Am I the only one that finds it weird that just now Washington notices Pakistan's ties to al Qaeda?

[yurbud]

For a quick historical review, according to http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/01/28/020128fa_FACT">Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Seymour Hirsh, Pakistan asked the Bush admin for permission to evacuate top Taliban and al Qaeda leaders from Tora Bora and GOT IT.

Even during the Clinton administration, when Big Dog launched cruise missiles at al Qaeda camps, http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=1100#a082098isitipoff">he waited until the last possible minute to tell Pakistan for fear that they would warn the targets.

Is Obama going to pull this thread all the way out or pretend like something new is going on?

The next thing you know, he'll be shocked, SHOCKED to find out that the biggest source of http://replay.web.archive.org/20090223180041/http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimesA98.html">foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudis and http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2008/03/foia-doc-shows-911commission-lied-about.html">Saudi backed the 9/11 hijackers.

I'm still hopeful that whatever is said at the moment, there can be only one outcome killing bin Laden: the collapse of the War on Terror.

I would rather have seen it come from pulling back the curtain to show http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/lawrence-wilkerson-the-beginning-of-the-american-imperial-rome-and-eisenhowers-warning/">who demanded the wars and how they profited or hoped to profit from it, but destroying the wars on their own bullshit terms is better than nothing--a lot better.

[Swede]

1. I find it weird that you thought Washington just notices Pakistan's ties to Al Qaeda.

It's been known for years.

[yurbud]

8. known and publicly discussed are two different things--and acting on it still seems

to be divorced from the other two.

[Johonny]

21. So bombing targets in Pakistan isn't action enough for you?

[yurbud]

30. did we bomb the ISI and the Pakistani military?

or illiterate goat herders on the border?

[Buzz Clik]

15. +1

[Loudmxr]

2. No where are the financial trails to 9-11 that were skipped in the Inquisition?

[yurbud]

11. that's not as important as blowing up illiterate tribesmen on AfPak border.

[Pirate Smile]

3. This is nothing new. Everyone knew this was what was going on to some extent in the Pak Government,

ISI & Military.

The thing is - the ISI, the Military & the civilian government are not exactly on the same page on everything.

As the US Government usually says re Pakistan ~ It's complicated.

[yurbud]

7. We are killing Afghans for less substantial support for al Qaeda

So it seems relevant to ask why we give Pakistan a pass and no longer even mention Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11, which was arguably more substantial than Pakistan and Afghanistan's combined.

[sabrina 1]

4. I think Washington always hopes that we have so much on our

minds we will forget little details like that.

Like, eg, the fact that Clinton had an agreement with Pakistan to send in commandos to take out Bin Laden after the Embassy bombings and after he had been located there. But there was a military coup right at that time and Musharaff, later our 'best friend' took over and refused to cooperate.

They know, they just hope we are confused. Governments always hope their citizens are not paying too much attention.

I wonder if THEY know that WE KNOW that Blackwater eg, has been operating in Pakistan for quite some, working together with JSOC?

We need to get our of there. We never should have been there, but if we had not been there, Blackwater et al would never have achieved the status they have now in our foreign affairs, nor would so many people have become so wealthy.

[CJCRANE]

18. I wonder if..

the neocons or their allies had something to do with putting Musharraf in power (or encouraging him to stage a coup).

It just seems like he was one of their metaphorical "ducks" in the sense of "putting their ducks in a row" for events that would happen later.

[Name removed]

Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Richardo]

5. Where do you get that?

I missed the part where Obama said they never knew about Pakistan's ties to Al Qaeda before.

Especially since his Vice President mentioned it specifically several times in both his own and Obama's campaigns in 2007-08.

[yurbud]

9. I went back and reread my OP and it's hard to see how it is primarily an indictment of Obama

if anything, I was commending him for bringing it up and wondering aloud how far he was going to go with it.

Or is it that wondering that bothers you.

[Richardo]

20. I just find your whole premise mystifying

What makes you think 'Washington' (whatever you mean by that) has just noticed ties between Pakistan and Al Qaeda?

[yurbud]

24. because of a decade of giving them money after 9/11?

''Notice'' is probably not the right word. Maybe ''publicly acknowledge in a sustained way.''

[JI7]

6. Washington has always known of Al Qaeda and Pakistan Connections, it has always been a big issue

i find it weird (or maybe not) that you are making this claim .

[yurbud]

10. You know what's funny is how quickly something changes from conspiracy theory

to we have always known that.

I've had discussion like that with LA Times newspaper editors about stories they didn't cover, and they would say ''everybody knew it,'' but searching their archives, little to nothing would show up.

For most of the Bush administration, there was little to no talk of this, then a shift toward the end of acknowledging at least a current problem without going after the Pakistani government protectors of al Qaeda. As you said, Obama has taken that a step further first in campaign rhetoric and now in action. I would simply like the truth-telling to go further.

[JI7]

13. you look to Bush and LA Times for info ?

there have been many news stories and other articles on this from other sources. and many in washington have talked about it including many hearings in congress.

musharaff was asked about it and if you look at that video where he claimed osama was in afghanistan it's clear he was lying and knew he was in pakistan.

[yurbud]

22. I didn't ''look to Bush'' but the MSM sure as hell did, and LA Times is part of that

Many good things happen in Congress that get very little play in MSM, or true things are said then the overall conversation goes right back to bullshit and the true piece of information isn't brought up the next time it is relevant.

For example, in every interview with Bush administration officials about WMD, the reporter's first question should have been, ''Do you mean the ones we sold him?''

[blondeatlast]

12. Biden's been discussing it for years, it's been known for years, it just never

was a concern to the politically wonky until now, I guess.

If I'm not mistaken, SoS Clinton has mentioned it a time or two as well.

[noise]

14. It is double think

Look at Iraq. More double think. The Bush administration was so incompetent.

Evidently many people are of the belief that it is better to go along with contradictory conduct than question authority.

[Chemical Bill]

16. No. n/t

[Zen Democrat]

17. I don't get it. Did Obama ask them for permission to hit Bin Laden?

Did he ask for permission for any of this? Apparently, your premise is a bit off. I'd say Barack Obama knew it even when he declared in a debate with John McCain that he's go into Pakistan without permission to get Bin Laden.

And he did.

[yurbud]

25. Obama taking out bin Laden forced this issue from the front to back burner

I'm just curious how hot it's going to get, and if the Saudi fondue will get reheated.

[CJCRANE]

19. I think you know that Washington only notices things when it's too obvious

for *everyone* not to notice.

Otherwise things which are plain common sense are dismissed as outrageous conspiracy theories.

[yurbud]

23. as is the case this time--then it will fall back down the memoryhole.

[yurbud]

26. it's strange that some read this primarily as an attack on Obama rather than my asking

how much of the past will be brought into the forefront of debate and whether any action will be taken since we have killed people for less in Afghanistan (and for nothing in Iraq).

[bluestate10]

27. Guess the user-name gave you away. Being something other than

knee-jerk would help get an audience for your OP.

[yurbud]

28. so as Democrats our job is to vote, donate, cheerlead, or shut up?

Is that you Rahm?

[Zax2me]

29. No, they know

Washington just doesn't talk about it because it isn't strategic or politically beneficial.

[yurbud]

31. some people here are pretending they don't know that.