Remember this...

[StevieD]

This genius is also in favor of handing our port security over to his business partners....Dubai!

Not surprisingly he is a Fox News Analyst.


? Mansoor Ijaz is chairman of Crescent Investment Management LLC, a New York private equity firm developing homeland-security technologies related to Internet security, air and seaport-cargo security, and airship-surveillance technologies. He also serves as chief executive of Crescent Hydropolis Resorts, a London Stock Exchange (AIM) quoted company that is developing the world's first permanent underwater living facilities, including a planned location in Dubai.


*

 

[smurphy]

Another useful angle. Definitely the work of some kind of alien chupacabra.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"Not surprisingly he is a Fox News Analyst."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--as with most liberals I believe you may have "omitted" a few Stevie-- Click on Wikipedia linl and read footnotes on detailed discussions on Clinton admin/UBL and maybe we can put any doubt on this subject behind us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansoor_Ijaz

He appears regularly on a variety of financial and political news programs for CNN [3], CNN International [4], Fox News, BBC, Germany?s ARD TV, Japan?s NHK, ABC and NBC. He has commented for PBS? Newshour with Jim Lehrer [5], [6], [7], [8] and ABC News Nightline with Ted Koppel. Ijaz has been featured twice in BARRON'S Currency Roundtable discussions. He has also contributed to the editorial pages of London?s Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The International Herald Tribune, Newsweek International, The Christian Science Monitor, The Weekly Standard, National Review, USA Today and the Times of India.

Lets look at all the biography onthis fellow---
from Wikipedia

iMansoor Ijaz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Please wikify (format) this article or section as suggested in the Guide to layout and the Manual of Style.
Remove this template after wikifying. This article has been tagged since May 2006.


Mansoor Ijaz is a Pakistani-American businessman, the founder and chairman of Crescent Investment Management LLC (CIM), a New York investment partnership since 1990 that includes among others Lt Gen James Alan Abrahamson (USAF Ret), former director of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative and the renowned German architect Joachim Hauser. Crescent specializes in the use of quantitative modeling techniques to manage investment portfolios.

The group?s new publicly listed technology fund, Crescent Technology Ventures PLC (CTV)[1], is funding and developing the next generation of technologies focused on protecting vital infrastructure and providing for security against a spectrum of terrorist threats. The fund is preparing investments in five primary areas of concern: Internet and cyber-security, air and seaport cargo container security, stratospheric telecommunications platforms and alternative energy development. Former CIA Director Amb R James Woolsey serves as chairman of CTV?s Board of Advisers. Lt Gen Thomas McInerney (USAF Ret) serves as chairman of CTV?s Board of Directors. Ijaz is CTV?s chief executive.

The group recently launched its first property development venture, Crescent Hydropolis Resorts Plc (CHR)[2], which is franchising and constructing the world?s first underwater hotels and resorts. Proposed sites for Hydropolis Hotels include Dubai, Oman, Monaco, Las Vegas and Qingdao. Joachim Hauser, founder of the Hydropolis concept, serves as chairman of CHR and Ijaz serves as chief executive. CHR's website can be viewed at www.crescent-hydropolis.com.

Ijaz received his SM degree in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1985 where he trained as a neuro-mechanical engineer in the joint MIT-Harvard Medical School Medical Engineering Medical Physics Program. He received his bachelor's degree Magna Cum Laude from the University of Virginia in 1983, where he majored in Physics. In the late 1980s, he applied the extensive modeling experience he gained at MIT and Harvard to develop The CARAT System, Crescent's proprietary currency, interest rate and equity risk management system. The CARAT System, managed under Ijaz's guidance and that of the late Klaus Buescher, a Swiss investment manager, compiled an investment record of 28% compounded annually during the period 1990-1999.

