Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Big Lie .... Bush 'pursued Al Qaeda' ...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 01:52 PM
Original message
The Big Lie .... Bush 'pursued Al Qaeda' ...
Did Bush pursue 'Al Qaeda' and its supporters prior to 9-11 ? ..

They say they knew of the threat 'for many years' ...

Yet: .. they pursued a policy of benevolence and support with the Taliban nearly as SOON as they took office ..

The Bush team awarded the Taliban a 43 MILLION dollar 'gift' in March of 2001: ... becoming the Taliban's #1 financial supporter in the process ...

So: .. HOW did Bush 'pursue Al Qaeda' while they at the SAME TIME wined and dined the Taliban ???? ...

Someone is LYING here ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rockymountaindem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. What evidence is there for this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. "Evidence" ...
Edited on Mon Mar-22-04 02:12 PM by Trajan
Exhibit 'A' ...

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm

Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
By Robert Scheer
Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times


Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.

-snip-

The point here is this: ... The WH Press Secretary is now trying to say that they 'did all they could' prior to 9-11 to pursue Al Qaeda ...

This is obviously a flat out LIE ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. It's true - but perhaps spun a bit to the left
Edited on Mon Mar-22-04 02:02 PM by papau
The US gave Afghanistan grants for food purchsed in the US the year before - so this "Bush grant" would not normally be a big deal.

However, the shutdown of the FBI/bin Laden work in Fed, the Cheney pipeline in Afghanistan crowd, the CIA meeting bin Laden while he was in hospital in the summer of 2001, all tend to give credibility to the idea that this "food grant" was allowed to go to the Taliban directly - at least in part - rather than be a credit for shipped in food.

Warlord bribes have also been mentioned.

But the bottom line is that the $ 43 m grant, in and of itself to buy food - is no big deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DenverDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Dept of Ag is often used to launder black ops money.
Just because it was officially a "food grant", that doesn't mean it bought any "food".

Any money going to the Taliban, no matter what the reason, either directly funds or frees up other funds for whatever the Talibanis wanted to use it for.

It would be pretty naive to ignore the pipeline negotiations as a motivator for bushler's "grant", indicating other priorities than controlling al CIAda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Some details on Clinton drought aid converted by Bush to anti-drug aid
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11629

Did the White House Give the Taliban $43 Million?
By Dan Kennedy, Boston Phoenix October 2, 2001 According to commentators of all ideological stripes – from the Nation's Christopher Hitchens on the left to the New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg in the center to the Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly on the right – the US gave $43 million to Afghanistan's Taliban government as a reward for its efforts to stamp out opium-poppy cultivation. That would have been a shockingly inappropriate gift to a government that had been sanctioned by the United Nations for its refusal to hand over international terrorist Osama bin Laden.
Would have been, that is, if it had really happened. It didn't.
The truth is contained in the transcript of a briefing given by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who on May 17 announced the $43 million grant; it was aimed at alleviating a famine that threatened the lives of four million Afghans. Far from handing the money over to the Taliban, Powell went out of his way to criticize them, and to explain the steps the United States was taking to keep the money out of their hands.
"We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations," Powell said. "We provide our relief to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's ruling factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have.<snip>

U.S. SENDS 2 TO ASSESS DRUG PROGRAM FOR AFGHANS by Barbara Crossette, 25 Apr 2001 New York Times
In a first cautious step toward reducing the near-total isolation of the Taliban, the Bush administration has sent two American narcotics experts to Afghanistan as part of an international team assessing how to help farmers who have ended opium poppy cultivation, United Nations officials said today.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell confirmed that he had approved the trip in a letter last week to Secretary General Kofi Annan. Although experts have no plans to meet the Taliban's leadership, they will meet with farmers and local Taliban officials.

United Nations narcotics officials reported earlier this year that it appeared that the Taliban, a militant Islamic group that controls most of Afghanistan, had all but wiped out poppy crops under a ban announced last year. American drug experts have begun their own survey and expect to have final results by early summer. Until this year, Afghanistan was the world's largest producer of opium, the source of much of the heroin sold in Europe.

