Why can't I track a source for this claim?

[redqueen]

"We know Bush gave the Taliban $25 Million and withdrew the nuclear subs which threatened to retaliate against the Taliban if al Qaeda attacked us."

GRRR!

[MADem]

1. Well, Cheney's drawdown cut the US sub fleet....n/t

[redqueen]

2. Hmmm... thanks.

Seems like a stretch to specifically imply it was those subs which were ordered to stand down or withdraw or whatever, if that's the case.

[NewJeffCT]

3. Try Franken's book

Lying Liars. he mentions it in there, and I'm 100% sure he has a source for it.

[mzteris]

4. ask this guy

Bush's Lies Risk Our Lives
By Mike Hersh, Jun 19, 2005

Bush and others lied when they claimed Iraq had WMDs, Iraq posed a threat to the USA, and Iraq posed a threat to its neighbors. The real threat is from al Qaeda and other terrorists who Bush is helping by attacking and occupying Iraq. The real threat is from loose nukes and rogue states Bush is ignoring. Oddly, some Americans - even those with loved ones and friends at risk in Iraq - blame me and the rest of us who are trying to SAVE American troops from dying because of Bush's lying. As Americans kill and die in Iraq, Osama bin Laden remains at large and Bush claims this is not a major concern. Of course bin Laden attacked us on 9/11 - and Iraq had nothing to do with that. Iraq never attacked us.

As Tim Russert reported on Meet The Press: "In 2003, Osama bin Laden sought and received a religious ruling or fatwa from a radical Saudi cleric authorizing the use of a nuclear bomb against U.S. civilians as permissible under Islamic law. The ruling concluded that their use would be mandatory if it were the only way to stop U.S. actions against Muslims. 'If a bomb that killed 10 million of them and burned as much of their land as they have burned Muslims' land were dropped on them, it would be permissible,' the ruling concluded."

In response, Republican Senator Richard Lugar warned: "here are a number of young people in life now who are prepared to commit suicide. Whether they are people in madrassa schools in Pakistan, quite apart from al-Qaeda - in other words, a different psychology, like the 9/11 people who went into the Trade Center. Now, because of this, we need two more things we haven't discussed today: better intelligence. And this means a lot of meshing of gears with every country, with the Germans, with the French, with the Russians, so that even if Osama has these objectives and there are even instruments, these suicidal young people, they can still be stopped if we know where they are, where they're coming from." See: NBC News' Meet The Press May 29, 2005.

During their appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" program the co-chairs Bush appointed to run the 9/11 Commission - Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton- as well as Senator Richard Lugar, Republican former Senator Fred Thompson and former Senator Sam Nunn - a defense expert - all confirmed Iraq was not a threat to the US, and the occupation there distracts from and undermines attempts to address the single greatest threat. They identified the Bush Administration's failure as a dire threat to Americans.

Host Tim Russert quoted from the September 11th commission report: "A nuclear bomb can be built with a relatively small amount of nuclear material. A trained nuclear engineer with an amount of highly enriched uranium or plutonium about the size of a grapefruit or an orange, together with commercially available material, could fashion a nuclear device that would fit into a van like the one Ramzi Yousef parked in the garage of the World Trade Center in 1993. Such a bomb would level Lower Manhattan."

Former Senator Thompson conceded, "We can do a lot better than what we're doing. But you can tell from that that it is a tremendous challenge to keep that small a quantity of material of any kind from crossing our borders. We've got to do a much better job because the consequences of this particular action would be so devastating if it occurred." This is from a Republican. Another Republican, 9/11 Commission Chairman Kean confirmed Bush's failure to protect us from nuclear terrorist attacks: "we've had something, evidently it didn't work very well, that we spent a lot of money on. So we're going to try again, and we're working on it. In addition, we're working, of course, on border security, but we've got very long borders on both our sides, plus the container ports. And it is very, very difficult, will take a long time. And that's why Nunn-Lugar is so very important. If we don't get this stuff at the source, if we don't lock it down, once it's escaped from those sources, once it's away and moving around the world, it's going to be very hard to stop."

