Can't Distinguish Between What You've Read and What You've Lived? (cont.)

When Ronald Reagan did stuff like this - making up stories about "his life" that were actually incidents taken from movies - people fell down laughing.

In what has become a continuing series, we learn that Bill Clinton is pretty funny, too, although the subject matter ought to have been a lot closer to home. From the 9/11 Commission report (p. 480):

President Clinton, in a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association, said that the United States did not accept a Sudanese offer and take Bin Ladin because there was no indictment. (President Clinton speech to the Long Island Association, Feb. 15, 2002 (videotape of speech)). But the President told us that he had “misspoken” and was, wrongly, recounting a number of press stories he had read. After reviewing this matter in preparation for his Commission meeting, President Clinton told us that Sudan never offered to turn Bin Ladin over to the United States. (President Clinton meeting (Apr. 8, 2004)). Berger told us that he saw no chance that Sudan would have handed Bin Ladin over and also noted that in 1996, the U.S. government still did not know of any al Qaeda attacks on U.S. citizens. Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004).

Bill Clinton and Joe Wilson seem to believe (and internalize!) everything they read in the press - I guess they don't read the critics.

This is pretty exciting news for the VRWC - if Bill Clinton keeps up on his reading, he will be confessing to the murder of Vince Foster any day now!

Page 110 of the 9/11 report gives us this:

Sudan’s minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so.

Nothing credible beyond a speech given by the absent-minded newspaper reader and former President. Well, this Washington Post article is pretty convincing - I guess it must have convinced Bill. And the reporter sure talked to lots of folks, including guess who:

Clinton administration officials maintain emphatically that they had no such option in 1996. In the legal, political and intelligence environment of the time, they said, there was no choice but to allow bin Laden to depart Sudan unmolested.

"The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States," said Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then.

The 9/11 report (Ch 4, p. 108 and forward) is consistent with Berger's explanation, but the Hammer is not happy. My quick attempt at a reconciliation - the Bin Ladin unit connected a lot of dots in 1997 about activity in 1995 and earlier.

And my other guess - the WaPo article is roughly accurate, but Clinton has decided (perhaps correctly) that their contact on the Sudanese side was not a credible, authoritative representative of the Sudanese government. Or else, Clinton has decided to pretend that, so that he can deny that the Sudanese "government" offered us Bin Ladin.

MORE: Maybe Clinton reads Vanity Fair; here are some denials, and Madeleine Albright's denials to the 9/11 Commission. James Robbins at NRO provides lots of sources.

OK, the Commission looked at this.

LAST UPDATE: "So often I find myself asking ... "Is this true? ... Or did I just read it in TIME?"

The particular story behind that post is off-topic, but the theme is not. So maybe Clinton read this in TIME too.

Comments

[praktike]

If Berger destroyed any evidence, this would be it, I'd guess. I suppose we'll find out.

[richard mcenroe]

Reagan and Clinton have one other thing in common: Reagan brought the Soviet Union to its knees, Clinton brought at least three women—

[Sean Hackbarth]

The report does Clinton a favor by squashing the Right-wing idea that he had an opportunity to get bin Laden via Sudan. Although it did it in a back-handed way.

[JosephMendiola]

