groups, including bin Laden, [and to] expel them."
The former national security advisor also confirmed Mr. Clinton's revelation that after the Sudanese agreed to expel the terrorist kingpin, the administration tried to broker a deal for his extradition to Saudi Arabia. "We did - we went to the Saudis to see whether or not they would take bin Laden," Berger explained adding, "They said no. "
But while confirming that Sudan was willing to release bin Laden to Saudi Arabia, the former national security advisor sharply disputed his old boss' claim that Sudan was also willing to turn the terrorist mastermind over to the U.S.
"The Sudanese never offered to give him to the United States," he insisted. "This is something I've gone back to check very carefully on. There's no - there's no - no one knows of any such offer."
Berger suggested instead that the Sudanese had fabricated the story of bin Laden's possible extradition to the U.S. to stay on the Bush administration's good side after the 9/11 attacks.
But he couldn't explain why Mr. Clinton indicated last year that an offer for bin Laden's release to the U.S. was indeed made by Sudan.
"I've seen [Clinton's] quote," he told Malzberg. "And I think at the time there was some examination of whether or not he could be held here if, in fact, we had an opportunity to get him. And the judgment was that we didn't have any basis to hold him here at that time."
But Berger insisted that the Clinton administration's conclusion that it couldn't detain bin Laden "was not pursuant to an offer by the Sudanese. "
When asked why the Clinton administration didn't press Sudan to release bin Laden to the U.S. after Saudi Arabia rejected the offer, Berger grew defensive.
"The Sudanese . . . had no intention of turning bin Laden over to someone who would have been hostile, period," he insisted.
The full exchange between Berger and Malzberg went like this:
MALZBERG: Bill Clinton made an admission to the Long Island Association on February 15, 2002, while speaking on Long Island. And we have the tape, which is a little too hard to hear, so you over the phone might not be able to get the most out of it. But he admitted that the Sudan had offered to turn bin Laden over to the United States. And his comments were, quote:
"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. 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 meeting 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 . . ." [End of Malzberg's Clinton quote]
You, I believe, testified that we never had an opportunity to get bin Laden. Did we or didn't we?
BERGER: You're talking about the Sudanese. The Sudanese never made any offer to turn bin Laden over to us. Back in 1996, this is the time period your talking about, of course we knew less about bin Laden then we do, unfortunately today. But we still knew he was a bad guy. We still knew he was financing terrorists.
The Sudanese government itself was one of the principle state sponsors of terrorism. And we pushed the Sudanese government to break its links to terrorist groups, including bin Laden - expel them. We did - we went to the Saudis to see whether or not they would take bin Laden. They said no. But the Sudanese never offered to give him to the United States.
This is something I've gone back to check very carefully on. There's no - there's no - no one knows of any such offer. The Su - I'd be very careful before I'd believe the Sudanese, who've made this contention since 9/11, I think to try to make sure the Bush administration doesn't target them next.
Now, this is a government . . .
MALZBERG: Oh, they're terrible
BERGER: It's one of the worst state sponsors of terrorism in the world.
MALZBERG: And slavery, and murder. And now I'm disappointed in our State Department that they might take them off the list of terrorist nations. But so, Clinton himself said that he did not bring [bin Laden] here because we had no basis on which to hold him. That's a direct quote. And I promise you it is, because I have it . . .
BERGER: I've seen the quote, Steve. And I think . . .
MALZBERG: So, what's he talking about?
BERGER: . . . at the time there was some examination of whether or not he could be held here if, in fact, we had an opportunity to get him. And the judgment was that we didn't have any basis to hold him here at that time. But that was not pursuant to an offer by the Sudanese. It was our looking at what . . .
MALZBERG: But we could have asked them, though, right? If we knew that they were asking Saudi Arabia to take him . . .
BERGER: Well, we - we - we - we - the Sudanese had no intention of turning bin Laden, even after they expelled bin Laden, they continued to keep al Qaeda there. They continued to cooperate with al Qaeda. They had no intention of turning bin Laden over to someone who would have been hostile, period.
To listen to NewsMax.com's exclusive recording of ex-President Bill Clinton admitting he turned down Sudan's offer for bin Laden's release, Click Here.
