U.S. repeatedly asked Taliban to expel bin Laden | CNN

[Ediacara]

U.S. repeatedly asked Taliban to expel bin Laden
Declassified cable details years of negotiations

From Henry Schuster
CNN
Friday, January 30, 2004 Posted: 5:59 PM EST (2259 GMT)

(CNN) -- The U.S. government asked the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to expel or hand over Osama bin Laden more than two dozen times between September 1996 and summer 2001, according to a recently declassified State Department cable.

Three of those attempts were made after the Bush administration came into office in late January 2001.

Despite the various efforts, "these talks have been fruitless," the cable said.

The cable was written in July 2001 and was obtained recently by the National Security Archive at George Washington University through the Freedom of Information Act. The National Security Archive posted the document to its Web site Friday.

Sajit Gandhi, research associate at the NSA, said there are indications that the Taliban were approached more than 30 times during the time period.

More at CNN

[Goldom]

1. So much for

Everyone critsizing Clinton for not going after him!

[RUexperienced]

7. But there were several reports stating that

President Clinton did not take bin Laden into custody when offered.

We gambled that the our image to the arabs was more important than taking out a 2nd rate arab terrorist.

But unfortunately on 9-11, bin Laden became a first rate terrorist.

[lazarus]

9. Those reports have been debunked

They originated from one person.

In essence, the deal was never going to happen. And we weren't getting him anyway, Syria or Saudi Arabia was.

OTOH, the Taliban offered to expel him in 2002 if we would simply provide evidence of his involvement in 9/11. Bush refused.

[Dogmudgeon]

16. And that person is ...

... Mansoor Ijaz, CFR debutant and Newsmax toady.

Ask for him by name!

--bkl

[Zhade]

27. Ijaz? HAHAHA! His lies aren't worth the paper they're printed on!

NT!

[salin]

25. *oops - never mind* n/t

[Mile Hi]

2. I don't have a problem

with the US going into Afghanistan

I have a problem with Iraq.

I can't believe Kerry/Edwards/Leiberman voted to go in.

Then Kerry didn't even vote to fund it. What's up with that?

[Eric J in MN]

6. The $87 billion included billions in reconstruction money based

The $87 billion included $18 billion in reconstruction money based on a 50 page outline.

Why should Senators approve $18 billion based on 50 pages?

They were right to vote against that bill and wait for detailed accounting and proper oversight.

[leesa]

15. Why DON'T you have a problem with the US going into Afghanistan?

They did nothing to us and we murdered many thousands of innocent Afghans to catch a handful of ALLEGED criminals. We carpet-bombed a country for ten months because the Taliban refused our offer for the pipeline we wanted to run through their country.

[Zhade]

28. Exactly.

Even if 9/11 was just a bunch of guys with boxcutters (a demonstrably laughable concept), 99.9% of Afghanis would have had zero connection to the attacks. Some may have agreed with them - though it's likely many didn't even know for months afterward that it had happened - but you don't kill people for what they THINK.

[leftchick]

3. What? No mention of the bush* bribe in spring 2001...

To the tune of 23 million to the Taliban? That wasn't for any stinkin OBL either, we are talking oil pipelines. Oh, thats right ...this is the murican media... :eyes:

[0007]

11. Wasn't the 23 mill to tone down the drug lords?

[Whoa_Nelly]

14. It was $43 million

After Cheney went to Afghanistan in March, 2001, he returned with the "good news" that the Taliban would stop growing/harvesting poppy fields for opium traffic. The Taliban was then given $43 million by the Bush administration to support the ending of same.
When that happened, I didn't believe for a moment that the money given was for what the had administration stated. Whenever BushCo speaks, believe the opposite.

<snip>
The book "Bin Laden: the Forbidden Truth" by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasique claims that the U.S. tried to negotiate the pipeline deal with the Taliban as late as August, 2001. According to the authors, the Bush Administration attempted to get the Taliban on board and believed they could depend upon the regime to stabilize the country while the pipeline construction was underway. Bush had already indirectly given the Taliban $43 million for their supposed efforts to stamp out opium-poppy cultivation. Was this an award – or a bribe? The circumstances make this a valid question.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12525

[leftchick]

17. my mistake... it was indeed 43 mil!

and what else could it possibly have been but a bribe? I thought powell was involved in that deal too. I will try and find another link. Shit, if the "journalists" in this country would google once a day maybe some truth would seep out.....

[Just Me]

4. I am trying to put this piece of the puzzle in place,...

,...but am having a hard time figuring exactly where it fits. The "cable" was written in July 2001 BEFORE 9/11. Is this a lead towards the "TRUTH" concerning why/how/who/etc with respect to 9/11?

[DrWeird]

5. Yes, and the Taliban said...

"Show us evidence he was involved and we'll hand him over."

And then the administration said, "uhhh, no. That's classified."

And so they didn't hand him over.

[Darranar]

8. But, of course...

they kept on supporting the Taliban because it was tough on drugs.

[Aidoneus]

10. or more specifically,

because they were a buffer against Iranian & Russian interests in Central Asia. More useful in that regard.

[Darranar]

21. Regardless, it seems a rather paltry excuse...

I used their original propaganda because it sufficed. I'm very well aware that the war on drugs has other purposes almost everywhere it is fought.

[TacticalPeek]

23. The Taliban were tough on drugs like a Saudi prince is tough on oil.

They were fast becoming the OPEC of opium, as was well known by DEA, other agencies in the 'community' around the planet, and opiate traffickers everywhere.

IIRC, the same month these jokers paid off the idol-busting Taliban, Asscroft proposed cutting millions from the counter-terrorism budget. Typical trade-off for these traitors.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

13. What a big load of...

CRAP.

[Enraged_Ape]

18. Now I'm convinced that the "October Surprise" is set up

For months, this bearded beanpole bastard has been COMPLETELY missing from the nation's press and the chimp's "speeches". Now the name bin-Laden is on all their lips, and there hasn't even been another bogus video or audiotape released. Can this cabal be more obvious about what they're up to?

[Barrett808]

26. October Surprise: OBL or "terrorist" attack?

It may depend on a coin toss by Rove.

[NashVegas]

19. Rock ---> Taleban <--- Hard Place

Give up Bin Laden = fucked.
Hang onto Bin Laden = fucked.

Couldn't have happened to nicer people.

[loudnclear]

20. The Taliban repeatedly refused because it was against their Islamic

nature to turn over a "guest" in their company. AND the US refused to send anything but money to fight opium when the Taliban were asking for help with food and shelter. They were asking for help to bring the renegade tribes under control and to feed their children. Osama was helping with this so who would you suppose they would assist?

[amandabeech]

22. Yes, then the Taliban

said that they did not know where Bin Laden was, if I recall correctly. At that time, I saw a discussion on one of the cable news channels, I think that it was MSNBC, in which one of the panelists, who claimed to be an expert in Afghanistan, said that when the Taliban stopped saying "he is our guest" and started saying "we don't know where he is," they were saying that they would not protect him and that we could come and get him, by what means the panelist did not say. I sincerely wish that I had written down the panelist's name, because I have not seen him since on any network.

Does anyone else remember this panelist or recall hearing anything like it?

Amanda

[Zhade]

29. You saw it on MSNBC. What are the chances it was the truth?

Pretty slim, with their track record.

[leesa]

24. If I remeber correctly, after 9-11 the Taliban repeatedly AGREED to

hand over OBL IF Bush could offer some proof of his involvement in 9-11. Bush refused several times and has yet to offer any non-circumstantial "proof" of involvement. All that has been presented is extremely weak and probably cooked "proof".