Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Administration Had Plan to Overthrow Taliban if They Failed to Turn Over Bin Laden
AP ^ | 3-23-04 | Hope Yen

Posted on 03/23/2004 10:33:12 AM PST by dogbyte12

WASHINGTON (AP) - One day before the Sept. 11 attacks, senior Bush administration officials agreed that the United States would try to overthrow Afghanistan's Taliban rulers if a final diplomatic push to expel Osama bin Laden from the country failed, a federal panel reported Tuesday.

The independent commission reviewing the attacks said in a preliminary report that in the years before the attacks the Clinton and Bush administrations chose to use diplomatic rather than military options, which allowed bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders to elude capture.

The commission said that three years before the attacks, Saudi Arabia won a commitment from the Taliban to expel bin Laden, but Afghan leaders later reneged.

"From the spring of 1997 to September 2001, the U.S. government tried to persuade the Taliban to expel bin Laden to a country where he could face justice," the report said. "The efforts employed inducements, warnings and sanctions. All these efforts failed."

The panel, known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, presented its findings as it began hearings with top-level Bush and Clinton administration officials. The aim was to question officials on their efforts to stop bin Laden in the years leading up to the attacks.

Secretary of State Colin Powell stressed administration efforts to fight terrorism, an implicit rebuttal to criticism in a recent book by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, who is expected to testify Wednesday.

"President Bush and his entire national security team understood that terrorism had to be among our highest priorities and it was," Powell said.

Shortly before the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration was debating how to force bin Laden out of Afghanistan. At a Sept. 10, 2001, meeting of second-tier Cabinet officials, officials settled on a three-phase strategy. The first step called for dispatching an envoy to talk to the Taliban. If this failed, diplomatic pressure would be applied and covert funding and support for anti-Taliban fighters would be increased.

If both failed, "the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action," the report said. Deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley said the strategy had a three-year timeframe.

The report described Saudi Arabia as "a problematic ally in combating Islamic extremism," noting its lax oversight of charitable donations that may have funded terrorists.

Clinton designated CIA Director George Tenet as his representative to work with the Saudis, who agreed to make an "all-out secret effort" to persuade the Taliban to expel bin Laden.

Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal, using "a mixture of possible bribes and threats," received a commitment from Taliban leader Mullah Omar that bin Laden would be handed over. But Omar reneged on the agreement during a September 1998 meeting with Turki and Pakistan's intelligence chief.

"When Turki angrily confronted him Omar lost his temper and denounced the Saudi government. The Saudis and Pakistanis walked out," the report said.

The Clinton administration had early indications of terrorist links to bin Laden and future Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as early as 1995, but let years pass as it pursued criminal indictments and diplomatic solutions to subduing them abroad, the commission's report said.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the commission that President Clinton and his team "did everything we could, everything we could think of, based on the knowledge we had, to protect our people and disrupt and defeat al-Qaida."

The preliminary report said the U.S. government had determined bin Laden was a key terrorist financier as early as 1995, but that efforts to expel him from Sudan stalled after Clinton officials determined he couldn't be brought to the United States without an indictment. A year later, bin Laden left Sudan and set up his base in Afghanistan without resistance.

The hearing follows explosive allegations in Clarke's book. Clarke was Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator and a holdover from the Clinton administration.

He said that he warned Bush officials in a January 2001 memo about the growing al-Qaida threat after the Cole attack but was put off by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who "gave me the impression she had never heard the term (al-Qaida) before."

The commission's report Tuesday said Clarke pushed for immediate and secret military aid to the Taliban's foe, the Northern Alliance. But Rice and Hadley proposed a broader review of the al Qaida response that would take more time. The proposal wasn't approved for Bush's review until just weeks before Sept. 11.

The 10-member commission had invited Rice to testify, but she has declined, with the White House citing separation of power concerns involving its staff appearing before a legislative body.

Other potential diplomatic failures cited by the commission:

- The United States in 1995 located Mohammed in Qatar. He was then a suspect in a 1995 plot to plant bombs on American airliners in Asia. FBI and CIA officials worked on his capture, but first sought a legal indictment and then help from the Qatari government, who they feared might tip Mohammed off. In 1996, Qatari officials reported Mohammed had suddenly disappeared.

