Bush's Deal With The Devil

Great Debates
1

I have no real desire to cause any division at these boards, but this is so blatant a transgression against the American people that I am morally obliged to bring this to light.

In May of this year, the Bush administration gave $43,000,000.00 to the Taleban government of Afghanistan. That’s right, 43 million US dollars. All of this under the pretext of fighting the flow of drugs. In the ever-increasingly unholy alliance of the Republican party with the religious right, the rigid anti-drug stance has now resulted in this administration financing one of the most violent and repressive governments in modern history. Nevermind that the United States was pressuring the United Nations to apply sanctions upon Afghanistan for failure to deliver up Osama bin Laden at the exact same time. Evidently, bin Laden’s bombing of our embassies was a cost Shrub was willing to absorb so long as he could interdict a small amount of the drug trade.

The smoke and mirrors hysteria of our government’s futile drug war has made it possible for them to turn a blind eye to the most monstrous of repressions in the name of fighting drugs. Below are some excerpts from a May article in the Los Angeles Times written by Robert Scheer;

Author: Robert Scheer

**BUSH’S FAUSTIAN DEAL WITH THE TALIBAN **

“Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.”

“That’s the message sent with the recent gift of $4 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that “rogue regime” for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban’s estimation, are most human activities, but it’s the ban on drugs that catches this administration’s attention.”

“Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.”

“Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.”

“The war on drugs has become our own fanatics’ obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women.”

“At no point in modern history have women and girls been more systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of madness masquerading as Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates their fundamental human rights.”

“There’s little doubt that the Taliban will turn once again to the easily taxed cash crop of opium in order to stay in power.”

“The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure.”

Witness what happens when zealot confederates with zealot. Blind pursuit of one goal led to financing monsters who thought nothing of spilling the blood of over 5,000 people. The same people who paid out their tax money in the first place were then mercilessly slaughtered by its recipients. Most folks here are familiar with my extreme dislike for Shrub and his style of politics. This serves as ultimate proof of his flexible morals and easy-way-out mentality.

I have never been more ashamed an American administration since the days of Richard Nixon. No amount of laving will ever wash the blood from the hands of George Bush Junior. I can only hope that some very pointed questions are asked at a press conference soon in order to bring this malfeasance of office to light.

Does this not represent the most mendacious conduct?

In my own opinion, George Bush Junior bought all of the hijacker’s plane tickets for them with this money.

2

The article states 43 million. The digit three was removed when I was editing out the hard returns. To confirm this, merely do a google.com search on the words;

Bush 43 million dollars Afghanistan

I am revolted beyond words by this treason.

3

My understanding is that this is not cash, but rather food and other humanitarian aid. I’ll see if I can find the cite.

tj

4

http://bglatzer.de/nfa/nfa-0105/032-0520.txt

5

From a long article on CNN:

http://www4.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/index.html

6

I’m so glad someone else brought this up. I’ve been choking on it for days.

stoid

7

Author: Robert Scheer
Note: Robert Scheer Is a Syndicated Columnist.

**BUSH’S FAUSTIAN DEAL WITH THE TALIBAN **

“…with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell…”

“The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and cash from the Bush administration, they have been willing to appear to reverse themselves on the growing of opium.”

“For that reason, the opium ban will not last unless the U.S. is willing to pour far larger amounts of money into underwriting the Afghan economy.”

“There’s little doubt that the Taliban will turn once again to the easily taxed cash crop of opium in order to stay in power.”

These maggot bastards were on their economic knees and Shrub propped them back up again? All the while they’re hiding Osama bin Laden while he plots this horror of horrors? How can these sons of b!tches live with themselves?

8

Zenster, I gave you two news stories, one from the largest news orgainization in the world.

You have 2 possibilities here.

  1. CNN is lying. (As is a Pakistani news source) They can’t just be mistaken, as the story has four direct quotes from Powell, and 2 from other officials.

  2. Robert Scheer, “syndicated columnist,” got his facts wrong.

Well, it’s obviously #1. We all know how fanatically loyal CNN is to Bush.

9

How long 'til that retraction comes, eh?

{{watches poster going down in flames}}

10

No retraction coming. First, the story makes it seem as though it was cash. Second, humanitarian aid or no, it still helped to keep in place a hyper-repressive regime that was known to be shielding a violent Anti-U.S. terrorist. Our government had a chance to fold up these suckers like a card house and instead we took them on a shopping spree! All in the name of stopping a small fraction of the heroin traffic. I retract nothing!