Russert quoted the Robb-Silverman Commission which Bush appointed as warning, "The intelligence community knows disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the world's most dangerous actors, including Iran and North Korea. In some cases, it knows less now than it did five or 10 years ago." In response, all the experts on the show agreed that Bush is not dealing with this most serious threat to American lives: an alliance between nuclear North Korea and al Qaeda or terrorists gaining access to "loose nukes."

Sen. Thompson confirmed, "These loose nukes and so forth have been around. The destruction they could do to an American city - that threat has been there for a while. What has changed now is the number of people who are willing to carry out an operation to use those weapons. So you have the addition of the suicidal terrorists, plus the new nation-states, rogue nations, if you will, that are clearly developing the similar capabilities. So it's - we're just in the very, very beginning, in terms of attention, in terms of need for leadership, in terms of money in this nation in addressing this problem, which surpasses all the other problems that we think we have in this country." Bush's continued occupation of Iraq is wasting hundreds of $billions and alienating allies we need to prevent nuclear attacks on American cities.

Thompson calls an alliance between North Korea and al-Qaeda "realistic" and explains, "The nation-state developments - it takes a country, basically, to have the infrastructure to really develop these things, and so any kind of nation-state that has that capability and alliance with a terrorist organization is the ultimate threat, seems to me, and very realistic one." Republican 9/11 Commissioner and former New Jersey Governor Kean adds, "I believe that, and we talked to nobody who had studied this issue who didn't think it was a real possibility. And if we don't perhaps head Lincoln's advice and, at this point, think anew and act anew, I worry very seriously."

His co-chair, former Representative Hamilton confirmed, "Oh, yes, I think it's a distinct possibility" and warned "terrorism is spreading; radical Islam is spreading. You've got an explosive mix here." Senator Nunn agreed, saying "I think, though, that the message ought to be: It is certainly possible, but it is also preventable. There are a lot of things we can do that we have not done." NBC News' Meet The Press May 29, 2005

There it is. The biggest threat to American people remains terrorists using nuclear weapons, and Bush refuses to do what must be done to protect us. Instead, Bush ignores and exacerbates these threats. He offends and refuses to cooperate with our allies. He is afraid to engage North Korea directly but provokes and threatens them instead. Rather than fix the several disastrous intelligence failures confirmed by various commissions he appointed, Bush rewards those who continue to deliver flawed and false intelligence.

The risk of mushroom clouds over American cities continues to grow while Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and others neglect the highest priorities and keep squandering American lives and scarce resources. Bush occupies harmless Iraq while the real threat - bin Laden - remains free to plot nuclear attacks against us. Bush's lies and failures to confront the real dangers present is the real threat to American lives. Iraq is not.

Bush's and Cheney's lies are costing us $billions and even worse the lives of brave Americans. The Duelfer Report clearly stated that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction when Bush attacked. None. Here are the facts: Iraq had no WMDs, Iraq posed no threat to us, and the Bush Administration knew this long before invading Iraq. Remember, Bush never claimed we had to attack Iraq because Saddam had "plans" to start "programs" to get weapons. Bush and others claimed that Saddam already had and could use WMDs in a matter of minutes to attack America. Those claims were lies, and these lies were the entire basis for Bush's demands that we attack Iraq. Bush lied about that, and the Duelfer Report confirmed Bush lied. Nothing Bush did or does in Iraq made, makes, or will make America any safer.

As CNN reported "Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes. In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War." CNN noted " The report was released nearly two years ago to the day that President Bush strode onto a stage in Cincinnati and told the audience that Saddam Hussein's Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "is seeking nuclear weapons."

As "Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the committee, said 1,750 experts have visited 1,200 potential WMD sites and have come up empty-handed. 'It is important to emphasize that central fact because the administration's case for going to war against Iraq rested on the twin arguments that Saddam Hussein had existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that he might give weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda to attack us -- as al Qaeda had attacked us on 9/11,' Levin said." See: Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq, CNN, October 7, 2004.

Bush shows his disdain for truth and accountability when he rewards those who misstated Iraqi weapons capabilities. The Associated Press' Walter Pincus reports: "Despite sharp critiques from the president's commission and the Senate intelligence committee, no major reprimand or penalty has been announced publicly in connection with the intelligence failures, though investigations are still underway at the CIA. George J. Tenet resigned as CIA director but was later awarded the Medal of Freedom by Bush. The president's commission urged the Bush administration to consider taking action against the agencies, and perhaps the individuals, responsible for the most serious errors in assessing Iraq's weapons program.