Away from Crescent's daily business affairs, Ijaz serves on the College Foundation Board of Trustees at the University of Virginia and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He appears regularly on a variety of financial and political news programs for CNN [3], CNN International [4], Fox News, BBC, Germany?s ARD TV, Japan?s NHK, ABC and NBC. He has commented for PBS? Newshour with Jim Lehrer [5], [6], [7], [8] and ABC News Nightline with Ted Koppel. Ijaz has been featured twice in BARRON'S Currency Roundtable discussions. He has also contributed to the editorial pages of London?s Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The International Herald Tribune, Newsweek International, The Christian Science Monitor, The Weekly Standard, National Review, USA Today and the Times of India.

As a private American citizen, Ijaz negotiated Sudan's counter-terrorism offer to the Clinton administration in April 1997 and proposed the framework for a ceasefire of hostilities between Indian security forces and Kashmiri separatists in the disputed Kashmir region in August 2000. Ijaz's father, Dr. Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz (deceased), a prominent American physicist, was an early pioneer in developing the intellectual infrastructure of Pakistan's nuclear program. Ijaz earned All-American weightlifting status while attending UVA and was born in Florida in 1961. He was raised in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia.

Mansoor Ijaz's official CHR corporate biography can be viewed here: [9]

Mansoor Ijaz's role in the Kashmir peace process have been discussed in Gulf News columns here: [10] and here: [11]

Mansoor Ijaz's commentary on the Clinton administration's missed opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden can be read here: [12] and here: [13]

Mansoor Ijaz's commentary on Pakistan's nuclear black market can be read here: [14]

Mansoor Ijaz appeared in the documentary film, Celsius 41.11.

Although Ijaz is the reason for the anti-Clinton propaganda "..he had an opportunity to get Bin Laden, but passed up the opportunity", Ijaz has done nothing with any of his Sudaneese contacts to do anything about the Genocide in Darfur. [15]

 

[smurphy]

Relations with Sudan were not good and you know it, DTB. No reasonable person could trust what the corrupt Sudan government was "offering".

YOU KNOW THIS. Why do you spin and lie just to defend a side or position. You basically write a bunch of stuff that you don't even believe, don't you?

 

[djv]

If I remember right Bin was In Afghanistan way before 96. He was there in 80's fighting the Russians and we were supporting him. He never got peed at us till later in early 90's. He wanted Bush 41 head if he could have found away to get it.

 

[StevieD]

DTB, he is partners with Dubai and that is enough for me. And as far as Liberals leaving things out, you left that out. Of course, maybe you think Dubya should hand our ports over to Dubai?

 

[DIRTY Diapers]

If I remember right Bin was In Afghanistan way before 96. He was there in 80's fighting the Russians and we were supporting him. He never got peed at us till later in early 90's. He wanted Bush 41 head if he could have found away to get it.

Do you really think Bin Laden wanted to be partners with the USA or the West for that matter? I mean c'mon... Liberals will always be the problem with America never the solution.

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

Hey DD, If you get an email from a ******** (country in Africa that Jack has put on the asterisk list) - lol) banker - just go ahead and delete it - don't even open it up - just press delete

 

[smurphy]

Do you really think Bin Laden wanted to be partners with the USA or the West for that matter? I mean c'mon... Liberals will always be the problem with America never the solution.

Right. What this country needs is more made up stories spamming the internet. You are definitely part of the solution, mate!

 

[djv]

Smurphy Maybe the guy does not know the history of us and Bin. I would guess he can find it in any history book at his local library.

 

[smurphy]

Smurphy Maybe the guy does not know the history of us and Bin. I would guess he can find it in any history book at his local library.

All he has to do is read his own fvckn thread.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"Relations with Sudan were not good and you know it, DTB. No reasonable person could trust what the corrupt Sudan government was "offering".

