Clinton and Sudan: Whose Agenda Is It?

In “Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize” (Commentary, Dec. 5), Mansoor Ijaz compellingly argues that the previous presidential administration mishandled multiple opportunities to have captured Osama bin Laden. Ijaz claims personal involvement in these instances. What I wonder is, if he felt so rebuffed by the Clinton administration, why he makes no mention of a single attempt to take his case for intercession by the Sudanese government to the Bush administration in its first nine months, prior to the Sept. 11 attacks? Is he not just as culpable as the Clinton administration? Or did a similar rebuff from the Bush administration not suit the agenda of his commentary?

Steve Hammel

West Hollywood

The Times should be congratulated for having the fortitude to publish Ijaz’s commentary. His allegations should be required reading for all those naive individuals who still venerate Clinton, especially our brilliant, self-appointed political “experts” from the entertainment industry.

Ijaz clearly documents the numerous instances wherein the Clinton administration was presented with--and ignored--legitimate opportunities to eliminate Bin Laden and his terrorist network. Instead of attending to the security of the American people, Clinton and his cronies were distracted by scandals and cover-ups. It would have been easy for future historians to write him off as a joke and a “lightweight” except that we now know his negligence clearly contributed to the Sept. 11 tragedy.

Jerry Cutler

Thousand Oaks

It is mind-boggling that The Times would print such drivel. By all accounts Sudan was and is a country that harbors terrorists and is riddled with factions that are at war with each other. Yet Ijaz claims he opened up “unofficial” links with that unstable government that would keep an eye on Bin Laden for a few favors; and because President Clinton paid no attention to this naive fool, he is to blame for our present plight. Nonsense!

George Magit

Northridge