CNN added: "Richard Ben-Veniste, who was a member of the Sept. 11 commission and whose government experience goes back to service as a Watergate prosecutor, said it is important for the administration to hold the intelligence community accountable for mistakes. 'It matters whether it was carelessness or tailoring , whether it was based on perceived wants of an administration or overt requests ... It is time now to demonstrate the need for the integrity of the process,' Ben-Veniste said. In its report, the commission, chaired by former appellate judge Laurence H. Silberman and former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.), said 'reform requires more than changing the community's systems: it also requires accountability.'" See: Analysts Behind Bad Iraq Intelligence Were Rewarded, Walter Pincus, Associated Press May, 28 2005.

But Bush relies on lies and blocks accountability. After even Bush's own investigators confirmed that US claims about Iraq's WMD were dead wrong, he supports and repeats known falsehoods - lies. How can anyone still claim there were WMDs in Iraq? Charles Duelfer - upon whom you rely - confirmed there were no WMDs in Iraq. The CIA admitted there were none. The 9/11 Commission admitted there were none. No one has found any despite extensive searching. Anyone who denies the known facts and repeats Bush Administration lies sacrifices their credibility in favor of a failed ideology. Or to be blunt - whoever claims Iraq had WMDs is lying to support a known liar - namely George W. Bush.

People allege close cooperation between Saddam and bin Laden. Suppose those men were best friends rather than mortal enemies, where is any sign of any cooperation between them? There is no question who masterminded the 9/11 and who still represents the real threat to the USA - it is and was bin Laden and al Qaeda, not Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had closer ties with Iraq and Saddam than bin Laden ever did.

There's no reason to think Saddam and bin Laden ever met or did business, yet we know Rumsfeld and Cheney both helped Iraq. So why attack Iraq and let bin Laden go free? The attack on Iraq took personnel and equipment away from the effort against al Qaeda. Bush squandered hundreds of $BILLIONS we don't have as well as some 1600 American lives, and 100,000 Iraqis for a lie. And counting. All this instead of destroying bin Laden and al Qaeda or even making that his top effort. Anyone who claims the opposite is just ignorant or lying.

Bush's lies about Iraq - which only a few still believe - and his illegal invasion of Iraq have made us less safe. Where is bin Laden? Bush promised to bring back this monster dead or alive then said he doesn't think about bin Laden that much. Bush lied. That made us much less safe. There is no serious question about this from any thinking person. If that's not enough, let's test the supposed benefits from this war. Terrorism around the world is way UP. So much so that the State Dept. no longer publishes the figures after they were caught LYING when they claimed terrorism was down. Our troops are DYING in Iraq as they're killing Iraqis by the 10,000s most of them innocent. Our world standing is way DOWN. Our allies know Bush is lying. Our enemies celebrate our waste of lives and resources in the Iraquagmire. Iraq is in civil war, and it's likely bin Laden's friends and supporters will win.

Terrorists are getting more recruits while our military is forced to lie to young people trying in vain to meet recruitment needs, and the Pentagon has to keep troops in combat far longer than is wise or safe - or legal. These are not opinions. These are all 100% proven facts. As for the unfounded claims you repeat, they don't pass the laugh test. For example, if President Mubarek and King Abdullah - or Turkish leaders - felt Iraq was a threat, then didn't any of those nations support Bush's invasion of Iraq? Why don't they send in troops now to prevent this supposed threat on their doorstep? Why did they all strongly oppose the invasion of Iraq? Because there was no threat from Iraq. They knew it. The Bush Administration knew it. The latter group chose to lie about it.

King Abdullah warns that toppling Saddam opened the door for a regional radical Islamicist pro-terrorist "crescent" which would destabilize Saudi Arabia, Egypt and his own Jordan. The Washington Post reported Abdullah's concerns that "a new 'crescent' of dominant Shiite movements or governments stretching from Iran into Iraq, Syria and Lebanon could emerge, alter the traditional balance of power between the two main Islamic sects and pose new challenges to U.S. interests and allies.

