Wed, Sep 17, 2014, 7:48 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


lonesome_polecatt 680 posts  |  Last Activity: Sep 9, 2014 4:48 PM Member since: Apr 8, 2013
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Rav and the idiot's apprentice

    by lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 5:45 PM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Sep 9, 2014 4:48 PM Flag

    rob, you're right. The Republicans are evil not like your socialist pals who as pure as the freshly driven snow. Just look at The Living God. He's straight arrow. A lie would never pass his lips and that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, paragons of virtue and smart too.

    The Living God would never use a government agency like say, the IRS, as a political weapon. He would never stonewall an investigation. After all, this is the most transparent admin in history. Just ask him. He'll tell you. He's never told a lie so all of us can trust him. Just like at his health care system, running like a well oiled machine and to top it off, I can keep my doctor and my health pal. What's not to like?

    Tell me. Do you knee pads chaff?

  • Reply to

    Rav and the idiot's apprentice

    by lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 5:45 PM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Sep 9, 2014 2:59 PM Flag

    rob, obviously you are trying, inaccurately, to spin the Democrats voting role in the 1964 civil rights act. Over 80% of the Republicans voted for the act while less than 70% of the Democrats voted for it. LBJ was president and the Democrats controlled both house of congress and they were still having trouble passing the act. Without the Republican, they didn't have enough votes for Cloture and you can't even give the Republicans that. It kills you that the Republicans saved this bill.

    But what can I expect? You can't even admit The Living God is a liar and an incompetent boob.

  • Reply to

    Rav and the idiot's apprentice

    by lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 5:45 PM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 11:58 PM Flag

    No I don't but I do know a lot of blind ideologues like you.

    You can't even bring yourself to admit The Living God is a liar.

  • Reply to

    Rav and the idiot's apprentice

    by lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 5:45 PM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 11:54 PM Flag

    Listen you moron. You said "both parties voted unanimously to pass the Bill." How do you reconcile that? Without Republican votes the bill would have never past.

    So I guess you will remain a Socialist and stay forever stupid!

  • Reply to

    G W. Bush

    by aceofbasefanatic Sep 5, 2014 6:52 PM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 9:49 PM Flag

    dickw, the worshipers can't even bring themselves to admit The Living God is a liar. Pathetic!

  • Reply to

    Rav and the idiot's apprentice

    by lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 5:45 PM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 8:23 PM Flag

    No wonder I call you the idiot's apprentice. Where did you pull "True but both parties voted unanimously to pass the Bill."? Out of your a **?

    You're as big an ignoramus as Rav. Don't you guy know anything? Have you ever studied history and current events? Obviously you haven't. You'll say whatever pops into your limited little pea brains.

    Here is the breakdown of the vote by party. You will notice a larger percentage by party of Republicans voted for the bill than Democrats.

    By party[edit]

    The original House version:[20]
    Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
    Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

    Cloture in the Senate:[21]
    Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
    Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

    The Senate version:[20]
    Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
    Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

    The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]
    Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
    Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

    After reading this you might want to become a Republican. If you do, your IQ will take a quantum jump or you can remain a Socialists and stay stupid.

  • Reply to

    Rav and the idiot's apprentice

    by lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 5:45 PM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 8:11 PM Flag

    My point is your post was based upon ignorance. That's my point! You had no clue what you were talking about. You just pulled a biased idea not based upon fact right out of your a **.

    This is a conclusion of a rather long article that summarizes your question, by Eric Wallace a black author.

    Eric M. Wallace, PhD
    Dr. Wallace is the founder and Publisher of Freedom's Journal Magazine. He has been in publishing for over 15 years and in ministry over 30 years. He holds a PhD in Biblical studies and is an ordained minister. He also serves as the CEO of Wallace Multimedia Group, LLC, the parent company of this magazine. He is married to Jennifer Wallace and they have two sons Eric and Greg


    While the notion that Dixiecrats all became Republicans is nothing more than another in a line of dubious urban legends; it’s clear that for generations its stories have been told (and retold) to manipulate and discourage Blacks from considering the Republican Party and, or more importantly, the tenets of conservative ideas. Unfortunately, the references made to State’s Rights commonly attributed to conservative ideology are still being widely used to link conservatives with segregationists. This, too, is nothing more than urban legend. Sadly, these live on to smear and misrepresent not only our history, but also the character and reputation of men and women of principle."