- The U.S. government pressed two successive Pakistani governments from the mid 1990s to pressure the Taliban by threatening to cut off support. But "before 9-11, the United States could not find a mix of incentives or pressure that would persuade Pakistan to reconsider its fundamental relationship."

- From 1999 through early 2001, the United States pressed the United Arab Emirates, the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off ties, with little success.


TOPICS: Breaking News; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911commission; afghanistan; albright; bush43; prequel; richardclarke; taliban; x42
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

1 posted on 03/23/2004 10:33:17 AM PST by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Bump!
2 posted on 03/23/2004 10:35:49 AM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
One day before the Sept. 11 attacks, senior Bush administration officials agreed that the United States would try to overthrow Afghanistan's Taliban rulers if a final diplomatic push to expel Osama bin Laden from the country failed, a federal panel reported Tuesday.

Um... I guess this puts the lie to the claim that the Bush administration, pre-9/11, was doing nothing about Osama and terrorism.

3 posted on 03/23/2004 10:36:43 AM PST by Luke Skyfreeper (Michael <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/index_real.php">miserable failure</a>Moore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: dogbyte12
He said that he warned Bush officials in a January 2001 memo about the growing al-Qaida threat after the Cole attack but was put off by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who "gave me the impression she had never heard the term (al-Qaida) before."

Sometimes I think that clarke is part of the Rove agenda to promote the reelection of Dubya'.

The statements spewed, like this one, are so incredible that they are comical.

2-3 weeks from now and when Clarke's name is mentioned, the only reply will be "who?" with a backdrop of chirping crickets.

5 posted on 03/23/2004 10:41:55 AM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
MISSED SIGNALS: Many Say U.S. Planned for Terror but Failed to Take Action (Clarke)

Administration officials say the president [Bush] was concerned about the growing threat and frustrated by the halfhearted efforts to thwart Al Qaeda. In July, Ms. Rice said, Mr. Bush likened the response to the Qaeda threat to "swatting at flies." He said he wanted a plan to "bring this guy down."

The [Bush] administration's draft plan for fighting Al Qaeda included a $200 million C.I.A. program that, among other things, would arm the Taliban's enemies. Clinton administration officials had refused to provide significant money and arms to the Northern Alliance, which was composed mostly of ethnic minorities. [Clinton] Officials feared that large-scale support for the rebels would involve the United States too deeply in a civil war and anger Pakistan.

President Bush's national security advisers approved the plan on Sept. 4 [2001], a senior administration official said, and it was to be presented to the president on Sept. 10. (However, the leader of the Northern Alliance was assassinated by Qaeda agents on Sept. 9.) Mr. Bush was traveling on Sept. 10 and did not receive it.

The next day his senior national security aides gathered shortly before 9 a.m. for a staff meeting. At roughly the same moment, a hijacked Boeing 767 was plowing into the north tower of the World Trade Center.


6 posted on 03/23/2004 10:42:41 AM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
The Taliban was receiving substantial money from the DC tax regime as recently as May 2001.
7 posted on 03/23/2004 10:42:59 AM PST by JohnGalt ('Who cares about a little terrorist in Afghanistan?'--Paul Wolfowitz 4/2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Depending on the Saudis and Pakistanis.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again with the same ineffective results. Sound familiar?

The Saudis allegedly offered BinLadin hundreds of millions to call off the attacks. He didn't.

And Prince Turki's loyalties are open to question seeing how I believe AQ is an extension, plausibly deniable, a proxy army of Saudi Intel, much like Hamas in Israel.
8 posted on 03/23/2004 10:44:51 AM PST by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luke Skyfreeper
"Um... I guess this puts the lie to the claim that the Bush administration, pre-9/11, was doing nothing about Osama and terrorism. "
Yes, I have always been of the opinion that 911 took place when it did because the terrorists knew that their days were numbered under Bush's leadership. Not because of Bush's "alleged" negligence.

In fact, I see a trend where our enemies have planned, fortified, and strengthened when our country is lead by liberals. Then they attack when when better senses prevail and conservatives are elected.

