Rumsfeld decision let Bin Laden escape: Senate report

[Chadman]

Rumsfeld decision let Bin Laden escape: Senate report

Sunday, November 29th, 2009 -- 11:51 am

WASHINGTON (AFP) ? Osama bin Laden was "within the grasp" of US forces in late 2001 but escaped because then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld rejected calls for reinforcements, a hard-hitting US Senate report says.

The report, set for release Monday, is intended to help learn the lessons of the past as President Barack Obama prepares to announce a major escalation of the conflict, now in its ninth year, with up to 35,000 more US troops.

It points the finger directly at Rumsfeld for turning down requests for reinforcements as Bin Laden was trapped in December 2001 in caves and tunnels in a mountainous area of eastern Afghanistan known as Tora Bora.

"The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the marine corps and the army, was kept on the sidelines," the report says.

"Instead, the US command chose to rely on airstrikes and untrained Afghan militias to attack Bin Laden and on Pakistan's loosely organized Frontier Corps to seal his escape routes."

Entitled "Tora Bora revisited: how we failed to get Bin Laden and why it matters today," the report -- commissioned by Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- says Bin Laden expected to die and had even written a will.

"But the Al-Qaeda leader would live to fight another day. Fewer than 100 American commandos were on the scene with their Afghan allies and calls for reinforcements to launch an assault were rejected.

"Requests were also turned down for US troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a few miles away in Pakistan.

"The decision not to deploy American forces to go after Bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top commander, General Tommy Franks," the report says.

"On or around December 16, two days after writing his will, Bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan's unregulated tribal area. Most analysts say he is still there today."

Rumsfeld's argument at the time, the report says, was that deploying too many American troops could jeopardize the mission by creating an anti-US backlash among the local populace.

The report dismisses arguments at the time from Franks, Vice President Dick Cheney and others defending the decision and arguing that the intelligence was inconclusive about Bin Laden's location.

"The review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants underlying this report removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora."

The report admits that capturing or killing the Al-Qaeda leader, accused of orchestrating the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States that killed nearly 3,000 people, would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat.

"But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed Bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide," it says.

"The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism, leaving the American people more vulnerable to terrorism, laying the foundation for today's protracted Afghan insurgency and inflaming the internal strife now endangering Pakistan."

As Obama prepares to announce Tuesday a bold new strategy for Afghanistan, Kerry points out at the beginning of the report that when the United States went to war less than one month after the September 11 attacks, the mission was clear: to destroy Al-Qaeda and kill or capture Bin Laden.

"Today, more than eight years later, we find ourselves fighting an increasingly lethal insurgency in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan that is led by many of those same extremists," he says.

"Our inability to finish the job in late 2001 has contributed to a conflict today that endangers not just our troops and those of our allies, but the stability of a volatile and vital region."

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I read that also and was interesting-especially "if' they had proof at time ubl was there.

Have seen some pretty good videos showing man in white robe at that time which would certainly be indicator he was there.

However believe most of us more concerned 911 could have been prevented altogether had Billy Bob taken him when offered.

Billy's excuse-

"So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got -- well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

however he recanted in 911 commission that he--"mispoke"

From the 9/11 Commission Report notes: "President Clinton, in a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association, said that the United States did not accept the Sudanese offer and take Bin Ladin because there was no indictment. . .But the president told [the Commission] 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. . . ." (The 9/11 Commission Report, authorized edition, 480). <!-- google_ad_section_end -->


--and after he has his National Security Adviser -Berger break in archives and suff documents in socks and underwear and destroy them--guess there are some things some felt very pertinent we will never know.

--and in case anyone wants to know what berger got after pleading guilty to theft and destruction of classified records --it was $50,000 fine :0corn

 

[shawn555]

I read that also and was interesting-especially "if' they had proof at time ubl was there.

Have seen some pretty good videos showing man in white robe at that time which would certainly be indicator he was there.

However believe most of us more concerned 911 could have been prevented altogether had Billy Bob taken him when offered.