To have Steve Malzberg's exclusive NewsMax.com column emailed directly to you, go to www.newsmax.com/malzberg.
These people lie so much, they cant keep their lies straight..
1996, eh Burger? Mr. Ijaz would certainly disagree. It wasn't simply a matter of bin Laden being extradited in 1996. No. Mr. Ijaz tried to get bin Laden extradited numerous times, including as late as the year 2000. Once again, Berger hopes to win the argument by framing the argument so that it's favorable to him. From Mr. Ijaz himself...
"President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year."
"From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas."
"But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI."
"And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials."
And from The United States government and the FBI - just so you know what a liar Berger really is. To wit:
"In February 1998, Usama bin Laden and his close associate, Ayman al Zawahiri, endorsed a fatwa under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Jihad on the Jews and Crusaders." This fatwa, published in the newspaper, Al-Quds Al-Arabi, on February 23, 1998, stated that Muslims should kill Americans - including civilians - anywhere in the world where they can be found."
May 1998 Fatwa
"On or about May 7, 1998, bin Laden associate Mohammed Atef sent Khaled al Fawwaz a letter discussing the endorsement by bin Laden of a fatwa issued by the "Ulema Union of Afghanistan" which termed the U.S. army the "enemies of Islam" and declared jihad against the U.S. and its followers. The fatwa was subsequently published in Al-Quds Al-Arabi."
Bin Laden Endorses the Nuclear Bomb of Islam
"On or about May 29, 1998, bin Laden issued a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Fighting the Jews and Crusaders," in which he stated that "it is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God."
"There's no - there's no - no one knows of any such offer."
No, Mr. Berger. There are plenty of people who know of such an offer.
"The Su - I'd be very careful before I'd believe the Sudanese, who've made this contention since 9/11, I think to try to make sure the Bush administration doesn't target them next."
Ah, yes, the Sudanese are saying this, eh? Again, the liar attempts to frame the argument. Mr. Ijaz and others are "saying this," Berger.
As far as the Sudanese "saying this" to save their skins because they're afraid of Bush? Even a bunch of slave traders and criminals evidently have more honesty than Berger and the Clinonista Cabal.
Given Clinton's well known disinterest in national security issues my question is why would Clinton have an incomptent cipher like Berger as NSC advisor instead of somebody (even a partisan democrat) who at least could give Clinton a heads-up when he sees some excrement heading for the air conditioner.
I do not make the mistake of assigning good intentions to Clinton or those in his administration. They don't have good intentions, and the evidence to the contrary is too compelling.
The New York Times: (212) 556-7652
The New York Post: (212) 930-8000
ABC: 212-456-7777
CBS: 212-975-4321
NBC: 212-664-4444
CNN: 404-237-0234
Fox:1-888-369-4762
NY York Daily News (212) 210-NEWS
Bill O'Reily
E-mail: oreilly@foxnews.com
Sean Hannity
hannity@foxnews.com
Let's FREEP Alan Colmes while we're at it!
colmes@foxnews.com
Phylis Schlafly
eagle@eagleforum.org
Oliver North
http://www.northamerican.com/-cybercall/pg-call.htm
Janet Parshall, conservative talk show host
(703) 276-8597
Fax: (703) 516-7212
E-Mail us at: info@jpamerica.com
Brit Hume
Special Report with Brit Hume
Special@foxnews.com
Hugh Hewitt (conservative talk show host/columnist)
http://www.hughhewitt.com/
Michael Medved (conservative talk show host/columnist)
http://www.michaelmedved.com/contact.shtml
Here's some key media to contact/freep:
I got these addresses from Media Research Center,
http://www.mediaresearch.org/MediaAddresses/mediaaddresses.asp#If%20the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
e-mail: conedit@ajc.com
Houston Chronicle
e-mail: viewpoints@chron.com
Miami Herald
e-mail: HeraldEd@herald.com
The New York Times
letters@nytimes.com
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
e-mail: letters@post-gazette.com
USA Today
e-mail: editor@usatoday.com
The Wall Street Journal
e-mail: letter.editor@edit.wsj.com
The Washington Post
e-mail: Letterstoed@washpost.com
The Washington Times
e-mail: wtnews@wt.infi.net
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.