The Post quotes Abdullah's fear that "If Iraq goes Islamic republic, then, yes, we've opened ourselves to a whole set of new problems that will not be limited to the borders of Iraq." That represents a real threat to US interests, a dire risk only increased by Bush's policies. "Even Saudi Arabia is not immune from this. It would be a major problem. And then that would propel the possibility of a Shiite-Sunni conflict even more, as you're taking it out of the borders of Iraq," according to Abdullah. See: Iraq, Jordan See Threat To Election From Iran, Washington Post, December 8, 2004.

People claim a Guardian article is proof that "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons" but that was only "according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials" - the same people who got everything wrong from the presence of such weapons in Iraq to the reaction of Iraqis to US invasion. The Guardian accurately reported that inept and / or dishonest sources made inaccurate claims and predictions. There was no such cooperation because there were no such chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. By going back years and to rely on refuted reports, you reveal a complete lack of current or credible evidence to refute accurate proof Bush lied.

When our intelligence learned Bin Laden was "Determined to Strike in US" as reported to Bush in the Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6th 2001 Bush ignored these warnings and goofed off in Texas. We know bin Laden attacked us soon after Bush shirked his top duty - to protect the American people from attack. Talk is cheap. Actions cannot be denied. By his actions, we must conclude that Bush cared far less about defending our people from attacks inside our nation than he cared about attacking the nation of Iraq. Of course Bush is lying about all of this and trying to blame others for his failures while lying about his failure to protect us from terrorism.

No one can confirm any support from Saddam to al Qaeda. We know bin Laden never operated in Iraq, but the Taliban welcomed and protected bin Laden in Afghanistan according to an Associated Press report: "Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities. However, in recent weeks, both the United States and Britain have renewed their pressure on the Taliban to expel bin Laden."

The AP adds: "Pakistan, a strong ally of the Taliban and one of only three countries to recognize the movement's control over Afghanistan, also has been asked by the United States to use its influence to have bin Laden expelled from Afghanistan." Bush - before stealing the White House - embraced Pakistan's terrorist-supporting, nuclear proliferating military regime! Bad as this was, that's only part of the story.

President Clinton dedicated himself to neutralizing bin Laden, but Republicans in the Congress thwarted his efforts. Republican Senators like Phil Gramm blocked legislation to freeze al Qaeda financial assets because special banking interests told them to, and they opposed recommendations to improve airline safety out of deference to the airline lobbyists. Still, the Democrats didn't stop trying to keep Americans safe from terror. The Clinton Administration warned the Taliban that America would hold them personally responsible if Osama bin Laden attacked us. By contrast, Bush welcomed the Taliban to the White House!

The Washington Post confirmed, "The Clinton administration ordered the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of receiving the order." See: See: The Covert Hunt for bin Laden: Broad Effort Launched After '98 Attacks Washington Post, December 19, 2001.

As the Washington Post reports: "Assistant Secretary of State Michael A. Sheehan, the department's counterterrorism coordinator, delivered the new message directly to the Taliban. He telephoned Foreign Minister Ahmed Waqil and read him a formal declaration known as a demarche. 'If bin Laden or any of the organizations affiliated with him attacks the United States or United States interests,' he told Waqil, 'we will hold you, the leadership of the Taliban, personally accountable. Do you understand what I am saying? This is from the highest level of my government you're protecting him, you become responsible for his crimes.'"

Clinton's third-ranking State Department official Thomas Pickering "met with Mullah Ahmed Jalil, Taliban deputy foreign minister told him, as Sheehan had told his boss, that 'people who are helping other people kill Americans are our enemies and should consider themselves as such.'" See: Clinton's War on Terror: The Covert Hunt for bin Laden, Washington Post, December 19, 2001.

Why did Bush reverse this "get tough" policy against the Taliban, and why did Bush reward the Taliban in the weeks and months before 9/11/01? We know the Bush administration withdrew the Clinton safeguards, and entered into negotiations with the Taliban to construct a pipeline. Clinton directed his national security team to brief the incoming Bush advisors on the al Qaeda threat. Bush, Cheney, Rice and the rest pointedly ignored this. We know Bush gave the Taliban $25 Million and withdrew the nuclear subs which threatened to retaliate against the Taliban if al Qaeda attacked us. After Bush kissed up to the Taliban, al Qaeda saw this as weakness and attacked us within weeks.

Bush gave more support to bin Laden (via the Taliban) than Saddam ever did directly or indirectly. Also, Reagan, Rumsfeld, Bush I and Cheney all supported Saddam - Cheney (via Kellogg Brown and Root) as recently as 1999! If Iraq was such a threat to the US, then Dick Cheney committed treason in 1999. When you call for the arrest and prosecution of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush's daddy and other top-level Republicans who helped Saddam, I will credit your consternation about those of us who refute the mythical threat from Iraq which Bush claims justified the war and all its costs to Americans and Iraqis.

While Bush's orders kill Iraqis and get Americans killed, he likes to walk hand-in-hand with Saudi princes. It's well-known and widely-reported that the Saudis supported al Qaeda more than anyone else. We know that an "Al-Qa'ida Group Headed by a Saudi Cleric. 'I remember that the leader of the group was a Saudi cleric called , who was a fervent and audacious individual and did not require much training. He was highly skilled, and could fire accurately at a target while riding a motorcycle. Additionally, he used to deliver fiery sermons calling for Jihad and for fighting the Americans anywhere in the world." (see The Middle East Media Research Institute - MEMRI)

Another MEMRI report explains: "On April 23, 2005, Saudi newspapers reported that 40 Pakistanis were arrested by the Saudi religious police in a Riyadh apartment for conducting Christian religious activity." See: 40 Christians Arrested in Saudi Arabia for Religious Activity By Saudi Religious Police: 'For Spread Poison' . By contrast, in Iraq under Saddam, Christians could celebrate holidays and pray to Jesus. In Saudi Arabia, our troops had to hide tiny Christmas trees in their tents during Desert Shield. News viewers in the US recently watched your beloved champion Bush sauntering hand-in-hand with the de facto Saudi dictator who supports this and other anti-Christian extremism, as well as pro-terror anti-American activities far more extensive than ever ascribed to Saddam.

Also from MEMRI: "The Saudi daily Al-Riyadh recently published an article titled 'My Son's Teacher Was a Terrorist,' by Badria bint Abdallah Al-Bishr, a lecturer in social sciences at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. She described her children's experiences in school following September 11, 2001 and recounted her astonishment at discovering that one of the terrorists in the December 30, 2004 car bombing of the Saudi Interior Ministry in Riyadh had been her son's teacher. The following are excerpts from the article: 'Mother, Did You Know that Osama bin Laden is a Hero.'"

In shocking detail, Badria bint Abdallah Al-Bishr explains: "One day after the events of September 11, my son, who was then in fifth grade, came in from school. He entered my office as I was reading, crossed his legs, and said to me: 'Mother, did you know that Osama bin Laden is a hero who left the entire world behind him and went to the mountains to fight for the sake of Allah?' 'When he saw my astonishment, he cockily shifted position, confident that he hadn't yet finished surprising me, and asked: 'Mother, why don't we stop oil to America so it will surrender to our terms?' : 'What grave words you are saying! Watch your mouth!'" In case there's still any question in your mind, consider that this Saudi woman reports "My Son in Third Grade Drew Two Airplanes Blowing up in the Twin Towers" and when this happened. "The day after the events of September 11, my other son, then in third grade in elementary school, showed me his charming drawing, the subject of which was: 'Draw the sight of the two airplanes blowing up the twin .'" See: Saudi University Lecturer: My Son's Teacher Was a Terrorist.

Note: I am not advocating war against Saudi Arabia, merely exposing the recklessness, ridiculousness and hypocrisy of Bush's insane "yer either with us or against us" doctrine when he attacked innocent Iraq but cuddles with the complicit Saudi Arabian Royals. Nearly all of the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were Saudis. Saudi-supported clerics and schools teach and preach jihad against America. Osama bin Laden is a popular Saudi who - if Bush's blunders continue - could become the leader of that nation. Why did Bush ignore and even embrace incubators of al Qaeda terrorism - the Taliban and the Saudis - to wage war against the helpless nation of Iraq? Why did Bush start to attack in Afghanistan, then pull back and let bin Laden escape? Where is Osama bin Laden? The facts remain, even if Bush constantly lies about all of this.

