It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Ignores Warning From State Department (moved from ATSNN)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   
More revelations of information omitted from the 9/11 commission report are being revealed after the 9/11 commission report results were called into question by the discovery of Able Danger intelligence ommissions.
 



www.chron.com
WASHINGTON - State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him a more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam, but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show.
ADVERTISEMENT

The analysts said in a top-secret assessment that bin Laden's "prolonged stay in Afghanistan could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum," in Sudan.

Critics of the Clinton administration have accused it of ignoring the threat posed by bin Laden in the mid-1990s while he was still in Sudan, and they point to claims by some Sudanese officials that they offered to turn him over to Americans before ultimately expelling him in 1996 under international pressure.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Judicial Watch, a conservative legal action group originally requested the formally classified documents from the StateDepartment revealing States reccommendation to President Clinton via an FOIA to the State Department.

Judicial Watch turned their information over to the New York Time who published the lead story breaking this news.

No reference to the state Department advice to President Clinton is to be found in the official 9/11 report authored by the blue ribbon bipartisan 9/11 commission tasked with investigating the failures leading up to the attacks on 9/11.

As these revelations continue to come to light it is appearing more and more likely that the 9/11 commission real behind the scenes task was to protect the reputation of americas political class no matter which party they belonged to.

As the American people learn of the now dubious results from the 9/11 commission a call should go out for full and complete congressional investigation of the events leading to 9/11.

The American people need and deserve the truth.



Related News Links:
www.nyt imes.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
NEWS: Congressman: Classified Intelligence Unit Knew Of 9/11 Terrorists In 1999

[edit on 17-8-2005 by Phoenix]




posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   
I'm not arguing with you that the 9/11 Commission report should be held to a stern litmus test before we decide it was fair and exhaustive, but why are you claiming it is dubious at this point?


...and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had "not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."


Until we find out the above statement is false, aren't you jumping to a baseless conclusion?



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Originally posted by Valhall


I'm not arguing with you that the 9/11 Commission report should be held to a stern litmus test before we decide it was fair and exhaustive, but why are you claiming it is dubious at this point?

quote: ...and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had "not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."


Until we find out the above statement is false, aren't you jumping to a baseless conclusion?


Valhall, I'm not refering to the Sudanese offer of Bin Laden to Clinton in this story and I did not make reference to that incident. (however there is audio tape of Clinton detailing his motives for not taking the Sudanese offer - which not surprisingly was discounted by the commission.) is an audio tape of the man making the decision not reliable enough? - come-on now.

My claims of the 9/11 report being dubious is based on the omission not only of the Able Danger information but also the omission of other pertinant data such as I've detailed above where "state" recommended Bin Laden not be allowed to go to Afganistan where he could better export terrorism to other countries, that information also was omitted from the 9/11 report.

What else has been omitted that we're not yet aware of?

Yes - dubious as in suspicious, not yet 100% proven, but more and more likely.

This is the pertinant information from the NY Times article,


WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show.


The State Department knew the danger Bin Laden presented,

Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East,"

The President ignored advice from a major component of government that seemed to realize way back in 96' what danger Bin Laden was.

Why?

Was it election year jitters?
Was it the Ruby Ridge, Waco, OKC debacles?
Was it a concentration on domestic issues to exclusion of external issues and investigations?

It was the commissions job to set the framework leading to 9/11 failure, 9/11 did not occur in a void as is apparent by the recent information pointing in the direction of a failure in leadership rather than an intell analysis failure as we have been led to believe with the current 9/11 report.










[edit on 18-8-2005 by Phoenix]



 
0

log in

join