Al Qaeda in America: The Enemy Within Page 3 of 31

With Anne Bradley

2) Slouching toward September 11

Washington Times Editorial

Today, on the facing page, we are running the first of four excerpts from Richard Miniter's book,
"Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror" (Regnery, 317 pages, $27.95),
which is being released today. Mr. Miniter spent two years interviewing spies, intelligence experts,
soldiers and diplomats in the United States, Western Europe, the Middle East and East Africa to get to
the bottom of how President Clinton left America vulnerable to terrorism. Some of his best sources
were, believe it or not, top Clinton administration officials, who seem eager to defend their individual
roles and point the blame for failure elsewhere. Backed by this wealth of first-person accounts, the
record will show that September 11 is the true legacy of the Clinton administration.

This history turns on its head the reckless media charge that the Bush administration has made the world
less safe by deploying troops around the world to vanquish America's enemies. In the run-up to the
second anniversary of the most deadly acts of terrorism in America's history, it is important to remember
that George W. Bush had been president for less than eight months when the terrorists struck New York
and Washington — while Mr. Clinton had been in power for eight years. And yet, as Mr. Bush grapples
with the difficult security situation he inherited and is being criticized relentlessly by the press, the
Clinton record of responsibility has escaped close scrutiny. Some of that is about to change.

In "Losing Bin Laden," Mr. Miniter, an investigative reporter, carefully dissects Clinton administration
policies that not only failed to capture Osama bin Laden and prevent catastrophe, but allowed his al
Qaeda organization to grow in strength. Al Qaeda's very first attack on Americans was during Mr.
Clinton's presidential transition, in December 1992. His next attack, the 1993 World Trade Center
bombing, happened within the first full month of the Clinton presidency. That this tragedy was of little
concern to Mr. Clinton is evident from the fact that he never visited the bomb site, even though, as Mr.
Miniter reports, he was less than a 15-minute limousine ride away in New Jersey just four days later.
What was so important in New Jersey? Mr. Clinton wanted to talk about a complex job retraining
scheme he was pushing.

Even after al Qaeda had killed Americans on American soil, clear warnings that bin Laden was a
growing threat to the United States were repeatedly ignored by Mr. Clinton and his cabinet. Offers to
hand bin Laden over to the U.S. were rebuffed, and American officials squelched efforts by foreign
governments to assassinate him. Among many news-breaking revelations in Mr. Miniter's book is that
an offer by Sudan to share intelligence dossiers on hundreds of al Qaeda operatives was refused. Most of
those terrorists are still out there somewhere.

From front cover to back, Mr. Miniter's book is the story of how Bill Clinton's conscious policy
decisions to not stop bin Laden made his tragic work possible — and how the president's weakness
allowed bin Laden to surge to global prominence. Every failure to retaliate made bin Laden look
invincible in the Arab world, allowing him to win more recruits and raise money. Nearly every year of
the Clinton presidency, bin Laden's attacks were more lethal than the year before. The trail of blood
culminated in the stunning reality of a burning Pentagon and the haunting images of the Twin Towers
collapsing with thousands inside. It is frightening to contemplate what additional carnage will occur
because the Clinton administration chose not to get bin Laden when it had the chance.

3) Bill Clinton's failure on terrorism

By Richard Miniter
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Part one of an exclusive four-part series of excerpts.

http://kinesis.swishmail.com./webmail/imp/view.php?Horde=a503c59162c987d39e5d6f038d3... 9/2/03
'A.I Qaeda in America: The Enemy Within Page 5 of 31

The chief lesson that the Defense Department seemed to draw from the assault on the USS Cole was the
need for better security for its ships, what was invariably called "force protection." Listening to Cohen
and later talking to top military officers, Sheehan, a former member of Special Forces before joining the
State Department, told the author that he was "stunned" and "taken aback" by their views. "This
phenomenon I cannot explain," he said. Why didn't they want to go hit back at those who had just
murdered American servicemen without warning or provocation?

The issue was hotly debated. Some of the principals were concerned that bin Laden might somehow
survive the cruise-missile attack and appear in another triumphant press conference. Clarke countered by
saying that they could say that they were only targeting terrorist infrastructure. If they got bin Laden,
they could take that as a bonus. Others worried about target information. At the time, Clarke said that he
had very reliable and specific information about bin Laden's location. And so on. Each objection was
countered and answered with a yet another objection.

In the end, for a variety of reasons, the principals were against Mr. Clarke's retaliation plan by a margin
of seven to one against. Mr. Clarke was the sole one in favor. Bin Laden would get away — again.
Richard Miniter is the author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global
Terror." The excerpts are from that book.

4) Bill Clinton's failure on terrorism

By Caspar W. Weinberger
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Richard Miniter's new book, "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror,"
tells the sad, infuriating history of the number of opportunities President Clinton had to capture and
imprison or kill the terrorist Osama bin Laden. Instead, we are still hunting. Bin Laden is still at large
and alive enough to sponsor and concoct the details of the worst attack on America in our history — the
destruction of the World Trade Center and the bombing of the Pentagon. What other horrors he is
planning we do not know, simply because he is still uncaptured.

That reality is the sickening part of this remarkably well-researched and -sourced new book. Mr. Miniter
— part of the reporting team that broke the "The Road to Ground Zero" story in the Jan. 6, 2002 London
Sunday Times — has told how many real, actual and missed opportunities the Clinton administration
had to capture and defang bin Laden. Why in the world would any U.S. administration not accept any
and all offers to help dispose of one of the most vicious and well-financed terrorist leaders?

For several reasons, as the author points out.

The Clinton foreign policy was to get re-elected. Therefore, anything that might be controversial had to
be avoided. So, from the beginning to the end of the administration, the Clintons "demanded absolute
proof before acting against terrorists." This high bar guaranteed inaction. At the beginning of his term,
after the attack of Feb. 26, 1993, Mr. Clinton refused to admit that the World Trade Center had been
bombed. Later, he referred to it only as "regrettable" and "treated the disaster. .. like a twister in
Arkansas." Earlier, he had "urged the public not to 'overreact' to the 1993 World Trade Center
bombing."

That attitude was typical of the Clintonites. The president did not want to hear about bad news — such
as our terrible losses in October 1993, when Black Hawk helicopters were shot down in Mogadishu,
Somalia, or the even more terrifying losses in New York. That would require a strong response which
might upset some of the strange group of advisors and officials Mr. Clinton had collected. So it was with
all the other missed opportunities to get bin Laden. CIA Director James Woolsey rarely had any
meetings with Mr. Clinton. The president never supported Mr. Woolsey's urgent request for Arabic-
language translators for the CIA in 1994. A separate feud between Mr. WoolseyandSen.Dennis

http://kinesis.swishmail.com./webmail/imp/view.php?Horde=a503c59162c987d39e5d6f038d3... 9/2/03
Al Qaeda in America: The Enemy Within Page 6 of 31

DeConcini, Arizona Democrat, was allowed to run its course without direction by the Clinton White
House, which further set back the CIA director's appeal for Arabic translators. So, as the author
concludes, "a bureaucratic feud and President Clinton's indifference kept America blind and deaf as bin
Laden plotted."

The Sudanese would offer to let the U.S. see their intelligence files and all the data they had gathered
about bin Laden and the associates who had visited him in Sudan, "and would be repeatedly rebuffed
through both formal and informal channels. This was one of the greatest intelligence failures of the
Clinton years as the result of orders that came from the Clinton White House." Had the Clinton
administration accepted and examined these files, countless terrorists could have been tracked. Sudan's
offer to arrest bin Laden and deliver him to U.S. officials was likewise refused.

The Clinton Administration did try to get Saudi Arabia to accept bin Laden from Sudan, but the Saudi
government apparently had as difficult a time as Mr. Clinton in making up its mind. The issue finally
resolved itself thus: "The Clinton Administration refused to work with the government of Sudan," and so
all the Sudanese efforts to help us by cooperating in the capture and delivery of bin Laden failed.
Nothing more happens — even after Mr. Clinton won re-election in November 1996.

This is the long sad story of the Clinton Administration's blind refusal to accept offer after offer to
deliver one of the world's terrorist leaders before and after his minions killed thousands in various
terrorist attacks. The book is climaxed by a documented recital of the links between bin Laden's al
Qaeda units and Iraq that should convince all but the most extreme Bush-haters that these links exist and
continue. In all of this, we should try to remember and be grateful for the brilliant military achievements
of our forces in overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

There have always been disputes within administrations. What is important is to contrast the methods
President Reagan used to resolve these differences with Mr. Clinton's indecisiveness. If Mr. Reagan had
so feared taking any kind of position that might become controversial or might injure his chances for re-
election, as Mr. Clinton did every day, we would never have won the Cold War. "Losing bin Laden" is a
valuable history that should serve as a training manual in how not to run a foreign policy.
Caspar W. Weinberger, a former Secretary of Defense, is chairman of Forbes.

5) How Clinton team blew chance to hit bin Laden

BY ROBERT NOVAK

Chicago Sun-Times

On Oct. 12, 2000, the day of the devastating terrorist attack on the USS Cole, President Bill Clinton's
highest-level national security team met to determine what to do. Counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke
wanted to hit Afghanistan, aiming at Osama bin Laden's complex and the terrorist leader himself. But
Clarke was all alone. There was no support for a retaliatory strike that, if successful, might have
prevented the 9/11 carnage.

This startling story is told for the first time in a book by Brussels-based investigative reporter Richard
Miniter to be published this week. Losing bin Laden relates that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright,
Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Attorney General Janet Reno and CIA Director George Tenet all
said no to the attack. I have contacted' enough people attending the meeting to confirm what Miniter
reports. Indeed, his account is based on direct, on-the-record quotes from participants.