Nearly all of number of DemLib-led charges or criticisms leveled against Reagan were proven to false by everyone save the Left - What matters to the Failed Left is the [EMOTIONALIST]ALLEGATION BY AND FOR THE ALLEGATION, NOTSOMUCH THE FACTS TO SUPPORT IT, Even now in 2004, post-impeachment, the DemLibs often use "court of law" as sub for the impeachment-period US Congress, with the specific term or label "Congress" rarely, iff ever, used in LeftMedia interpretations, just as it doesn't matter to the Left that their hallowed anti-Reagan antithesis Bill Clinton disavows any responsibility for America's properity during his tenure, all but officially admitting that the Left and LeftMedias were de facto LYING that Bush 1 was responsible for the worst US economy and recession in history, when in fact the US economy under Bush 1 was expanding by leaps and bounds! IOW,IT WAS CLINTON WHO WAS PER SE AND KNOWINGLY LYING WHEN HE ANOUNCED BEFORE THE MEDIAS HOW THE REPUBLICANS COULDN'T HANDLE THE ECONOMY OR THAT GOP POLICIES WERE BAD FOR THE ECONOMY, ETC. I HAVE ALWAYS FOUND IT INTERESTING THAT IT WAS THE DEDICATED ANTI-AMERICAN AND COMMUNIST CLINTON WHOM FINALLY TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT BUSH 1, EVEN TO HINT OR POSITIVELY/PROACTIVELY IMPLY DEMOCRAT ELECTION FRAUD FOR BOTH 1992, OR 1996 AGAINST DOLE, NOT AND NOT YET THE ALLEGED PRO-AMERICA, PRO-MIDWEST, PRO-BLUE-COLLAR AND FAMILY VALUES LOVING DEMOCRATS PER SE! Its obviously more important for US DemLibs and Left to have PC SOLIDARITY/UNITY, THAN TO GET RID OR SEPARATE FROM THE AMERICA-KILLING COMMUNIST CLINTONS, even if it means protecting them from conspiracy for 9-11 and 000's of dead Americans, as well as from the "creeping" anti-American Communism, SOcialism, and anti-AMerican OWG the Clintons themselves desire and are working for! POWER, SCORING POINTS, AND MISINFORMATION OR DISINFORMATION MATTERS MORE THAN TELLING AMERICANS ANY TRUTH(S) ABOUT THE VERY REAL HIDDEN OR INVISIBLE CONTEMPORARY THREAT TO AMERICA'S EXISTENCE, PRINCIPLES, AND QUALITY-OF-LIFE! ITS MORE IMPORTANT FOR BUSH AND AMERICA TO LOSE EITHER THE WOT OR AMERICA'S SOVREIGNTY, FOR AMERICA'S SUFFER MILPOL OR GEOPOLITICAL DEFEAT OR SETBACK, THAN FOR THE LEFT TO SHARE POWER OR ADMIT LEFTISM-SOCIALISM IS AN ACROSS-THE-BOARD GROTESQUE FAILURE AS A PRAGMATIC MODEL FOR SOCIETAL AND NATIONAL, EVEN GLOBAL, WEALTH, PROSPERITY, PEACE, AND GOVERNANCE, NOT EVEN TO REFORM FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT OR ADVANTAGE!

[praktike]

oops.

never mind re: Berger.

[HH]

Berger's explanation is highly misleading at best... The evidence of bin Laden's involvement in the WTC bombing alone was rather strong by then. "A search of his former residences leads investigators to believe he is financially linked to bin Laden. Also, he had stayed at a bin Laden-financed guest house while in Pakistan." Combine that with this - "He was named by federal prosecutors in New York [in '95] as a potential co-conspirator in the terror trial of radical Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 10 other Muslims accusing of plotting a 'war of urban terrorism' in the USA," and Berger's claim just doesn't pass the straight face test.

What the commission fails to mention is that Clinton first told them (one of the commissioners is on record saying this) that he was "misquoted"... then he was told that he was caught on tape. Berger and Clinton (Berger was WITH Clinton when he testified) clearly made some slippery statements to the commission.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

So...it really does depend on what the definition of "is", is?

[TM]

Right-wing idea that he had an opportunity to get bin Laden via Sudan.

I am sand-bagging you with some new links in an update - apparently, the not-so-right-wing Washington Post and even-less-so Vanity Fair were big on this story.

My GUESS is that their final answer would be, the Sudan incident happend, but it was not credible - even if our side had agreed to the "back-channel" proposal, we would not have gotten Osama.

Now, are they all lying and covering for each other? Who knows?

And how do we know the offer *was* credible - just because the WaPo found lots of people who took it seriously, and just because they quote Sandy Berger as offering legalistic, rather than practical objections, doesn't mean that the practical objections were not paramount.

I'll stop now; I'm not even convincing myself.

[HH]

Tom, Gerald Posner seems to have the best explanation.

[HH]

More

[HH]

Shelby speaks... who will listen?