Bush lied and still lies about his intentions and the conditions in Iraq from late 2001 up to the eve of his attack on Iraq. Iraq had no air force when Bush attacked. Iraq had no weapons capable of striking us and no WMDs. Iraq was a broken nation which posed no threat to its neighbors. Confirming all of this, inspectors were combing Iraq mere days before Bush attacked. As the Downing Street minutes reveal, Bush ignored all of these known facts and lied when he promised to exhaust all diplomatic and non-military means to resolve the Iraq situation. Bush fit the facts and intelligence to his premeditated decision to wage war. He lied to the US public, the world and the Congress in order to gain support for a war he intended to wage no matter the facts or the costs. So many lies and failures, and now so many cover-ups. So many lives squandered and so many opportunities wasted.

No one has to read Bush's mind to explain why Bush lied. I can hazard guesses but why should I? We know Bush threw out his and America's credibility, standing and reputation by lying and committing international and war crimes. Bush and his top officials lied over and over and over. Bush's partisans try to deny the facts, but denying facts doesn't make them go away. For long lists of critical lies by Bush and his henchmen and henchwomen, see books by Richard Clarke and several others. Also see: Articles on Iraq at MikeHersh.com.

The Bush team lied several times in several ways over several months. All their lies, rumors, finger-pointing, misquotes, misrepresentations and BS can't change the truth. Bush supporters haven't refuted or even argued against any of that. No matter how much they claim Bush isn't a liar, he remains a liar. As Bush sycophants repeat his lies, they become liars as well. All for nothing but death and destruction.

Here's the truth: Bush lied us into war. Nothing supports the massive waste of American and Iraqi lives and hundreds of $billions of tax dollars in an illegal, needless war. Nothing anyone can claim justifies any of it. I hope the families who have loved-ones in Iraq won't suffer as Cindy Sheehan suffers from the loss of her son Casey. I saw her speak about this last Thursday afternoon at the hearings Rep. John Conyers called. I saw her speak again that evening, and her compelling testimony establishes the case for impeachment of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and others who lied us into war and catastrophe.

I hope it doesn't take the loss of a loved one before Bush supporters open their eyes and ears to see the truth of Cindy Sheehan's sworn testimony. I really hope their sons, daughters, brothers and sisters don't suffer the same fate as Casey Sheehan or the other 1700+ Americans killed and the several 1000s injured for Bush's lies. I urge you to speak out and act now to end the illegal occupation of Iraq before more Americans and Iraqis die for Bush's lies. Lives depend on your telling the truth.

© Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 by MikeHersh.com and identified authors. MikeHersh.com invites you to broadcast any material at this site, provided you identify the source as MikeHersh.com. All Internet, email and other summaries, excerpts or other written reproductions must include this blurb and a link to http://www.MikeHersh.com.

[redqueen]

6. Yup, that's where the quote is from.

I've sent him an e-mail.

I just thought someone on here might already have the info.

[mzteris]

5. dunno if this helps in your search

". . . Despite Sheehan's thorough condemnation, the Bush administration began to negotiate with the Taliban in February, 2001, according to Jean Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasque, authors of Bin Laden: La Vérité Interdite. Handling public relations for the Taliban in this phase was Laila Helms, niece of former CIA Director Richard Helms. The Taliban reportedly offered to extradite bin Laden in exchange for diplomatic recognition. In May Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that the U.S. would provide $43 million in drought relief aid Brisard and Dasque point to the preponderance of energy industry officials in the Bush administration and an "oil above all" philosophy in explaining why a U.S. government would resume negotiations with a regime such as that characterized in Michael Sheehan's testimony. They regard with special suspicion the continued refusal of Vice President Cheney to release information about the deliberations of the Energy Policy Task Force. At a minimum, the Bush administration apparently was seduced by the same arguments that influenced U.S. behavior in the Unocal pipeline episode: oil development in the region required a stable government in Afghanistan. Initially, the Taliban appeared to offer that possibility.

Several meetings with the Taliban took place under the auspices of the United Nations, the book asserts . . . the formation of a "government of national unity" in Afghanistan was discussed. "If the Taliban had accepted this coalition, they would have immediately received international economic aid. And the pipelines from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would have come," he said.

