In this diary, I will take us back a decade (almost to the week, in fact). To show just how good Joe Biden is with foreign issues. Perhaps the biggest foreign issue of our time. A Saudi millionaire by the name of Usāmah bin Muḥammad bin `Awaḍ bin Lādin.
More, below the fold...
First we need to go back to 1998. Let's see what was said. And let's see who said it.
August 20, 1998.
Saying "there will be no sanctuary for terrorists," President Clinton on Thursday said the U.S. strikes against terrorist bases in Afghanistan and a facility in Sudan are part of "a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism."
---
U.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed supporters of Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden.
American officials say they have "convincing evidence" that bin Laden, who has been given shelter by Afghanistan's Islamic rulers, was involved in the bombings of the east African embassies.
---
In Afghanistan, a spokesman for the ruling Taliban, Mullah Abdullah, said that "bin Laden is safe and no damage has been done to any of his companions." Bin Laden has been living in Afghanistan with the permission of the Taliban, a fundamentalist Islamic group that controls most of the country.
That's number one. We have definitive proof, from a web page at the time, that President Clinton attacked Osama bin Laden with every intention of killing him. Clinton made a first impromptu speech in a school, before the televised address to the nation. Edgartown Elementary School, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. He did not look stunned. He did not read any books about a pet goat.
This isn't opinion or spin... but we'll go more into opinion and spin later.
So what about the reaction of those on the [f]right[ened] wing?
First of all: Usenet. Before there were blogs, before there was Twitter, there were the Usenet News Groups. What were some in our chattering classes saying? This is a telling thread from a group called alt.impeach.clinton from August 20, 1998...
JRStern wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:24:20 -0500, "Michael M. Bates"
> wrote:
> >wanted to be left alone, he would have made contributions to the Democratic
> >National Committee like the Red Chinese did.
> Why couldn't bin Laden hold off on bombing the embassy for a few more
> weeks?
> You just can't get good terrorists anymore, ...
> J.
It just goes to show you how stupid these international terrorists are, and just how smart the people at the New York Times can be. Bin Laden timed his attack at precisely the moment that it helped his sworn enemy, Bill Clinton, the most. The New York times immediately wrote that bin Laden was the guilty party, and, of course, that was very shortly confirmed by hard evidence which nobody will be able to see for fifty years or so because its top secret. With enemies like bin Laden, Clinton can get along just fine without friends.
.
.
---
.
.
Possibilities:
- Bin Laden instigated the bombings in order to provoke the U.S. into a drawn out religious war.
- Bin Laden was set up. The true bombers were other terrorists, Clinton, the CIA, or another nation.
.
.
---
.
.
On Mon, 24 Aug 1998 18:56:24 GMT, "Craig Greenwood" wrote:
>#2 has really got me wondering
#2 goes for OKC also which leaves me with a prolonged, panic, worry, anger, and sick to my stomach. And OKC raised clinton's popularity! And clinton was reelected!? Either the election was rigged or the average American today has the intelligence and awareness of the polio virus. clinton is a mass serial murderer.
bob hunt
Yes, the [f]right[ened] wing were defending OBL. Saying he was set up. By Clinton, the same man that really orchestrated Oklahoma City's bomb!! It was CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON!!
But those are just normal whackos on the [f]right[ened] wing. Let's kick it up a notch. Let's see what people in a conservative think-tank said on the day. This is from the conservative Ohio Freedom Foundation...
The speech has been dissected to death already but something is missing in most analyses. We are not federal prosecutors. Nor are we defense attorneys. From our perspective, however, it seems quite clear that the President conceded a certain part of the legal battlefield to Ken Starr. He was saying to Starr:
"O.K., you've got the dress. We've got the polling data. I will tell the American people a little of what they want to hear. The tone will be confessional but the words will be straight from a legal lexicon. You will not gain a legal inch from my lips. I will deliver my speech in the proper tone. I will use correct words, but not in a discernable fashion. Then my PR consultants will spin my story to fit the reaction. You won't hear me say "sex"-they will. My act will only be a shell of a story. My spin doctors will fill in the substance as the polls demand."
---
The Ohio Freedom Forum, founded in 1980, is a state-based, conservative public policy organization headquartered in Solon, Ohio.
Whoa! Hold up! They spelled "discernible" wrong!
I mean: whoa! Hold up! We just almost killed a man that tried to bring down the WTC with a truck bomb, organized the attack on the USS Cole, and just bombed the bejesus out of American embassies in Africa (not to mention all those other killings, pope assassination attempts, and so on). And they're releasing things to the Press, with the notice that it's FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, about a semen stain on a dress?
Well, I hope we don't have Republican Senators repeating this idea, or it would be proof that the Republican Party took their eyes off a very obvious ball.
Wait... WHAT NOW???
But Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), one of Clinton's severest critics earlier in the week, said, "There's an obvious issue that will be raised internationally as to whether there is any diversionary motivation."
Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.), a possible presidential candidate in 2000, noted "there is a cloud over this presidency."
And Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who called on Clinton to resign after his speech Monday, said: "The president has been consumed with matters regarding his personal life. It raises questions about whether or not he had the time to devote to this issue, or give the kind of judgment that needed to be given to this issue to call for military action."
Told of these criticisms, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, branded them "preposterous," and noted that Osama bin Laden, suspected of bankrolling the installations that were bombed, "is one bad mother."
"Even if that [a diversion] were an element, what in the hell does it do to us around the world for leading American officials to even suggest that?" Biden asked. "It is not very sound judgment to speak in terms of motivation other than national security at this moment."
Purely political. THREE REPUBLICAN SENATORS said that going after bin Laden was "diversionary motivation". Said it puts "a cloud over this presidency". Even called for Clinton to RESIGN because THIS ISSUE was obviously just a distraction from that stained dress. Bad mother in Afghanistan? MONICA! MONICA!!!
And Joe Biden got it absolutely right. In 1998.
---
With so much overwhelming evidence to show that the Democratic President went after OBL, and that three Republican Senators called it a diversion (and called for his head), how do you think the [f]right[ened] wing reacted when their chickens truly came home to roost on 9/11/01?
They lied their asses off. Sean Hannity, Let Freedom Ring, pages 19 and 20...
Hannity's entire case came from a guy called Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American that claimed he transmitted the offer between the US and Sudan. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger described Ijaz as an unreliable freelancer: "Ijaz was trying to get the embargo and trade restrictions on Sudan lifted, because he had investments in Sudanese Oil. Ignoring Ijaz, the Clinton White House tried everything they could to convince the Sudanese government to hand over Osama bin Laden. Sudan wouldn't bite, though they would later kick him out of the country."
So Ijaz said Sudan was ready to hand OBL over. The US went to Sudan and they said "what? No!" The US tried every avenue to get Sudan to hand him over, and Sudan said no.
Oh, the story does have a happy ending for Mansoor Ijaz...
...he landed a job for being so loyal with his lies about Sudan.
JOE BIDEN. ON THE MONEY THEN, ON THE MONEY NOW.
This image is 1600 by 1200 pixels (it was loading as you read the diary). You can use it as a full-page wallpaper on your computer.