YOU KNOW THIS. Why do you spin and lie just to defend a side or position. You basically write a bunch of stuff that you don't even believe, don't you?"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I believe any reasonable person would take ANY chance at getting him--would be much less embarrassing than having your Security Advisor get caught stuffing documents down his pants to cover it up

If I remarked article "was spin and lies" I think I would try and present some "facts" to back up that "opinion"

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

If I remarked article "was spin and lies" I think I would try and present some "facts" to back up that "opinion"

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

I think your National Review and Fox News author may be the "only" source that ever thought that the Sudanese had an offer and his claims were discredited by the commission. He also may be the only person outside of this forum that thinks there was an Sadaam/Al Qaeda connection.

And nobody has ever said that Berger had anything other than copies, but you insist on throwing out an insinuation that the documents that were destroyed must be the proof that somehow, some way, that the mess we're in today has to do with Clinton.

Keep on keepin' the faith, dogs, just like W

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

In your "tihinking and "giving opinion" you still have no given no facts--I find it quite amazing in world of libel and slander suits you didn't hear a whimper from the people named with dates and times--of course when you live in the liberal blogs/un-named sources that issue doesn't come up often.

-I'll keep on keeping the faith on GW
--you do the same with Clinton-Clark- Berger

--and next time he gets on tv shakes his finger and scowls at you while lying through his teeth----You and Stevie jump to attention and sing a few bars of "Stand by Your Man"

 

[kosar]

It wasn't so simple as sending someone over to the Sudan and escorting him back. As I mention again, as we've rehashed this 4 or so times, we did not have evidence to convict in US courts and our 'friends', the Saudis, wanted nothing to do with taking him.

Some of you guys make it sound like it was so easy to accept this 'offer', in an effort to blame Clinton for 9/11.

It's just as silly as other guys blaming it on Bush because he ignored an intelligence memo a month before 9/11 that said there was likely an imminent AlQaeda attack, most likely involving hijackings.

Or how about the people who wonder why the commander in charge in the 2 week battle at Tora Bora, where Bin Laden was trapped, was ignored when he begged for a battalion(600-800 troops) of US troops on the ground to seal off all exits of the cave network Bin Laden was known to be in?

He made do with approximately 40 troops on the ground and plenty of worthless (in that terrain) airstrikes.


