Saturday, August 01, 2009

All you gotta do is win

This is kinda interesting but less than surprising is you've read Lawrence Wright

Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds dropped a bombshell on the Mike Malloy radio show, guest-hosted by Brad Friedman (audio, partial transcript).

In the interview, Sibel says that the US maintained 'intimate relations' with Bin Laden, and the Taliban, "all the way until that day of September 11."

These 'intimate relations' included using Bin Laden for 'operations' in Central Asia, including Xinjiang, China. These 'operations' involved using al Qaeda and the Taliban in the same manner "as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict," that is, fighting 'enemies' via proxies.

[From Daily Kos: State of the Nation]

Of course, if true, the very uncomfortable part is that this implicates both Bush / Cheney and Clinton. Not that that is such a surprise as it was mostly under Clinton's watch that half a million Iraqi kids were sanctioned, with Saddam taking a fairly hefty portion of the blame too, to an early grave.


nzlemming said...

WTF has Saddam to do with Bin Laden, or the Taliban? Sanctions against Iraq, under Bush 1 and Clinton, were because of Gulf War I, which both Saddam and Bush fucked up in a major way. Al Qaeda and the Taliban were Reagan/Bush stooges in Afghanistan against the Russkis. It's no surprise they were used elsewhere, but despite Bush 2's best efforts, there is no link between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden or the Taliban.

The invasion of Iraq was strategic and had been planned a long time before it happened. Rumsfeld and Cheney designed it as part of the Project for the New American Century. Its aims were to enable a beach-head in the Middle east, secure the oil supply under US control, make lots of money for US companies handpicked by Cheney and remove Saddam because he had stopped being useful to the US.

There's still no actual proof that Bin Laden took down the towers, y'know...

Simon said...

I'm not going to disagree with anything in that Mark (although I do think that ALQe took out the towers, however I remain unconvinced that Washington didn't know it was coming in one way or another and were not unhappy when it came). It provided a huge window and it wasn't hard to sell a US population who are easily sold a bucket of nonsense at the best of times, a war which they are still fighting.

Saddam does, or at least did, have to carry the blame for aggravating the effects of the sanctions on his people, although I doubt that the western powers would've been satisfied if they weren't causing such awful pain in Iraq. They were, as applied, and the bombing regime too, simply pure evil.

You should, if you haven't yet, read The Looming Tower (which I link to).

nzlemming said...

Well, in turn, I'm not going to disagree with you ;-) but, I'm still mystified by your claim that "Of course, if true, the very uncomfortable part is that this implicates both Bush / Cheney and Clinton. "

Sure Clinton and Bush/Cheney continued the sanctions, and I agree that the sanctions were evil, and both administrations used the mujahadeen in all sorts of ways, but I still fail to see a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda that you seem to imply.

I agree that America dug it's own grave by setting up, supplying and supporting al Qaeda, but that had nothing to do with Gulf War 1 and the sanctions.

As to the towers, some things are too convenient, and I not that the US was ready to go into Afghanistan within a month. Uh-huh.

Simon said...

I'm not sure where you get that from Mark. I've never come within an AWACS target screen of implying a connection and I'm rather taken aback that you think I would.

All I'm saying is that a) Clinton can't be given a get out of jail free on the ties with Al Qaeda, and that b) Clinton's foreign policy was hardly the end-recipient friendly zone that we often pushed at us in a partisan manner.

Bush's fucking awful policies had closer ties to those of his predecessor than many at, say, Kos, would admit.

I'm not convinced that if 9/11 had happened 2 years earlier, then there are those in the earlier white house who would not have seen the same opportunity that Bush / Cheney did, they may just have felt a stronger twinge of morality about taking the jump.

There were some moral restraints in 2000, there were none after Jan 20, 2001.

Simon said...

Maybe too, its worth mentioning the one valid link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and that's that the sanctions and bombings of Iraq most definitely caused extreme resentment in the Islamic world and provided Al Qaeda with yet another rallying point against the west.

nzlemming said...

Okay, that may be my mis-reading, and the mention of Saddam in a post about al Qaeda.

Clinton certainly does not have clean hands WRT the sanctions and the use of terrorists as deniable agents. His foreign policy, like most foreign policy from any country you care to name, is murkier than his supporters want to know, as is Obama's, when you can figure out just what it is.

Bush's policies owe more to his father, but do continue business as usual from Clinton, I agree.

I don't think, had Clinton been President when the towers fell, that the US would have invaded Iraq. I do think they would still have gone into Afghanistan, as the available intelligence seemed to point there. but nothing pointed at Iraq. That was a total manufacture by Cheney, to give an excuse to invade.

nzlemming said...

That link being only of benefit to al Qaeda, of course. And there were other, long-held grievances (particularly about the Saudis and their relationship with the US that is still unresolved) that boosted al Qaeda.

As you say, "yet another rallying point"...