9 posted on 03/23/2004 10:49:36 AM PST by avg_freeper (Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
But Dick Clark, with satellite airtime paid for by the Kerry camp (yes, that is a true statement and not an allegation), told the world that President Bush was ignoring Al-Qaeda...
10 posted on 03/23/2004 10:51:37 AM PST by BlueNgold (Feed the Tree .....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy
I get 2 things out of this business: 1) That Clarke is a liar and a racist and didn't like Condoleeza Rice because she was smarter and had a better job than he did and 2)Clinton's "attempt" to have Bin Laden expelled pissed them off and moved the whole 9/11 plot along because they didn't just take him out!
11 posted on 03/23/2004 10:52:39 AM PST by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
You my friend, are right on the money. The MSM will turn this whole charade, so called, "independent investigation" included, into the same three ring circus they did with the GW Bush AWOL non-event. I suspect you are right. This one has a life of about three or four weeks. The media just loves this stuff.
Chris Matthews gets off on this BS! They don't care a hoot about the country! All they want is ratings and to make certain that the "traitor" Democrat Party that caused and allowed 911 to occur doesn't get the blame it deserves! America, I can assure you this media is not protecting you families and children. If the American people fall for these lies, they will only have to look in the mirror at themselves for the tragedy that will befall them, their families and their children. As I have said over and over again, this current Democrat Party must be destroyed at the ballot box this November if we want to keep our lives and freedom!
12 posted on 03/23/2004 11:00:53 AM PST by JLAGRAYFOX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BlueNgold
I hope this is true, do you have a source for the info re: Kerry buying Clarke airtime?
13 posted on 03/23/2004 11:10:03 AM PST by don'tbedenied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: princess leah
Well, my take on the timing is twofold--use the hype surrounding the upcoming 9/11 commission report to increase interest in his own book (that worked) and (2) launch a "pre-emptive strike" against the GOP my trying to frame the issue first.

In other words, Dems had a general sense that the findings of the report will show (a) years of ineffective Clintonial policy at getting to OSL and, by comparison, (b) fairly rapid assessment by the new Bush administration that OSL and Taliban was dangerous enough to warrant direct, meaningful military action, if necessary. Millions of Americans' first impression of this whole epsiode is, "Gee, Pres. Bush didn't care a whit about terrorism and was obsessed with Iraq."

I know it's a stretch, but I'm suggesting here that the Dems are attempting to frame this debate using conjecture while the GOP will use cold, hard facts. :)
14 posted on 03/23/2004 11:43:15 AM PST by LincolnLover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BlueNgold
Airtime paid for by Kerry? Where is your proof?

That would be very interesting since last night, he said on Charlie Rose that he would not endorse Kerry and would not make a statement in regards to who he thought should win the election since he was "above partisan politics." lol

15 posted on 03/23/2004 11:46:53 AM PST by rwfromkansas ("Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" -- Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
The independent commission reviewing the attacks said in a preliminary report that in the years before the attacks the Clinton and Bush administrations

Years? Bush was in office for less than 9 months, yet when it comes to fighting terrorism the press would like to leave the impression that he was there for years before 9/11.

16 posted on 03/23/2004 11:47:45 AM PST by jerod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
The Clinton Administration was responsible for the 2001 Budget
17 posted on 03/23/2004 11:59:47 AM PST by MJY1288 (Can't Blame Bush for the Negative Ad's When There's Nothing Positive To Say About John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
What is really funny about this line of spin is that the 'Hawks' called it leftwing bile akin to treason to suggest the Administration had plans to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11.
18 posted on 03/23/2004 12:04:00 PM PST by JohnGalt ('Who cares about a little terrorist in Afghanistan?'--Paul Wolfowitz 4/2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sf4dubya
(Said in best "International A.N.S.W.E.R.-like whine):

"BUT....BUT...BUT.....THAT WOULD HAVE REEKED OF THE TERRIBLE NEW U.S. DOCTRINE OF "PRE-EMPTION" AND "REGIME CHANGE"!

19 posted on 03/23/2004 12:18:37 PM PST by AmericanInTokyo (Another vote here for Bush, only IF Congress ends up defeating his illegal immigration amnesty law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
This proves that Bush was in the process OF CLEANING UP ANOTHER CLINTON "LEGACY" MESS. Bush had put together a better plan and was about to execute on it. It just blew up (literally) before they could put it in action.

Given that Bush was only in office for 8 months, this is quite reasonable.

What is unreasonable is the Clinton admins failure to get Bin Laden even 2 years after the embassy bombings.

20 posted on 03/23/2004 12:21:33 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson