how Clinton help fund and arm al queda

[Lefty Wilbury]

i'll lay out the broad general idea here for everyone and allow everyone to look it up for themselves since no one will belive it. clinton help fund,arm,protect and use us military power on behalf al queda. yes it's true. search for:

bin laden
KLA or Kosovo liberation army
Kosovo
Bill Clinton

search for clinton,kosovo,and kla first. you'll get news article after news article about how the clinton administration was all tied up with these people and how we used us military power to protect them and arm them etc etc etc. then do a search for obl and kla and you'll get article after article how obl funded,trained and supplied fighters for the kla. so in closing its safe to say clinton supported obl. go ahead do your own research from your own sites and sources and you'll reach the same conclusion.

 

[4USA]

Excellent post -

One article detailing the KLA terrorist connections that Clinton unwittingly helped along is by Marcia Christoff Kurop in The Wall Street Journal Europe dated November 1, 2001.

 

[YellowBirdy]

Originally posted by Lefty Wilbury
i'll lay out the broad general idea here for everyone and allow everyone to look it up for themselves since no one will belive it. clinton help fund,arm,protect and use us military power on behalf al queda. yes it's true. search for:

bin laden
KLA or Kosovo liberation army
Kosovo
Bill Clinton

search for clinton,kosovo,and kla first. you'll get news article after news article about how the clinton administration was all tied up with these people and how we used us military power to protect them and arm them etc etc etc. then do a search for obl and kla and you'll get article after article how obl funded,trained and supplied fighters for the kla. so in closing its safe to say clinton supported obl. go ahead do your own research from your own sites and sources and you'll reach the same conclusion.

Awesome point. Might I suggest another search?

OBL
Mujahideen
Afghanistan
Ronald Reagan

Hey at least we got rid of those commie bastards! Who cares about secularism and equality of the sexes!

 

[4USA]

Very cute but Reagan's enlistment of OBL against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan cannot be compared. It happened almost twenty years ago wel before OBL became enemy #1, not after the first bombing of the World Trade Center and the bombings in Africa as well as after OBL's two declarations of war against the United States. Clinton should have learned from Reagan's mistake with the benefit of hindsight and not repeat it with such catastrophic results.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Sorry to burst you bubble, but Osama bin Laden was a monster of the Reagan administration's creation. Were it not for the CIA funding he recieved during Russia's boondoggle in Iraq, he would have remained the obscure scion of Saudi royalty he was.

 

[4USA]

It's easy to second guess decisions after the fact. Yes - if the CIA had not helped fund and train the Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan, there may not have been the OBL who turned against us years later but nobody had a crystal ball at that time to predict what would happen.

Certainly by 1998, Clinton had the benefit of being able to look back and see the consequences of allying ourselves with terrorists and already was fully aware that the Islamic terrorists, who were deeply involved with the KLA clinton was supporting, regarded us as their number one enemy. In other words, Reagan did make a mistake in hindsight. Clinton made the same error fully aware of the lethal consequences of helping a declared enemy of the United States which had already declared war against us twice.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

go ahead and do you search on reagan and the Mujahideen
and you'll get How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen thats right jimmy carter. so blame ole jimmy. so reagan had nothing to do iwth it. the artilce is how ole jimmy advisor BRAGS how he and jimmy started Mujahideen. oh and for the recorrd there is a difference between the Mujahideen and people like obl. forgien arab fighters were funded and trained by the ISI in pakisthan and had nothing to do with teh us or the cia.

 

[007]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Sorry to burst you bubble, but Osama bin Laden was a monster of the Reagan administration's creation. Were it not for the CIA funding he recieved during Russia's boondoggle in Iraq, he would have remained the obscure scion of Saudi royalty he was.

Oh of course.... Just like you believe in God.

 

[Blair]

GW Bush gave the Taliban $43 million (under the guise of paying them to give subsides to farmers to reduce their drug-producing crop; but really paying them to burn the crops and intimidate them off the land) in May of 2001. The Taliban directly supported OBL and al Quaeda. The simple fact is, Bush's $43 million war-on-drug induced sucker-money helped to pay for the attacks on 9/11.

