You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Arabia
How a UAE prince prevented the U.S. assassination of Bin Laden
2006-03-04
From Geostrategy-direct, subscription.
President Bush's enthusiastic endorsement of granting the United Arab Emirates the right to manage leading U.S. ports highlights his belief that the Gulf Arab country has been a solid partner in the war against Al Qaida.

But evidence collected by his government calls that belief into question. Take the report of "The 9/11 Commission Report" and turn to page 137. For the next three pages, Bush could learn how the UAE was involved in foiling a U.S. assassination plot against Osama Bin Laden that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks.

The report suggests that the UAE used its contacts with the United States to protect Bin Laden. In 1999, the Clinton administration approved a plan to strike Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Bin Laden had been located near Kandahar and often went to a small camp where he was largely isolated from civilians.

The problem was that Bin Laden was hanging around with UAE nationals, including a senior member of the ruling family. Richard Clarke, the omnipotent assistant for counter-terrorism in the National Security Agency, called a senior UAE official and expressed concern that members of his country were consorting with Bin Laden. Indeed, an official UAE aircraft was near Bin Laden's camp. The U.S. military was ordered not to strike Bin Laden because of the possibility that the UAE prince would be killed as well. A CIA agent identified only as "Mike" who had been tracking Bin Laden said this marked the loss of the best opportunity to target the terrorist leader, responsible for the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington.
Too bad we did not take out Binny then. It would have been a twofer. Binny would have become dissipated proteins and fats and the UAE would have learned a valuable lesson in consorting with terrorists.
On March 7, 1999, the report said, Clarke telephoned the UAE official regarding Bin Laden's whereabouts. Within a week, the Bin Laden camp was dismantled and the site was deserted.
"Hey, Achmed! I just got a call from ths Clarke infidel in Washington. They are onto Binny and our prince. Better get them on the blower and tell them to am-scray ow-nay!"
"Hokay, boss. Ima dialin'. (right index finger, don't fail me now!)"
"CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt, were irate," the report said. "'Mike' thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting Bin Laden."

The report quoted UAE leaders as saying that Abu Dhabi would help the United States against Bin Laden. The leaders insisted that UAE officials were not in Afghanistan, even as the UAE military chief of staff was on a hunting trip in the country.
Then we should have taken them out, for sure. Oh, woe for lost opportunity....
"On February 10, as the United States considered striking the camp, Clarke reported that during his visit [UAE leader] Bin Zayed had vehemently denied rumors that high-level UAE officials were in Afghanistan," the report said. "Subsequent reporting, however, suggested that high-level UAE officials had indeed been at the desert camp. CIA memo, 'Recent High Level UAE Visits to Afghanistan,' Feb. 19, 1999. Gen. Shelton also told us that his UAE counterpart said he had been hunting at a desert camp in Afghanistan at about this time."
Posted by:Alaska Paul

#10  Heh...
Posted by: .com   2006-03-04 21:37  

#9  Ah, I bet we get a full blown case of BDS by autumn that'll turn the stomachs of enough Americans that by election day, not only will the Democrats not take back either house, but will lose seats in the disgust. Unfortunately, that'll lead to an 'Fort Sumter' event by a moonbat.
Posted by: Jinegum Flaish2343   2006-03-04 21:24  

#8  Lol. I had just popped by to shower and change, saw this article, and exploded at the sheer idiocy. Sin City = 24x7, heh.

There have been many memes floated by the BDS assholes. Some are simple-minded drivel, some are much more sophisticated in that they require either native intelligence to see through or a trusted authoritative source to debunk. The sad truth is that each and every one of them peels off a few or alot from reality and enlists them in the Kool Aid Brigade. Sure, some drop off over other memes that they know are BS and they begin to see the pattern we see here, but some just don't think for themselves - they lack the info crucial to critical thinking.

This is one of those you gotta think about - hard - keeping your knees locked down while doing so. Separating wheat from chaff is where reality breaks (in the surfing sense) - to one side break the fools and tools of the mob and to the other break the people you'd choose to associate with, like to share a meal or a beer with.

