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

Skip to comments.

Pilger says Bush Administration was MOVING BEFORE 9/11/01 TO ACT AGAINST THE TALIBAN!
John Pilger Archives ^ | November 23, 2001 | John Pilger (Bush hater)

Posted on 04/01/2004 4:51:38 PM PST by Roscoe Karns

[snip]

...The twin towers attacks provided Bush's Washington with both a trigger and a remarkable coincidence. Pakistan's former foreign minister Niaz Naik has revealed that he was told by senior American officials in mid-July [2001]that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, was then travelling in central Asia, already gathering support for an anti-Afghanistan war "coalition".

[snip] Paragraph #14


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 911commission; southasia; taliban
Of course Pilger goes on to say Bush wanted an oil pipeline through Afghanistan...

Credit to Tim Blair blog http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/006373.php

Sorry if this has been already been posted

1 posted on 04/01/2004 4:51:40 PM PST by Roscoe Karns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Donate Here By Secure Server
2 posted on 04/01/2004 4:53:43 PM PST by Support Free Republic (If Woody had gone straight to the police, this would never have happened!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Next week will be fun...
3 posted on 04/01/2004 4:59:30 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
How can this be? I thought President Bush's administration was a bunch of complete, utter morons. :) hA!
4 posted on 04/01/2004 5:01:03 PM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33
I thought President Bush's administration was a bunch of complete, utter morons.

Those charges change as much as Kerry's stance on any given issue.

5 posted on 04/01/2004 5:04:50 PM PST by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marron; swarthyguy; aristeides
Return to the 6+2 coalition, 9/11 as "second strike" after the Taliban offensive and Massoud assassination....where are those threads anyway???
6 posted on 04/01/2004 5:04:50 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Take that, Clarke!

Unfortunately, if this gets general acceptance, the Dem'rats will then flip, and say Bush precipitated 9/11 by his over-aggressive plans to attack the Taliban! You can't win with the libs -- they'll take both sides of an issue, without shame.

7 posted on 04/01/2004 5:07:04 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
" Well, well, well, well, WELL! UMPH! "
8 posted on 04/01/2004 5:07:23 PM PST by Solamente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
This is a point the media keeps ignoring, as this was even mentioned by Colin Powell in his testimony. As Powell noted, before there could've been any military action against the Taliban, the US had to negotiate, normally with hostile countries, for air-flight rights and foward base deployment. This is why Powell was personally involved with negotiations with both Pakistan and Usbekistan. As he further noted, without these concessions, US soldiers would've been placed at greater risk, because things like search and rescue would've took hours from further locales. We certainly didn't want to "rush to war" without having a plan in place...which as Powell said, was on its way.
9 posted on 04/01/2004 5:08:07 PM PST by cwb (Kerry on terrorism "after" 9/11: "I think there has been an exaggeration")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
"Those charges change as much as Kerry's stance on any given issue."


That's true, but there's always that soft underlying hint that President Bush is a hick, idiot.
10 posted on 04/01/2004 5:12:40 PM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides; marron; swarthyguy; Mitchell
September 22, 2001

Threat of US strikes passed to Taliban weeks before NY attack

among other things worthy of consideration...

"...Russia's president Vladimir Putin said in an interview released yesterday that he had warned the Clinton administration about the dangers posed by Bin Laden. "Washington's reaction at the time really amazed me. They shrugged their shoulders and said matter-of-factly: 'We can't do anything because the Taliban does not want to turn him over'..."

11 posted on 04/01/2004 5:13:52 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Shermy; Roscoe Karns
Grownups have seen for a long time that we were going to wind up at war with Saddam and the Afghan-based gangs sooner or later. You let your diplomats do their work, you never know what they may turn up, but below the surface you prepare for war. Thats the way it is supposed to work.

If the guys in suits manage to pull the rabbit out of the hat, good for all of us. If not, if we are serious people, we should have the pieces in place to move it to the next level.

I can safely state that the US military has been preparing for war in the mideast and Central Asia for several years. Anyone could see the storms brewing, and we pay smart people to be ready when it hits.
12 posted on 04/01/2004 5:18:42 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: writer33
Yeah, I know. Somehow, the "handlers" of the administration have managed to do what Follywood directors have been unable to accomplish: take a moron and make him into a convincing actor. Apparently, W is too stupid to put one foot before the other, yet, can somehow manage to memorize a script of facts and figures and, pull the wool over the eyes of the entire world.
13 posted on 04/01/2004 5:19:40 PM PST by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
And there was this report in Jane's six months before the WTC attack:

janes.com

15 March 2001
"India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime. ...Several recent meetings between the newly instituted Indo-US and Indo-Russian joint working groups on terrorism led to this effort to tactically and logistically counter the Taliban.
Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support. "

14 posted on 04/01/2004 5:21:50 PM PST by mrsmith ("Oyez, oyez! All rise for the Honorable Chief Justice... Hillary Rodham Clinton ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
bttt
15 posted on 04/01/2004 5:23:12 PM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marron
Grownups have seen for a long time

Certainly Clarke knows, but has an arrested development. And he didn't think up that "important, not urgent" and "focus" semantics all by himself. He was fed them. Kerry ops parsing past statements, defining a "dissent" to fit against Bush, and mindful of Kerry's statements.