Now we find Dubya is being used by Iranian moles. Incredible.

Is there any chance we'll ever again allow a man to be elected President who didn't have a B average in college?

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by Blair
GW Bush gave the Taliban $43 million (under the guise of paying them to give subsides to farmers to reduce their drug-producing crop; but really paying them to burn the crops and intimidate them off the land) in May of 2001. The Taliban directly supported OBL and al Quaeda. The simple fact is, Bush's $43 million war-on-drug induced sucker-money helped to pay for the attacks on 9/11.

Now we find Dubya is being used by Iranian moles. Incredible.

Is there any chance we'll ever again allow a man to be elected President who didn't have a B average in college?

Clinton started that program. Do your research.

 

[4USA]

Nice try, but you have it backwards. Bin Laden bankrolled the Taliban and al Qaeda along with money laundered from terrorist operations in Kosovo among other means. The Taliban provided a state sanctuary which George W. Bush ended once and for all.

 

[freeandfun1]

True, but both the Clinton and the Bush administration did pay some Taliban to stop growing poppies. It was a flawed plan and it was stopped before 9-11.

Both were wrong for doing it, but to only point out the Bush administration's participation in such an act is just wrong. If he wants to blame Bush, then he must, at least, equally blame Clinton.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Blair
GW Bush gave the Taliban $43 million (under the guise of paying them to give subsides to farmers to reduce their drug-producing crop; but really paying them to burn the crops and intimidate them off the land) in May of 2001. The Taliban directly supported OBL and al Quaeda. The simple fact is, Bush's $43 million war-on-drug induced sucker-money helped to pay for the attacks on 9/11.

Freeandfun1 already told you, but I'd also like you to understand that not only are you wrong about the President, you are wrong about the program. It was a UN program.

You may think you know something from seeing this on the Internet somewhere, and I could easily tell where, but it also shows us how LITTLE you actually know, having simply fallen for the first anti-American propaganda you read.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

an older article on this stuff

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30166

Murray pushed for aid to Taliban before 9-11
Senator urged Bush administration to send $30 million to bin Laden hosts

Posted: December 26, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Joseph Farah
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com


WASHINGTON – Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, who told schoolchildren Osama bin Laden was beloved by his people because of his compassionate social spending programs, was one of 13 U.S. senators to urge the Bush administration to send $30 million in taxpayer aid to his Taliban hosts in Afghanistan just five months before Sept. 11.

On May 2, 2001, 13 senators released to the press a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell calling on the administration to provide $30 million in emergency aid for Afghanistan, warning failure to act could spark a humanitarian crisis of "massive proportions."

Last Wednesday, at the conclusion of a session with students at Columbia River High School in Vancouver, Wash., Murray said she wanted to bring up a further point to add to their discussion about alternatives to war.

"We've got to ask, why is this man so popular around the world?" she said in reference to bin Laden, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "Why are people so supportive of him in many countries that are riddled with poverty?"

Murray said, according to the Vancouver Columbian newspaper, that bin Laden has been "out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that."

The second-term senator asked the students to ponder: "How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"

Despite Murray's claim that bin Laden had invested heavily in social infrastructure and improved lives among the people who supported him, five months before Sept. 11 she was describing an Afghanistan on the verge of social catastrophe.

Indeed, tens of thousands of Afghans were facing starvation brought on by a serious drought and civil war.

"The conditions in temporary camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan are horrendous, and people are dying daily from starvation, cold and disease," said the letter to Powell. "If we fail to act, the world may soon be witness to a humanitarian crisis of even more massive proportions. We urge your immediate attention to this matter."

Even before some $43 million in additional aid was released to the Taliban, described six months later by President Bush as one of the most repressive regimes the world has ever known, the U.S. was already the biggest aid donor to Afghanistan – even bigger than bin Laden.

Bin Laden had provided an estimated $100 million in cash and military assistance to the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan over the five years leading up to Sept. 11, according to intelligence information presented to President Bush and his senior national security advisers after the terrorist attacks.

But, those sources said, the money he provided to the Taliban did not come from his personal fortune. The money comes from three primary sources: legal and illegal businesses or front companies bin Laden operated directly or indirectly; tribute payments he received from several Persian Gulf states, companies or individuals that gave him funds so he and his al-Qaida supporters would stay out of or minimize activities in their countries; and entities masked as charities.

Bin Laden even reportedly used a network of shops selling honey to generate income and secretly move weapons, drugs and agents throughout his terrorist network. But the goal, terrorism experts insist, was always the funding of his terrorist infrastructure – not the improvement of social conditions.

Both the Taliban government and bin Laden's terrorist organization were always funded in part by the opium poppies of Afghanistan.

When the U.S. committed $43 million in aid to Afghanistan in May 2001, it brought the total of U.S. aid to the country that year alone to $124 million. Powell's aid package came just two weeks after Murray and 12 other U.S. senators including Joseph Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Russell Feingold, Edward Kennedy, Mary Landrieu, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Mikulski, Harry Reid, Debbie Stabenow and Paul Wellstone, lobbied for $30 million.

The request from Murray and her colleagues in May 2001 came after a team of officials from the U.S. Agency for International Development toured Afghanistan in April. It was the first time U.S. officials had set foot in Afghanistan since before President Clinton's August 1998 missile strikes on terrorist camps there.

While Murray has not yet paid much of a political price for her comments attributing humanitarian motives to bin Laden, Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Wash., who is considering running against Murray in 2004, has publicly challenged her, characterizing her remarks as "bizarre" and "uninformed."

Roger Hedgecock, filling in for talk radio host Rush Limbaugh Monday, asked, after noting the story was picked up by only a few media sources, including WND: "Where was the shock? Where was the outrage?"

"Osama bin Laden hasn't been building schools and health-care facilities and infrastructure and roads," Hedgecock said. "He's been building terrorist training camps. He's been exploding bombs and murdering people. He hasn't been building an infrastructure."

While some of Murray's remarks to the schoolchildren also appeared to be critical of Bush's war policies in Afghanistan, she was immediately supportive of those plans in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and following his address to the joint session of Congress.

"These attacks were meant to divide us, but what they've done is bring us closer together," she said in a statement Sept. 20. "From the heroes in New York and Washington, D.C., to a fifth-grade class in Lynnwood, Washington, that is holding a bake sale to benefit the Red Cross, last week's tragedy has brought out the best in America."

In response to the political brushfire kicked up by Murray's comments to the school children, she issued a statement calling bin Laden "an evil terrorist who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans."

"While we continue to search every corner of the globe to destroy Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network, should we also consider the longer-term issue of what else can be done to improve relations with all nations including the Arab world?" she asked in the statement.

As to the question of whether Murray's comments have provided aid and comfort to bin Laden's supporters, the Islamist website Taliban Online reprinted the opening section of WND's original story that included Murray's glowing comments about bin Laden, complete with a hyperlink back to WND.

 

[Blair]

Originally posted by Comrade
You may think you know something from seeing this on the Internet somewhere, and I could easily tell where, but it also shows us how LITTLE you actually know, having simply fallen for the first anti-American propaganda you read.

No, I knew there had been payments under Clinton as well. I also knew the that Taliban had burned poppy fields, and had not sent planes into the WTC and Pentagon and Pennsylvanian fields under Clinton.

Bush's money was still in their pockets when 9/11 happened.

 

[Blair]

Originally posted by Lefty Wilbury
[/B]As to the question of whether Murray's comments have provided aid and comfort to bin Laden's supporters, the Islamist website Taliban Online reprinted the opening section of WND's original story that included Murray's glowing comments about bin Laden, complete with a hyperlink back to WND. [/B]

Speech, even speech supporting an enemy, doesn't constitute Treason. Speech encouraging a specific act of the enemy may be. Just saying "bin Laden may be a nice guy" certainly is not.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Blair
No, I knew there had been payments under Clinton as well. I also knew the that Taliban had burned poppy fields, and had not sent planes into the WTC and Pentagon and Pennsylvanian fields under Clinton.

Bush's money was still in their pockets when 9/11 happened.

Hold on a minute there, Blair

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

Let's talk of days long past, when once Bush reigned over a society untouched by the horrors of 9-11 and esteemed media such as the New York Times once wrote of Bush as the caring and humanitarian giver of aid. Or the niggerdly spendthrift at odds with the UN over Afganistan.

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
Taliban's Ban On Poppy A Success, U.S. Aides Say
By BARBARA CROSSETTE

DATELINE: UNITED NATIONS, May 18
May 20, 2001, Sunday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section 1; Page 7; Column 1; Foreign Desk


The first American narcotics experts to go to Afghanistan under Taliban rule have concluded that the movement's ban on opium-poppy cultivation appears to have wiped out the world's largest crop in less than a year, officials said today.

The American findings confirm earlier reports from the United Nations drug control program that Afghanistan, which supplied about three-quarters of the world's opium and most of the heroin reaching Europe, had ended poppy planting in one season. But the eradication of poppies has come at a terrible cost to farming families, and experts say it will not be known until the fall planting season begins whether the Taliban can continue to enforce it.

A terrible cost, experts interviewed by NTY's say. And the US seems to be backing the UN findings and clearly more money per NTY slant seems to be an issue for success.

Mr. Casteel said in an interview today that he was still studying aerial images to determine if any new poppy-growing areas had emerged. He also said that some questions about the size of hidden opium and heroin stockpiles near the northern border of Afghanistan remained to be answered. But the drug agency has so far found nothing to contradict United Nations reports.

Well sheeeee-IT! The UN says it's all legit, and hoooyaaAAH Bush is raring to give them puppies in Afgani a slush fund to rustle up the varmits.

The sudden turnaround by the Taliban, a move that left international drug experts stunned when reports of near-total eradication began to come in earlier this year, opens the way for American aid to the Afghan farmers who have stopped planting poppies.

That my friends, is an all entry pass, from the editors at the New York Times. No quotes above and no statement attributed, no, this about face is reported as a FACT.

On Thursday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in additional emergency aid to cope with the effects of a prolonged drought. The United States has become the biggest donor to help Afghanistan in the drought.

43 Million dollars viewed as relief from starvation, and an act of overriding humanitarian concerns. Get that?

.......

The end of opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan has come at a huge cost to farmers, Mr. Callahan and Mr. Casteel said. The rural economy, especially in the usual opium-poppy areas, had come to rely on the narcotics trade. "The bad side of the ban is that it's bringing their country -- or certain regions of their country -- to economic ruin," Mr. Casteel said. "They are trying to replace the crop with wheat, but that is easier said than done."

"Wheat needs more water and earns no money until it is sold," Mr. Casteel said. "With the opium trade they used to get their money up front."

The Taliban, who used to collect taxes on the movement of opium, is also losing money, adding another layer of difficulty for a government that is already isolated and not recognized diplomatically by most nations.

Afghanistan is now under United Nations sanctions, [bimposed at the insistence of the United States because the Islamic movement will not turn over Osama bin Laden for trial in connection with attacks on two American Embassies in Africa in 1998.[/b]

Oh dear, perhaps the New York Times isn't really happy about the whole US sponsored sanctioned issue, given the untold suffering of the opium farmers forced to grow actual food, with only a paltry 43 Mil to help them go straight. And all this fuss over Osama as being part of this chocking sanction, an IMPOSITION we INSISTED upon, well that's not a "happy thought" for the NYT's. No "tough love" just "brutal suffering" by the Bush regime.

American experts and United Nations officials say the Taliban are likely to face political problems if the effects of the opium ban are catastrophic and many people die.
Copyright New York Times

Shit, we don't want the Taliban to have political problems in Afganistan, they did so well by the UN program and seem like such upstanding fellows.

Obviously we have to be sensitive to the NYT's conclusion here from expert conclusions, that if we don't pat them on the head and give them a bonus, it will be catastrophic and people will die, Die, DIE.

And it will be our fault for not ponying up the money.

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/01839506.htm

In any case, THANK GOD this money was handled by UN agencies.

The truth is contained in the transcript of a briefing given by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who on May 17 announced the $43 million grant; it was aimed at alleviating a famine that threatened the lives of four million Afghans. Far from handing the money over to the Taliban, Powell went out of his way to criticize them, and to explain the steps the United States was taking to keep the money out of their hands.

" We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, " Powell said. " We provide our relief to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan’s ruling factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it. "

So

 

[Blair]

Originally posted by Comrade
So

So Clinton's payments ended poppy cultivation, and Powell (a known liar; on tape showing innocuous trucks to the world labelled as "mobile biological weapons labs) claims that giving $43 million to the Taliban's constituents somehow keeps the Taliban from having $43 million to help bin Laden train and support his terror cells?

At best, Bush was engaging in a bidding war for the hearts and minds of rural Afghanistan. At worst, he was picking up the slack for bin Laden. Either way, no payment 5/2001, $43 million less for the conduct of an air-based attack on America.

And if that's not true, then Clinton didn't fund al Quaeda either.

(But the converse isn't necessarily so. If Clinton didn't fund al Quaeda, Bush's $43 million could still have gone to help the 9/11 attack. Which is why I don't bother pointing out that Clinton gave the Taliban money as well.)

I'd just like to add here, Clinton made the eradication of al Quaeda his first priority while he was in office. Bush made it no priority at all until 9/11. So anyone thinking Clinton was helping al Quaeda is simply lying.

 

[SPIKESMYGOD]

Blair-

As long as you will agree that, according to transcripts & grades, President Bush was more intelligent than either Bill Bradley or Al Gore?

Top priority?

Other than bombing an empty aspirin factory, name one fucking thing that Clinton did. President Bush has freed over 50 million people, destroyed the Taliban, ripped apart Al Qaeda- to a great extent- and has UBL ordering Dominos pizza from a cave address. What the fuck did YOUR boy do.....that is, except bring 9/11 to our doorstep?


As for bin Laden..........

He, bin Laden, WAY over-boasted about his role in the mujihideen & the Afghan/Soviet war. Also, the first time he ever became a blip on our radar screen was in the early/mid 90's, the era of Slick Willy, numerous attacks on America and American interests, & Sudan's offer to hand him over to us.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Blair
So Clinton's payments ended poppy cultivation, and Powell (a known liar; on tape showing innocuous trucks to the world labelled as "mobile biological weapons labs) claims that giving $43 million to the Taliban's constituents somehow keeps the Taliban from having $43 million to help bin Laden train and support his terror cells?

At best, Bush was engaging in a bidding war for the hearts and minds of rural Afghanistan. At worst, he was picking up the slack for bin Laden. Either way, no payment 5/2001, $43 million less for the conduct of an air-based attack on America.

And if that's not true, then Clinton didn't fund al Quaeda either.

(But the converse isn't necessarily so. If Clinton didn't fund al Quaeda, Bush's $43 million could still have gone to help the 9/11 attack. Which is why I don't bother pointing out that Clinton gave the Taliban money as well.)

I'd just like to add here, Clinton made the eradication of al Quaeda his first priority while he was in office. Bush made it no priority at all until 9/11. So anyone thinking Clinton was helping al Quaeda is simply lying.

I never implied that.

What is clear however, is the tone of the NTY editorial, a traditionally left paper opposed to Bush since day one, actually painted a picture of despair and an appeal for money in Afganistan in line with UN approval.

The U.S., having IMPOSED sanctions against the suffering, unstable Taliban, is the bad guy per NYT's.