    Next time you want to smear somebody, do your homework!

  • Reply to

    Rav and the idiot's apprentice

    by lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 5:45 PM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 7:57 PM Flag

    Well, Byrd and Al Gore and others stayed Democrats and fought the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Byrd was revered by the Democrats so much so they elected him senate Majority Leader.

    You should read you history before making really uninformed posts.

  • Reply to

    Rav and the idiot's apprentice

    by lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 5:45 PM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 6:30 PM Flag

    No you ignoramus, moron. This is about what you posted: "What do you suppose happened to all those southern democrats? Did they just die? Maybe they all became Republican after the civil right laws."

    Or did you conveniently forget that? How about addressing my post as it relates to your stunningly uninformed ignorant post. Do you think you can do that? I doubt it.

    Your post just shows what an uninformed, blind, leftwing ignoramus ideologue your are. And you will never admit.

  • lonesome_polecatt by lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 5:45 PM Flag

    Well rav, the only member of the Klan to hold a Senate seat in the last 50 years was Robert Byrd a Democrat who was elected senate majority leader by his Democrat/Socialist peers in the 1980s. Imagine that a Klan member elected as Senate majority leader by his fellow Socialists.

    Byrd and Al Gore senior (Al Gore's father) both filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act would have never passed had it not been for Republican votes.

    What do you have to say about that?

    I'll bet this is all new to you. You didn't even know this otherwise you wouldn't have posted your completely ignoramus post. OTH, being an ignoramus you just might have posted it because you, like the idiot and the idiot's apprentice, aren't too bright.

  • Politfact says its a lie and The Washington Post give The Living God four Pinocchio's.

    Worshipers, you don't think The Living God was lying to us, do you? After all he is a God and as such he wouldn't lie to us, would he?

  • Reply to

    What is a liberal? What is a Patriot?

    by dickw3939 Sep 8, 2014 1:16 AM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 5:18 PM Flag


  • Reply to

    G W. Bush

    by aceofbasefanatic Sep 5, 2014 6:52 PM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 5:17 PM Flag

    Well I see you do what all worshipers do change the subject instead of address the subject of the post. How pathetic!

  • Reply to

    Maincoaster Coverup

    by ebonymarangachachacha Aug 31, 2014 9:50 PM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 3:53 PM Flag

    Isn't maine living in a bathhouse in San Francisco?

  • Reply to

    What is a liberal? What is a Patriot?

    by dickw3939 Sep 8, 2014 1:16 AM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 2:12 PM Flag

    Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this moron is an idiot!

    I rest my case!

  • Reply to

    What is a liberal? What is a Patriot?

    by dickw3939 Sep 8, 2014 1:16 AM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 12:07 PM Flag

    Most worshipers would rather drink poison than join the US armed forces.

    If you listen to liberals, all GIs are baby raping murders.

    It wasn't conservatives who spit on GIs returning from Vietnam. It wasn't conservatives who stood outside of Walter Reed and jeered at wounded GIs returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. It wasn't conservatives who blocked military recruiters from entering liberal university campuses. It wasn't conservatives who picketed military recruiting stations. John Murtha condemned Marines, without a trial, for the alleged killing of civilians. They were all later acquitted.

    Worshipers are like vampires. They want to suck the system dry while cursing the system for not giving enough free stuff.

  • Reply to

    Libs Dumb as Dirt

    by sosuaman Sep 5, 2014 1:50 PM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 11:51 AM Flag

    This is a long article but worth reading. Vanity Fair is a left leaning magazine and the Ambassador to Sudan was a Democrat. I realize no matter what proof I give, the hard core ideologues will never admit their hero, the sociopath, sexual predator Bill Clinton, is ever at fault for anything including negligence and perjury. Clinton was occupied at that time with covering his a** in the Monica Lewinsky scandal (another phony scandal, no doubt) and dismissed this opportunity.

