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

Skip to comments.

The Final Clinton Gift ? Give us Osama in 30 days, or.?..Dec.20, 2000 (title-mine)
New York Times + ^ | Originally published Dec. 20, 2000 | Barbara Crossette and various

Posted on 09/20/2001 3:15:16 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl

Tough Sanctions Imposed on Taliban Government Split UN

By Barbara Crossette

New York Times
December 20, 2000

Led by the United States and Russia, the Security Council imposed harsh new sanctions on the Taliban government of Afghanistan today, leaving the United Nations profoundly split over the human and political damage the measures could inflict on one of the world's poorest nations. The vote in the 15-member Council was 13 for the embargo, with China and Malaysia abstaining.

At a year-end news conference, Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed his barely concealed displeasure at the move, which was also opposed by his special envoy trying to start peace negotiations between the Taliban and the remnants of an opposition army fighting in a corner of the country. United Nations relief officials working in Afghanistan have been unusually public in their criticism. Private agencies also lobbied the Council against taking this step. "It is not going to facilitate our peace efforts, nor is it going to facilitate our humanitarian work," Mr. Annan said of the Security Council action. "I think we had given adequate indications of that to the Council. But the decision belongs to the Council and of course, once they take the decision, we have to adapt and take the necessary measures that are required."

Today, the United Nations removed all its remaining relief workers from the country, fearing a backlash from the Taliban, who will be almost completely isolated diplomatically when the resolution takes effect in 30 days, a grace period during which the Taliban could avoid sanctions by meeting the Council's demands. Air links will be cut and an arms and military training embargo will be imposed only on the Taliban, not their armed opposition, which is supplied by Russia, Iran and India. All assets belonging to Osama bin Laden, who is thought to be living in Afghanistan, will be ordered frozen around the world.

The United States has been demanding Mr. bin Laden's expulsion from Afghanistan to stand trial for masterminding explosions at American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. The new sanctions imposed today are linked to the refusal of the Taliban to meet that demand sanctions a year ago. For Russia, the Taliban are assumed to be behind an Islamic rebellion in Chechnya.

Russian and American pressure on Security Council members and some officials in the United Nations secretariat has been intense, diplomats said. Two weeks ago, as the sanctions resolution was circulating, the Russian representative complained to Deputy Secretary General Louise Frechette that the coordinator of relief work in Afghanistan, Erick de Mul of the Netherlands, was undermining the anti-Taliban campaign by drawing attention to what he believed would be the adverse effects of the tightened embargo on ordinary Afghans, already among the poorest people in the world.

United Nations officials have warned that as many as a million Afghans could face starvation in coming months because of a drought and continued civil war.

Ambassador Nancy Soderberg, speaking for the United States today, said that the Security Council was taking "a strong stand against terrorism." She described Mr. bin Laden as "the world's most wanted terrorist."

"The Taliban cannot continue to flout the will of the international community and support and shelter terrorists without repercussions," she said in the Council following the vote. "As long as the Taliban continues to harbor terrorists, in particular Osama bin Laden, and to promote terrorism, it remains a threat to international peace and security.


Links to State Dept. and UN actions re. Afghanistan.
UN Foundation,Feb.'01:Famine endangering 1 million
Christian Science Monitor January 8, 2001, Fabled Silk Road now paved with narcotics-Afghanistan and Opium
World Bank- Apr.24, 2001:AFGHANISTAN FACES HUMANITARIAN DISASTER war,drought.
>People in northern Afghanistan eating animal fodder: UN, Apr.9,'01
More complaints from UN on tougher sanctions, Dec. 2000
Powell Approves $43 million Afghan Aid Package, U.S. Senators and Afghans Welcome Move, May 17,'01.
State Dept. Terrorism Report-'99
Summary of terrorist incidents, 1999,State Dept.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:

Tougher sanctions were scheduled to be imposed on Jan. 20, 2001- inaugeration day for our new President.
1 posted on 09/20/2001 3:15:16 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
The responses I've received from e-mails to various individuals representing organizations from the "peace" protest links often begin with the sentence: "Bush gave $43 million to the Taliban this year." Typical talking points from the left are simple, deceptive and inflammatory. We've seen from the NAACP-Byrd campaign that accuracy isn't considered, nor do they expect their audience to validate the PR they promote.