Thing about the internet, people can fact check on their own and not rely on the media.

Can o' worms I tell ya.

16 posted on 04/01/2004 5:26:51 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
They think they can get away with redefining the facts!
17 posted on 04/01/2004 5:33:46 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
They think they can get away with redefining the facts!

Bush not doing much of a job reminding people of them.

18 posted on 04/01/2004 5:37:57 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
Unfortunately, if this gets general acceptance, the Dem'rats will then flip, and say Bush precipitated 9/11 by his over-aggressive plans to attack the Taliban! You can't win with the libs -- they'll take both sides of an issue, without shame.

So true! The Dems have all of their bases covered.

19 posted on 04/01/2004 5:44:39 PM PST by Spotsy (Bush-Cheney '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
I know. It's amazing to see him at work.
20 posted on 04/01/2004 5:45:57 PM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marron
Does anybody else recall hearing in the weeks after 9/11 that AQ had attacked after word leaked that the Bush Administration was launching a major crackdown against them before year's end? Was I dreaming? (And it was reported then with a "it's Bush's fault" attitude...)
21 posted on 04/01/2004 5:48:37 PM PST by WestTexasWend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WestTexasWend
See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/686045/posts

thanks to Shermy
22 posted on 04/01/2004 5:51:51 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: marron
ah...THANKS! That's exactly what I was looking for...
23 posted on 04/01/2004 6:02:36 PM PST by WestTexasWend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Bush not doing much of a job reminding people of them.

That's what Condi will do, with the whole world watching.

I don't like it, but the commission would never live up to it's calling and report it.

Becki

24 posted on 04/01/2004 6:26:32 PM PST by Becki (I'm a monthly donor. I'm worth it. So are you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Oh I see. The directive that could have prevented 911, was, in fact, the catalyst for it. Thus... another excursion into WONDERLAND.
25 posted on 04/01/2004 6:35:12 PM PST by PISANO (Our troops...... will NOT tire...will NOT falter.....and WILL NOT FAIL!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PISANO
Can't win with the Bush haters.
26 posted on 04/01/2004 6:39:09 PM PST by Roscoe Karns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Becki
I thought the commission was also going to call Bill Clinton to testify. Well???? Where is he?
27 posted on 04/01/2004 7:09:43 PM PST by 3catsanadog (When anything goes, everything does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
From your link:

Saturday September 22, 2001

Osama bin Laden and the Taliban received threats of possible American military strikes against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington, established.

28 posted on 04/01/2004 7:20:39 PM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

And this aint going to end in Iraq either. Do you think that the Saudis are tightening the oil grip to just make more money. They are tightening the grip to send a message to Bush not to F&*k with them.

First Afghanistan. Then Iraq. Then Iran. Then Syria. Then the Saudis. Finally, we will have the oil and forward bases for the real enemy. China.

Watcg. Not this year. Perhaps not next year. But its coming. Think Strategically--not emotionally.
29 posted on 04/01/2004 7:26:48 PM PST by Vermont Lt (I am not from Vermont. I lived there for four years and that was enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 3catsanadog
I thought the commission was also going to call Bill Clinton to testify. Well???? Where is he?

I understand that he will testify before the commission, but it will NOT be under oath and I am not sure if it will be public.

Becki

30 posted on 04/01/2004 7:28:52 PM PST by Becki (I'm a monthly donor. I'm worth it. So are you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick
Link at post #14, March 2001

Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support. "

But Dick Clarke told us the bush administration was ignoring Afghanistan, instead focusing obsessively and ill-advisedly on Iraq! My gosh, maybe he LIED!

31 posted on 04/01/2004 7:29:40 PM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
this might actually be a dangerous line of questioning against Rice. The "word" was that the Cheney wanted to pursue an economic strategy against the Taliban, buying them off with this pipeline deal (old thread below):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/685841/posts

if there is any whiff of this be affirmed, the Dems on the committee will demand Cheney's energy plan notes as part of the 9/11 evidence. god forbid there is anything in there linking the energy commision, Enron, and a plan to "make nice" with the Taliban before 9/11 because of an oil pipeline deal.

be careful with where this one could go.
32 posted on 04/01/2004 7:36:51 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Bush not doing much of a job reminding people of them.

He won't have to, Ms. Condi will.

