Page 1 of 1

US Had Been In Talks With Taliban Over bin Laden

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2004 11:31 pm
by lukpac
To those who claim Clinton did nothing about terrorism and that Bush is a hero, I have two questions:

1) If Clinton didn't care, why would his administration have engaged in talks nearly 30 times over 5 years with the Taliban about bin Laden?

2) If Bush is so great, why did he not put more pressure on getting bin Laden before 9/11/01?

More here and here.

Taliban-US bin Laden talks revealed
From correspondents in Washington
31jan04

AFGHANISTAN'S former Taliban rulers rebuffed more than 30 US requests to expel Osama bin Laden starting in 1996 and ending a few months before the September 11 attacks in 2001, newly classified official documents revealed today.

During a long list of official contacts summarised by the declassified State Department document, Taliban leader Mullah Omar expressed interest in a confidential dialogue with Washington over the al-Qaeda mastermind.

He also suggested bin Laden be tried by a panel of Islamic scholars or that his movements be monitored by the Organisation of Islamic conferences or the United Nations.

The documents show that most of the approaches to the fundamentalist Islamic militia took place under the administration of former US president Bill Clinton.

Only three meetings or conversations detailed in the document, obtained and released by George Washington University's National Security archive, took place after President George W Bush's inauguration in January 2001.

Following bomb blasts at US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in August 1998, which were blamed on Bin Laden, Mullah Omar offered to hold a secret dialogue with the United States, during a telephone conversation with State Department officials.

On September 13 of the same year, a senior US diplomat told a top Taliban official in Islamabad that the militia would be held responsible for any new terror strikes by bin Laden.

Subsequent entries into the State Department summary show a pattern of stalling by the Taliban and reluctance to hand over bin Laden.

On July 19, 1999 former assistant secretary of state for South Asia Karl Inderfurth told Taliban Information Mullah Amir Khan Muttaqi "that the US would be forced to take further actions if bin Laden is not brought to justice", the document said.

Three US-Taliban contacts were recorded after Bush entered the White House.

In the latest, on July, 2, 2001, Taliban Deputy Foreign Minister Mulla Abdul Jalil told US Ambassador to Pakistan Wiliam Milam that bin Laden had not been "convicted and that the Taliban still consider him innocent".

After the September 11 strikes on New York and the Pentagon, and a continued Taliban refusal to hand over bin Laden, US-led forces ousted the Taliban but were unable to find bin Laden.

Some experts believe bin Laden and Mullah Omar are hiding out in remote mountainous areas along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:05 am
by Mike Hunte
They've already got bin laden, or at the very least are cutting the deal as we speak. Probably already ironing his debutante ball dress.

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2004 12:19 pm
by Rspaight
Waddya wanna bet bin Laden pops out of a hole in the ground sometime around October?

Ryan

Re: US Had Been In Talks With Taliban Over bin Laden

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:16 pm
by Matt
lukpac wrote:To those who claim Clinton did nothing about terrorism and that Bush is a hero, I have two questions:


I will try to be the first conservative person here to respond. :lol:

You know, I don't think Bush is a hero. I think that Clinton did not do enough.

lukpac wrote:1) If Clinton didn't care, why would his administration have engaged in talks nearly 30 times over 5 years with the Taliban about bin Laden?


30 times in 5 years. I would think that after maybe 3,15, or maybe even 25 failed talks that the Clinton administration would try another way other than to negotiate with the Taliban.

lukpac wrote:2) If Bush is so great, why did he not put more pressure on getting bin Laden before 9/11/01?


He should have put more pressure on getting him, no question. It was no secret he is dangerous and all previous attempts were unsuccessful.

9/11 was a shock to all, but I maintain that Clinton could have done more. This is just my personal opinion and not meant to anger anyone here.

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:17 pm
by Matt
Rspaight wrote:Waddya wanna bet bin Laden pops out of a hole in the ground sometime around October?

Ryan


You know, I was thinking this as well!

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2004 11:03 am
by Rspaight
9/11 was a shock to all, but I maintain that Clinton could have done more.


In hindsight, that's absolutely true, and perhaps even without. However, it's worth remembering that when he *did* try a more direct approach (missile attacks after the African embassy bombings), he was widely criticized (primarily by the right, but by moderates and the left as well) for allegedly trying to draw attention away from Monicagate.

Ryan

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 12:39 am
by Beatlesfan03
Rspaight wrote:Waddya wanna bet bin Laden pops out of a hole in the ground sometime around October?

Ryan


Perhaps I missed something, why October?

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 12:49 am
by Matt
Near the election. Then Bush would take credit for it.

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 1:05 am
by Beatlesfan03
Matt wrote:Near the election. Then Bush would take credit for it.


Ahhh yes. :oops:

Perhaps I should go crawl into my hole now. Guess that's what happens when you read the forum with your eyes crossed.

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:22 pm
by Ron
Rspaight wrote:Waddya wanna bet bin Laden pops out of a hole in the ground sometime around October?


Would this be considered as some sort of surprise?

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 4:02 pm
by Rspaight
A surprise? In October? What are you driving at?

Ryan

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 4:31 pm
by Ron
Well, basically, the Shure stylus can be had for mucho dollars less from Shure themselves and Prix's attempting to swindle gullible sh.tv members. [Well, that ought to pretty much kill *this* thread.]

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 4:58 pm
by Rspaight
To play devil's advocate (and be fully complicit in the topic change at the same time), there *is* something of a benefit to buying another stylus in that when you send a worn/broken one back to Shure for replacement, you've still got one on hand...

Ryan

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 5:13 pm
by Ron
Yes, but the economics work against you. Why spend $100 [plus shipping!] for a stylus that will only cost you $50 just so you can listen to records for the 6-10 days it will take to get your replacement? Either a] enjoy your extensive CD collection for a week or b] use a used cartridge you've got in a drawer somewhere. But if that prick [sic] were to drop his price to $50 then *I'd* buy the damn thing and upgrade my M97xE-LSMFT.