For the record, the Bush administration did allow for $43 million in aid -to Afghanistan, after being approached numerous times by the UN, Colin Powell, US Senators (especially Diane Feinstein) and various charity organizations concerned about the starvation resulting from the drought and sanctions. I am not condoning this, simply adding perspective. It was mainly organizations friendly with the left that insisted this aid was necessary and their implications that George W. Bush funded the Taliban and thus the attack last Tues. is shameless (see links above for further details).

3 posted on 09/20/2001 3:27:25 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Messianic_Zionist
The previous administration's neglegence has resulted in the recent loss of thousand's of lives and many more may soon occur due to the contining development of Hussein's Biological Weapons development program.

After reading multiple State Dept. briefings and UN Security Council speeches from the Clinton years, it is clear that they made a lot of noise, used colorful language in their threats against terrorism and Osama/Usama, and it also clear that they did nothing substantial about it. The UN played the same game, threats, then nothing -with the added insistence that we must negotiate and not use military force to go after Bin Ladin and co. I'm sure Osama was shaking in his boots.

The 1999 Report on Terrorism, very tidy and colorful on the State Dept website (see link above) lists attack after attack from the militant Muslims. Added info on the Report includes names of terrorist organizations, locations, and weapons when known. They show us they "cared" enough about terrorism to study it and provide us with these details. The question then becomes, if they knew all this -as they clearly did- why didn't they do anything about it? Clinton and his staff often say things like "you know that we've worked hard to fight the war on terrorism," the press jumps on the multiple soundbites and once again refuses to ask, "what have you done?"

4 posted on 09/20/2001 3:37:18 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ,Snow Bunny,ChaseR,Bryan
Does anyone else wonder why the Clinton administration chose Dec. 20, 2000 to give Osama another 30 day ultimatum?

He left so many parting gifts for the new President, a mass of last minute executive orders which included new arsenic standards, turning ANWR into a national monument to guarantee a fight for oil, the pardons. It could be argued that Clinton never expected Gore to win this election. I do believe he is capable of willfully planning and executing a series of parting gifts to hamper and hurt George W. Bush and his Presidency.

5 posted on 09/20/2001 3:46:16 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Manny Festo
Thank you for the excellent articles, Manny. I wasn't aware of the AMJ and its influence in America, but much is new this week.

What a difference between Tamim's common sense analysis of Afghanistan and the UN, pundits and relief organizations continued insistence that negotiations and $$$$ will change things.

President Bush and his staff have been extremely patient with those who want to "bomb them back to the stone age" (understandable). Donald Rumsfeld is surprisingly calm in front of the cameras, reasoned and deliberate, knowing both the truth about the terrorist capabilities and minds, and the difficulty getting them.

Maybe America will actually listen to the President tonight, and learn why our thoroughness, and determination are necessary. I can't imagine anything more difficult than trying to get the truth across to distraught Americans wanting vengence now.

8 posted on 09/20/2001 5:55:56 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
TREASONOUS Clinton never did anything that did not benifit him. I would not be surprised at all if money was exchanged privately to Clinton too for his lahying off of his fellow evil friend Osama.

Both of them can spend eternity in hell.

9 posted on 09/20/2001 7:25:52 PM PDT by Snow Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Snow Bunny
bump
10 posted on 09/20/2001 9:13:16 PM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl, TLBSHOW, RJayneJ
The left-wing hate sites (Smirking Chimp, FreeDem, Bartcop, Democratic Underground, Salon) and their liberal denizens who wander to non-partisan websites (Capitol Grilling for example) are all circling like buzzards over the dead, screeching "Blame Bush! Blame Bush! Blame Bush!" They were trying to get political mileage out of these events even while the instantly-cremated ashes of the WTC victims were still settling to the ground. I was hopping back and forth between FR and CG at the time.

At first the conservatives at CG, and even a few liberals who still have a soul, tried to convince them to shut up. But they refused. Their screen names, if you'd like to wander over and flame them mercilessly, are NJCher, Youthful Indiscretion, SunRock and George bush-bin-Laden. The latter screen name, custom-designed for the occasion, was posting entire essays from Salon, DU and Bartcop, showing that at the left-wing hate sites, the "hate Bush, blame Bush" mantra was going full blast.

