| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| Pakistan and Saudi Arabia Aided Bin Laden, Say Panel Members |
| 2004-06-21 |
| It shocked me too Pakistan and Saudi Arabia helped set the stage for the Sept. 11 attacks by cutting deals with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden that allowed his Al Qaeda terrorist network to flourish, according to several senior members of the Sept. 11 commission and U.S. counter-terrorism officials. The financial aid to the Taliban and other assistance by two of the most important allies of the United States in its war on terrorism date at least to 1996, and appear to have shielded them from Al Qaeda attacks within their own borders until long after the 2001 strikes, those commission members and officials said in interviews. The officials said that by not cracking down on Bin Laden, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia significantly undermined efforts to combat terrorism worldwide, giving the Saudi exile the haven he needed to train tens of thousands of soldiers. They believe that the governments’ funding of his Taliban protectors enabled Bin Laden to withstand international pressure and expand his operation into a global network that could carry out the Sept. 11 attacks. Saudi Arabia provided funds and equipment to the Taliban and probably directly to Bin Laden, and didn’t interfere with Al Qaeda’s efforts to raise money, recruit and train operatives, and establish cells throughout the kingdom, commission and U.S. officials said. Pakistan provided even more direct assistance, its military and intelligence agencies often coordinating efforts with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, they said. Only after Pakistan and Saudi Arabia launched comprehensive efforts to take out their domestic Al Qaeda cells — as late as last year, in the case of Saudi Arabia — did the two nations become victims of terrorist attacks. And officials in both countries acknowledge that Al Qaeda’s fundraising, recruiting and training structure is now so firmly rooted that it will be extremely difficult to eliminate. For years, there have been unsubstantiated allegations that the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia intentionally ignored Bin Laden’s efforts in their countries or even cut deals with him, either out of sympathy with his efforts or to protect themselves from attack. That claim is made in a lawsuit by the families of Sept. 11 victims against Saudi Arabia. Both governments have strenuously denied this, and did so again Saturday. But commission investigators have come to believe that these allegations are credible, based on their exhaustive review of all of the classified intelligence data known to the U.S. government. The commission’s 80 staffers also conducted thousands of interviews in the United States and abroad, and had access to the interrogations of Al Qaeda’s most senior operatives in U.S. custody, including accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. "There’s no question the Taliban was getting money from the Saudis 
and there’s no question they got much more than that from the Pakistani government," said former Sen. Bob Kerrey, one of the congressionally appointed commission’s 10 members. "Their motive is a secondary issue for us." Kerrey said the commission officials believed that the Saudi government had a mutually beneficial relationship with the Taliban that bought Riyadh safety from attack. "Whether there was quid pro quo with the Saudis, we don’t know. But certainly the Pakistanis believed that there was. They benefited enormously from their relationship with the Taliban and Al Qaeda." Now, the bipartisan commission is wrestling with how to characterize such politically sensitive information in its final report, and even whether to include it. Some commission members also believe that U.S. officials didn’t do enough to force Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to sever their ties with Bin Laden and the Taliban. "All we’re doing is looking at classified documents from our own government, not from some magical source," Kerrey said. "So we knew what was going on, but we did nothing." The commission staff alluded to its findings, but only briefly, in a report issued last week during a hearing on the origins of Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 plot. That report said that it had no convincing evidence the Saudi government had directly supported the Sept. 11 attacks but that Riyadh had engaged in "very limited oversight" of the religious and charitable entities that have long been accused of being key financial backers of Al Qaeda. Pakistan, the report said, "significantly facilitated" the Taliban’s ability to provide Bin Laden a haven despite international sanctions against Al Qaeda, including the freezing of its assets and prohibitions on travel. In interviews with The Times, the senior commission members said their investigation had uncovered more extensive evidence than the report suggested. In the case of Saudi Arabia, commission investigators believe that Riyadh made overtures to Bin Laden soon after his arrival in Afghanistan in May 1996. A formal delegation of Saudi officials met with top Taliban leaders, including Mullah Mohammed Omar, and asked that a message be conveyed to "their guest," Bin Laden. "They said, ’Don’t attack us. Make sure he’s not a problem for us and recognition will follow.’ And that’s just what they did," according to the senior commission staff member. More Saudi delegations followed, including several in 1998 led by Prince Turki at the request of the United States. U.S. officials wanted him to negotiate the surrender of Bin Laden. But Richard Clarke, the former Bush and Clinton counter-terrorism czar, and a second senior Clinton administration official said U.S. officials suspected that Turki merely ensured that Saudi Arabia would remain out of Al Qaeda’s crosshairs. Pakistanis, meanwhile, were in with the Taliban and Al Qaeda "up to their eyeballs," said the senior commission staff member. He said Bin Laden, for instance, negotiated his 1996 move to Afghanistan with Pakistan’s powerful military-intelligence leadership, which held considerable influence over the various warlords struggling for control of Afghanistan at the time. "He wouldn’t go back there without Pakistan’s approval and support, and had to comply with their rules and regulations," the official said. He said Pakistan opened its airspace to Bin Laden and his flying flotilla of operatives. Pakistani intelligence officers also allegedly brought Bin Laden to meet Mullah Omar soon after his arrival in Afghanistan, and then helped forge an alliance between the men that enabled the Taliban to trample competing factions and take over much of Afghanistan. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, also was instrumental in helping Al Qaeda set up an infrastructure in its own country and in Afghanistan, and the two outfits jointly operated training camps along the border where militants were taught guerrilla warfare, the official said. "It started day one," the official said of Pakistan’s involvement. "They controlled the Taliban; they controlled the border." |
| Posted by:Paul Moloney |
| #16 Paul Maloney: Okay, I support a hardline Congress that lights an anti-Wahabist/Khomenist fire under the White House. Don't you ever wonder why Bush-Powell never pressure the Punjabi and Saud entities? Slaves know their place. What part of Bush-doesn't-have-a-hope-in-hell don't you understand? Kerry - the jerk - hasn't even started his attack-ads yet. Get a copy of the Neo-Con White House insider book, "The Right Man," (by David Frum) and read the section where the reformed alcoholic brings Jews, Muslims and Christians into the White House to celebrate their alleged common-faith, and you tell me if GWB is playing with a full deck. As for the Afghan war being fought from the north, USAF attacks were carried out from two airbases in the Punjabi-racist entity. Bush-Powell put heavy pressure on the Northern Alliance to make suicidal deals with Taliban/al-Qaeda elements. In October 2001, Bush went public with an exhonerating offer to Mullah Omar, to deliver bin Laden, or face war. Only a moron - or a Saudi stooge - could discern a separate identity between the Omar and bin Laden groups. |
| Posted by: Dog Bites Trolls 2004-06-21 11:53:24 PM |
| #15 And, wait. Bush did attack Afghanistan from the north. Anyone else remember that the people we worked with were called the NORTHERN ALLIANCE? Hell, I remember following the advance -- Mazar e Sharif fell before Kabul, and Mazar's NORTH of Kabul. You don't get it, Mr. Crawford. Maybe DBT wanted an All-American invasion. You know, drums drumming, bugles blaring. Patton in his jeep ahead of the whole parade. Not a bunch of feelthy Afghani muslims, who should've been shot like like every other muslim. Then again, we'd be hearing a whole new aria of wackiness. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-06-21 8:00:03 PM |
| #14 No offense taken. I usually learn something from what you have to say. |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-06-21 6:07:26 PM |
| #13 Nothing against you, jules. I had to think a bit before I recalled how Afghanistan fell, and I only bothered because DBT's spew just seemed out of tune with reality. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-06-21 3:04:04 PM |
| #12 Waitaminnit. Last week Karzai was our stooge. Now he's against us? And, wait. Bush did attack Afghanistan from the north. Anyone else remember that the people we worked with were called the NORTHERN ALLIANCE? Hell, I remember following the advance -- Mazar e Sharif fell before Kabul, and Mazar's NORTH of Kabul. Odd. DBT's clearly visiting from an alternate reality. Either that, or he needs to stop drinking bong water. I stand corrected Robert. DBT-You might have a point that it would have been better to get Pakistan on the same page with us, but again we're back to the anti-war tendency to project that the assets which exist currently are fixed for the future. Had we stopped Pakistan in its tracks, how do you know those activities wouldn't have been pushed to some other bordering country and created an even more complicated scenario. It's backseat driving. Yes, there are probabilities, but we are not omniscient. If we could forecast exactly who would do what with 100% accuracy, we sure as hell wouldn't be living here on earth. You make the best judgments you can and go with them. |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-06-21 3:00:36 PM |