Shrub and his gang have blood on their hands. Even if it is just the blood of all those Afghani war widows that get buried alive. We’ll also include every Afghani woman who dies of breast or cervical cancer because she can neither see a male doctor nor be a doctor herself.

11

But it was not. Your source was wrong. Fair enough.

Zenster, there’s not even anything in your source that implies the Taliban were close to “folding up.” This all strictly your WAG.

The people were/are starving. The people got food. The Taliban got nothing. I suppose your logic is that that if we hadn’t fed them, they would have rised up en masse to smite their oppressors. I’ve got news for you. Malnourished, unarmed women and children do not rise up against bloodthirsty dictatorships. They just lie there and keep starving until they are dead.

No, in the name of humanity. Drugs do not appear in the CNN article until paragraph 9. They are not mentioned at all in the Pakistani article.

Of course not.

And if we had not given the aid, and stood by to let innocent people starve, as you recommend, on whose hands would that blood rest?

12

So? Does that make it right?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I think that both are valid positions, and you shouldn’t call it a “deal with the devil” when some makes policy decisions you disagree with. Especially when the decision is to not to intentionally starve people to try to topple a foreign government.

Are you saying that the Taliban would have collapsed without this aid?

Wait, so when Afghans die because they don’t have access to the benefits of Western civilization, we’re to blame, but when we bring the benefits to them, we’re yet again to blame? I’m sure that some of that aid included medical help. So which is it? Should the Afghans get medicine, or shouldn’t they?

13

I want you to pay attention, Zenster, and I want you to pay attention real close, because you have now spent a week slinging misinformation around the Straight Dope, and I for one have gotten really goddamned sick of it. Ignorance is forgiveable, because it can be corrected; willful ignorance is not only unforgiveable–around here, it is anathema.

  1. Not one cent of that money was intended for, or given to, the Taliban. Not one red cent. It was in the form of humanitarian aid to prevent famine. The World Food Programme estimates that hundreds of thousands of Afghani refugees (refugees, in case you are incapable of exercising good judgement at this point, means they are fleeing the Taliban) are threatened by potential famine. As stated on their website, “The total cereal import requirement for 2000/2001 is estimated at 2.3 million tonnes, more than double that of the previous year while the estimated uncovered food supply is over 1 million tonnes. The next chance for a normal crop yield will be in June 2001.”
    The aid itself was to be distributed by NGOs, not by the Taliban.

  2. EVEN GIVEN that Osama bin Laden probably did commit this attack, and EVEN IF that money had been given to the Taliban, that does not in any way imply that they financed this attack. But since we know that money was not given to the Taliban, the question is academic, isn’t it?

  3. This money was not in any way intended to combat the opium trade coming out of Afghanistan. That should be abundantly clear by this point. You can either believe that Colin Powell and the World Food Programme are liars, or that Robert Scheer is a liar. Here is the State Department’s release concerning this aid package, in which Powell explicitly states everything that everyone else has said in this thread. Take your pick.

  4. This represents absolutely no change in policy from the Clinton administration. Let me repeat that, so it can sink in. This represents absolutely no change in policy from the Clinton administration. In calendar year 2000, according to the State Department, the Clinton administration provided a total of $114 million in humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, again to be distributed through the United Nations and NGOs. This made them the largest total donor of aid to Afghanistan in the world.
    The humanitarian aid provided by the United States, the U.N., and NGOs is not and will not be given to or distributed by the Taliban. The U.N. imposes sanctions on Afghanistan that are specifically designed not to exacerbate the humanitarian situation or the toll on Afghani citizens and refugess, as this State Department Fact Sheet makes clear.

As a personal note, although you are not my favorite poster, you’re clearly intelligent and capable of reasoned thought, but right now you’re about thisclose to going completely off the rails. You’ve spread misinformation about Afghanistan, about Saudi Arabia, about the United Arab Emirates, and now this. You need to step back and think about what you’re posting before you post it, and look things up, or you run the risk of making a touchy situation much, much worse.

14

Damn, Phil, you beat me to it. And with excellent cites, too. My hat’s off to you - not for the first time.

::applauds::

15

::Stands and applauds pldennison::
::sits back down and waits patiently for retraction::

Since pldennison pointed out how woefully Zenster’s OP is lacking in actual facts, I figured I’d throw this in.

According to this CNN article, Afghanistan produced 75% of the world’s opium supply. Last time I checked, 75% is not a small fraction.

Still not retracting anything? Are you that small of a person that you can’t admit you were wrong?

16

Zenster your info is incorrect- remember, I am certifiably NOT a Bush fan.

We hashed (pardon the reference) this out in here back when it happened. I saw numerous news sources, press releases from Powell etc, the AID involved was food.

17

I still maintain that the continuing support of the Taleban government was a serious mistake and flawed logic. This is not out of 20/20 hindsight.

When you donate food and materiel, you effectively reduce the burden of operating costs for a government. Since those finances could now be spent elsewhere, the Taleban were able to remain in power whereas another group (like the Northern rebels) might have had an easier go of things in toppling this twisted regime. Instead, we relieved the pressure upon the Taleban to do something for their people and allowed them to spend whatever resources they were in possession of on whatever other instruments of oppression they needed to continue to keep their people in misery.

The Bush administration could have made some sort of attempt to dislodge the Taleban government and did not. They did not do so while while in possession of definite knowledge that Osama bin Laden was being sheltered there. They did this with the explicit knowledge that bin Laden’s organization was directly responsible for attacks on our embassies. They were also fully aware of the incredibly misogynistic practices in place as well. None of this served as a deterrent in their blind pursuit of the war on drugs.

I admit that I should have said a small percentage of the overall drug trade and not of the heroin trade, but past that there still remains the simple fact that the Bush administration knew that they were enabling a morally corrupt regime to remain in power simply to further a dubious domestic agenda. Had we tied the aid package to the surrender of bin Laden or some moderation of the Taleban’s control (i.e., power sharing with the rebels), the atrocity in New York might have been averted.

Instead, the Bush administration steered us on a course that was pointed directly at the atrocity in New York. Our foreign aid is routinely used as a tool of policy enforcement and should have been used towards that end this time as well. There is a measure of responsibility that Bush shares for not having taken steps to apprehend bin Laden a long time ago. Last May was a perfect time for it and the opportunity was allowed to slip through our hands. This was a tragedy.

I will also say that I try my best to thank the people who point out errors in any of my posts or threads. I have no taste for erroneous reporting. In this particular case, the spirit of the problem remains the same even though its context may be changed through introduction of clarification. Bush knowingly lent support to a dangerous and corrupt government with full disregard for the safety of the American people.

18

Wow.

I’ve never, ever seen somebody actually admit to embracing starvation innocents as a tool of foreign policy.

I gotta hand it to ya. Let no one call you a liberal again, because I know lots of liberals, and they tend to be against using starvation of innocents as a foreign policy tool.

But I ain’t gonna call you conservative, either. Do you have a preferred label, or shall I make something up?

How’s starvationist?

19

There was no support for the government.

You are still not getting it. Show me any evidence that the Taleban spend * anything* on humanitarian relief. According to your cite, the Taliban mass-murders widows; now you’re saying they were spending money on relief. Which is it? Show me any proof that the Taliban felt themselves under pressure to do something. They DIDN’T CARE if people starved. Don’t you see? They already had the money to buy food. They DON’T CARE if the people were angry. They already had the guns.

[QUOTE]

The Bush administration could have made some sort of attempt to dislodge the Taleban government and did not. They did not do so while while in possession of definite knowledge that Osama bin Laden was being sheltered there. They did this with the explicit knowledge that bin Laden’s organization was directly responsible for attacks on our embassies. They were also fully aware of the incredibly misogynistic practices in place as well.

Still not getting this, eh? It wasn’t about drugs. Find me one fact-based cite saying that it was; if not, stow it.

I might give you some credence if you had said “Bush and Clinton administrations.” The fact that you didn’t shows your motivations.

Show me the thread from before 9/11 where you said that it must be an overriding priority of this administration to immediately get ObL, by military force if necessary, despite the expense and the extensive damage to US/arab relations. If there isn’t one, then this is exactly 20/20 hindsight.

20

You’re getting close. The phrase you’re looking for was “My post was completely wrong on the facts. Thank you for correcting me. I will now continue to give my partisan opinions anyway, regardless of said facts.”

You’re welcome. :rolleyes: