Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

MSNBC's Richard Engel Reports: Bad News (for Americans) - We're in a Quagmire

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 » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 12:52 AM
Original message
MSNBC's Richard Engel Reports: Bad News (for Americans) - We're in a Quagmire
Edited on Wed Jul-07-10 01:51 AM by Hissyspit
 
Run time: 02:59
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UysagfBdkXA
 
Posted on YouTube: July 07, 2010
By YouTube Member: FixedNewsChannel
Views on YouTube: 60
 
Posted on DU: July 07, 2010
By DU Member: Hissyspit
Views on DU: 1370
 
MSNBC - 6 July 2010: Richard Engel Reports on the history of the Afghanistan conflict and the Obama/Petraeus effort to turn it around.

PART ONE OF RACHEL MADDOW LIVE IN AFGHANISTAN: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x482402
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 01:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. If you believe that we will have pulled out of Afghanistan by the end of
2011, I have for you this great lil beach side condo (Sleeps 4) on the Gulf of Louisiana, with all the clean beaches and clear sea water you could ever hope to experience.

As far as I can tell, we fight our endless wars for profits, and for very little else, unless you are thinking about the bank accounts of Blackwater.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
2. Not only is it not Maddow saying these words but the 'expert' is not identified

and moreover he is saying that Obama inherited a quagmire and is making "a bold gamble to turn it around".

Other than that your subject line is 100% accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. It's the Richard Engel who was on tonight's Rachel Maddow show from Afghanistan.
Edited on Wed Jul-07-10 02:02 AM by Hissyspit
I'm not sure why they didn't identify the interviewed 'expert.' The person who posted it to YouTube clipped the ends off. I have revised so it makes more sense given the limitations of the subject line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dennis Donovan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Richard Engel's been in the thick of it in both Iraq AND Afghanistan
...and managed to do it WITHOUT having an affair with Lara Logan!:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aristophrenia Donating Member (95 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 03:48 AM
Response to Original message
4. For anyone who hasn't noticed yet
They are discussing the fact that the US has been fighting the Taliban since 911 - this is absolute crock of bull.

The US entered Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda - not the Taliban. The US had the Taliban in the white house discussing an oil pipeline not just twelve months before the attacks of September 11.
Always remember this incredibly important fact. Al Qaeda was responsible for 911 and were sheltering Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan - not the Taliban.

The US military and Council on Foreign Relations with the State Department has implemented a policy shift on this matter to refocus the war in Afghanistan as being a war against the Taliban - this is like fighting patriotism in the US - a ridiculous ruse designed entirely to maintain an endless war - lets not forget about the resources here.

The war being waged in Afghanistan is a direct consequence of 911 - to now rephrase that as a war against despotism and the Taliban is egregious.

Quite simply Afghanistan represents the most powerful strategic position in global geo-politics - hence why it has been targeted by the British, Russians, US in endless quests for control.

Always remind yourself of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
florida08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. the oil wars
it's always been about gas and oil. Western oil has wanted it's hands on the Caspian sea for decades. Trying to buy whoever was in power at the time. The Bush administration offered the Taliban a deal for rights to the land. Unocal had been wining and dining them for a decade with no firm agreement. An Argentine company was also doing the same.

Immediately upon seizing the White House, George W. Bush resumed relations with the Taliban.
Bush stocked his cabinet with figures from the energy industry with long-time ties to Central Asia (including Dick Cheney of Halliburton, Richard Armitage of Unocal, Condoleeza Rice of Chevron), and rode into office on the largesse of corporations with vested interests in the region (Enron). Suddenly, the prospects for a trans-Afghanistan oil and gas pipeline that would help ensure American dominance of Eurasia, described by Zbigniew Brezezinski as "The Grand Chessboard," began to improve....

Bush administration and Taliban officials met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad. Each time, the Taliban refused Bush's conditions.

The last meeting took place in August 2001. Central Asian affairs representative Christina Rocca and a coterie of State Department officials voiced disgust and issued a threat to the Taliban ambassador: "Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." Bush promptly informed Pakistan and India that the US would launch a military mission against Afghanistan before the end of October.

Weeks later, under questionable circumstances, jetliners would crash into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, killing some 2,000 Americans. The ensuing war on Afghanistan, and the "war on terrorism," would claim the lives of more than 5,000 Afghans, scatter (but not destroy) the Taliban and send Osama bin Laden and his Al-Queda network into hiding.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkyDaddy7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Your facts are wrong...
Al-qaeda along with Bin Laden were guest of the Taliban and the Taliban refused to turn him over...So, as soon as we went into Afghanistan we were fighting the Taliban & Al-Qaeda!

So, remind yourself of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Bin Laden "was a guest" of the Taliban...
I love the corruption of language in American newspeak to frame reality into a US-approved narrative.

See we're not conducting an "invasion" we're simply carrying out a "counterinsurgency." Counter implies we're the victims, gotta love that one. Also, "resistance" is now spelled as "insurgency." A word with "in" as its root is used in order to generate a mental image in the average American moron's mind that these people for some reason come from the outside to fight valiant and virtuous US and NATO troops. Let's forget for a moment how one is an "insurgent" in their own home, since Afghanistan is a different country than the US, so technically we're the insurgents. But those are small "details."

