| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2007/10/8-11 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:48267 Activity:moderate |
10/8 Talking about fringe candidate... I always consider myself an ultra-
left liberal, but I find Ron Paul's message *VERY* appealing. That,
along with the remarkable consistency he has over almost all issues.
Have any of you guys even know this guy?
\_ I heard that if you watch his video, seven days later you DIE!
\_ I watched it 6.9998 days ago and I'
\_ His strict attention to the constitution is appealing, but he's a
bit of a dim bulb. For instance, he's repeated the line that we
trained bin Laden in Afghanistan in the 80s, because it supports his
isolationist policy.
\_ since when opposing having 135 military bases in foreign
countries an "isolationist policy?" Further, if anything, I
find his foreign policy analysis by far most honest and
intelligent. I've been saying the same thing for years.
Pretending establishment of Jewish State in the midst of
arab land won't have any long term consequences? pretending
overthrown of Iran's democratic government won't have any
consequences? pretending aiding muslim extremist won't have any
blow back? and I haven't start talking about Iraq yet...
\_ We kind of did, I'm sure we didn't directly train Bin Laden
but we shipped a fuckton of weapons and supplies to the
Afghan rebels, but completely abandond them after the Russians
finally pulled out. Now look what happened.
\_ No, we didn't. There were two groups fighting against the
Soviets. One was the Northern Alliance, who we funded and
trained. You may recall that they helped us when we invaded
to topple the Taliban. The others were the foreign
Mujahideen, which was bin Laden's group. Richard Miniter
verified this with the folks involved. Just google his name
and bin Laden. Here's an op-ed he wrote which addresses it
directly:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html
Of course you may discount this because it's foxnews, but feel
free to look for the details yourself.
\_ Zbigniew Brzezinski, author of the policy, disagrees with
you: http://csua.org/u/joq (SourceWatch)
\_ Your source doesn't say that. Remember, the Taliban
isn't bin Laden--they gave him haven.
\_ The two guys actually handing out the money disagree
with *you*.
In the course of researching my book on Bill Clinton and
bin Laden, I interviewed Bill Peikney, who was CIA
station chief in Islamabad from 1984 to 1986, and Milt
Bearden, who was CIA station chief from 1986 to 1989.
These two men oversaw the disbursement for all American
funds to the anti-Soviet resistance. Both flatly denied
that any CIA funds ever went to bin Laden. They felt so
strongly about this point that they agreed to go on the
record, an unusual move by normally reticent
intelligence officers. Mr. Peikney added in an e-mail to
me: .I don.t even recall UBL [bin Laden] coming across
my screen when I was there..
\_ First, pp already conceded that no direct funds went
to bin Laden; he said that we funded the Mujahideen.
Your quote above concerns funds to bin Laden, not
the Taliban. Second, Robert Young Pelton, author of
Dangerous Places, records meeting bin Laden in the
80s; given bin Laden's influence and status, it
beggars belief that the CIA staff in Islamabad hadn't
even heard of him in the mid-80s.
\_ In the mid80s OBL wasn't that big a name, yet.
\_ His was a name that was getting bandied around.
It sickens me to think that we might have an
Intel organ that didn't pay attn to names like
that. It's more plausible to me that Peikney
is mistaken about OBL not coming across his
screen, esp. in conjunction with the Taliban.
\_ If that sickens you, perhaps you were primed
for being sickened. OBL isn't important,
Terrorism is a 'success tax,' levied against
the rich and powerful nations of the world.
a feeble figurehead more useful alive than
martired. Terrorism is a 'success tax,'
levied against the rich and powerful nations
of the world.
\_ *shrug* Gross incompetence in general
sickens me. It doesn't bother me that no
one was _doing_ anything about OBL, but
it's criminally irresponsible for an
Intel branch that's funding a secret war
not to be aware of all of the players.
\- YMWTR: Charlie Wilson's War, soon to be a movie.
\- as a liberal you want to get rid of the Dept of Education? |
| www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html It is time to lay to rest the nagging doubt held by many Americans that our government was somehow responsible for fostering bin Laden. It's not true and it leaves the false impression that we brought the Sept. The arch-terrorist was equally adamant: "We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies." In the course of researching my book on Bill Clinton and bin Laden, I interviewed Bill Peikney, who was CIA station chief in Islamabad from 1984 to 1986, and Milt Bearden, who was CIA station chief from 1986 to 1989. These two men oversaw the disbursement for all American funds to the anti-Soviet resistance. Both flatly denied that any CIA funds ever went to bin Laden. They felt so strongly about this point that they agreed to go on the record, an unusual move by normally reticent intelligence officers. And no compelling evidence has emerged that the CIA ever paid bin Laden: no cancelled checks, no invoices, no government reports. Those who contend that bin Laden received US funds usually make the following argument: America financed the Afghan rebels, bin Laden was among the rebels, therefore, in one way or another, America gave money to bin Laden. This ignores a key fact: There were two entirely separate rebellions against the Soviets, united only by a common communist enemy. One was financed by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and was composed of Islamic extremists who migrated from across the Muslim world. When the Saudis agreed to match US contributions dollar-for-dollar, the sheikhs insisted that their funds go exclusively to the "Arab Afghans," possibly including bin Laden. Meanwhile, US funds went exclusively to the other rebellion, which was composed of native Afghans. Mr Bearden told me: "I challenge anyone to give any proof that we gave one dollar to any Arab Afghans, let alone bin Laden." Even if the CIA wanted to pay "Arab Afghans" -- which agency officials insist they did not -- bin Laden would be a far from obvious choice. Bin Laden himself rarely left the safety of Pakistan's northwestern cities and commanded few troops of his own. At the time, bin Laden was the Arab Afghan's quartermaster, providing food and other supplies. If a CIA officer tried to give money to bin Laden, he probably would not have lived through the experience. The arch-terrorist was known for his violent anti-Americanism. On that trek, his guide told him not to speak English for the next few hours because they were passing by bin Laden's camp. Why is this myth of CIA support for bin Laden so persistent? Some find the myth persuasive because they do not know that America and Saudi Arabia funded two different sets of anti-Soviet fighters. Others on the anti-American left and right, in both Europe and America, find it oddly comforting. It gives solace to those who want to think the worst of us. The CIA-funding myth allows them to return to a familiar pattern, to blame America first. search) learned that a Saudi prince had blamed US policies for the Sept. His words at the time could be applied to the myth of CIA support for bin Laden: "There is no moral equivalent for this attack," he said. "Not only are these statements wrong, they're part of the problem." Mr Miniter is the author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror" (Regnery, Sept. |
| csua.org/u/joq -> www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Zbigniew_Brzezinski "(an advisory firm on international issues to corporations and financial institutions). Also a frequent public speaker and commentator on major domestic and foreign TV programs, and contributor to domestic and foreign newspapers and journals." In a 1997 interview for CNN's Cold War Series, Brzezinski hinted about the Carter Administration's proactive Afghanistan policy before the Soviet invasion in 1979, that he had conceived. Interviewer: How did you interpret Soviet behavior in Afghanistan, such as the April revolution, the rise of... I mean, what did you think their long-term plans were, and what did you think should be done about it? Brzezinski: I told the President, about six months before the Soviets entered Afghanistan, that in my judgment I thought they would be going into Afghanistan. And I decided then, and I recommended to the President, that we shouldn't be passive. Coldwar Series, June 13, 1997 7 months after the interview for the CNN series, Brzezinski, in a interview for the French publication, Le Nouvel Observateur, was more forthright, and unapologetically claimed to be the mastermind of a feint which caused the Soviet Union to embark upon a military intervention to support their client government in Kabul, as well as training and arming extremists, which later became the Taliban government. Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire. |