Bush administration gave 43 million to the Taliban, this is incredible

I am shocked I feel as if I have been living in a cave, I listen to the news, I cruise the internet and not once have I heard this mentioned. Bush gave money to the Taliban in May/2001 just 4 months before the attacks of 911. I am shocked! Why has this not been talked about more in the mainstream news, why is kerry not talking about this? Am I the only one who was not aware of this? Have you heard about it? Hmmm wonder what they used the money for?




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.

The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women?

At no point in modern history have women and girls been more systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of madness masquerading as Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates their fundamental human rights. Women may not appear in public without being covered from head to toe with the oppressive shroud called the burkha , and they may not leave the house without being accompanied by a male family member. They've not been permitted to attend school or be treated by male doctors, yet women have been banned from practicing medicine or any profession for that matter.

The lot of males is better if they blindly accept the laws of an extreme religious theocracy that prescribes strict rules governing all behavior, from a ban on shaving to what crops may be grown. It is this last power that has captured the enthusiasm of the Bush White House.

The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and cash from the Bush administration, they have been willing to appear to reverse themselves on the growing of opium. That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising. But it is grotesque for a U.S. official, James P. Callahan, director of the State Department's Asian anti-drug program, to describe the Taliban's special methods in the language of representative democracy: "The Taliban used a system of consensus-building," Callahan said after a visit with the Taliban, adding that the Taliban justified the ban on drugs "in very religious terms."

Of course, Callahan also reported, those who didn't obey the theocratic edict would be sent to prison.

In a country where those who break minor rules are simply beaten on the spot by religious police and others are stoned to death, it's understandable that the government's "religious" argument might be compelling. Even if it means, as Callahan concedes, that most of the farmers who grew the poppies will now confront starvation. That's because the Afghan economy has been ruined by the religious extremism of the Taliban, making the attraction of opium as a previously tolerated quick cash crop overwhelming.

For that reason, the opium ban will not last unless the U.S. is willing to pour far larger amounts of money into underwriting the Afghan economy.

As the Drug Enforcement Administration's Steven Casteel admitted, "The bad side of the ban is that it's bringing their country--or certain regions of their country--to economic ruin." Nor did he hold out much hope for Afghan farmers growing other crops such as wheat, which require a vast infrastructure to supply water and fertilizer that no longer exists in that devastated country. There's little doubt that the Taliban will turn once again to the easily taxed cash crop of opium in order to stay in power.

The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession.

- - -

Robert Scheer Is a Syndicated Columnist.


Copyright � 2001 Robert Scheer

I'm not the least bit suprised, the whole Bush Administration is shady.

Yep they sure are, Bush mssed up during the debate because he was working so hard to keep his lies straight. What I don't understand is why this has not been talked about by the media more, some people say the media has not changed since Bush took office but if this was Clinton they would have crucified him over this. Now with Bush we hear nothing more about it. My god the man gave the very people who had already attacked us twice in the past 43 million dollars. 43 million dollars of our tax money to this murderer. Osama Bin Laden was a wanted man by the USA and everyone knew who ran the Taliban but we still handed over that much money to a regime that just 4 months later attacked us. I mean why even act surprised by the attack, they had been attacking us all along and this idiot gave them money to do more damage to us with. I can't understand why more people are not outraged by this.

I believe that under Clinton we also gave humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. The U.S. has a long history of helping people in need even if we don't agree with the politics of the Country.

Jemison

Originally posted by Jemison
I believe that under Clinton we also gave humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. The U.S. has a long history of helping people in need even if we don't agree with the politics of the Country.

Jemison

Clinton did give aid to Afghanistan and it was alleged he was funding the Taliban but that was refuted.

July 12, 2000 Congressional Committee hearings
MR. SHEEHAN: First of all, Mr. Congressman, I'm sorry that you think it's a joke that I won't respond on the issue of support for the arms for the Taliban, but the information that I have, which is -- I cannot respond by public source -- is based on intelligence methods, and I don't have the authority to speak about that in this session. But I'll be glad to talk to you or anybody else afterwards.

