Don't Worry, Sandy Berger Says It's True
Press reports so far have made the Sept. 11 Commission's report sound like a non-event. We haven't yet had time to read it in its entirety, but will post observations from time to time as we work our way through it.
This stunning non sequitur on page three of Section 4 of the report, titled "Responses to al Qaeda's Initial Assaults," caught my eye. Here is the Commission's commentary on Sudan's alleged offer to turn Osama bin Laden over to the U.S. in 1995:
Sudan’s minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel Bin Ladin. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment outstanding. [see ftnote 7]
That pretty much says it all, doesn't it? Capturing bin Laden was unthinkable because "there was no indictment outstanding." Of course, just two pages earlier, the Commission notes that President Bill Clinton’s counterterrorism Presidential Decision Directive no. 39, issued in 1995, stated that "terrorism was a national security problem, not just a law enforcement issue." The Commission makes no effort to explain why the lack of an indictment was dispositive outside of a law enforcement context.
Nor does the Commission explain why the word of Sudan's minister of defense does not constitute credible evidence.
Footnote 7 to Chapter 4, which deals with the Sudan issue, tells us a great deal, I think, about the Commission's investigation:
The CIA official who held one-on-one discussions with Erwa said that Erwa never offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States or render him to another country. Mark interview (May 12,2004). For Carney’s instructions and the lack of a U.S.indictment, see Timothy Carney interview (Dec.4,2003). On the indictment issue and the supposed Sudanese offer to give up Bin Ladin, see Samuel Berger interview (Jan.14,2004).In early May 1996, the CIA received intelligence that Bin Ladin might be leaving Sudan. Though this reporting was described as "very spotty," it would have been passed along to the DCI’s office because of high concern about Bin Ladin at the time. But it did not lead to plans for a U.S.operation to snatch Bin Ladin, because there was no indictment against him. Ron interview (Mar.18,2004);Frank interview (Mar.18,2004). It appears, however, that if another country had been willing to imprison Bin Ladin, the CIA might have tried to work out a scenario for apprehending him. CIA cable, May 8, 1996. The Sudanese government did not notify the United States that Bin Ladin had left the country until about two days after his departure. DOS cable,Nairobi 07020, "Sudan: Foreign Minister on Developments," May 21,1996.
President Clinton, in a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association, said that the United States did not accept a Sudanese offer and take Bin Ladin because there was no indictment. President Clinton speech to the Long Island Association, Feb.15, 2002 (videotape of speech). But the President told us 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. President Clinton meeting (Apr.8, 2004). Berger told us that he saw no chance that Sudan would have handed Bin Ladin over and also noted that in 1996, the U.S.government still did not know of any al Qaeda attacks on U.S. citizens. Samuel Berger interview (Jan.14, 2004).
So President Clinton confirmed the Sudanese offer in a speech; but this confirmation was discounted by the Commission because Clinton later said he had "misspoken." Beyond Clinton's retraction, who is the authority for the proposition that the Sudanese offer never happened, and that there was "no chance" Sudan would have handed bin Laden over to the U.S.? Sandy Berger. Whom they interviewed in January 2004, while he was under investigation for removing documents from the National Archives. By that time, of course, he knew what documents were and were not in the Archives. Did Clinton know, too, so that, in April of this year, he knew it was safe to claim that he had "misspoken" when he acknowledged the Sudan offer?
And are we really supposed to take this seriously as an investigation?