    Vanity Fair

    January 2002


    The Osama Files

    September 11 might have been prevented if the U.S. had accepted Sudan’s offers to share its intelligence files on Osama bin Laden and the growing al-Qaeda threat. Recently unearthed documents reveal that the Clinton administration repeatedly rejected the help of a country it unwisely perceived as an enemy.

    by David Rose

    In a squat, red-brick building next to Khartoum’s presidential palace, the agents who serve the Mukhabarat, Sudan’s intelligence division, keep their secrets in pale manila files. “Those guys know what they’re doing,” says a retired longtime C.I.A. Africa specialist. “They tend to be thorough. Their stuff is pretty reliable.”

    And sometimes very important. Sudan’s Mukhabarat spent the early to mid-1990s amassing copious intelligence on Osama bin Laden and his leading cohorts at the heart of the al-Qaeda terrorist network—when they were still little known, and their activities were relatively limited. Some of the files at Mukhabarat headquarters identify individuals who played central roles in the suicide bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in August 1998; others chart the backgrounds and movements of al-Qaeda operatives who are said to be linked directly to the atrocities of September 11. In the wake of those attacks, President Bush and the F.B.I. issued a list of the world’s 22 most wanted terrorists. Sudan has kept files on many of them for years.

    From the autumn of 1996 until just weeks before the 2001 attacks, the Sudanese government made numerous efforts to share this information with the United States—all of which were rebuffed. On several occasions, senior agents at the F.B.I. wished to accept these offers, but were apparently overruled by President Clinton’s secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, and her assistant secretary for Africa, Susan Rice, both of whom would not comment for this story after repeated requests for interviews. Vanity Fair has obtained letters and secret memorandums that document these approaches. They were made directly to the State Department and the F.B.I., and also via a series of well-connected U.S. citizens who tried to warn America that the Sudanese offers were serious and significant.

    By definition, September 11 was an intelligence failure. As the C.I.A. man puts it, “We didn’t know it was going to happen.” Some of the reasons for that failure were structural, systemic: the shortage of Arabic-speaking agents, the inability of C.I.A. officers to go underground in Afghanistan.

    This one was more specific. Had U.S. agencies examined the Mukhabarat files when they first had the chance in 1996, the prospects of preventing al-Qaeda’s subsequent attacks would have been much greater. Tim Carney, the last U.S. ambassador to Sudan, whose posting ended in 1997, says: “The fact is, they were opening the doors, and we weren’t taking them up on it. The U.S. failed to reciprocate Sudan’s willingness to engage us on serious questions of terrorism. We can speculate that this failure had serious implications—at the least for what happened at the U.S. Embassies in 1998. In any case, the U.S. lost access to a mine of material on bin Laden and his organization.”

    How could this have happened? The simple answer is that the Clinton administration had accused Sudan of sponsoring terrorism, and refused to believe that anything it did to prove its bona fides could be genuine. At the same time, perceptions in Washington were influenced by C.I.A. reports that were wildly inaccurate, some the result of deliberate disinformation. The problem, Carney says, was “inadequate vetting and analysis by the C.I.A. of its own product.” That, in turn, was being conditioned by the Clinton administration’s hostility to Sudan’s Islamic regime: “Despite dissent from the State Department’s own Bureau of Intelligence and Research, U.S. intelligence failed because it became politicized.”

    Osama bin Laden, his four wives, his children, and numerous “Afghan Arab” followers who had helped drive the Soviets from Afghanistan went to Sudan from Saudi Arabia early in 1991. They chose Sudan for two main reasons. First, the restless, radicalized veterans of the Afghan war were unwelcome in most Arab countries, but Sudan left its doors open. Second, bin Laden liked Sudan’s politics. The Islamic radicalism of the government’s then ideological leader, the philosopher Hassan al-Turabi, who had come to power in a coup d’état in 1989, was at its bracing zenith. The Sudanese, in turn, welcomed bin Laden as an investor. His family had built most of Saudi Arabia’s infrastructure, and they saw his wealth and experience as an engineer as valuable resources in developing Sudan.