33 posted on 04/01/2004 7:42:21 PM PST by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
add this to post #32:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1109529/posts

see where this could go?
34 posted on 04/01/2004 7:47:34 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
"First Afghanistan. Then Iraq. Then Iran. Then Syria. Then the Saudis. Finally, we will have the oil and forward bases for the real enemy. China."

You are so right on the mark, you scare me.

I can say this, I have spent some time up at West Point and at the Army War College in Carlisle, PA. Enough said.

35 posted on 04/01/2004 7:51:36 PM PST by AGreatPer (Take my advise, I ain't using it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
That pipeline offer, one of many carrots, was dead long before 9/11 - and it was an old plan. Pakistanis lost interest, and the T-ban would never let it be built - because the Saudis wouldn't. It would have been competitive to the Saudis.
36 posted on 04/01/2004 8:01:00 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
I know, it was an on-again, off-again plan. My only point is, if it experienced a possible "on-again" discussion phase in 2001 before 9/11, related to the Cheney energy task force in any way, it could be trouble.
37 posted on 04/01/2004 8:04:47 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
Task force was about domestic shenanigans. Meetings with Enron and such.

The so called "Taliban" pipeline was a nothing.
38 posted on 04/01/2004 8:08:04 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
The article linked at #11 talks about *military strikes*.
39 posted on 04/01/2004 8:26:34 PM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
right, after the negotiations went nowhere. the "carpet of gold" becomes the "carpet of bombs". that's the story at least.
40 posted on 04/01/2004 8:29:17 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

bump
41 posted on 04/02/2004 7:25:55 AM PST by mrsmith ("Oyez, oyez! All rise for the Honorable Chief Justice... Hillary Rodham Clinton ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy; marron
Either they ignored the threat or they were planning.

HIndus were made to wear saffron markings May 2001
Bamiyan Buddhas blown up later that year.

IMO, Bush depended on the Saudis to nip any plan in the bud. They failed. Back to his primary blind spot.

The Pentagon has contingency plans for everything, including probably invading and taking over the UK.
42 posted on 04/02/2004 10:21:04 AM PST by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Shermy; swarthyguy; oceanview
Oil-driven paranoia tends to muddy the water. If a pipeline was in the works there is nothing dishonest about it. There was nothing about trying to work with the people who controlled 9/10 of Afghanistan and trying to woo them into becoming a real government, we were doing everything we could and more. Every NGO in the world was in there working trying to ameliorate the damage caused by these guys. And a lot of it was US money.

So while I badmouth us for "walking away" after the Soviets were ejected, the reality is a little more complicated. We were in there trying, but we had little to work with. You can't make a silk purse out of murderous flat-earthers, as the saying goes.

The famous Afghan pipeline was originally proposed by Unocal. You will note that Unocal has not only not built that line, it has done little or nothing at all in Central Asia. The risk is very high there, and only the big boys with lots of clout, or the little ones with little to lose can risk operating there.

A friend of mine was involved in doing a study of Central Asian oil assets for Unocal after the region opened up for investment. His recommendation was run, not walk, to the nearest exit. It was at that time still a very scary place to try and work. It is still not the easiest place, they are not above shaking down even Chevron, how is a smaller company going to make it? Because once you have sunk a billion of your dollars in their country, you are hostage to your investment and they own you.

Unocal spent a number of years trying to get the Talibs and Northern Alliance folk to kiss and make up, and spread a lot of money around. Between them and the US government, the Talibs received a fair amount of money. But they were what they were, if you are nice to a Wahab, he just thinks you are pathetic.

So Unocal gave up and went away. Some Argentines tried and they gave up also.

Who really needs the pipeline is Turkmenistan, a truly scary place with no outlet to the sea; and Afghanistan, whose economy consists of heroin and goats. No one in their right minds would sink $3 billion dollars into such a place.

You will notice that after the war, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan convened a meeting to promote the pipeline, and got no takers. They invited Chinese participation but so far even they aren't interested. Would you risk your own money on such a project?

Neither would anyone else. In a year it would look like swiss cheese, so many holes would have been blown in it. Any disgruntled ex-employee with a souvenir handgrenade would be able to shut you down.

For what its worth, Enron went broke on a project in India. India is safe. There is no guarantee when you sink your money in an offshore investment even when they aren't shooting at you. I would gladly work on a pipeline in Afghanistan, because I'm crazy. But even I'm not crazy enough to invest in the thing.
43 posted on 04/03/2004 12:21:37 AM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: marron
everything you say is true. but this is politics we are talking about, if the Dems can make a point here and make a connection, this could be a very delicate subject.
44 posted on 04/03/2004 9:21:16 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
this is politics we are talking about, if the Dems can make a point here and make a connection, this could be a very delicate subject.

You're right.

45 posted on 04/03/2004 10:05:03 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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