I started going around to every thread started by Youthful Indiscretion, posting a statement (with link) from Colin Powell indicating that the $43 million in aid was in the form of grain, medical supplies and other hard goods, routed directly to Red Crescent (Islamic equivalent of the Red Cross) and other relief organizations to keep it out of the hands of the Taliban. Powell also pointed out that last year we gave $114 million in aid for the Afghan refugees.

I then posed a few questions to these left-wing punks at CG: First, do you really believe that in some smoke-filled room at the White House, Bush said to Powell, "Here's an idea. Let's send $43 million in small, unmarked bills to Osama bin Laden. I hear he's planning to blow up the World Trade Center and destroy America, and that should help him a lot"?

Second, do you really think anyone else is stupid enough to believe it?

Third, did Clinton send his $114 million in the form of grain and other hard goods directly to relief organizations or did he send his boys to deliver it in small, unmarked bills to bin Laden? (Inquiring minds want to know.)

And fourth, why weren't all the liberal-sympathizing TV journalists asking the same silly questions last year?

11 posted on 09/21/2001 5:39:55 AM PDT by Bryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bryan Hugh Akston
Interesting Bryan...very interesting..and those questions you post.....I WONDER???? And so should all Americans.
12 posted on 09/21/2001 5:42:24 AM PDT by Neets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: Bryan
Bryan, thank you. I've been working on the same thing...e-mailing the "hate sites" (frightening) with a great deal of patience, IMHO. I started this thread originally to provide a response, easy links, to the deceptive Robert Scheer(sp?) article pasted on most of these websites and the "$43 mill. for the Taliban from Bush" talking point #1.

Then I discovered that Clinton waited until Dec. 20th, 2000 to issue his last (Osama thought was empty (^:) threat, tougher sanctions in 30 days unless Osama's delivered. Now he knew this would anger not only the Taliban, but his terrorist pals across the world. He also knew that 30 days from Dec. 20th was Jan. 20th. The electoral college voted Dec. 18th, confirming President Bush. After the trouble Clinton left for our President, and the nastiness of his pals since Jan., this last bomb left intentionally on the date of Dec. 20th-set to explode in 30 days- is, to me, the cruelest trick Slick played.

14 posted on 09/21/2001 8:52:52 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Snow Bunny
TREASONOUS Clinton never did anything that did not benifit him.

Snow Bunny, I would "move on" if his minions weren't all over the networks spinning about how hard they worked to fight terrorism and covering their clymers. President Bush is a superhuman, IMHO, reaching out to those who have tried so hard to destroy him. Bryan says that the Dem. discussion boards are still blaming our good Commander-in-Chief. We, here at FR, are doing are best to set them straight. (^:

15 posted on 09/21/2001 9:02:37 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AlleVonTech
Excellent summary. It would be funny, if it weren't so true. We musn't forget the pretty report that the Clinton administration put together for the State Dept. website, complete with colorful graphs and enough data to prove that they knew how dangerous these terrorists were.
16 posted on 09/21/2001 9:08:08 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ALOHA RONNIE
Ronnie, this one's for you:

DEC.18, 2000-ELECTORAL COLLEGE elects GEORGE W. BUSH.

DEC.20, 2000-CLINTON ADMINISTRATION gives Afghanistan 30 day ULTIMATUM..until-

JAN.20, 2001...INAUGERATION DAY for PRESIDENT BUSH.

This ENEMY is being exposed. Aloha!

17 posted on 09/21/2001 9:15:43 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
The EU is recommending that the anti-terrorism efforts should be left to the UN.

Suggestion to the EU- check out details of the terrorist incidents attributed to these monsters, visit ground 0 in NY and talk to the families and rescue workers, do some research into the past work of the UN re. Osama and friends - appeasement and consolation.

You can not negotiate with terrorists. The terrorists know this as an empty threat and care nothing about the counsel of your "wisest" and most influential leaders. They have their own agenda, and it will never include the civilized west, or any other platform, treaty, philosophy, or have any concern for "diplocmacy." You are endangering everyone involved with this effort and innocent citizens aroung the world by naively calling for UN involvement now.