What I love about the "guest" narrative, it is that it makes it sound as if Osama Bin Laden had never been in Afghanistan before 9/11. As if he had not been a very active figure during the 80s fighting the Russians in Afghanistan, and thus maybe just maybe he had a lot of connections over there as well as a reason to stay in Afghanistan. Because reminding Americans of those facts, may lead them to ask why a person who we were supporting so heavily during the 80s, all of the sudden decided to go rogue and generated a blowback which actually came to bite us in the ass for a change. Nooooo, we will simply deal with it as if Osama was a holiday guest of the Taliban! That should put the average American moron's mind to rest! Yeah....


Orwell wherever he is must be spinning rather fast in his grave right about now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkyDaddy7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. LOL! I have no idea what else to say...
Have a nice day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Actually, the Taliban did not refuse to ---
turn him over. They requested evidence of his participation in the 9/11 attacks, after which then they would hand him over for criminal prosecution. We did not provide them that evidence because ther was (and contnues to be) no evidence directly connecting him to the planning of, the financing or, or any other direct participation.

The Taliban became our "enemies" after their meeting with the Bush people in Texas. They refused to play along and got the promised "carpet of bombs".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkyDaddy7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. No evidence?
Seriously, not agreeing with this war is one thing but don't act like Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11! It just makes your valid opposition to the war look absurd!

That is just as bat shit crazy as saying Saddam was had something to do with 9/11.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. If Osama had something "to do" with 9/11, he'd be on the FBI's "10 Most Wanted" list...
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm

...for "doing 9/11"

But, here are the allegations...

USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

And nothing about 9/11...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-10 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Read it and learn -
Edited on Thu Jul-08-10 10:09 AM by Hell Hath No Fury
On no evidence:

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/07/25/no-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-11

On June 5, 2006, author Ed Haas contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters to ask why, while claiming that bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 1998 bombings of US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the poster does not indicate that he is wanted in connection with the events of 9/11.

Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI responded, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.”

Asked to explain the process, Tomb responded, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

Was the 9/11 attack connecected to Bin Laden's idealogy? Yes, it was. Was Bin Laden directly resposnible for the attacks on 9/11? No he was not.


On turning over Bin Laden:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over

President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".

Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added.


On the real reason we went into Afghanistan:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/06/05/memo

A 1998 memo written by al-Qaida military chief Mohammed Atef reveals that Osama bin Laden's group had detailed knowledge of negotiations that were taking place between Afghanistan's ruling Taliban and American government and business leaders over plans for a U.S. oil and gas pipeline across that Central Asian country. The e-mail memo was found in 1998 on a computer seized by the FBI during its investigation into the 1998 African embassy bombings, which were sponsored by al-Qaida. Atef's memo was discovered by FBI counter-terrorism expert John O'Neill, who left the bureau in 2001, complaining that U.S. oil interests were hindering his investigation into al-Qaida. O'Neill, who became security chief at the World Trade Center, died in the Sept. 11 attack.

Atef's memo shines new light on what al-Qaida knew about U.S. efforts to normalize relations with the Taliban in exchange for the fundamentalist government's supporting the construction of an oil and gas pipeline across Afghanistan. As documented in the book I coauthored with Guillaume Dasquie, "Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth," the Clinton and Bush administrations negotiated with the Taliban, both to get the repressive regime to widen its government as well as look favorably on U.S. companies' attempts to construct an oil pipeline. The Bush White House stepped up negotiations with the Taliban in 2001. When those talks stalled in July, a Bush administration representative threatened the Taliban with military reprisals if the government did not go along with American demands.

The seven-page memo was signed "Abu Hafs," which is the military name of Atef, who was the military chief of al-Qaida and is believed to have been killed in November 2001 during U.S. operations in Afghanistan. It shows al-Qaida's keen interest in the U.S.-Taliban negotiations and raises new questions as to whether the U.S. military threat to the Taliban in July 2001 could have prompted al-Qaida's Sept. 11 attack.

It was at the July meeting, according to Naik, that Tom Simons suggested that Afghanistan could face an open-ended military operation from bases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan if it didn't accede to U.S. demands. "Ambassador Simons stated that if the Taliban wouldn't agree with the plan, and if Pakistan was unable to persuade them, the United States might use an overt action against Afghanistan," Naik says. The words used by Simons were "a military operation," according to Naik. Another participant reportedly said the Taliban's choice was clear: either accept a "carpet of gold" riches from the pipeline or "a carpet of bombs," meaning a military strike."



I see you have only been here since 2009. Everything I posted was gathered by DUers at the time it was all happening. The evidence is overwhleming that we were conned into two wars that had very little to do with the attack on 9/11. Dig around the archives and you will find amazing research done by DUers that was years ahead of the MSM on this story.
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 Tue Apr 30th 2024, 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos 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