Doug Miller wrote:
In article , GregP
wrote:

Can you substantiate it?

Sure thing. Google on clinton "osama bin laden" sudan and you'll
find
everything you ever wanted to know about the whole sorry affair.

Examples:
http://www.nationalreview.com/interr...ory091103b.asp

Given that their hompage includes gems like "Which organizaiton is the
most liberal?" and "Do vitamins kill you?" I have rather low
expectations
but reading the article in more detail we see:

Begin exerpt:

On March 3, 1996, U.S. ambassador to Sudan, Tim Carney, Director of
East African Affairs at the State Department, David Shinn, and a member
of the CIA's directorate of operations' Africa division met with
Sudan's then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa in a Rosslyn,
Virginia hotel room. Item number two on the CIA's list of demands was
to provide information about Osama bin Laden. Five days later, Erwa met
with the CIA officer and offered more than information. He offered to
arrest and turn over bin Laden himself. Two years earlier, the Sudan
had turned over the infamous terrorist, Carlos the Jackal to the
French. He now sits in a French prison. Sudan wanted to repeat that
scenario with bin Laden in the starring role.

Clinton administration officials have offered various explanations for
not taking the Sudanese offer. One argument is that an offer was never
made. But the same officials are on the record as saying the offer was
"not serious." Even a supposedly non-serious offer is an offer. Another
argument is that the Sudanese had not come through on a prior request
so this offer could not be trusted. But, as Ambassador Tim Carney had
argued at the time, even if you believe that, why not call their bluff
and ask for bin Laden?

end exerpt

The various explanations offered do not exclude each other, meaning
that even if one is true it does not mean that the others are not also
true. "The offer was never made" is close enough to "The offer was
not serious" as to not be a conflict and if the Sudanese had not
carried through on an earlier agreement why trust them again? You
don't suppose the Sudanese wanted something in ADVANCE, do you?

I also question his statement that [paraphrasing: Even if the US
could not convict bin Laden] "the U.S. could have turned bin Laden
over to Yemen or Libya, ..." I'm quite sure that at the time the
US and Lybia did not have a extradition treaty in effect and the
same may have been true for Yemen. IIUC when a person is deported,
as opposed to estradited, he, not the US government, decides on
the country of destination.

Miniter also refers to another opportunity through a 'back channel'
but tells us nothing else about it.

So, I find this particular source to be highly questionable.

However I did find two articles by farmer Clinton Administration
official Mansoor Ijaz which do indicate that the Clinton
Administration passed on ONE such opportunity:

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/ijaz121101.html

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20page..._bin_laden.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...5/153637.shtml

Did you just happen to find this or do you often read newsmax?

--

FF