Saudis Balked at Accepting U.S. Plan

WASHINGTON- The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.
.
The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at hotel in Arlington, Virginia, on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.
.
Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.
.
Sudan expelled Mr. bin Laden on May 18, 1996, to Afghanistan. From there, he is thought to have planned and financed the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the near-destruction of the American destroyer Cole in Yemen last year and the devastation in New York and Washington on Sept. 11.
.
"Had we been able to roll up bin Laden then, it would have made a significant difference," said a U.S. government official with responsibilities, then and now, in counterterrorism.
.
"We probably never would have seen a Sept. 11. We would still have had networks of Sunni Islamic extremists of the sort we're dealing with here, and there would still have been terrorist attacks fomented by those folks. But there would not have been as many resources devoted to their activities, and there would not have been a single voice that so effectively articulated grievances and won support for violence."
.
Clinton administration officials maintain emphatically that they had no such option against Mr. bin Laden in 1996. In the legal, political and intelligence environment then, they said, there was no choice but to allow him to leave Sudan unmolested.
.
"In the United States, we have this thing called the Constitution, so to bring him here is to bring him into the justice system," said Samuel Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then. "I don't think that was our first choice. Our first choice was to send him some place where justice is more" - he paused a moment, then continued - "streamlined."
.
Three officials in the Clinton administration said they hoped - one described it as "a fantasy" - that the Saudi monarch, King Fahd, would order Mr. bin Laden's swift beheading, as he had done for four conspirators after a June 1995 bombing in Riyadh.
.
But Mr. Berger and Steven Simon, then director for counterterrorism for the National Security Council, said the White House considered it valuable in itself to force Mr. bin Laden out of Sudan, thus tearing him away from his extensive network of businesses, investments and training camps.
.
Conflicting policy agendas on several other fronts contributed to the missed opportunity to capture Mr. bin Laden, according to a dozen participants.
.
The Clinton administration was riven by differences on whether to engage Sudan's government or isolate it, a situation that influenced judgments about the sincerity of the offer. In the Saudi-American relationship, policymakers diverged on how much priority to give to counterterrorism over other interests, such as support for the ailing Israeli-Palestinian talks and enforcement of the no-flight zone in Iraq.
.
And there were the beginnings of debate, intensified lately, on whether the United States wanted to indict and try Mr. bin Laden or to treat him as a combatant in an underground war.
.
The Sudanese offer had its roots in a dinner at the Khartoum home of Sudan's foreign minister, Ali Othman Taha. It was Feb. 6, 1996, the last night in the country for the U.S. ambassador, Timothy Carney, before evacuating the U.S. Embassy on orders from Washington. Paul Quaglia, then the CIA station chief in Khartoum, had led a campaign to pull out all Americans after he and his staff came under aggressive surveillance and twice had to fend off attacks, one with a knife and one with claw hammers.
.
Mr. Carney and David Shinn, then chief of the State Department's East Africa desk, considered the security threat "bogus," as Mr. Shinn described it. Washington's dominant decision-makers on Sudan had lost interest in engagement, preparing plans to isolate and undermine the regime.
.
One factor in Washington's hostility was an intelligence tip that Sudan planned to assassinate President Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Anthony Lake, the most visible administration critic of Khartoum. Most U.S. analysts came to believe later that it had been a false alarm.
.
On Feb. 6, 1996, Mr. Taha, the foreign minister, asked Mr. Carney and Mr. Shinn what his country could do to dissuade Washington from the view, expressed not long before by Madeleine Albright, then the chief U.S. delegate to the United Nations, that Sudan was responsible for "continued sponsorship of international terror."
.
Mr. Carney and Mr. Shinn had a long list. Mr. bin Laden, as they both recalled, was near the top. Mr. Taha mostly listened. He raised no objection to the request for Mr. bin Laden's expulsion, though he did not agree to it that night. On March 3, 1996, Sudan's defense minister, Major General Elfatih Erwa, arrived at the Hyatt Arlington. Mr. Carney and Mr. Shinn were waiting for him, but the meeting was run by covert operatives from the CIA's Africa division. In a document dated March 8, 1996, the Americans spelled out their demands. Titled "Measures Sudan Can Take to Improve Relations with the United States," it asked for six things. Second on the list - just after an angry enumeration of attacks on the CIA station in Khartoum - was Osama bin Laden.
.
"Provide us with names, dates of arrival, departure and destination and passport data on mujahidin that Usama Bin Laden has brought into Sudan," the document demanded.
.
During the next several weeks, General Erwa raised the stakes. The Sudanese security services, he said, would happily keep close watch on Mr. bin Laden for the United States. But if that would not suffice, the government was prepared to place him in custody and hand him over, though to whom was ambiguous.
.
Susan Rice, then senior director for Africa on the National Security Council, remembers being intrigued with but deeply skeptical of the Sudanese offer. And unlike Mr. Berger and Mr. Simon, Ms. Rice argued that mere expulsion from Sudan was not enough.
.
"We wanted them to hand him over to a responsible external authority," she said. "We didn't want them to just let him disappear into the ether."
.
Mr. Lake and Secretary of State Warren Christopher were briefed, colleagues said, on efforts to persuade the Saudi government to take Mr. bin Laden.
.
The Saudi idea had some logic, since Mr. bin Laden had issued a fatwa, or religious edict, denouncing the House of Saud as corrupt. Riyadh had expelled Mr. bin Laden in 1991 and stripped him of his citizenship in 1994, but it wanted no part of jailing or executing him, apparently fearing a backlash from militant opponents of the government.
.
Some American diplomats said the White House did not press the Saudis very hard.
.
Resigned to Mr. bin Laden's departure from Sudan, some officials raised the possibility of shooting down his chartered aircraft, but the idea was never seriously pursued because Mr. bin Laden had not been linked to a dead American, and it was inconceivable that Mr. Clinton would sign the "lethal finding" necessary under the circumstances.
.
"In the end they said, 'Just ask him to leave the country. Just don't let him go to Somalia,'" General Erwa said in an interview. "We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they said, 'Let him.'" On May 15, 1996, Mr. Taha, the foreign minister, sent a fax to Mr. Carney in Nairobi, giving up on the transfer of custody. Sudan's government had asked Mr. bin Laden to leave the country, Mr. Taha wrote, and he would be free to go.
.
Mr. Carney faxed back a question: Would Mr. bin Laden retain his access and control to the millions of dollars of assets he had built up in Sudan?
.
Mr. Taha gave no reply before Mr. bin Laden chartered a plane three days later for his trip to Afghanistan.
.
Subsequent analysis by U.S. intelligence suggests that Mr. bin Laden managed to access the Sudanese assets from his new redoubt in Afghanistan.

