Scorpion89
Banned
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,629
- Reaction score
- 527
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
There is a problem with this commentary. First you are assuming that the officials are telling the truth. Second, if Pakistan controlled all of the weapons and money flowing into Afghanistan, then how can we know what went to whom?
I cite this from the Wikki Page,
According to CNN journalist Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997,
The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.
In 1986, bin Laden brought heavy construction equipment from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. Using his extensive knowledge of construction techniques (he has a degree in civil engineering), he built “training camps”, some dug deep into the sides of mountains, and built roads to reach them.
These camps, now dubbed “terrorist universities” by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including the tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers.
Tom Carew, a former British SAS soldier who secretly fought for the mujaheddin told the August 13, 2000, British Observer, “The Americans were keen to teach the Afghans the techniques of urban terrorism — car bombing and so on — so that they could strike at the Russians in major towns ... Many of them are now using their knowledge and expertise to wage war on everything they hate.”
Al Qaeda (the Base), bin Laden's organization, was established in 1987-88 to run the camps and other business enterprises. It is a tightly-run capitalist holding company — albeit one that integrates the operations of a mercenary force and related logistical services with “legitimate” business operations.
Bin Laden has simply continued to do the job he was asked to do in Afghanistan during the 1980's — fund, feed and train mercenaries. All that has changed is his primary customer. Then it was the ISI and, behind the scenes, the CIA. Today, his services are utilized primarily by the reactionary Taliban regime.
Bin Laden only became a “terrorist” in US eyes when he fell out with the Saudi royal family over its decision to allow more than 540,000 US troops to be stationed on Saudi soil following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
Wrong, the Army has covert operational capability for a reason. Counter terrorism operations are not forbidden anywhere in any policy the Army has. The Pentagon refused a covert strategy because they were following the Powell Doctrine of operational planning.Not exaclty true Mr. Clinton ask the US Army if they could put together a Black Ops team and he was told that under the (rules at the time) the US Army was forbidden to operated these types of Black Opps teams. Would leave the folks in these teams open to International Warcrime Charges and would go against the MCOJ.
How could Clinton apologize for not taking the "Drone Hits" when the drones were unarmed at that time? Further on one occasion there were princes from the UAE with Bin Laden and the only option available were cruise missiles.As for the CIA they were never actually ask by Mr. Clinton and when they did ask Mr. Clinton permission to take out Bin Laden Mr Clinton told them not once but three times no because he was worried about so-called clatural damage or deaths. In retrospect Mr. Clinton admit that he was wrong on that part and should have allowed the CIA to take the Drone Hits.
Regardless of what Peter Bergen says, there are many confirmed versions of the CIA connection with Osama binLaden. This one is particularly detailed:
How the CIA created Osama bin Laden
Made even more diabolical because it never got past the planning stage. It was never more than an analytical exercise.
Might be why they never briefed the Congress on it....nothing to say about it.
Seriously where was this big CIA assination plan back in the first gulf war when George SR. and Dick Cheney refused to take out the dreaded Saddam?
This is all smoke and mirrors. Cheneys goose is cooked.
Ahhh, well if the "Conspiracy Archive" supports your absurd allegation, then it has to be true. :roll:
They also discuss demons in alien's clothing, entrances to the inner world under South America, the secret commonwealth of elves and fairies, and the theory that UFOs are actually piloted by fairies from here on Earth.
Yep, sounds like a reputable source to me. :lol:
This was the evil, corrupt, despicable plan that Cheney was hiding from the rest of us? This is what caused Pelosi, et al. to throw tizzy fits, screaming about how the Republicans were criminals?
My god, what a diabolical plot. To think that the Bush administration advanced a plan to kill terrorists under a rationale that Obama has adopted.
Damb that Pelosi. She made the Republicans screw the pooch.
Cheney is hiding many things from the rest of us and congress.
Seriously where was this big CIA assination plan back in the first gulf war when George SR. and Dick Cheney refused to take out the dreaded Saddam?
This is all smoke and mirrors. Cheneys goose is cooked.
Sorry, but we do not have dictators in this country.
In matters of covert ops, the Director of Central Intelligence by law must notify the intelligence oversight committees of the Congress.
If the CIA was ordered not to tell congress as has been charged, this is about as serious as it gets.
Let's look at this question another way. In regards to the security of this country, should the CIA be responsible to Congress or the President only? What would be the implications if the CIA were only responsible to the President?
Regardless of what Peter Bergen says, there are many confirmed versions of the CIA connection with Osama binLaden. This one is particularly detailed:
How the CIA created Osama bin Laden
What branch is the CIA under?
What branch is the military under? But there is still Congressional powers over the military aren't there.
Of course, each branch has some authority over the institutions. The point is that there are plenty of things that the President has authority to do that do not invoke any congressional authority. I've yet to see anyone indicate that this isn't such a situation.
Apparently Congress passed legislation granting themselves committee oversight and access to the CIA after the Watergate scandal.
RightinNYC said:Please link me to the exact statute requiring this. I think you might be surprised.
And what specific language in that legislation governs this situation?
Of course, each branch has some authority over the institutions. The point is that there are plenty of things that the President has authority to do that do not invoke any congressional authority. I've yet to see anyone indicate that this isn't such a situation.
Did it go beyond just conversation?Without congressional AUTHORITY, yes. Without congressional KNOWLEDGE? That gets a bit murkier. It's dangerous to allow the President to do whatever he wants without even telling Congress. Who is going to oversee him to make sure he doesn't exceed his authority?
I'm not suggesting that Nancy Pelosi needs to be privy to every conversation that takes place in the Situation Room...but if it goes beyond just conversation and a program or policy is actually started, then congressional leaders should be notified.
And what specific language in that legislation governs this situation?
Did it go beyond just conversation?
Without congressional AUTHORITY, yes. Without congressional KNOWLEDGE? That gets a bit murkier. It's dangerous to allow the President to do whatever he wants without even telling Congress. Who is going to oversee him to make sure he doesn't exceed his authority?
I'm not suggesting that Nancy Pelosi needs to be privy to every conversation that takes place in the Situation Room...but if it goes beyond just conversation and a program or policy is actually started, then congressional leaders should be notified.
Sometimes, there's no time to ask Congress's permission to launch a mission. It certainly isn't a good idea to put the operational decision making process into the hands of a bunch of partisan politicians.
They had eight years, and the incoming Director of Central Intelligence was not informed of the existence of the program. So you have a private citizen, Dick Cheney, who for six months has kept knowledge of an operational CIA program to himself. Does this not stink?
According to all the evidence, the program was never operational. So, no crime has been committed here.
Another point, it's not the VP's job to brief the incoming director of CIA.
The Bush haters are going to have a real hard time inventing a crime, .
Sometimes, there's no time to ask Congress's permission to launch a mission.
apdst said:It certainly isn't a good idea to put the operational decision making process into the hands of a bunch of partisan politicians.
This was the evil, corrupt, despicable plan that Cheney was hiding from the rest of us? This is what caused Pelosi, et al. to throw tizzy fits, screaming about how the Republicans were criminals?
My god, what a diabolical plot. To think that the Bush administration advanced a plan to kill terrorists under a rationale that Obama has adopted.
Why exactly didn't Cheney and Bush execute this plan they had for 7 years? Was Saddam more of an imminent threat than Al-Qaeda?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?