U.S., Taliban bargained over bin Laden, documents show

[Sarge]

"Don't bother me with that Osama, Obama, whoever. Where's that chubby little intern?"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/19/taliban.documents/

U.S., Taliban bargained over bin Laden, documents show

Declassified State Department papers detail 1998 meetings

Friday, August 19, 2005; Posted: 10:21 p.m. EDT (02:21 GMT)

A U.S. official met with an aide to Taliban chief Mullah Omar in 1998, according to U.S. documents.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- During secret meetings with U.S. officials in 1998, top Taliban officials discussed assassinating or expelling Osama bin Laden in response to al Qaeda's deadly bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, according to State Department documents.

The newly declassified documents, posted Thursday on the National Archives Web site, provide a fascinating glimpse into U.S. diplomacy exerted on Afghanistan's ruling Taliban -- a regime officially unrecognized by Washington -- nearly three years before the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks on the United States.

According to the documents, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, Alan Eastham Jr., met with Wakil Ahmed, a close aide to Taliban leader Mullah Omar, in November and December 1998. That was just months after the August al Qaeda attacks that killed more than 200 people at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

"It is unbelievable that this small man did this to you," Ahmed said during their meeting on December 19, 1998, according to the documents.

Ahmed told Eastham that he spoke with Omar about bin Laden and that the Taliban still considered the Saudi exile "innocent."

Talk of assassination

During a meeting between Ahmed and Eastham on November 28, 1998, just days after the Taliban's supreme court cleared bin Laden of terrorist activities, Ahmed said one possibility "would be for the U.S. to kill him or arrange for bin Laden to be assassinated."

Ahmed "said that the U.S., if it chose to do so, could arrange to have bin Laden killed by cruise missiles or other means, and there would be little the Taliban could do to prevent it," according to the documents.

Another alternative, Ahmed said, would be for the United States to provide the Taliban with cruise missiles to have "the situation resolved in this way." Ahmed also noted that expelling bin Laden likely would result in the Taliban regime being overthrown, according to the documents.

And while Ahmed suggested a possible assassination of bin Laden, he also "urged the U.S. not to bomb Afghanistan again" as Washington did in the weeks following the embassy bombings. Ahmed "asked instead for a new U.S. proposal aimed at resolving the matter," the documents said.

'I consider you as murderers'

Ahmed expressed anger about the cruise missile attacks ordered by President Clinton on al Qaeda training camps in Khost, Afghanistan, targeting bin Laden after the embassy bombings. Twenty-two Afghans, including members of al Qaeda, were killed in the attacks.

"If Kandahar could have retaliated with similar strikes against Washington, it would have," Ahmed said, according to the documents.

"I consider you as murderers of Afghans," Ahmed told Eastham. "The U.S. said bin Laden had killed innocent people, but had not the U.S. killed innocent Afghans in Khost too? Was this not a crime?"

Saudi influence

The declassified State Department documents were cables recapping the meetings and outlining the U.S. position on bin Laden. They were originally sent to U.S. officials in Washington; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Peshawar, Pakistan; Cairo, Egypt; Abu Dhabi, UAE; Lahore, Pakistan; and the United Nations.

A State Department cable sent on October 19, 1998, said the best course of action in getting bin Laden handed over would be through Saudi Arabia, which "maintains significant prestige in Pakistan and Afghanistan."

It said a then-upcoming trip by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to Pakistan provided a "ready-made opportunity for the Saudis to press the Pakistani government to exert pressure on the Taliban concerning bin Laden."

It also said the United States should continue to pursue talks amid "indications that other Taliban leaders are getting nervous on the issue."

"The U.S. should appeal to the natural trading mentality of many Afghans -- and perhaps some Taliban -- by setting out what the Taliban stand to gain by expelling bin Laden as well as what they stand to lose," the cable said.

Taliban cooperation

At the same time, U.S. officials were under no illusions about the prospects of Taliban cooperation: "The fact is that the leader of the Taliban appears to be strongly committed to bin Laden. It is questionable whether U.S. or Saudi efforts can influence Omar's decisions."

By the end of the November 28 meeting, pressed on why the Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden, Ahmed said that the Afghan people "would not understand why the Taliban had expelled a man who was regarded as a 'great mujahid,' or Islamic fighter, during the war against the Soviets. They would reject the Taliban if the Taliban took this action."

Eastham responded by telling Ahmed the Taliban had to recognize for itself "that the role of political leadership is to shape public opinion, not to decline to act because they think opinion is otherwise."

The cable concluded that Ahmed "wanted very strongly to convey the message that the Taliban did not consider the bin Laden matter resolved in the wake of the recent supreme court decision."

But within a month, it was clear the Taliban had hardened its position. "We have little indication that anything we said got through to" Ahmed, a cable said about the December 19 meeting.

Bin Laden 'most important'

The documents indicate that bin Laden was clearly Washington's priority with the Taliban in 1998 -- rather than reported human rights violations by their Afghan government.

"The continued presence in Afghanistan of bin Laden and his network is by far the most important," said a State Department cable sent on October 19, 1998.

The State Department has issued a $25 million reward for bin Laden and $10 million for Mullah Omar.

In October of 2001 a U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan toppled the Taliban reg

[Spaceman Spiff]

Way to go Bill.

[Thiebear]

CNN????

Didnt Bill Clinton just say (within 30 days) that he a virtual obsession with catching Bin Laden?

Another alternative, Ahmed said, would be for the United States to provide the Taliban with cruise missiles to have "the situation resolved in this way."

ahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhhahahahahhahahahahahhaaa

[Larry]

I seem to have trouble following this article. If I'm reading it correctly, it says

1. The Afghans suggested we use cruise missiles to kill Ben Laden.
   
2. They asked us not to use bombs or cruise missiles.
   
3. They asked us to provide them with cruise missiles. (How many people got a chuckle out of that one?)
   
4. They wanted us to put pressure on the Taliban to hand over or expell Osama.
   
5. They pointed out that the Taliban seems to like Osama.
   
6. They pointed out that, if the Taliban did expell Osama, then they'd probably all be thrown out of power. (Which might go a long way to explain point E.)
   [/list=a]
   Oh, and
   • Sarge says this proves It's Clinton's Fault.
     

[Baculus]

Keep in mind, the Bush administration gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban in early 2001. Also, Taliban representatives were even visiting Washington in the months leading up to 9-11. We also have to look at our ties between such questionable individuals such as General Mahmud Ahmed, former head of the ISI, who was even in Washington the morning of 9-11. (He has pro-Taliban leanings, and was even connected with Ahmed Umar Sheik, who was further connected to Mohammad Atta.)

And I am not totally surprised if we did not "negoatiate" to have Bin Laden handed over, considering both were CIA proxy assets.

As the supposed story continues, in 2000, the Clinton administration asked the Taliban to eject Bin Laden, to improve their relations::http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1124405379832_4/?hub=World

It is hard to judge the matter, considering both administration ties to the involved parties, as well as pre-2001 plans to invade Afghanistan.

[Mad Mike]

the Bush administration gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban in early 2001

Care to back that one up?

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

Care to back that one up?

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/taliban.htm#nytarticle

[Baculus]

Thanks Liberty. I had grown lazy with my source providing. :-)

[Thiebear]

Keep in mind, the Bush administration gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban in early 2001. Also, Taliban representatives were even visiting Washington in the months leading up to 9-11. We also have to look at our ties between such questionable individuals such as General Mahmud Ahmed, former head of the ISI, who was even in Washington the morning of 9-11. (He has pro-Taliban leanings, and was even connected with Ahmed Umar Sheik, who was further connected to Mohammad Atta.)

And I am not totally surprised if we did not "negoatiate" to have Bin Laden handed over, considering both were CIA proxy assets.

As the supposed story continues, in 2000, the Clinton administration asked the Taliban to eject Bin Laden, to improve their relations::http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1124405379832_4/?hub=World

It is hard to judge the matter, considering both administration ties to the involved parties, as well as pre-2001 plans to invade Afghanistan.

Whats that got to do with ANYTHING?

We gave the Taliban 43 million because they were eradicating Opium/Heroin and were were helping them change the crops being grown??

And there was a Serious Drought....... So its also for Humanitarian Aid.

*Enlighten me on what that has to do with getting Bin Laden*?

You'd be hard pressed to come up with a country we don't help when they have a major natural catastrophe.. Even IRAN last year?

[TheREALJBird]

Whats that got to do with ANYTHING?

We gave the Taliban 43 million because they were eradicating Opium/Heroin and were were helping them change the crops being grown??

And there was a Serious Drought....... So its also for Humanitarian Aid.

*Enlighten me on what that has to do with getting Bin Laden*?

You'd be hard pressed to come up with a country we don't help when they have a major natural catastrophe.. Even IRAN last year?

Yea Iran exactly....and now they're being pricks about oil, spineless is what they are, we should just take it from them

[Baculus]

Whats that got to do with ANYTHING?

It was a demonstration that we were not cutoff with communicating with the Taliban. If we were working with the Taliban in opium eradication, perhaps in turn a deal could have been struck to have Bin Laden handed over. I believe many people have the impression that we didn't have any interaction at all with the Taliban.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

It was a demonstration that we were not cutoff with communicating with the Taliban. If we were working with the Taliban in opium eradication, perhaps in turn a deal could have been struck to have Bin Laden handed over. I believe many people have the impression that we didn't have any interaction at all with the Taliban.

They way it was presented, though, gave innuendo towards believing that the evil republican Bush administration was handing over millions to the Taliban "just because"...the subtext being, "If the Taliban is connected to someone so evil, why was Bush forking over money to them, hmm??".

I think putting everything in context, instead of removing context, is important.

[Baculus]

They way it was presented, though, gave innuendo towards believing that the evil republican Bush administration was handing over millions to the Taliban "just because"...the subtext being, "If the Taliban is connected to someone so evil, why was Bush forking over money to them, hmm??".

That question actually can be raised on subjects relating to the Taliban and Pakistani intellgence.

I did, though, present it in the light of negotiations with the Taliban regarding the Bin Laden question. But true, innuedo can be perceived. In addition, mixed messages by this and the previous Clinton administration can lead to such innuedo.

[Thiebear]

Didnt we draw 22 lines in the sand persay?

I thought we did have an open line of communications saying turn over Bin Laden... No really... I mean it... We ARE GOING TO REMOVE YOU!!!!... Stop it and turn him over... Come on guys, its good for everyone...

I believe someone is not only putting half truths into the thread and sending in 11 different directions.. they are not even trying to back it up with any real facts...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Saturday that "time is running out" for Afghanistan to hand over suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda followers.

Afghanistan's Taliban rulers have refused to surrender bin Laden unless the United States gives them proof that he was responsible for the September 11 coordinated terror attacks.

In his weekly radio address, Bush said many Afghans are on the verge of starvation and reinforced the United States' commitment of food and humanitarian aid to Afghan people, both those inside the country and those who have fled its borders.

"The Afghan people ... are the victims of oppression, famine and misrule," Bush said. "Our enemy is not the people of any nation, even when their leaders harbor terrorists. Our enemy is the terrorists themselves, and the regimes that shelter and sustain them."

He also urged Congress to make funds available in the long term to help rebuild and develop Afghanistan.

and i believe we gave them 200+ million in aid for the people...2000/2001