| #11 If Bush had chosen to attack Afghanistan from the North, and forced abject surrenders rather than the sham armistice arrangements, which facilitate current Pakistan based terror, a pro-American regime would be in power in Afghanistan. Waitaminnit. Last week Karzai was our stooge. Now he's against us? And, wait. Bush did attack Afghanistan from the north. Anyone else remember that the people we worked with were called the NORTHERN ALLIANCE? Hell, I remember following the advance -- Mazar e Sharif fell before Kabul, and Mazar's NORTH of Kabul. Odd. DBT's clearly visiting from an alternate reality. Either that, or he needs to stop drinking bong water. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-06-21 2:41:44 PM |
| #10 Clark-There would be no more terrorist attacks in my adminstration (how can he guarantee that?) Hell, Clark didn't even finish up Kosovo. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-06-21 2:30:50 PM |
| #9 If Bush had chosen to attack Afghanistan from the North, and forced abject surrenders rather than the sham armistice arrangements, which facilitate current Pakistan based terror, a pro-American regime would be in power in Afghanistan. Why is it that the anti-war folks always talk about what WOULD have happened instead of what is happening? From Kerry to Clark to Clinton, this naive world view is delusional fantasy. Kerry-We will get international support (how can he guarantee how others will behave?) Clark-There would be no more terrorist attacks in my adminstration (how can he guarantee that?) Clinton-I supported the action but would hav waited until the inspectors had finished their work (presupposition that bad weather and a loooong heads up to Saddam wouldn't have caused greater casualties to the coalition and changed the sequence of events in Iraq). DBT-you are assuming a lot-exactly how would America have attacked Afghanistan from the north? Why do you believe that countries bordering Afghanistan would have allowed it? Also, forcing abject surrenders might have resulted in even bigger violence and tainted the war with even more anti-American sentiment. You have to play the cards you're dealt in this life, not live in the fantasy of what you project. |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-06-21 10:13:46 AM |
| #8 Come to think of it, let's give NMM a big hand for staying sober for 7 days. Only 21 more days for the blue chipe NMM! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-06-21 7:45:59 AM |
| #7 Has Dog Bites Trolls ever claimed to support Clinton or Kerry? |
| Posted by: Paul Moloney 2004-06-21 7:43:34 AM |
| #6 Pakistan and Saudi Arabia helped set the stage for the Sept. 11 attacks by cutting deals with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden that allowed his Al Qaeda terrorist network to flourish, according to several senior members of the Sept. 11 commission and U.S. counter-terrorism officials. It's an outrage! It proves Bush lied! Oh wait....it was during the Clinton administration. As we know from the NYT reporting of the 9/11 commission, there are NO LINKS here people.... move along. |
| Posted by: B 2004-06-21 7:31:28 AM |
| #5 NMM's Production Studio Name Play (Dog eats Dog Films is the name of MM's production studio) unlike others, I actually enjoy your posts. Thank you and NMM for being my morning clown show! You logic twisting show is better than a balloon show anyday. Thanks! It's cute, even if it is childish. |
| Posted by: B 2004-06-21 7:29:01 AM |
| #4 Whadda suprise. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2004-06-21 7:10:41 AM |
| #3 Anyone to scapegoat other than the Clinton idiots. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-06-21 2:25:45 AM |
| #2 And your man Kerry is going to fix all this, I take it? He's going to kick Pakistan and Saudi Arabia's asses? Funny, he hasn't said a thing about doing either of those. So, what's your call DBT? You want to go to war with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia or are you just blowing smoke because you hate Bush? You ready to rumble? Is Kerry? |
| Posted by: RMcLeod 2004-06-21 2:10:16 AM |
| #1 In 1995, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan implemented a policy of territorial expansion, through economic and cultural integration with Afghanistan. The policy was called: "Pakistan in Depth." Saudi Arabia both recognized and financed the Taliban regime, while Pakistan provided military training and education resources for the Saud financed jihad-madrasas. Many graduates carried out Inter-Services Intelligence agency terrorism in Kashmir. Every major Wahabi and Jamaat Tablighi cleric fatwahed in favor of Taliban, and gave tacit support for al-Qaeda terrorism. Saud financing was ended only when Taliban integrated with Al-Qaeda, which challenged the "apostate" regime. Still, the Saud entity maintained recognition of Taliban/al-Qaeda after the 9-11 genocide. Pakistan altered course, only because of Bush-Powell bribery. If Bush had chosen to attack Afghanistan from the North, and forced abject surrenders rather than the sham armistice arrangements, which facilitate current Pakistan based terror, a pro-American regime would be in power in Afghanistan. As it is, the Karzai government's sovereignty exists only in the shoes of the nominal President. Pakistan was nearly bankrupt on Sept. 11, 2001. Now they are thriving on US cash, while polls regularly reveal massive anti-American hatred. Not content to sow the wind in Afghanistan, Bush-Powell seeded the same indulgence of Islamofascism in Iraq, at a cost of $120,000,000,000 to American taxpayers. Trolls: Your ad hominems are deflective. If your beliefs cause you desperation, then alter your beliefs. |
| Posted by: Dog Bites Trolls 2004-06-21 1:29:00 AM |