Billy's excuse-

"So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got -- well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

however he recanted in 911 commission that he--"mispoke"

From the 9/11 Commission Report notes: "President Clinton, in a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association, said that the United States did not accept the Sudanese offer and take Bin Ladin because there was no indictment. . .But the president told [the Commission] 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. . . ." (The 9/11 Commission Report, authorized edition, 480). <!-- google_ad_section_end -->


--and after he has his National Security Adviser -Berger break in archives and suff documents in socks and underwear and destroy them--guess there are some things some felt very pertinent we will never know.

--and in case anyone wants to know what berger got after pleading guilty to theft and destruction of classified records --it was $50,000 fine :0corn

Keep spinning it to blame Clinton.

Sure Bill should have gotten it done, but if we are going to look into the past then Bush should have maybe read some intelligence reports instead of being on vacation the whole fucking time.

Also was not the whole point of after 9/11 was to get Bin Laden? You can spin it all you want but the bush adminstration cost this country thousands upon thousands of young lives in Iraq and Afghanistan under the premise of taking him out. And they have the shot and Rummy doesn't get it done?

I guess knocking Bin Laden off right away would not have been fiscally responsible for team bush and would not have let them get to what they really wanted, an invasion of Iraq.

 

[Lumi]

Not one group (Presidential Term) will be held accountable, I can hear Hannity's screaching voice and see Olby's smarmy gob spinning it either way.

No matter what they are all full of shit !

 

[Chadman]

Ok, Wayne, from your own post, there are two possibilities, from Clinton's two comments. First, and most important:

"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America."

Unless I'm mistaken, our country does not, and cannot take people against their will and keep them in captivity, when they have committed no crime. I realize this distinction doesn't matter for your argument, but remains a function of a free democracy. You know, the kind of government we are preaching about to others, and until recently were putting in place in other countries.

Especially considering that this was prior to the attack on our country, it's an important distinction.

And, if you use his second quote, there was no offer at all.

Compare those two things to what I posted, and you of course tried to change the subject from and blame Clinton - as always - there is a big difference. It was clear after 9-11 that Bin Laden had committed crimes against our country. We had extensive intelligence as to where he was - and not just in this report. The Bush administration even told us that - to build support for the cause. And our main focus and goal, along with the support of other countries, was to get Bin Laden. Complete focus, with cause, with help, at a time when we knew where he was. Pretty big difference, don't you think?

Of course, considering the future plans of the administration, maybe there wasn't that much of a difference. Clearly, the Bush administration cared FAR more about pulling away the vast majority of firepower from Bin Laden and attacking Iraq - a country that did not attack our country - for whatever reasons they could manufacture. It's up to the individual to determine why Bush and Cheney decided to do that, but it's a fact that they did. So, not only did they not stay on task and follow up with the solid intelligence they had, and get the job done, AFTER he had attacked out country, they blew it off, not once, but forever, essentially.

As for the Berger thing, I know that bothers you, but I find it hypocritical that you never pay the same concerns to Dick Cheney and the elimination of damning e-mails, and the personal oversight to destroying White House computers - keeping everything from public view. How much time or money did it cost Cheney when that came out? Um, let's see, ZERO. Compare that to Berger? I doubt you would want to. I guess it just depends on what the argument is - what's important for the public to know, and for what an administration is supposed to do.

Kind of ironic, since you are always preaching about personal responsibility, eh?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Ok, Wayne, from your own post, there are two possibilities, from Clinton's two comments. First, and most important:

"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America."

Unless I'm mistaken, our country does not, and cannot take people against their will and keep them in captivity, when they have committed no crime. I realize this distinction doesn't matter for your argument, but remains a function of a free democracy. You know, the kind of government we are preaching about to others, and until recently were putting in place in other countries.

Especially considering that this was prior to the attack on our country, it's an important distinction.

And, if you use his second quote, there was no offer at all.

Compare those two things to what I posted, and you of course tried to change the subject from and blame Clinton - as always - there is a big difference. It was clear after 9-11 that Bin Laden had committed crimes against our country. We had extensive intelligence as to where he was - and not just in this report. The Bush administration even told us that - to build support for the cause. And our main focus and goal, along with the support of other countries, was to get Bin Laden. Complete focus, with cause, with help, at a time when we knew where he was. Pretty big difference, don't you think?

Of course, considering the future plans of the administration, maybe there wasn't that much of a difference. Clearly, the Bush administration cared FAR more about pulling away the vast majority of firepower from Bin Laden and attacking Iraq - a country that did not attack our country - for whatever reasons they could manufacture. It's up to the individual to determine why Bush and Cheney decided to do that, but it's a fact that they did. So, not only did they not stay on task and follow up with the solid intelligence they had, and get the job done, AFTER he had attacked out country, they blew it off, not once, but forever, essentially.

As for the Berger thing, I know that bothers you, but I find it hypocritical that you never pay the same concerns to Dick Cheney and the elimination of damning e-mails, and the personal oversight to destroying White House computers - keeping everything from public view. How much time or money did it cost Cheney when that came out? Um, let's see, ZERO. Compare that to Berger? I doubt you would want to. I guess it just depends on what the argument is - what's important for the public to know, and for what an administration is supposed to do.

Kind of ironic, since you are always preaching about personal responsibility, eh?

--I guess its just me Chad but somehow deleting an email and walking in National Archives and stuffing dicuments down ones pants are a bit diff.:shrug:

I am interested in emails and computer job you are discussing--I am assuming there was proof and charges filed like on Berger.

or do we have another allegations vs proof like GW and O on the doing coke issue?

 

[Chadman]

Wayne, you really don't remember the Cheney e-mails/computer disappearance issue? Really? We all talked about it on here for at least a week, as I recall. No, there were no charges filed, since he claimed executive privilege, but it's rather hard to file charges against things that have been destroyed or deleted, right? The timing of which was previous to the Libby thing? Irony? Sure.

Yes, there is a difference. One of the two faced the music. The other one hid behind privilege, as he always did and has. What Berger did was clearly wrong. I can admit that. But of course, you hide behind the same BS that Cheney did, and avoid the issue, and change the subject - again. Nice work. I'll dig up the stories for you, although I'm sure if it was a Berger issue, you could find it in a quick Google for us, right?

 

[Chadman]

Here's one of many stories (not on Faux News) about this issue. It was a big story back then, and I'm sure you remember it. To your point, yes, it would be hard to convict anyone that had already destroyed all the incriminating evidence... But, anyway:

White House Destroyed Hard Drives That May Have Contained Missing Emails
? By Nick Baumann | Mon March 24, 2008 2:32 PM PST (From MotherJones.com)

The White House has responded to a judge's order asking it to explain why it shouldn't be required to make copies of all of its hard drives to ensure the recovery of missing emails by claiming that many of the relevant hard drives have been destroyed. You read that correctly: the White House position is "We don't have to preserve hard drives containing missing email because we already destroyed them."

"[T]he vast majority of computer workstations used during the relevant time period would have been replaced approximately every three years in connection with this refresh program," writes Theresa Payton, the Chief Information Officer of the White House Office of Administration (OA) in her declaration to the court.

This latest revelation appears to present a major obstacle to the efforts of two non-profits, the National Security Archive (NSA) and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which are suing to recover what may be up to 10 million missing emails and to ensure no more are lost. (Need to catch up? Read our full coverage of the missing White House emails story.) If the original hard drives exist, even deleted emails can probably be recovered from "slack space" on each hard drive, although the passage of time makes that process harder. But according to Payton's declaration, when the White House removes old machines, it usually only copies "active data" to the new machine. Any previously deleted emails or archive files would then be unrecoverable. This means it may be virtually impossible to dig up emails from March to October 2003, a period that is not covered by White House backup tapes.

Given the dictates of the Federal Records Act, which governs the preservation of White House email, the administration's destruction of the hard drives is curious. Of course, all IT departments regularly replace hardware. This "is necessary in order to run updated software, reduce ongoing maintenance, and enhance security assurance," Payton says in her declaration.

