Bin Laden tried to assassinate Clinton - why didn't Bill return the favor?

We know learn that in 1996, Osama bin Laden came within minutes of killing Bill Clinton.

Former President Bill Clinton came within minutes of being assassinated in the Philippines by terrorists controlled by Osama bin Laden, a new book has revealed.

The US leader was saved shortly before his car was due to drive over a bridge in Manila where a bomb had been planted.

The foiled attack came during Mr Clinton's visit to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in the city in 1996.

You'd think a guy might hold a grudge for something like that.

But throughout the rest of his term, President Clinton seemed unable to muster the necessary will and military resources to take out Bin Laden.

In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.

Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.

Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden? NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. “You see a tall man…. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.”

Bin Laden is 6 foot 5. The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.

Another clue: The video was shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live. The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches secret U.S. intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.

“It’s dynamite. It’s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn’t happen every day.… I guess you could say we’ve done it once, and this is it,” Arkin added.

The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.

“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

Can anyone explain why Clinton didn't think Bin Laden deserved exactly what Bin Laden had planned to do to Clinton?

Failing to take out Bin Laden in the immediate aftermath of the 1996 assassination attempt left him free to plot the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa and the 2000 USS Cole bombing. Either of those should have been a casus belli for killing Bin Laden on sight. Clinton seems to have been more interested in sexual stimulation than in national defense, or indeed even basic self-preservation.

Does the AP hire these guys on purpose?

An Associated Press writer named Omar Sinan analyzes a message from Abu Yahia al-Libi, a Libyan al-Qaida leader who escaped from U.S. custody in Afghanistan. Note the incredible statement about the resurgence of the Taliban since the 2001 U.S. invasion:

Al-Libi, wearing a white traditional Arab robe and a black turban, also ridiculed the U.S. for its troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming the country's power and prestige was in decline.

"America, which is one of the major evil spirits of the age, was only a few years ago bragging about its power and boasting of its army and materiel, at a time when everyone was subordinate to it and submissive to its resolutions," said al-Libi, whose nom de guerre means "the Libyan" in Arabic.

"But today, where is America? Where is the vanity and arrogance of the American army and its policymakers?" he added. "And moreover, where is the value of the American soldier whose killing used to make headlines in all the media but who today is dragged in the streets of Baghdad, hung on the bridges of Fallujah, rolled on the rocks of Afghanistan and burned to coals in the middle of its capital, Kabul."

Al-Libi praised the resurgence of Taliban militants in Afghanistan, who have made a comeback following a U.S.-led invasion in 2001 that ousted them from power.

It might have been worth noting that at the start of 2007, the Taliban were promising a spring offensive to drive the infidels from Afghan soil, and at the end of summer 2007, the Taliban have suffered massive losses and inflicted only minor damage on Coalition forces and the Afghan government. al-Libi, al-Zawahiri and bin Laden can make grandiose claims in Webcasts from undisclosed locations, but they don't seem to be able to match their words with deeds.

Gandhi's grandson: my Granddad would have stood up to Bin Laden

Mahatma Gandhi's grandson says that the Great Soul would have stood up to Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and the Islamofascist movement.

Rajmohan Gandhi told the BBC his grandfather would also have tried to organise "something dramatic" - perhaps a mass fast - to show how unhappy most Muslims were that their religion was being linked to terrorism.

Asked what he would have made of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and the Islamist Taliban militia in Afghanistan, Rajmohan said: "He would have stood up to them."

"The Muslim and non-Muslim issue was a very important issue in his life in India, and he was killed because many Hindus thought he was friendlier to the Muslims than was necessary," the former Indian parliamentarian said.

"So today, he would never agree with the idea that there's something connected between Islam and violence or Islam and terrorism. He would totally oppose that idea."

Rajmohan added that his grandfather "might have recommended to the Muslims of the world who were unhappy being hijacked by the terrorists to say how about demonstrating your dissociation with violence through a fast if need be".

One wonders whether moderate Muslims could have been shamed by the Mahatma into such a grand demonstration, or whether he would even have lived long enough to carry out the effort. It's fairly certain that the Islamofascists would have had no qualms about murdering him.