 

[smurphy]

--I find it quite amazing in world of libel and slander suits you didn't hear a whimper from the people named with dates and times--of course when you live in the liberal blogs/un-named sources that issue doesn't come up often.

:mj07: Yeah, those liberal blogs that spread made up stories about Ollie North's insight on Bin Laden 20 years ago and Al Gore's clueless response. ...Those are the liberal blogs your speaking about, right?

Interesting that you haven't commented on the post that started this thread. Why is that? Although I'm sure you agree with Ollie that this story about himself is fake, do like the effect this fake story has on people's opinions? Do you approve that morons like Dirty Diapers eat this garbage up and vote the way you like - even though it's based on total bullshlt?

 

[gardenweasel]

i'll tell you what's creepy...you watching napolean dynamite, save by the bell, 3's company, melrose place....

you, & for that matter kosar sound like you play for the other side...not that there's anything wrong with that..

you guys better straighten up & start watching some john wayne movies....

what`s next?......pointy eared pussies at star trek conventions?.....:scared :SIB

nahhh..not my buddies....:brows:

 

[DIRTY Diapers]

:mj07: Yeah, those liberal blogs that spread made up stories about Ollie North's insight on Bin Laden 20 years ago and Al Gore's clueless response. ...Those are the liberal blogs your speaking about, right?

Interesting that you haven't commented on the post that started this thread. Why is that? Although I'm sure you agree with Ollie that this story about himself is fake, do like the effect this fake story has on people's opinions? Do you approve that morons like Dirty Diapers eat this garbage up and vote the way you like - even though it's based on total bullshlt?

Morons like Dirty Diapers - - I love when people throw out personnel insults it just shows you're winning the argument.

Go to bed my simple man and prey that Bush is still the leader of the free world. As long as he's our President he will be on the offensive against terrorist to help protect our country. Not like Liberals who choose to negotiate with these people who only want to destroy us. Peace.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Good article Matt--had not read that one before.
Falls right in line with Mansoors description for most part.
I think even the most ardent Clinton supporter would have to ask himself if UBL was never offered why does everyone from that admin have so many accounts why they could/would not take him.

 

[Chadman]

I think what we basically have here is the "new regime" mentality and the "observing current laws unless you change them" mentality. You have conservatives who clearly support this administration and it's brazen disregard for following the laws that have been in place for years, and those that have a problem with that. You have a conservative administration in place, and the supporters of it have no problem allowing it to run roughshod over anything it doesn't like - or gets in the way with it's master plan. Clinton felt the need to follow the law, Bush chooses to avoid it or completely ignore it.

We'll see how this plays down the road when a non-conservative has free reign to do what they want which was put in place by the current conservative regime. Can't wait to see how they spin the "facts" at that point.

I find it really sad that conservatives are so freaked out about the fight we are in with lawless people with no regard to order or laws, and then they support those currently in power in this country - to a fault - who operate in many ways in the same manner. A little off track here, but my point is it depends on what parts of these articles you choose to believe, and think are of value.