When computers are replaced, it is fairly standard practice to destroy the hard drives of the old computers, particularly if they contain confidential information (as the White House hard drives almost certainly did). But it is almost unheard of for a hard drive to be destroyed if no backup of the data it contains exists. The White House is required by law to preserve all federal records, a category that includes much of its internal email correspondence.

This is an important point: destroying hard drives is common practice; permanently destroying data is another matter. It's highly unusual. If the White House knew there was even a chance that the hard drives were the last repositories of the missing emails, it must have realized it might be irrevocably destroying data it was compelled to preserve.

It's likely the White House knew of problems with its archiving system while it engaged in its normal practice of replacing computers. As Mother Jones reported last month, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) told the White House on January 6, 2004 that it was "operating at risk by not capturing and storing messages outside the email system." Documents released at a House oversight committee hearing last month reveal that the White House knew of a "critical security issue" with the archiving system in 2005. And a 15-person team of administration employees created a report in 2005 that pointed to some 700 days for which there was a suspiciously low amount of archived email (for about 400 of those days there was no archived email at all). On April 13, 2007, Dana Perino, the White House Press Secretary, said "I wouldn't rule out that there were a potential 5 million e-mails lost."

It's pretty clear White House officials knew there might be a problem with missing emails as early as 2004. But the "refresh" program continued. (A similar program to "recycle" backup tapes was stopped in October 2003?but only after the backup tapes for March-October 2003 had already been overwritten). Since it would be obvious to any IT professional (of which the White House has many) that the hard drives being erased were a potential source for recovering missing emails, any good faith effort to recover that information and ensure no more was lost would include a temporary halt to the "refresh" program. That didn't happen.

It now seems that the plaintiffs' concern that data contained in the slack space of White House hard drives would be overwritten was the wrong worry. If the administration is telling the truth, these drives have likely already been destroyed. The NSA plans to respond to the White House's filing by close of business on Tuesday. The NSA's General Counsel, Meredith Fuchs, told me she doesn't see "how it's possible" for the White House to have been running a computer refresh program for years but not, as Payton claims, know which computers it replaced and when. But given the twists and turns of this tale, well, any incompetence (or cover story) is possible.

 

[Chadman]

And of course, you've probably forgotten about Cheney, Abramhoff, and other White House figures using the RNC e-mail addresses to conduct White House business, and avoid both notice and the law of the land. Gee, I wonder why that would be? Gee, do you think that they would be worried about what would be contained in those e-mails?

Simple question. Do you think this was wrong? Any of it? Can you just admit it? If it was the Obama administration, would this be a concern for you? Would it bother you? Would it be wrong?

 

[Chadman]

And don't think I didn't notice you sticking with the Berger issue, and letting the other - more important issue - slide...

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"White House Destroyed Hard Drives That May Have Contained Missing Emails"

Thanks Chad but we can't count could have-may have-is possibly etc.

again that like diff between GW and O doing coke--ones a conjecture and the other was admitted vice.

 

[Chadman]

That's fine, Wayne, I wouldn't expect anything different from you, unfortunately. you know as well as I do there were many stories about this, e-mails were lost and never archived, per the law of our land, and e-mails were sent outside the white house on republican committee e-mail addresses dealing with White House business - and the timeframe when all these e-mails and computers were lost were exactly the same timeframe when crimes most likely were committed. But, of course, the Cheney administration took steps never before taken by any administration to avoid revealing anything, so, we'll never have proof of anything.

Again, I'm guessing that had this same WIDELY publicized, and noted situation - or group of situations - had been attributed to Clinton or Obama, you would think it was a big deal.

There is documented proof that millions of e-mails and documents that are required to be archived by law were missing. The sheer numbers of e-mails that were archived before and after this timeframe prove that these e-mails and documents are gone. You know that. I know you do. And I also know that had it been someone that you aren't trying to defend and would be trying to cast aspersions on, it would be a big deal to you. And I know you know more about this than you are letting on.

But, go ahead. I actually give you more credit than this, usually. You are in rare form here.

And, I haven't been changing the subject to the cocaine thing, but since you bring THAT up, which one of the two are known alcoholics, carousers, and failures at every form of business relations they have ever been in? Which one of them joked, when on site in New Orleans after Katrina, about how many "good times" he had down there?

You really want to go down the substance abuse road, comparing these two?

 

[SKEETER1]

Dont forget Bill had a chance to kill Bin Laden

7X's

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

Dont forget Bill had a chance to kill Bin Laden

7X's

They are all guilty.

The thing I don't understand is why Bush didn't go after Bin Laden in Tora Bora? It makes no sense. He is a neo-con warmonger. Why the fuck didn't he finish the job? I'll have to dig up some conspiracy stories.

 

[shawn555]

Dont forget Bill had a chance to kill Bin Laden

7X's

So wait was there proof that bin laden had attacked the united states at that time?

I am pretty sure bin laden had attacked the usa before Rummy didnt get him.

Again you can try and blame Clinton on this one, but clinton was not the one who allowed 9/11 to happen on his watch. Not the one who said they were going to get bin laden just to let him get away. Not the one who lied about bin laden being tied with saddam. Not the one who is responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of our troops.

But you can just continue to blame Clinton if you want, but if you have one brain cell you can tell that Rummy letting him go is appalling.

 

[shawn555]

They are all guilty.

The thing I don't understand is why Bush didn't go after Bin Laden in Tora Bora? It makes no sense. He is a neo-con warmonger. Why the fuck didn't he finish the job? I'll have to dig up some conspiracy stories.

Thats simple they get him fast like they should have, there is no plan to get into Iraq which was the goal from day one.

If they actually gave two shits about shutting down Al Qaeda and getting Bin Laden we would be a hell of a lot closer to winning. But instead the fucks invaded Iraq on false terms and costs thousands upon thousands of lives for nothing.

 

[Hard Times]

To shawn 555 or trampled underfoot

To shawn 555 or trampled underfoot

Please google bin laden dead, then scroll down to ... Is Bin Laden Dead NOV. 26TH Article,please read , then take a second look at the picture of this fake pretender in the picture that they put out in 2004 , just before the fake elections that we have in this country .... funny how stupid people are, YOU can't prove that he is alive, please post this article for all to read , everyone needs to read this before bitching about how important the WARS are and the never ending wars that the country has declared on the muslim population , because of what ,how we must get this fake BOOGER MAN.
Here is a quote from one of the top Chinese leaders : The news that Americans receive on a regular bases IS like soup ... AMERICANS EAT THIS SOUP WITH FORK, THEY WORK VERY VERY HARD BUT GET NO SOUP ! HA ! HA!

 

[Hard Times]

Dennis Kucinich... A GOOD MAN

Dennis Kucinich... A GOOD MAN

Kucinich made appearances on the news media last night, Larry King , Oreilly, maybe others that I didn't see .
I don't know why he makes these appearances . This man will tell you the truth about the shit that is going on and he gives the reasons why this country should not send troops and should end the illegal wars and that the George Bush wars are based on lies... why are we spending life and treasure on these LIES ? These clowns that run these programs will talk over this man and shout him down and make him out to be a lunatic.
Nation building ... Empire building , The fucking WAR MACHINE at its glory.
These clowns that host these so called news media programs are guilty of high treason, why you ask , well my point is that if you are invested to the hilt in the war machine then it is obvious what side you would be on. A person must think through this shit and the rhetoric and a person needs to know why the shout down and what their real agenda is .
That fat little retarded Karl Rove called Kucinich a isolationist ... called Obama the magnificent the same . You know something , it might not hurt the country to be a little isolated.
If there is a group of no good sons of bitches that needs to be taken to trail for WAR CRIMES then it is Rove , Bush , Cheney, Rummy the dummy, Condoleezza Rice, Pearl, they are others , too many too list. You need to know how much stock do these son of bitches own in the WAR MACHINE .