    Al-Qaeda, with its secretive structure and oath of allegiance to bin Laden, had been founded two years earlier. In Sudan, however, much of bin Laden’s energy went into business: a contract, funded by the Saudis, to build the airport at Port Sudan; agricultural projects; and al-Hijra, a joint venture with the Sudan government to build a 185-mile road northward from Khartoum. Abu Ibrahim, the Iraqi engineer who became al-Hijra’s C.E.O., says bin Laden took a strong interest in the project’s technical details. In bin Laden’s large house in an affluent part of Khartoum, they spent hours together, discussing which diggers, graders, and other items the firm ought to buy. On his visits to the site, Ibrahim says, bin Laden showed “he knew how to drive every piece of machinery.” Ibrahim had known bin Laden during the Afghan war. “When we were in Afghanistan, everything was jihad, jihad, jihad,” he says. “Here in Sudan we saw his many other aspects—construction, family life. He was settling down.”

    However, bin Laden also found time to begin a fierce propaganda campaign against the Saudi government, furious that it had allowed the U.S. military to build bases on Saudi soil. By 1994 that campaign had led to the removal of his Saudi citizenship. He was also fostering contacts with other Muslim extremists—some of whom were very dangerous indeed.

    As we sat on gray-green leather sofas in his office, Yahia Hussien Ba-viker, the Mukhabarat’s deputy chief since 1998, disclosed a nugget from 1992. In that year, the Mukhabarat learned that bin Laden had played host for a lengthy visit by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the founder of Egyptian Islamic Jihad—a fundamentalist group behind many armed attacks on Egyptian government ministers and officials, including the 1981 assassination of President Anwar el-Sadat.

    The Mukhabarat had monitored Egyptian Islamic Jihad for years. “If anyone in the world understands the Egyptian side of this network, it’s Sudan,” the C.I.A. source says. Events have served to demonstrate the significance of that meeting in 1992: Egyptian Islamic Jihad has effectively merged with al-Qaeda. Al-Zawahiri, now No. 2 on the F.B.I.’s “most wanted” list, serves as bin Laden’s doctor and adviser in Afghanistan. Other Egyptians occupy core positions within the al-Qaeda network, many of them known to the Mukhabarat since the 1980s. “These files on the Egyptians could have been of great value to U.S. intelligence,” Baviker says. “If we’d had communication with the U.S., we could have been on the same wavelength. We could have exchanged notes.”

    All foreigners in Sudan were subject to some degree of surveillance. Disclosure of bin Laden’s link with Egyptian Islamic Jihad led the Mukhabarat to watch him and his Afghan Arab followers more closely. Lieutenant General Gutbi al-Mahdi, Mukhabarat director general from 1997 until 2000, says the service started keeping tabs on “the entire bin Laden clique.… We had a lot of information: who they are, who are their families, what is their education. We knew what they were doing in the country, what is their relationship with Osama bin Laden. And photographs of all them.”

    Not long into the 1990s, Sudan’s Islamic fervor was already being tempered by pragmatism. Desperate for investment, especially to develop its vast reserves of oil, the government submitted to the stringent economic medicine prescribed by the World Bank, slashing inflation and privatizing state-owned industries. (Osama bin Laden himself became the Sudan agent for the British firm Hunting Surveys, which plays a large role in oil prospecting and whose military division makes about a fifth of the West’s Trident nuclear missiles.) In 1994 it tried to assert its anti-terrorist credentials by assisting France in the capture of Illich Ramirez Sanchez, better known as “Carlos the Jackal,” the notorious Venezuelan-born terrorist who claims to have killed 83 people, now serving a life sentence in France.

    The U.S., however, remained convinced that Sudan was sponsoring terrorism. Toward the end of 1995, the then U.S. ambassador, Don Petterson, was instructed to deliver an unsigned, secret note to the spiritual leader, Hassan al-Turabi, and President Omar al-Bashir. It said the U.S. was “aware of Sudan’s involvement in terrorist plots against us,” and warned that if such a plot came to fruition there would be a harsh reaction. It could result in “the international isolation of Sudan, in the destruction of your economy, and in military measures that would make you pay a high price.”

    Continued (page 2 of 4)

    Yet whatever these supposed plots the C.I.A. thought it had uncovered were, they had nothing to do with bin Laden. Ambassador Petterson says, “My recollection is that when I made representations about terrorist organizations Osama bin Laden did not figure. We in Khartoum were not really concerned about him.”