18 posted on 09/22/2001 6:16:02 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl (Kofi, Dec.2000, "We must negotiate with the terrorists." NO to UN leadership re. terrorists!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Press RATS and DNC spinners
Ping.
19 posted on 09/23/2001 10:10:26 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Bump for later.
20 posted on 09/26/2001 2:39:16 PM PDT by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: toenail
Back at ya.
21 posted on 09/26/2001 4:09:45 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Once more for Time Magaizine:

"Today, the United Nations removed all its remaining relief workers from the country, fearing a backlash from the Taliban, who will be almost completely isolated diplomatically when the resolution takes effect in 30 days, a grace period during which the Taliban could avoid sanctions by meeting the Council's demands." UN, Dec. 20th...2000.

Why did Clinton wait until Dec. 19th, 2000 to push the UN for tougher sanctions against the Taliban?

Clinton knew this would anger not only the Taliban, but their terrorist pals across the world. His own State Dept. report on terrorism (see above links) shows clearly that the Clinton administration had knowledge of the size and scope of the international terrorist threat....complete with weapons, locations, history of actions of various cells, etc. The UN understood the danger...they pulled their own people out the same day, Dec. 20th, the new threat was issued.

On Dec. 18th, 2000, the electoral college elected President Bush, ending any debate. On Dec. 19th, Clinton went to the UN to push for tougher sanctions on our most deadly enemy. On Dec. 20th, the UN reluctantly issued the threat with the 30 day grace period....to go into effect Jan. 20th, 2001 - President Bush's inaugeration day.

Why would Clinton also close off ANWR those last days in office to keep us dependent on terrorist supporting nations for our energy needs?

Why would Clinton invite both Barak and Arafat to the White House those last days and encourage them both to make concessions that angered each and turned their people against them at home?

Why did the press report on the pardons and the vandalism, but neglect to investigate the most damaging actions of the departing President?

Why would Clinton leave so many landmines for the new President, knowing that our national security was at stake?


22 posted on 08/05/2002 9:55:03 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: All
Many of the above links no longer work. Info can be found here:

WH Press Briefing, Jan. 12, 2001, reporter questioned sanction date....begins Jan. 19th, 2001 (inaugeration EVE, not day....sorry).
Original NY Times story.
Original UN sanctions imposed Oct. 99.

23 posted on 08/05/2002 5:19:14 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Cross-link:

Bush and Clinton and 911- some facts...

24 posted on 08/05/2002 5:31:36 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
Thank you, backhoe! I can't believe I forgot to check out your vast resources. Not one Google link to FR on my Clinton,UN,Taliban search. Plenty of left wing hate sites. We are an oasis of civility in an increasingly meanspirited world. (^:
25 posted on 08/05/2002 5:45:10 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl; backhoe; Mo1
Remember this?
26 posted on 03/23/2004 9:38:05 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Actually .. no I didn't know Clinton pulled this stunt
27 posted on 03/23/2004 9:40:58 PM PST by Mo1 (Do you want a president who injects poison into his skull for vanity?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Remember this?

Thanks for the "jog the memory" bump!

28 posted on 03/24/2004 12:57:17 AM PST by backhoe (Just an old Keyboard Cowboy, ridin' the TrackBall into the Sunset...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
This is like a flashback highschool photo, bell bottoms, hip huggers, embarrassing haircut - before the troops civilized me, lol.

Seriesly, though...it is no small thing, imho, that Clinton intentionally (imho) incited Taliban wrath as he left the White House. He knew full well how his final actions would be received by our enemies.

Two more to share with the accusers of the Bush Administration re. 911, terrorism, truthtelling: (link, also now 'broken'):

* Arabia in the Media, (nearing the one year anniversary of Clinton's bombing the Taliban in Afghanistan on the eve of the Lewinsky hearings:)

(July, '99) The Boston Globe, on the 25th, said, "The 6-year-old boy watched intently as his father dusted off his favorite possession, a leather-bound scrapbook of Osama bin Laden, pausing at a photo of the Saudi dissident with a semiautomatic rifle tucked in the folds of his trademark white robe. ''Osama!'' his son squealed excitedly. ''That's me!'' The boy, whose name was changed to Osama last year, is one of hundreds of Pakistani children named for bin Laden since Aug. 20, 1998 - the day the United States launched missile strikes against alleged terrorist camps run by the Saudi millionaire in eastern Afghanistan. The attack sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. But the response was particularly heated in Pakistan, which sends thousands of Islamic guerrillas to similar training camps in Afghanistan. ''I love his bravery and gallantry,'' the boy's father, Niaz Ali Salar, said of bin Laden. ''He boosted the morale of Muslims throughout the world.'' The local leader of the radical Barelvi sect of Muslims, Salar said he hoped his son would ''live up to his name'' and lead the war against ''the enemies of Islam.'' In Mardan, a crumbling tobacco center 75 miles east of the Afghan border, Islamic priests deliver diatribes against ''evil America'' during Friday afternoon prayers.

In Pakistan, few buy Washington's vilification of bin Laden, whom it accuses of masterminding the Aug. 7, 1998, bombings of two US embassies in east Africa and several other terrorist attacks. ''He's a man on the run, whose only friends are the Taliban. How can he be a threat to the world's most powerful nation?'' said Sahib Zada Khalid Jan Binuri, head of Pakistan's most influential Islamic seminary. ''It's all spin control. If America tells me, `You are a terrorist,' what can I say?''

(character counts in a US President who's fighting evildoers!)


Creators Syndicate - www.creators.com 12/27/98 L. Brent Bozell III:

"Bill Clinton's decision to unleash the dogs of war as he tip-toes on the precipice of impeachment conjures up a vision of White House defense lawyer Greg Craig appearing before Congress declaring: "The President's military action was evasive, incomplete, misleading, even maddening - but it's not impeachable." There's no dodging the suspicion that Clinton is seeking to save his bacon by dropping some megatonnage on Saddam Hussein. After all, it's just what he did when he bombed Osama bin Laden's alleged facilities in Sudan and Afghanistan this summer. Both actions were launched with little or no consultation with Congress, and with too little consultation with the service chiefs at the Pentagon. Oh my, how the talking heads like Alan Dershowitz and NBC anchor-in-training Brian Williams are going nuts over that suggestion. How vile! How unpatriotic! What hypocrites. How about the Democrats? In 1983, Clinton defender John Conyers called for Reagan's impeachment for invading Grenada. (For good measure, he earlier called for impeachment over the Gipper's alleged "incompetence" in dealing with unemployment.) In 1984, as he ran for President, and again in 1986, Jesse Jackson suggested Reagan should be subject to an impeachment probe over U.S. actions in Nicaragua. Rep. Henry Gonzalez called for impeachment in 1983 over Grenada and again in 1987 over Iran-Contra. The National Organization for Women and the American Civil Liberties Union advocated impeaching Reagan in 1987. The major media didn't thump the tub for impeachment, but did suggest forcefully that Reagan's actions were even worse than the Watergate offenses that got Richard Nixon impeached. For example, in the January 9, 1984 New York Times, then-Senior Editor John B. Oakes proclaimed: "President Reagan's consistent elevation of militarism over diplomacy creates a clear and present danger to the internal and external security of the United States. Presidents have been impeached for less." Oakes wasn't alone at the Times. On December 12, 1986, columnist Tom Wicker offered an echo: "Mr. Reagan probably won't be impeached or forced to resign - though the offenses resulting from his policy, or his somnolence on the job, are more serious than any charge the House Judiciary Committee approved against Mr. Nixon.".So where are these noble folks today? Have you noticed how the words "War Powers Act" haven't been invoked much by the liberal media in the last, oh, six years, now that a President they favor is lobbing the bombs? Where are the calls for impeachment from John Conyers and Jesse Jackson? Where are the charges of abuse of power from the editorial pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post? Nothing but silence. Stinking dead silence.."

http://www.alamo-girl.com/0281.htm


29 posted on 03/24/2004 5:31:37 AM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl ("(We)..come to rout out tyranny from its nest. Confusion to the enemy." - B. Taylor, US Marine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Worth a bump to the top

Does anyone else wonder why the Clinton administration chose Dec. 20, 2000 to give Osama another 30 day ultimatum? He left so many parting gifts for the new President.

I do believe he is capable of willfully planning and executing a series of parting gifts to hamper and hurt George W. Bush and his Presidency.

BTTT!

30 posted on 09/27/2006 1:22:42 PM PDT by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | 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