Secondly, regarding the responsibility the United States government has for Afghanistan and the situation there, I don't accept that conclusion at all. The United States did help participate in helping the mujaheddin reject the Soviet occupation in the mid-'80s, and that was a policy that I think was a correct one at that time. The situation in Afghanistan, the deterioration of that state since 1979, has primarily to do with the situation in Afghanistan. Certainly there were those responsible, whether it was the Soviet occupiers or those who were involved in a civil war that has waged there for 20 years. But the idea that the United States government is responsible for everything in Afghanistan I think is not true.

And the idea that we support the Taliban I also reject as well completely. I have spent 18 months in this job leading the effort within the United States government and around the world to bring pressure on the Taliban. After the bombing of the embassies in East Africa, when I got hired for this job, I have made it my sole effort, my primary effort in this job to bring pressure on that regime. And the United States government leads that effort in providing pressure on that regime. My office leads that effort within the United States government. We started with an executive order in August of 1999 that brought sanctions to bear on the Taliban. We've led the effort in the U.N. to bring international sanctions against them. We're also leading the effort internationally right now to look at further measures against the Taliban. It's the United States government that is leading that effort -- we're ahead of everybody else -- to bring pressure on the Taliban. And the Taliban knows it, and those other member states within the U.N. and other -- the other community knows our efforts to bring pressure to bear on that organization because of its support for state -- for terrorism.

REP. GILMAN: Thank you.

Mr. Eastham, did you want to comment?

MR. EASTHAM: Yes, sir, I would. I would be happy to defend Mr. Inderfurth, if you'd like, Mr. Rohrabacher, even if he's not here in person.

I would just note that I have spent nearly 15 years of my life working on this part of the world. I was with the mujaheddin in Peshar [Pakistan!] from 1984 to 1987. I was in the consulate in Peshar at that time. I've been back on this account now for -- I began my sixth year on the South Asia account this time, around this week. I was in Pakistan when you were trying your effort to put -- the airdrop assistance into Bamian. So I'm quite familiar with the history of the whole episode. And I can say that at no point -- at no point -- in the last six years has the United States of America offered its support to the Taliban.

This is why I think that despite the fact we've provided you nearly a thousand documents in response to the request of the chairman, that you haven't been able to find the support for the Taliban, because it isn't there.

REP. ROHRABACHER: That is incorrect, by the way. And I will say that for the record. That is incorrect. I have found several references. And documents have been kept from me indicating what our policy formation about the Taliban has been. So that is not accurate.

MR. EASTHAM: Well, we have a fundamental difference of opinion, then, about the record of what this administration has done with respect to the Taliban.

But I will say that we have -- that our goals with respect to the Taliban have shifted over the past two years, almost, since the East Africa bombings. When the Taliban first came into power in Afghanistan, we had an agenda which addressed terrorism, narcotics, human rights, including the rights of women, and bringing peace to Afghanistan. We tried to address all of those at the same time.

After the East Africa bombing, the terrorism problem became much more acute and a much higher priority in terms of our -- in terms of what we were doing. But we've been addressing all these issues since the first day the Taliban came into being, and particularly since they came to power in Kabul.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I agree Goose. When you're working with lies you have to concentrate extra hard...and these arent little white lies either...pathetic.

Yes, 43 million. Gee, I wonder what it was for? Months before the attacks?
hmmmmm

Of course, it all rolls back to Cheney and the ones with any brains
They're evil, but they do have a brain as opposed to Bush.

Any one want to guess what the 43 million was really for???

Hmmmm.... let's see..... If you wanted to send 43 individuals to America to enroll in flight school, buy clothes, buy knives...etc. I think 1 million per person would do it.

Scary stuff, that

Originally posted by Rain King
Hmmmm.... let's see..... If you wanted to send 43 individuals to America to enroll in flight school, buy clothes, buy knives...etc. I think 1 million per person would do it.

Scary stuff, that

I'm not sure if that's why they funded them.
9/11 looks suspicious but I don't think the US government funded the people who carried it out.

They probably funded the Taliban to achieve some other goal either against another country or to secure US rights in the region.

I doubt they knew how badly it would bite them in the end.

This interview from 1998 with Carter's national security advisor, Zbignew Brzezinski, sums up the short-sightedness the people in power have when choosing their allies:

Brezezinski interview 1998
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

[edit on 2-10-2004 by AceOfBase]

I was hardly suggesting the US handed the Taliban 43 million to attack us, I was merely pointing out that 43 million is plenty of cash to do the 9/11 job.

It was a stupid thing to do in the first place, giving money to them. The irony is staggering if these claims are true: US taxpayers fund the largest attack on US soil.

I thought that is how you play politics first: you woe them then you bribe them and when they don't go the way you want them to go you go and bomb them

It sounds like the way men do with a mistress but at the end they either dump them or kill them

If I remember correctly (I'll maybe check timings) this was about the time that Bush's oil cartel buddies were cosying up to the Taliban leadership, through UNOCAL, for the laying of a gas/oil pipeline across Afghanistan.

Some of the Taliban leadership were also entertained at a Texas ranch location whilst the negotiations were ramping up, not long before the money was passed to them. Unfortunately they wanted too much of a cut for the pipeline deal, then along came the events of 9/11........ the rest is history.

Not that I'd suggest that removing the Taliban regime was in any way influenced by the above....... nosirree bob

What does the 9/11 commission report say about the Taliban? From what you all are saying it sounds like you believe Bin Laden and the Taliban are one and the same.

Britguy, what you are referring to regarding the Taliban, UNOCAL and oil is one of Moore's B.S. stories. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why people think that Moore is a credible source!!!

Read This:

In December 1997, a delegation from Afghanistan�s ruling and ruthless Taliban visited the United States to meet with an oil and gas company that had extensive dealings in Texas. The company, Unocal, was interested in building a natural gas line through Afghanistan. Moore implies that Bush, who was then governor of Texas, met with the delegation.

But, as Gannett News Service points out, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What�s more, Clinton administration officials did sit down with Taliban officials, and the delegation�s visit was made with the Clinton administration�s permission.
Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue�and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington.

For the entire article and the additonal deceits that are in Moore's garbage you can click on the link below.

www.davekopel.org...

Jemison

Originally posted by Rain King
Hmmmm.... let's see..... If you wanted to send 43 individuals to America to enroll in flight school, buy clothes, buy knives...etc. I think 1 million per person would do it.

Scary stuff, that

One million is WAAAAAAAY more than necessary.

Just you wait till you here who supplied nuclear technology to Iran!!!

My point exactly.... a lot more terror can be accomplished with that much money.

Originally posted by Rain King
I was hardly suggesting the US handed the Taliban 43 million to attack us, I was merely pointing out that 43 million is plenty of cash to do the 9/11 job.

OK, sorry.
This is a conspiracy site and there are people who think it was a government job.
I mistakenly thought you were one of them.

You assume too much Jemison.
I don't read or watch anything by Moore, he's a greasy tub 'o lard with his own self serving agenda.

Whether Taliban met with folks during the Clinton or Bush era is irrelevent as business is business whoever is in the White House.
As for OBL and the Taliban being one and the same, I didn't see that mentioned in previous posts and it is of course untrue, even if they did both receive US money and serve US interests at one time or another.

I just don't get the official line that they paid the Taliban $43M USD for their war on drugs. As I understood things, the Taliban had outlawed the growing and use of drugs anyway so there was no need to reward them for anything.

I don't read or watch anything by Moore, he's a greasy tub 'o lard with his own self serving agenda.

Glad we agree on that!



Jemison

So you guys must be really pissed that our internationalist presidential candidate suggested that we provide nuclear fuel to Iran.....forget aiding the Taliban to help enforce the ban on opium growing, also started by the Clinton administration. Clinton provided NK with nuclear materials and sold a reactor to them, and now Kerry has said we should do the same for Iran.

What pages do you surf if you haven't heard about this earlier ?

Have you heard that CIA trained and funded Al Qaida and Bin Laden too?