According to Naik, Tom Simons, the US representative at these meetings, openly threatened the Taliban and Pakistan, saying "…either the Taliban behave as they ought to, or Pakistan convinces them to do so, or we will use another option". Naik claimed Simons used the words 'a military operation'. "

http://www.thedubyareport.com/bushbin.html

[mzteris]

7. some of this is kinda out there, but........

http://www.skolnicksreport.com/pplots1.html

http://www.tenntimes.org/gin/Terror/terror-war-01.htm



also from Mike Hersh: Call it 9-11Gate

". . . As usual, Bush's mouthpieces are trying to blame President Clinton for these security lapses. This ignores the facts. The Clinton Administration took strong and certain steps to protect us from terrorism. As the Washington Post reported, President Clinton threatened the Taliban with sure retribution:

"Assistant Secretary of State Michael A. Sheehan, the department's counterterrorism coordinator, delivered the new message directly to the Taliban. He telephoned Foreign Minister Ahmed Waqil and read him a formal declaration known as a demarche. 'If bin Laden or any of the organizations affiliated with him attacks the United States or United States interests,' he told Waqil, 'we will hold you, the leadership of the Taliban, personally accountable. Do you understand what I am saying? This is from the highest level of my government.'"

President Clinton held a loaded gun to back up his ultimatum. Again, according to the Washington Post: "The Clinton administration ordered the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of receiving the order." President Clinton had two nuclear submarines aimed at the Taliban, and he told them so. Clinton was poised to fire missiles at any location where our agents spotted bin Laden. Bush ordered those submarines to stand down.

Bush coddled the Taliban because his father and friends were trying to build a pipeline through Taliban territory. President Clinton didn't put a pipeline over protecting our people. He read the riot act to the Taliban. He directly threatened to counterattack them if bin Laden attacked us. . ." http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020517Outrage3.html

[mzteris]

8. HERE! HERE!

Late January 2001 (B): The new Bush administration discontinues the covert deployment of cruise missile submarines and gunships on six-hour alert near Afghanistan's borders that had begun under President Clinton. The standby force gave Clinton the option of an immediate strike against targets in al-Qaeda's top leadership. The discontinuation makes a possible assassination of bin Laden much more difficult.

February 9, 2001: Vice President Cheney is briefed that it has been conclusively proven bin Laden was behind the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole (see October 12, 2000). Bush has been in office a matter of days, when secret pipeline negotiations with the Taliban have begun. The new administration has already twice threatened the Taliban that the US would hold the Taliban responsible for any al-Qaeda attack. But, fearful of ending those negotiations, the US does not retaliate against either the Taliban or known bin Laden bases in Afghanistan in the manner Clinton did in 1998.

There are clickable links but they're not showing up on here - go to - http://billstclair.com/911timeline/popups/010209.html

[redqueen]

10. God bless you!

Thanks... I'd read two other WaPo articles but the one linked here actually has the info.

:yourock:

[mzteris]

11. glad it helped.

Sorry if I went a bit overboard - I tend to do that when looking for information. :crazy:

[mzteris]

9. ALL FALL DOWN | by William Thomas |

ALL FALL DOWN | by William Thomas | Book Excerpts

"In late June, more than two months before attacks on America provided a pretext for war, consultations between Secretary of State Collin Powel and the Russian and Indian foreign ministers reached a decision to invade Afghanistan. In mid-July, during a UN-sponsored international Afghan-networking session in Berlin, former Pakistan Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik was told by senior American officials that military action would commence in Afghanistan before the snows began in mid-October. According to Naik, the Berlin discussions centered on “the formation of a government of national unity. If the Taliban had accepted this coalition, they would have immediately received international economic aid.” That was the carrot.

The big fist came when US representative Tom Simons threatened the Taliban and Pakistan with “a military operation”. Former French spook-turned-author Jean-Charles Brisard recalled, “At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, ‘either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs’.”

…Washington said it would not drop its invasion plan - even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban. …In the weeks leading up to Sept. 11, Whitehall placed 20,000 troops and a wing of attack aircraft in Oman within striking range of Afghanistan. Exercise “Saif Sareea II” sent what Whitehall termed the “largest armada since the Falklands War” steaming into the Gulf. The Harrier-carrying carrier Illustrious led the British naval force. Tomahawk cruise missiles from the submarines Triumph and Trafalgar would soon be winging into Afghanistan towns and cities."

http://www.willthomas.net/Books_Videos/ALL_FALL_DOWN.pdf