The lighter side of Osama bin Laden

The Daily Telegraph interviews Osama Bin Laden's erstwhile cook. Mmmm, mutton korma -- something Bin Laden and I can agree on.

"If he was here today, then of course I would prepare him a mutton korma," said Akhtar, sitting under one of the apple trees in his Kabul orchard. "It was his absolute favourite, with a pilau full of almonds, orange peel and raisins."

Akhtar claimed that his Saudi employer, who often grumbled about his health and was a picky eater, rarely let anyone else prepare his food, mainly due to worries about being poisoned.

Life in bin Laden's cave close to the Pakistan border was predictably austere, dominated by prayer and talk of jihad. Bin Laden slept little, rising at midnight to fit in an extra set of prayers on top of Islam's standard five cycles.

Akhtar claimed he shared a room with bin Laden and Abu Maz, his Palestinian assistant. There was only one bed and bin Laden gave this to Akhtar because he was the oldest.

Every afternoon bin Laden delivered lengthy lectures to his followers offering Koranic justification for holy war. But he had a lighter side to him.

"He was always making so many jokes," claimed Akhtar. "He was always happy before he went home to Saudi Arabia and would say 'Uncle, I have four wives waiting for me. It's time for some fun'.

"We Afghans do not talk about our wives in this way."

Scandalous!

US Senate flexes its super-powers

The U.S. Senate leaps into action! Since the bounty of $25 million on Osama Bin Laden's head has had zero effect in leading to his capture, the Senate votes to double it. Hey, twice the dollars, twice the success, right?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Friday voted to double the bounty on Osama bin Laden to $50 million and require President George W. Bush to refocus on capturing him after reports al Qaeda is gaining strength.

By a vote of 87-1, the Senate set the reward for the killing or capture, or information leading to the capture, of the mastermind of the September 11 attacks on the United States.

Critics of Bush's "global war on terror" have accused him of putting too much emphasis on Iraq, which had no known connection to the September 11 attacks, at the expense of efforts to get bin Laden and dismantle al Qaeda.

Right. Killing hundreds of al-Qaeda members in Iraq has nothing to do with dismantling al-Qaeda. And the thousands of NATO troops in Afghanistan have been ignoring the hunt for Bin Laden.

But the added money, and more importantly, reports to Congress, will do the trick -- this time, for sure!

Sen. Byron Dorgan, also a North Dakota Democrat, said more important than the bounty was the legislation's requirement that the administration give Congress classified reports on the hunt for al Qaeda leaders every 90 days....

Citing reports that bin Laden could be in a secure hideaway in Pakistan, Dorgan said, "There should not be one square inch on this planet" that is safe for bin Laden.

Sen. Jim Bunning, the Kentucky Republican who cast the only vote against raising the bounty, said catching al Qaeda leaders already was a "top priority." In a slap at Democrats, he added, "If Senator Dorgan truly supported our efforts to fight al Qaeda he would not support withdrawing from Iraq, a key battleground against al Qaeda and in the war on terror."

Of course, Congress could declare war on Pakistan and give the President the green light to invade the Northwest Frontier and Tribal Areas of that country to hunt down Bin Laden. The Pakistanis might, however, take exception -- and they do have nuclear weapons.

It's worth noting that at long last, Pakistan's President Musharraf has been forced into taking action against Islamic radicals in his country. That may lead to the Pakistani military pushing Bin Laden out of his safe haven in Pakistan's northwest and into the waiting arms of the NATO forces in Afghanistan. Better to promote this strategy than pretend that money will somehow solve the problem.

Of course, if Bin Laden is truly imaginative (as he always has proven to be), he might see this new reward level as a fundraising opportunity. He could allow a sympathizer to turn him in, knowing that the end result will be the US Congress giving al-Qaeda a $50 million cash injection.

On the other hand, I don't understand why the Democrats in Congress don't simply pass a law making it illegal for Bin Laden to remain in hiding. While they're at it, they could pass another law requiring al-Qaeda to redeploy from Iraq within 120 days. I'm sure that in their minds, it's just that simple.