Documents show that U.S. and Taliban bargained over Bin Laden

[hotdamn]

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 regime.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you guys think about this?

[Trauma-san]

I think it's ancient news.  Good republicans have known for years that Bill Clinton was offered Bin Ladin 3 seperate times before 9/11, (remember this is after Bin Ladin bombed the U.S.S. Cole, and the World Trade center the first time), and all 3 times Clinton's administration refused to accept Ladin's head on a stick. 

[hotdamn]

1. Bin Laden was staying at an American hospital in Dubai for kidney problems in 1998 (after the embassy bombings, and while he was most-wanted by the U.S. government). ALLEGEDLY... someone from the CIA paid him a visit.

2. The Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to the U.S. if they had provided evidence. Our response was that we "don't negotiate with terrorists". So either Clinton was simply looking at the situation the same way (not negotiating with terrorists)... or we just consider ourselves to be the "civil" ones because we're in the West... but when it comes down to it, we just want to bomb the shit out of countries.

[AndrE16686]

I think it's ancient news.  Good republicans have known for years that Bill Clinton was offered Bin Ladin 3 seperate times before 9/11, (remember this is after Bin Ladin bombed the U.S.S. Cole, and the World Trade center the first time), and all 3 times Clinton's administration refused to accept Ladin's head on a stick. 

WTF!? Where did you ever get that I idea? This just seems like a case of 'blame the predecessor'

[Trauma-san]

Look it up, man, it's all fact.  3 times Clinton's administration was offered Bin Ladin, 3 times they declined to take him. 

[Trauma-san]

Here's 1 example of Bill Clinton admitting it HIMSELF, to a group of Businessmen in Long Island, in 2002.  Now; when the 9/11 commission asked him about this, he said that he must have misspoke, that never happened. 

"We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again, They released [bin Laden]. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.  So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

Of course in '96 Bin Ladin had already been linked to the NY bombings by several newspapers, as well as bombings in Saudi Arabia against U.S. citizens. 

When the 9/11 commission met, Clinton told them he never said that.  They told him they had the tape, lol, and he then said that he misspoke when he said that, he was never offered Bin Ladin by the Saudis.  He was then backed up by Sandy Berger, who just got busted and admitted to stealing 9/11 related Clinton-era documents out of the National Archives.  How convienent.

[Shallow]

Here's 1 example of Bill Clinton admitting it HIMSELF, to a group of Businessmen in Long Island, in 2002.  Now; when the 9/11 commission asked him about this, he said that he must have misspoke, that never happened. 

"We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again, They released [bin Laden]. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.  So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

Of course in '96 Bin Ladin had already been linked to the NY bombings by several newspapers, as well as bombings in Saudi Arabia against U.S. citizens. 

When the 9/11 commission met, Clinton told them he never said that.  They told him they had the tape, lol, and he then said that he misspoke when he said that, he was never offered Bin Ladin by the Saudis.  He was then backed up by Sandy Berger, who just got busted and admitted to stealing 9/11 related Clinton-era documents out of the National Archives.  How convienent.

You mean to say that politicians lie? I won't believe it. They're the most honest men in all the land.

[Low Key]

You mean to say that politicians lie? I won't believe it. They're the most honest men in all the land.

You brush it off like lying isn't a big deal. Everyone is pissed that Bush lied about there being no WMDs in Iraq, but yall are quick to turn your heads about this. And let's not forget, he previously lied under oath as well.

[7even]

It's simple. Why killing someone who can still be of use.. like.. for blowing up a couple of towers and giving you a free-to-do-whatE>V>E>R-you-want-policy.

[Low Key]

It's simple. Why killing someone who can still be of use.. like.. for blowing up a couple of towers and giving you a free-to-do-whatE>V>E>R-you-want-policy.

Why would any self-respecting liberal want to give a conservative that kind of power? Everyone and their mama knew Gore wasn't going to win the election. Clinton fucked up.

[7even]

I don't think everybody and their mama knew.. shit was close
  cheaaaty

Plus the New World Order is has been planned and was inevitable since George Bush Senior..

[Shallow]

It's simple. Why killing someone who can still be of use.. like.. for blowing up a couple of towers and giving you a free-to-do-whatE>V>E>R-you-want-policy.

Why would any self-respecting liberal want to give a conservative that kind of power? Everyone and their mama knew Gore wasn't going to win the election. Clinton fucked up.

Is that why Gore had more votes?


And I never said I was pissed about GW lying. It's just par for the course. You get into politics you better learn to lie. Partuicluarly when you come from a prominant family, then you come from a long line of liars. I don't get mad I just think it's funny. I also think it's funny that republicans get so mad about any wrong that a Democrat and refuse to see whatever wrong a republican does. Noboday is confusing Clinton for Jesus, but a lot of Bush voters seem to do that for ol Dubya. There were even some fucking churches that told their congragations to stop coming of they vote for Kerry. I hope I'm standing next to the big guy when he slaps them across the face come their day of judgement.

[hotdamn]

1. Bin Laden was staying at an American hospital in Dubai for kidney problems in 1998 (after the embassy bombings, and while he was most-wanted by the U.S. government). ALLEGEDLY... someone from the CIA paid him a visit.

2. The Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to the U.S. if they had provided evidence. Our response was that we "don't negotiate with terrorists". So either Clinton was simply looking at the situation the same way (not negotiating with terrorists)... or we just consider ourselves to be the "civil" ones because we're in the West... but when it comes down to it, we just want to bomb the shit out of countries.

[J Bananas]

Bin laden was involved with the American government before Clinton took office, He was active with the CIA during Bush 1 and I think even Reagan, any good republican should know that, he's your homeboy.

[Low Key]

There were even some fucking churches that told their congragations to stop coming of they vote for Kerry.

Proof?

And I hate to bring this up because most liberals complain about it, but there is a reason why the electoral college is in place. There is around 11 million people through out the entire state of New York. Put them up against the enitre state of Idaho, and that's about as one sided as you get. So the popular vote means absolutely nothing to me.

How can you say that only conservatives refuse to see the wrong republicans do? I could say the exact same thing about liberals. I'm a moderate. Anytime Bush says something stupid, I'm right there to poke fun at it. But in my experience, liberals really tend to let things slide on their side more often. They act like the common person is too dumb to figure it out. But either way, there is too much snake shit going on from both sides to keep track of it all.