    A focus on the wrong enemy was not the only mistaken feature of U.S. intelligence on Sudan. In 1993 the U.S. Embassy sent home all nonessential staff, spouses, and children, because the C.I.A. claimed it had evidence that Americans were at risk of terrorist attack. One report even claimed that there was a plot to bomb a party for the children of Khartoum’s American embassy workers. None of these threats were real. Petterson says, “There’s no question there were mistaken reports.” President Clinton’s national-security adviser, Tony Lake, was uprooted with his family from his home and kept under Secret Service guard at Blair House, the presidential guest quarters across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House. The reason was another bogus C.I.A. claim that Sudanese agents were planning to murder him in Washington. Finally, at the beginning of 1996, just after Petterson had come to the end of his tour, the embassy was emptied of Americans altogether, again because of unspecified “security threats.” His successor, Tim Carney, would somehow have to do his job based a thousand miles away, in Nairobi, Kenya. This was unjustified, Petterson says.

    The veteran C.I.A. Africa specialist says that this inaccurate intelligence was the product of disinformation, fed by an organized ring whose motives were a mixture of malice and greed. All these reports cost the C.I.A. money. One of its members, a Tunisian, Ali bin Mustafa Homed, was convicted of espionage in Sudan last summer and given a 14-year jail sentence. Yahia Baviker, the Mukhabarat deputy chief, confirmed that feeding disinformation to foreign intelligence agencies formed one of the charges against Homed.

    Sudan was aghast at these developments. However, the radical wing of the government, led by the philosopher Dr. al-Turabi, was losing ground to the pragmatist moderates, who wanted good relations with the West. (In 1998, al-Turabi was placed under arrest, where he remains.) So when, in February 1996, Carney began to convey America’s demand that Sudan expel bin Laden, mainly because of his campaign against the Saudis, his audience was surprisingly receptive. Gutbi al-Mahdi, the former Mukhabarat boss, who was then serving as the Sudanese president’s senior adviser, says Sudan did not object on principle. The arguments he and his colleagues used were more practical: “We said, ‘Here he is under control, and we know everything about him. Here in Sudan he is under our supervision.’” Once bin Laden was expelled, al-Mahdi adds, “he had absolutely no choice other than to become a full-time radical.” About 300 Afghan Arabs went with him. According to an Egyptian intelligence source, “Most of them now are terrorists.”

    Bin Laden was expelled in May 1996. Despite this evidence of Sudan’s willingness to cooperate, the U.S. appeared to have no interest in seeing what it could learn from Sudan. Mahdi Ibrahim Mohamed, now the information minister, went to Washington as Sudan’s ambassador in February 1996. A long-standing Americophile, he had been educated in Michigan and California: “I like the country, I like the people. I went as ambassador for three years, with a positive view that America was open, free, open for dialogue. What I found was a major surprise and disappointment.” Mohamed spent three years trying to get a meeting with the State Department’s assistant secretary for Africa, Susan Rice, only to find himself fobbed off on junior officials. He was no more successful in his efforts to see the National Security Council’s Tony Lake, or his successor, Sandy Berger. The N.S.C. staff continued to accuse Sudan of harboring terrorists. Mohamed begged the officials to make a specific allegation, but they refused. “I said, ‘Give me any information about any terrorists, any camps, as you believe it to be, and we will take it very seriously.’ The response was ‘Your government knows. You must know. We don’t like to expose our sources.’”

    Ambassador Mohamed conveyed an open offer: the C.I.A. and F.B.I. could send a joint investigative team, which could travel freely throughout the country. “I used to say, ‘Go anywhere, take a plane from Khartoum and say where you want to go once we’re in the air.’” It was not taken up. In February 1997, the offer was repeated in a letter from President al-Bashir to Clinton. Al-Bashir suggested “a mission tasked to investigate allegations that the government of Sudan trains or shelters terrorists,” with “freedom of movement and contact and unrestricted choice of suspected terrorist sites.” Clinton never replied.

    It began to dawn on the Sudanese that one way of convincing America that they were serious about fighting terrorists was to offer U.S. investigators access to the Mukhabarat files on bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Frustrated in their efforts to invite America in through the front door, they resolved to try a back channel—the multimillionaire Pakistani-American businessman and fund manager Mansoor Ijaz. Then a big donor to the Democratic Party, Ijaz was on personal terms with Clinton, Berger, and Al Gore. He was also fearful of the likely result of U.S. refusal to engage with Islamic regimes, such as Sudan: “As an American Muslim, I had a terrifying vision of what could go wrong. I wanted to do whatever I could to stop that happening.”

    As an investor, Ijaz was interested in Sudan’s oil, but he also shared “a fundamental sense of injustice” at the way the country was being treated. From July 1996 until August 1997, he made six trips to Khartoum, meeting Dr. al-Turabi, President al-Bashir, the Mukhabarat chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, and other officials. He succeeded in convincing them that it was worth making a further effort to persuade the U.S. of Sudan’s sincerity—partly by drawing America’s attention to the intelligence on al-Qaeda. His initiative produced its most dramatic result in a letter dated April 5, 1997, from President al-Bashir to Lee H. Hamilton, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It stated, “We extend an offer to the FBI’s Counter-terrorism units and any other official delegations which your government may deem appropriate, to come to the Sudan and work with our External Intelligence Department in order to assess the data in our possession and help us counter the forces your government, and ours, seek to contain.” (My italics.) According to Ijaz, Hamilton took the letter to both Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, neither of whom replied.

    Ijaz also wrote memorandums on his mission for Sandy Berger, and in a series of conversations he spelled out exactly what the Sudanese offer meant. He told Berger, “That phrase [in the letter to Hamilton], ‘to assess the data in our possession,’ was an explicit reference to the data on bin Laden. The reference to ‘the forces we seek to contain’ was an explicit reference to the attempt to stop al-Qaeda spreading.” Ijaz and his family had shared their Christmas dinner in the White House with the Clintons. However good his access, he could not budge U.S. policy on Sudan.

    The Sudanese did not give up. Beginning in the autumn of 1997, they made use of another private go-between, Janet McElligott, a lobbyist who had worked at the White House under George H. W. Bush. Like Ijaz before her, she assumed that rational statecraft would, in the end, prevail. In this she was mistaken. On February 5, 1998, her efforts helped produce perhaps the smokiest of all the smoking guns in this story: a letter direct from Gutbi al-Mahdi of the Mukhabarat to David Williams, chief of the F.B.I.’s Middle East and Africa desk. It read, “I would like to express my sincere desire to start contacts and cooperation between our service and the F.B.I. I would like to take this opportunity with pleasure to invite you to visit our country. Otherwise, we could meet somewhere else. Till then I remain, yours truly.”

    Eighteen days later, on February 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden issued his bloodcurdling fatwa from his hideout in Afghanistan, calling on all Muslims to kill Americans and Jews, adding that civilians were now to be regarded as targets. McElligott followed up the letter with a personal appeal: “I told them, ‘You do realize bin Laden lived there and they have files on his main people?’ There is simply no doubt the F.B.I. knew what was available. The guy I dealt with said, ‘I’d give anything to go in there, but they’—meaning the State Department—‘won’t let us.’”

    Continued (page 3 of 4)

    David Williams did not reply to al-Mahdi’s letter for another four months. “Unfortunately,” he wrote on June 24, “I am not currently in a position to accept your kind invitation.” He hoped “future circumstances” might allow it, but for now the offer had to be rejected. Six weeks after that, bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network succeeded in exploding two pickup trucks at the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. They were reduced to piles of bloody rubble in which 224 people lay dead or dying.

    There were still a few twists of this bitter farce to come. A few days after the bombings, as NBC first reported in 1999, Sudan arrested two suspects who had arrived in Khartoum from Kenya. They were carrying Pakistani passports and using the names Sayyid Nazir Abbass and Sayyid Iskandar Suliman. They had rented an apartment overlooking the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum and appeared to be reconnoitering it for a possible future attack. The material gathered between 1991 and 1996 led the Mukhabarat to believe that the two men were members of al-Qaeda; what is certain is that they had stayed in the Hilltop Hotel in Nairobi—the base used by other members of the embassy-bombings conspiracy. The Mukhabarat cabled the F.B.I. in Washington, offering to extradite them. Without consulting the F.B.I., the U.S. Departments of State and Defense replied by bombing the al-Shifa factory in Khartoum, claiming—on the basis of what is now acknowledged to have been yet more faulty intelligence—that it was owned by bin Laden and was making VX nerve gas. In fact, al-Shifa had no connection to bin Laden. It made vaccines and medicine, and had contracts with the U.N.