Look at the polls for verification. The assholes and dimwits have peeled off a lot of people, including what were solid Pubs not that long ago. As issues which require thought finally get some clarification in the public realm, some will come back to the fold. Enough? No, IMHO.

Got a little prediction to toss out: this November, the Dhimmidonks will win either the House or the Senate, and possibly even both. The House is the more likely - and guess what the House can do... From this new-found power, they will launch endless wank-o-matic attacks, investigations, and (wet-dreams are realized) impeachment proceedings against Bush in the House. The last 2 years of the Bush admin will be a true dead duck, hamstrung, weak, without any further substantive achievements. It will lead to a tight and nasty 2008 (duh, big surprise), but it will have a larger effect than I hear anyone around here admitting to - a 50/50 chance that a Dhimmidonk candidate will take the WH. After that, well, somewhere around 2012 or so, there will be a civil war.

That's pretty far off in the future, and a bazillion things can happen to change the sequence, of course.

But in the near future we have a critical moment approaching that must not be mishandled: Iran. Will Bush have the stones to deal with it as needed, with or without congressional support? I'd say yes - for a mixture of good and bad reasons. On the good side will be those who haven't been fooled by the Kool Aid Brigades - they think for themselves, aren't suckers for peer pressure, are capable of bona-fide critical thought, and don't mistake a knee-jerk for a thought process. On the bad side, lol, is the 1979 "revolution" (devolution is far more accurate, IMHO) in Iran. Take the US Embassy and holding our people hostage hasn't been forgotten - or forgiven. Only the terminal Moonbats, like Carter, have gone over the cliff and decided that everything bad that happens is deserved, there are no bad people, just bad govt, etc. etc. Even the morons are afraid of the MM's and remember '79, so we'll pick up the emotional knee-jerk Kool Aid swills.

My 2¢.
Posted by: .com   2006-03-04 18:04  

#7  Also, for all we know, someone in the UAE delegation might have been reporting back to someone in the US.

Where do you think we were getting the targeting information in the first place?
Posted by: Phil   2006-03-04 14:59  

#6  One photo of flogged equine coming right up, .com.
Posted by: lotp   2006-03-04 13:19  

#5  "The report suggests that the UAE used its contacts with the United States to protect Bin Laden."

Just maybe the report suggests the UAE wasn't enthusiastic about their Big shots ending up as collateral damage.
IÂ’ve got a suggestion for 'Geostrategy-direct'Â…read comment #2.


Posted by: DepotGuy   2006-03-04 13:15  

#4  Don't hold back .com, tell us what you really think. :)
Posted by: Clonter Cluse3533   2006-03-04 11:33  

#3  Somewhat dated indeed. Hardly passes the 'so what' test at this late date.
Posted by: Visitor   2006-03-04 07:39  

#2  Unfuckingbelievable. Partisan idiocy trumpeted for yet another day. This story deserves a viciously flogged dead horse graphic.

Pud-puller extraordinaire at GeoSuckMyAss is flogging for subscriptions, again.

This is 7 years ago, 2.5+ yrs before 9/11. Pardon me for saying it, but it's ancient fucking history.

Nothing, repeat nothing is changed one whit by this - or any of the previous Totally Fucking Bullshit Wanking that thinking people have endured from the Partisans and the Putzes. It's just mindless muddle-headed masturbation and purest partisan pandering.

Talk about stuck on fucking stupid. Now we'll get to hear the Twit Twins tell about all the scary boogeymen living under their beds, again.
Posted by: .com   2006-03-04 06:30  

#1  Talking about going full circle, I wonder if Bill Clinton is hanging with the same senior member of the ruling family that Bin Laden was?

Sorry, but anything Clarke says is highly suspect. This is the same guy who said he didn't know who authorized the flying out of the Bin Laden family after 9/11, and later testified under oath that it was in fact him who did it.

Clarke was as much responsible for the intelligence failure as anyone.
Posted by: Captain America   2006-03-04 01:00  

00:00