9/11 Panel Cites Clinton, Bush Inaction

[Texsox]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Clinton and Bush administrations' failure to pursue military action against al-Qaida operatives allowed the Sept. 11 terrorists to elude capture despite warning signs years before the attacks, a federal panel said Tuesday.

 

The Clinton administration had early indications of terrorist links to Osama bin Laden and future Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as early as 1995, but let years pass as it pursued criminal indictments and diplomatic solutions to subduing them abroad, it found.

 

Bush officials, meanwhile, failed to act immediately on increasing intelligence chatter and urgent warnings in early 2001 by its counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to take out al-Qaida targets, according to preliminary findings by the commission reviewing the attacks.

 

"We found that the CIA and the FBI tended to be careful in discussing the attribution for terrorist attacks," the bipartisan report said. "The time lag between terrorist act and any definitive attribution grew to months, then years, as the evidence was compiled."

 

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, appearing on CBS's "The Early Show" Tuesday, said, however, the commission will not make any final judgments about the Clarke allegations or other assertions until it has reviewed all the evidence.

 

"The commission will not make any judgments about that, nor will I," he said.

 

The preliminary report did say, though, that the U.S. government had determined bin Laden was a key terrorist financier as early as 1995, but that efforts to expel him from Sudan stalled after Clinton officials determined he couldn't be brought to the United States without an indictment. A year later, bin Laden left Sudan and set up his base in Afghanistan without resistance.

 

In spring 1998, the commission found, the Saudi government successfully thwarted a bin Laden-backed effort to launch attacks on U.S. forces in that country. But even after the August 1998 embassy bombings in Africa, the administration declined covert military action in favor of Saudi assistance in persuading the Taliban to expel bin Laden. The Taliban refused, it said.

 

"From the spring of 1997 to September 2001, the U.S. government tried to persuade the Taliban to expel bin Laden to a country where he could face justice," the report said. "The efforts employed inducements, warnings and sanctions. All these efforts failed."

 

The report was part of the commission's two-day hearing focusing on the two administration's failed responses to the threat from al-Qaida.

 

Scheduled to testify Tuesday were Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, as well as their counterparts in the Clinton administration, William Cohen and Madeleine Albright. They were appearing as part of the panel's review of failures in diplomatic and military strategy.

 

The hearing comes following explosive allegations in a book released Monday by Clarke, Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator and a holdover from the Clinton administration, who is expected to testify Wednesday.

 

He said that he warned Bush officials in a January 2001 memo about the growing al-Qaida threat after the Cole attack but was put off by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who "gave me the impression she had never heard the term (al-Qaida) before."

 

The commission's report Tuesday said Clarke pushed for immediate and secret military aid to the Taliban's foe, the Northern Alliance. But Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, proposed a broader review of the al Qaida response that would take more time. The proposal wasn't approved for Bush's review until just weeks before Sept. 11.

 

The 10-member commission had invited Rice to testify, but she has declined on the advice of the White House, which cited separation of power concerns involving its staff appearing before a legislative body.

 

Other potential diplomatic failures cited by the commission:

 

- The United States in 1995 located Mohammed in Qatar. He was then a suspect in a 1995 plot to plant bombs on American airliners in Asia. FBI and CIA officials worked on his capture, but first sought a legal indictment and then help from the Qatari government, who they feared might tip Mohammed off. In 1996, Qatari officials reported Mohammed had suddenly disappeared.

 

- The U.S. government pressed two successive Pakistani governments from the mid 1990s to pressure the Taliban by threatening to cut off support. But "before 9-11, the United States could not find a mix of incentives or pressure that would persuade Pakistan to reconsider its fundamental relationship."

 

- From 1999 through early 2001, the United States pressed the United Arab Emirates, the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off ties, with little success.

 

Scheduled to testify Wednesday are CIA director George Tenet; Rice's predecessor, Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger; and a new witness added Tuesday to fill Rice's slot, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. On that day, the panel will review intelligence and national policy coordination.

 

from Link Here

[YASNY]

Clinton had over 5 years to address this situation. Bush had less than 9 months. Why doesn't this panel drag Clinton's sorry ass in to testify? Why hasn't it been demanded by the media. You them screaming about Conde Rice not testifying, but where's the man who had the opportunity to put Bin Ladin out of commision yet failed to take any action other than shooting a few meaningless missiles at abandoned al-Quida training camps?

[southsider2k5]

This has been my point all along and I am glad to see the commission taking EVERYONE to task for this.

 

My problem with this is simple. The media and everyone else is beating up on people for inaction on 9-11, yet is lambasting people for for Iraq. You can't have it both ways folks. You can be pissed off for trying diplomatic means on one side, but be pissed we went after Saddam on the other. It doesn't make sense.

[Queen Prawn]

Why doesn't this panel drag Clinton's sorry ass in to testify?

Um, I thought he was supposed to be testifying at some point?

 

I swear when he did try something he was accused of wag the dog and the congress wouldn't agree to do anything about it...I was in HS and then college, so I could be remembering wrong (wouldn't be the first time ).

[kapkomet]

This has been my point all along and I am glad to see the commission taking EVERYONE to task for this. 

 

My problem with this is simple. The media and everyone else is beating up on people for inaction on 9-11, yet is lambasting people for for Iraq.  You can't have it both ways folks.  You can be pissed off for trying diplomatic means on one side, but be pissed we went after Saddam on the other.  It doesn't make sense.

EXACTLY.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Clinton is being forced to testify. So is Gore.

 

They were lambasting Bush because originally he said he would only testify for 1 hour and not swear under oath. That's why. With all the time he spends on vacation, you'd expect him to be able to spend more than 1 hour. I can only hope that they ask Bush and Clinton about W199I. They should both be condemned as terrorist enablers for both endorsing that.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I believe Clinton, Gore, and Rice are all testifying 'behind closed doors'. Bush is not testifying.

[YASNY]

Clinton is being forced to testify.  So is Gore.

 

They were lambasting Bush because originally he said he would only testify for 1 hour and not swear under oath.  That's why.  With all the time he spends on vacation, you'd expect him to be able to spend more than 1 hour.  I can only hope that they ask Bush and Clinton about W199I.  They should both be condemned as terrorist enablers for both endorsing that.

I stand corrected.

[Texsox]

Guess what. As a country we failed. Notice the difference between WTC1 and WTC2. Do you think if we hit the streets and flew flags and held meetings, a prayer groups, early on that collectively *our* government would have ignored it?

 

One of the complaints my GOP friends made against Clinton was every morning he put his finger to the wind and read the polls to see what he should believe in today. If that was true, would he have ignored the American people if after the first attack on the WTC we had gathered, prayed, sang songs, and demanded action? If we bought up every Made in China US flag after the first attack by terrorists on a US Ship do you Clinton would have ignored us?

 

Part of Clinton's problem was the whole Monica affair made him very inneffective. I blame him for that. If he did jump up and down and said let's get Bin Laden the talk shows would have been alive with tail wagging the dog references and claims he was trying to divert our attention from his problems. And who would have believed terrorists were planning to fly planes into the WTC? Again, this is Clinton's fault for getting a hummer in the Oval Office.

 

As far as Bush only having 9 months, we do not have a patronage system in the FBI, CIA, etc. How much experience does it take to read a memo that says terrorists are planning to fly a plane into a building? If it takes him two or three years to figure out how to react, he's denser than I thought. It's a 4 year term. He was 20% through his term when 9/11 happened. The various agencies give you a report and ask you to react.

 

As Americans we have to be more vigilent.