Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted January 3, 2004 Al Franken is a biased source in this matter. He of course, will find opinons from people who praise Clinton, and criticize the Republicans. I defy you to find one political commentator on either side who doesn't use sources friendly to his/her own argument. Franken at least does his research, and quite thoroughly. The credit really goes to the Kennedy School of Government Graduate students. Topic is really starting to sway out of hand. I'd still wish you would expand on this: Clinton twice turned down Bin Laden. Thinking their wasn't enough evidence to arrest him. From what I know. Mansoor Ijaz worked with the Clinton administration, in reguards to the Sudanese counterterrorism offer. It was at this time Sudan, offered Bin Laden. I'll leave it up to everyone to draw their own conclusions on the matter. Maybe not unbiased but what is really? There's also a new book out on the subject. townhall.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted January 3, 2004 Al Franken is a biased source in this matter. He of course, will find opinons from people who praise Clinton, and criticize the Republicans. I defy you to find one political commentator on either side who doesn't use sources friendly to his/her own argument. Franken at least does his research, and quite thoroughly. The credit really goes to the Kennedy School of Government Graduate students. Topic is really starting to sway out of hand. I'd still wish you would expand on this: Clinton twice turned down Bin Laden. Thinking their wasn't enough evidence to arrest him. From what I know. Mansoor Ijaz worked with the Clinton administration, in reguards to the Sudanese counterterrorism offer. It was at this time Sudan, offered Bin Laden. I'll leave it up to everyone to draw their own conclusions on the matter. Maybe not unbiased but what is really? There's also a new book out on the subject. townhall.com MAYBE not? What gave it away, the "Conservative News and Information" on the masthead? Sheesh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted January 3, 2004 (edited) From what I know. Mansoor Ijaz worked with the Clinton administration, in reguards to the Sudanese counterterrorism offer. It was at this time Sudan, offered Bin Laden. I'll leave it up to everyone to draw their own conclusions on the matter. Maybe not unbiased but what is really? There's also a new book out on the subject. townhall.com Ah. Well, now that you've mentioned that, I can type the sidebar from the previous Franken chapter that I ignored: Reliable Sources In Let Freedom Ring, Hannity outlines a charge that he frequently makes both on television and the radio: that Clinton let bin Laden slip from his grasp. He writes, It's truly astonishing. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and their liberal allies on Capitol Hill were offered Osama bin Laden by the Sudanese government, and they turned the offer down. They could have taken him into custory and begun unraveling his terrorist network almost six years ago. But they didn't. And now more than three thousand innocent Americans have paid with their blood. That is astonishing. Hard to think of a more serious charge. You want to be damned sure you have that one locked down pretty tight before you put it in print. But knowng what we already know about Sean Hannity and the standards to which he holds himself, what are the chances that this whole charge is just baloney? His entire case comes from a guy named Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American who claims to have transmitted the offer as a middleman between the U.S. and Sudan. I got the story on Ijaz from former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and from Daniel Benjamin, past director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council and now senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Berger only had to meet once with Ijaz to determine that he was an unreliable freelancer, persuing his own financial interests. Ijaz was an investment banker with a huge stake in Sudanese oil. Ijaz had urged Berger to lift sanctions against Sudan. Why the sanctions? Because Sudan was and remains a notorious sponsor of terrorism, harboring Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda. Also, the Sudanese regime is the leading state sponsor of slavery and is considered by many to be genocidal. And totally untrustworthy. Ijaz, however, was arguing their case. As Benjamin said of Ijaz, "Either he allowed himself to be manipulated, or he's in bed with a bunch of genocidal terrorists." Ijaz said that Sudan was ready to hand over bin Laden. The U.S. does not conduct diplomacy through self-appointed private individuals. When the U.S. talked to Sudan, there was no such offer. The U.S. pushed every lead and tried to negotiate. Nothing. The story does have a happy ending. Ijaz now has a job as foreign affairs analyst for the Fox News Channel. Edit: To be fair, I should mention that Clinton has actually called this issue "the greatest failure in [his] Presidency." This was in the shadow of 9/11 though (early 02) so whether he was trying to salvage his popular opinion or really meant it, I don't know. However, the only source for this conversation is a very sketchy source of NewsMax. Go figure. Edited January 3, 2004 by Jobber of the Week Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