Miniter, who was part of the Sunday Times of London investigation of Clinton vs. bin Laden, has
written a bitter indictment of the American president. But by the time of the Cole disaster, with only
weeks left in his presidency, Clinton had focused on the terrorist threat. The problem of the Oct. 12
meeting was the caution common to all councils of war. Arguments by participants sounded valid, but

http://kinesis.swishmail.com./webmail/imp/view.php?Horde=a503c59162c987d39e5d6f038d3... 9/2/03
Mail:: INBOX: [No Subject] Page 1 of 2

9.38MB / 476.84MB (1.97%)

Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:59:30 -0400
From: "" <mjacobson@9-11commission.gov>^
To: "" <dlesemann@9-11commission.gov>4f
Subject: [No Subject]

Pentagon steamed at Bush's choice for postwar Iraq

>http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030410-89147608.htm
>
>By Jerry Sepe ^
>
>Veteran foreign-service officer Barbara Bodine's appointment as a key >
V.
>player in Iraq's transitional government has angered Defense Department S
>officials and federal law-enforcement authorities who believe that as U.S. ^*
>ambassador to Yemen, she blocked an FBI investigation into the 2000 bombing N.
>of the USS Cole.
>
>Working through a number of channels, including the Pentagon, the Justice
>Department and the Senate, several high-ranking federal authorities are
>calling on President Bush to rescind the appointment.
>
>Miss Bodine, a "diplomat in residence" at the University of California at
>Santa Barbara, was named last month by Mr. Bush as director of relief and
reconstruction for central Iraq, based in Baghdad.
>
>She served in Baghdad during Saddam Hussein's regime, later in Kuwait and
>then Yemen, where she was ambassador from 1997 to 2001. After the Oct. 12,
>2000, suicide bombing of the Cole, which killed 17 U.S. sailors and injured
>35 others, she served as chief negotiator between the U.S. and Yemeni
>governments.
>
>"The State Department has successfully imposed Barbara Bodine on the
>Defense Department team dealing with a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq," said one
>former high-ranking Senate official close to the Pentagon. "She is to be
>the mayor of Baghdad, in essence. The Defense Department is livid, but
>there seems nothing they can do."
>
>A Pentagon official, who asked not to be identified, said Miss Bodine
>dismissed warnings of terrorist attacks in Yemen against U.S. ships and
>allowed the Cole to enter port at a reduced security level because she felt
>the value of showing a U.S. presence in Yemen outweighed the risks.
>
>"But she's never said she was sorry or that she made a mistake," said the
>official.
>
>FBI executives and agents familiar with the Cole probe said Miss Bodine, as
>ambassador in Yemen, prevented the bureau from advancing its investigation
>into the bombing at a time when agents were beginning to focus on Saudi
>millionaire Osama bin Laden.
>
>The bureau's top terrorist hunter, John O'Neill, headed the Cole probe and
>was laying the groundwork for a conspiracy case against al Qaeda more than
>a year before the September 11 attacks. He had been sent by FBI Director
>Louis J. Freeh to Yemen with a force of 100 agents, laboratory experts and
>forensics specialists.
>
>But FBI officials said the Cole investigation was stymied by Miss Bodine
>and that she made little effort to encourage Yemeni authorities to

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?actionID= 148&mailbox=INBOX&bo... 6/5/03

 Mail:: INBOX: [No Subject] Page 2 of 2

>cooperate. Despite a number of death threats against agents by Islamic

>terrorists, she refused to allow investigators to carry the weapons Mr.
>0'Neill considered necessary for their protection.

>After Mr. O'Neill left Yemen in August 2001 for New York, Miss Bodine
>refused to authorize his re-entry visa back into Yemen. His colleagues said
>he was told by Miss Bodine his investigative techniques were too' aggressive
>and undiplomatic, and it was important for the United States to get along
>with foreign governments.

>FBI officials and others familiar with the Cole probe said Mr. O'Neill
>believed it was important to show the Yemeni security force the FBI meant
>business in the Cole inquiry. Once he was denied re-entry, however, they
>said what little cooperation investigators had seen from Yemeni authorities
disappeared.

>Now traveling from Kuwait to Iraq with other transition-team members, Miss
>Bodine was unavailable yesterday for comment.

>Mr. O'Neill retired two weeks before the September 11 attacks, telling
>colleagues the government hindered the Cole probe because it was getting
-» >too close to several foreign dignitaries. On Sept. 3, 2001, he took a job
>as chief of security at the World Trade Center, where he died with
>thousands of others eight days later.

>"There's no doubt that denying O'Neill access to Yemen significantly

>limited the Cole investigation, perhaps even killing it" said one key FBI
>official. "And that decision was made by Ambassador Bodine."

>Mr. O'Neill headed the team that captured Ramzi Yousef in Pakistan in the
>1993 World Trade Center bombing and led the probe into the 1998 bombings of
>two U.S. embassies in Africa that resulted in an indictment of bin Laden
>and 16 al Qaeda associates.

>Miss Bodine has spent her career working primarily in southwest Asia and
>the Arabian Peninsula. She served as deputy principal officer in Baghdad
>and deputy chief of mission in Kuwait during the Iraqi invasion and
>occupation in 1990.

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?actionID=148&mailbox=INBOX&bo... 6/5/03