Expertise's Politics and Sports Blog

Saturday, July 24, 2004
Maybe Berger was trying to hide this?

I'll admit; I haven't read a page of the 9/11 Report.

I'm slack.  I know.  First, I didn't even know that it was online until a blogger posted a link to a page of it.  It seems kind of stupid to me that they would sell a book, although it's only $10 bucks, and post it free for everyone online.  But then that brings us to the sad reality that there are plenty of Americans that are not internet savy and would have to buy the book, if they are even interested in the book in the first place.

But there was something that the New York Sun found out about FOUR possible chance to attack and kill Osama bin Laden:

Well, look now to what the 9/11 report has to say about the man to whom President Clinton, under attack by an independent counsel,delegated so much in respect of national security, Samuel “Sandy” Berger. The report cites a 1998 meeting between Mr. Berger and the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, at which Mr. Tenet presented a plan to capture Osama bin Laden.

In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted,” the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, Central Intelligence Agency memo summarizing the weekly meeting between Messrs. Berger and Tenet.

    In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger’s “handwritten notes on the meeting paper” referring to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.”According to the Berger notes, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”

    On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: “In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ ”

    In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. Reports the commission: “In the memo’s margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’ ”

    In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.

FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES, people.  And in each of those four, our National Security Advisor was given the option to attack Osama bin Laden and either said flat out said no or gave some half-assed excuse.

But the Democrats keep implying that the Clinton Administration did EVERYTHING they could to catch Osama bin Laden.

The August 2000 incident is really particular because it was only last March that we found out about CIA surveillance tapes that found Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.  Now we find out how the Clinton Administration reacted after they found those tapes.

Posted at 12:30 am by Expertise



Leave a Comment:


Homepage (optional)


Previous Entry Home Next Entry


Contact Me

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:

rss feed


Weblog Commenting and Trackback by