The United Nations Drug Control Program had met resistance from the Clinton administration to any projects to assist Afghans in a drug-eradication program. American policy had been to isolate the Taliban and punish them through United Nations sanctions because of their refusal to turn over Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born Islamic militant wanted in connection with bombings of two American Embassies in Africa. The United States may now have a less rigid policy.

"The United States is prepared to fund a United Nations International Drug Control Program proposal in Afghanistan to assist former poppy cultivators hard hit by the ban," General Powell wrote to Mr. Annan on April 16. "However, we want to ensure that assistance benefits the farmers, not the factions, while it also curbs the Afghan drug trade. I have authorized U.S. participation in a U.N.D.C.P.-led mission to Afghanistan to assess the potential for assistance and the cooperation of local authorities."

United Nations narcotics officials say that while it is too soon to talk about a long-term program with the Taliban, there is an urgent need to help farmers now approaching the "hunger season" if opium poppy planting is not to resume. <snip>

http://www.mapinc.org/newscsdp/v01/n729/a03.html

May 20, 2001, Sunday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section 1; Page 7; Column 1; Foreign Desk
The first American narcotics experts to go to Afghanistan under Taliban rule have concluded that the movement's ban on opium-poppy cultivation appears to have wiped out the world's largest crop in less than a year, officials said today.
The American findings confirm earlier reports from the United Nations drug control program that Afghanistan, which supplied about three-quarters of the world's opium and most of the heroin reaching Europe, had ended poppy planting in one season. But the eradication of poppies has come at a terrible cost to farming families, and experts say it will not be known until the fall planting season begins whether the Taliban can continue to enforce it.

"It appears that the ban has taken effect," said Steven Casteel, assistant administrator for intelligence at the Drug Enforcement Administration in Washington.

The findings came in part from a Pakistan-based agent of the administration who was one of the two Americans on the team just returned from eight days in the poppy-growing areas of Afghanistan.
Mr. Casteel said in an interview today that he was still studying aerial images to determine if any new poppy-growing areas had emerged. He also said that some questions about the size of hidden opium and heroin stockpiles near the northern border of Afghanistan remained to be answered. But the drug agency has so far found nothing to contradict United Nations reports. <snip>


On Thursday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in additional emergency aid to cope with the effects of a prolonged drought. The United States has become the biggest donor to help Afghanistan in the drought. <snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Yes .... and they are bringing Democracy to the world too ...
Sheeesh: .. this is spin, pure and simple ...

Bush apologism is alive and well here in DU ....

Money OR goods: ..... They CERTAINLY didnt ask for Al Qaeda/OBL to be handed over ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. It's common knowledge - Powell made a May 2001 announcement
Third paragraph down here:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html


Powell reveals $43 million in new aid to Afghans (with Fact Sheet):

http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/41bb9fd6cc6bae50c1256a50002f3ed7?OpenDocument


3 articles on the US grant of $43 million to Afghanistan:

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/taliban.htm



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. What are the Republicans saying today about this?
Other than White House spin, I see nothing from Republicans defending the White House. The only two defending the White House are Biden and Lieberman.

Could this be the last straw?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. They are fighting like cornered cats ...
EVERYONE is coming out on this one ...

Clarke is known: ... he isnt a political 'freak' as the WH would like to present ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
10. Taliban confirms bin Laden is missing
Taliban confirms bin Laden is missing
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen.02/index.html

Please note the date.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. ???? ....
IS there some point to this ? ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. After 9/11, we attacked Afghanistan
when we knew OBL was not there
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Beside the point ...
And questionable besides ...

The point: Richard Clark reveals that the Bush Administration was unconcerned about Al Qaeda before 9-11 ...

Today: .. the Bush WH INSISTS it was focused on Al Qaeda before 9-11 ...

Yet: ... These 'gifts' and 'contacts' between the Taliban, who are KNOWN consorts of Al Qaeda, and the Bush WH were quite friendly and benevolent .... WHERE was the Bush WH's intent to restrict Al Qaeda and OBL when they were falling over themselves to mollify and aggrandize the Taliban ? ...

I take issue with the claim 'Osama Bin Laden' was NOT there .... there is no definitive evidence as to whether OBL WAS in Afghanistan that very moment either way .... so confident assertions aside: .. the evidence is flimsy ...

STILL: .. a non sequitur ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC