The Bush administration and Osama Bin Laden, pre Sept. 11

[scottcsmith]

I wrote this article a few weeks ago. A lot has happened since I wrote it -- the Bush administration has been trying to paint itself as concerned about terrorist attacks prior to Sept. 11. Richard Clarke is being attacked by right-wingers and has been branded a liar by some, and who could forget Bush's rambling press conference on April 13?

The Bush administration and Al-Qaeda, pre-9-11

The character assassin machine was out in full force following Richard
Clarke's claims that the Bush administration was not really focused on
Al-Qaeda prior to Sept. 11, 2001. The party line is that Bush was focused on Al-Qaeda. As Ann Coulter states in her current column, "Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condolezza Rice, he was 'tired of swatting files' -- he wanted to eliminate Al-Qaeda." This is a blatant lie, not that I'd expect accuracy in a Coulter column. Bush made the "swatting flies" comment in April 2001. That's four months after Bush came into office.

The question that comes to mind is this: was George W. Bush really
interested in confronting Al-Qaeda? The public record suggests otherwise.

Newsweek Magazine ran an article on Feb. 19, 2001. The headline: Danger: Terror Ahead: Osama Bin Laden's network is growing. So is the danger to Americans. A Newsweek investigation.

The article contains a startling admission: "...But when it comes to fighting terrorism, administration officials say the United States has no new initiatives to offer. Top antiterrorism officials in the U.S. government tell Newsweek that Bush and his lieutenants have yet to put forth a counterterrorism plan. So far, at least, the Bush
team has kept on Clinton's counterterrorism czar, Richard Clarke."

That's quite different than the Coulter claim of Bush coming into office "tired of swatting flies."

How big of a threat was Osama Bin Laden to the United States? Not much of one. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher's state department briefing on March 19, 2001, mentions Bin Laden, but not with any urgency:

"QUESTION: Did the proposal -- it's slightly different than some of the other iterations -- of a three-part Islamic panel in the Hague to try bin Laden come up? And what is the State Department's position on that?

BOUCHER: Well, it hadn't come up. It wasn't presented. There was no specific proposal, and therefore we don't have any specific response. We have not seen from the Taliban a proposal that would meet the requirements of the United Nations resolution to hand over Osama bin Laden to a country where he can be brought to justice."

We were concerned about Bin Laden, but only peripherally, otherwise we'd want Bin Laden turned over to the United States for trial. Sean Hannity keeps bringing up the tired old charge that Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden three times "on a silver platter" but refused him. Does Boucher's answer to the question regarding Bin Laden indicate how anxious we were to have Bin Laden turned over to us? No, it does not.

Consider this item from the March 10, 2001 edition of the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer, under the headline, No Holds Barr-ed: a Lawmaker Trains His Sights on Terrorists.

The article is about former Rep. Bob Barr and his efforts to introduce a bill, The Terrorist Elimination Act of 2001.

"This time, while Barr clearly hopes his bill will pass, he is a realist who's discovering another political truth in the pursuit of this legislative goal. Cutting taxes is much more popular than giving a president authority to cut some despot's throat.

No member of Congress has joined him on the anti-terrorist bill. No hearings have been scheduled; Republican leaders in the House are shunning the measure.

Barr has written President Bush asking him to support the bill. The new White House hasn't replied."

Interesting. No one wanted to pass a bill authorizing the assassination of people like Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden.

The April 9, 2001, State Department briefing by spokesman Richard Boucher also makes reference to Osama Bin Laden; again, there is no urgency by the State Department to capture Bin Laden.

QUESTION: Last month, Taliban said that they agreed to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia or any third country. But now, last week, they said they will not hand over him to any country. Do you have anything on where -- this Osama bin Laden, the most wanted terrorist in the world today -- where this thing stands?

BOUCHER: I don't remember seeing any statement where they indicated in any forthright manner that they were prepared to comply with the UN resolutions. So our position remains, they need to indicate they will and then comply with the United Nations resolutions that require him to be sent to a country where he can be brought to justice for the accusations against him."

It's clear that the United States did not consider Osama Bin Laden much of a threat. There certainly isn't any evidence to indicate the Bush Administration was in any way concerned with capturing Bin Laden.

The character assassins are wrong: Richard Clarke is telling the truth.