    U.S.-Sudan relations then reached their nadir. The Mukhabarat sent the suspects “Abbass” and “Suliman” to Pakistan, where they were promptly lost to view. Ambassador Mohamed was withdrawn from Washington. Just before his departure, Janet McElligott arranged a meeting at her home between him and a senior F.B.I. official. McElligott says the F.B.I. man expressed his deep regret for what had happened and said he hoped that in time the politicians would allow his agency to examine the Sudanese intelligence.

    A few months later, in yet another attempt to induce a thaw, the Mukhabarat chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, invited McElligott to Khartoum. He gave her a handwritten note, which she delivered to the office of the then F.B.I. director, Louis Freeh. It related the circumstances of the two suspects’ arrest and the offer to send them to America, adding, “The bombardment of the pharmaceutical factory blew up the link we established with the FBI and the cooperation that developed on the situation.” However, their interrogation had revealed “some information,” and, as McElligott reminded the F.B.I., the Mukhabarat al-Qaeda files still awaited inspection. Through McElligott, the F.B.I. tentatively suggested a meeting with al-Mahdi in Europe. Before it could take place, the State Department vetoed it.

    In Sudan, the ongoing U.S. attitude produced bewilderment. “We felt it was an irrational attitude,” al-Mahdi says. “We were extending our hand to someone who badly needed help, for our mutual benefit, and it was being rejected.” He goes on to echo the claim made by Ambassador Carney: “If [the F.B.I.] had taken up my offer in February 1998, they could have prevented the bombings. They had very little information at that time: they were shooting in the dark. Had they engaged with the Sudan, they could have stopped a lot of things.”

    It is hard to conceive of a more serious allegation, and it appears to stand up to scrutiny. As late as the end of 1995, Osama bin Laden was not judged important enough by the C.I.A. or F.B.I. for anyone to mention him to Ambassador Petterson when he went to talk to the Sudanese about terrorism. It seems reasonable to infer that the U.S. knew little about his organization or lethal capability. Yet the Mukhabarat had all the main players taped. Besides bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, there was Muhammad Atef, said to be al-Qaeda’s military commander, the man who seems to have orchestrated the 1998 bombings and, reportedly, the September 11 attacks. (In November, Atef was reportedly killed in Afghanistan.) Every time Abu Ibrahim, bin Laden’s former C.E.O., visited his Khartoum home, Atef was there: Ibrahim also recalls seeing Atef “with Osama in Afghanistan, by his side when he delivers his messages on TV.”

    How useful might the files on them have been? Sitting by the pool at the Khartoum Hilton, I asked a senior officer from Egyptian intelligence, who has worked closely with the Mukhabarat, and who asked not to be named. He said, “They knew all about them: who they were, where they came from. They had copies of their passports, their tickets; they knew where they went. Of course that information could have helped enormously. It is the history of those people.”

    There are also some inescapable specifics. During the New York trial of the four men recently convicted of the 1998 bombings, the court heard a lot about a man called Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, who also appears on the most-wanted list. He set the embassy plot rolling by making two journeys to Nairobi in the spring of 1998—from Khartoum, where, the Mukhabarat believed, he was working for al-Qaeda. If F.B.I. officials had accepted the offer made by al-Mahdi that February, they would have known this too, and at some point during his subsequent murderous odyssey, when he rented a villa in Kenya, gathered the bombers at the Hilltop Hotel, or helped stuff a pickup truck with TNT, they might have stepped in and smashed the conspiracy. The Mukhabarat also kept files on another wanted embassy bomber, the Egyptian Saif al-Adel, who also appears on the list of most wanted. He is believed to be in Afghanistan.

    If the 1998 plot had been foiled, perhaps there would have been no September 11. In any event, Sudan had other intelligence that would have made al-Qaeda’s burgeoning growth less likely. Wadih al-Hage, bin Laden’s former private secretary, now serving life without parole after his conviction in New York for his role in the 1998 embassy bombings, was logged and photographed in Sudan. He is said to have moved among bin Laden cells across four continents. How much easier it might have been to cramp al-Qaeda’s style had his importance been grasped in 1996. Another subject of a Mukhabarat file is Mamdouh Mahmoud Salim, a Sudanese born to Iraqi parents, an Afghan-war veteran who worked for two bin Laden companies in Sudan until 1995. He provides a link with the New York suicide hijackers. From 1995 until 1998, he made frequent visits to Germany, where a Syrian trader, Mamoun Darkazanli, had signing powers over his bank account. Darkazanli has been reported to have procured electronic equipment for al-Qaeda. Both men attended the same Hamburg mosque as Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, who flew the two planes into the World Trade Center.

    ‘In the end,” says the former ambassador to the U.S. Mahdi Ibrahim Mohamed, “when there is enough suspicion, nothing anyone says can convince you.” This is what Ambassador Carney’s phrase “politicized intelligence” means: the message from Sudan did not fit conventional wisdom at the State Department and the C.I.A., and so it was disregarded, again and again.

    It was not until May 2000 that the Clinton administration responded to pressure from the U.S. intelligence community and agreed to send a joint F.B.I.-C.I.A. team to Sudan. Even then its mission was not to examine the Mukhabarat files but to ascertain whether Sudan was really sponsoring terror. In the summer of 2001 the team gave the country a clean bill of health. There were no “training camps” or sanctuaries for murderers after all. Gutbi al-Mahdi, the former Mukhabarat chief, says that a few weeks before September 11 the American team finally asked to examine the Sudanese material on al-Qaeda. Events suggest that by then it was too late.

    There are uncomfortable historical parallels. By the spring of 1941 the Soviet Union’s “Red Orchestra” spy ring had been warning Stalin for months that Nazi Germany was about to break its pact with the Soviet Union and invade. Convinced that Hitler remained his ally, he ignored them, so that when the Nazi troop trains began to roll, and the dive-bombers began their deadly blitzkrieg, they found themselves attacking an almost undefended country. Leopold Trepper, the spy ring’s leader, wrote an autobiography, published after 20 million Soviets had died in the Second World War: “He who closes his eyes sees nothing, even in the full light of day.… The generalissimo preferred to trust his political instinct rather than the secret reports piled up on his desk.”

    Continued (page 4 of 4)

    “He who closes his eyes sees nothing.” In the case of Sudan, 1996 through 2000, Madeleine Albright and her assistant secretary for Africa, Susan Rice, apparently preferred to trust their instincts that Sudan was America’s enemy, and so refused to countenance its assistance against the deepest threat to U.S. security since 1945. Ambassador Carney quoted Talleyrand, the 18th-century father of modern diplomacy. This saga was “pire qu’un crime, c’était une bêtise.” He provided his own translation. “It was worse than a crime. It was a fuckup.”

  • Reply to


    by lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 9:53 AM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 10:18 AM Flag

    How many of the socialist hypocrites on this MB have volunteered to take in a couple dozen undocumented Democrat children into their homes? None!! They don't want them in their state much less their homes. They want them in my state and for my tax dollars to pay for them.

  • Reply to

    Libs Dumb as Dirt

    by sosuaman Sep 5, 2014 1:50 PM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 9:59 AM Flag

    Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
    * Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.

    President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

    I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

    From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

    Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

    The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

    As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

    Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

    The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

    But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

    In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

    Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

    Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

    The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

    Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

    But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

    Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

    And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

    The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

    Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.


    Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.

  • lonesome_polecatt by lonesome_polecatt Sep 8, 2014 9:53 AM Flag

    If you have recently
    arrived in this country and need
    a palace to stay, find a house with
    A car in the driveway that has
    an Obama bumper sticker, they want
    you here and think you should be
    taken care of. They claim to be
    generous so they will likely let
    you live with them and will feed
    and clothe you. Feel free to walk right in.

0.08150.0000(0.00%)Aug 27 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.