« Corruption In Defense Contracts | Main | Who Said This? »


August 17, 2005

OOPS! NY Times Lie Of Omission

-- by Dave Johnson

This NY Times story, State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996 ends with this:

"The thinking was that he was in Afghanistan, and he was dangerous, but because he was there, we had a better chance to kill him," Mr. Scheuer said. "But at the end of the day, we settled for the worst possibility - he was there and we didn't do anything."
It accidently forgot to include this:
Clinton strikes terrorist bases

THE United States launched cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan yesterday against centres allegedly linked with the terrorist bombings of two American embassies.

More here,
With about 75 missiles timed to explode simultaneously in unsuspecting countries on two continents, the operation was the most formidable U.S. military assault ever against a private sponsor of terrorism.

... Clinton and his national security team linked both sites to Osama bin Laden, the exiled Saudi millionaire tied by U.S. intelligence to the twin bombings on Aug. 7 in Kenya and Tanzania. The bombings killed 12 Americans and nearly 300 Africans.

... The president made no apologies for ordering the strikes without permission from Afghanistan or the Sudan, saying, "Countries that persistently host terrorists have no right to be safe havens."
... Clinton presented several reasons for the decision to act swiftly and forcefully, rather than to punish bin Laden through the means of diplomacy and law. Repeatedly he said bin Laden presented an imminent threat, quoting his pledge this week to wage a war in which Americans were "all targets."

Oops, the Times accidentally left that part out...

Update - Never forget that the Republicans reacted to Clinton attacking bin Laden by accusing him of doing it for political "wag the dog" reasons. (And here.)

Posted by Dave Johnson at August 17, 2005 9:18 AM

Bookmark and Share

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.fcgi/682

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference OOPS! NY Times Lie Of Omission:

» Blame Clinton from Media in Trouble: All the News That's UNfit to Pr
UM OK then. Why was there a certain.... I dunno .... Bombing of Afghani Terrorist training camps back in 1998? Right that was to distract us from the blow job. Sorry Michael. I thought you were the expert on this. [Read More]

Tracked on August 17, 2005 12:33 PM

» Wagging the dog from esoterically.net
That's what they called it back in 1998. Our Republican friends have very short (and very selective) memories.... [Read More]

Tracked on August 17, 2005 4:36 PM

» Latest Doc Dump: Earliest Iraq War Planning To Date from Grouchy's Liberaltopia
There have been some stories in the "Liberal Media" that the right is touting as proof that... what else, it's all Clinton's fault. Bullshit. They omitted a few important points. Spinmonkeys. Seeing The Forest helps you see the forest for... [Read More]

Tracked on August 17, 2005 5:15 PM

» Latest Doc Dump: Earliest Iraq War Planning To Date from Grouchy's Liberaltopia
There have been some stories in the "Liberal Media" that the right is touting as proof that it's... all Clinton's fault. Bullshit. They omitted a few important points. Spinmonkeys. Seeing The Forest helps you see the forest for the trees.... [Read More]

Tracked on August 17, 2005 6:05 PM

» MORE evidence that Clinton did nothing about al Qa from Really Not Worth Archiving.
I don't know why the New York Times didn't challenge a quote it printed earlier this week, that Clinton did nothing about Osama Bin Laden; anyone who reads the 9/11 Commission's report knows that there was significant focus on bin Laden, that there w... [Read More]

Tracked on August 20, 2005 9:18 AM


Comments

Interestingly enough, if you look at the article linked from here, the usual gang of lazy whores over at the NYT were trying to have it both ways back then as well.

In the column of related links on the right side of the article there is a link to a question about "Is Life Imitating Art? 'Wag the Dog' Springs to Many Minds"

do these fucking people not even bother to fact-check themselves anymore???

Posted by: The Crapture [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 17, 2005 12:52 PM

Ah, so 9/11 was all Clinton's fault!

I've read Richard Clarke's book. Clinton was hot to get Osama. He considered him a major threat and made sure the Bush administration was well briefed on the situation. They dismissed it.

Posted by: publicdomainprogress [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 17, 2005 2:14 PM

Superb post, Dave! Have just laid eyes on this article and emailed it to several people because I was so outraged - hope I didn't email it to you ..
And I LOVE the 'lazy whores over at the NYT' quip, 'The Crapture'. LOVE your pseudonym as well!

Posted by: belga [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 17, 2005 3:11 PM

The Clinton stuff is old news, maybe not to the wingers who don't pay any attention anyway.

When was the first time we found out that Bin Laden was a problem?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1292adenbomb

Read it and weep then sic Bill O'Reilly on it.

Posted by: grannyinsanity [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 17, 2005 8:11 PM

With about 75 missiles timed to explode simultaneously in unsuspecting countries on two continents, the operation was the most formidable U.S. military assault ever against a private sponsor of terrorism.

Unfortunately, it was also one of the most ineffective. Neither Clinton nor Bush ever seemed to realize that the key to defeating terrorists is good intel, not massive firepower.

In fact, the attack on Sudan was an utter fiasco, succeeding only in destroying a pharmaceutical factory and thereby further impoverishing the Sudanese.

The fact that the factory was ever targeted reflected the national security establishment's paranoia about WMDs (chemical weapons, in this case). Clinton also launched a cruise missile attack on Saddam Hussein's "weapons factories" later, in Dec. 1998. Of course, neither Sudan nor Iraq was producing chemical weapons of any sort at the time.

Oh, well, at least Clinton was wise enough not to launch an invasion over his advisors' paranoid fantasies. If only Bush were even half as wise.

Posted by: Mathwiz [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 24, 2005 12:24 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?



Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Return to main page