Ernst Noch wrote:
Bill C wrote:

Have you read the thread? Bush has made it worse by going into Iraq.
They along with the other governments have taken out a huge portion of
Al-Qaida's top leadership, the Saudis just got another. If Bush hadn't
gone off on his merry little adventure, we would've had plenty of
troops available to really hurt Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, but the
problem is that they are perfectly safe on the Pakistan side of the
border as long as they stay in those tribal regions. The reality is
that the Pakistan situation is a little better than it was with
Cambodia but not much and the list of friends and neighbors still
pouring in money and support for the extremists starting with the
Saudis makes this a holding action for the forseeable future.
Bill C


Bill, my impression of the Bush 2000 campaign and presidency until 9/11
was that he did want to reduce meddling in foreign affairs.
I also read that Clinton was very reluctant in going after Bin Laden, as
you stated.
But it seems that he got more serious around 1999 and I saw and read
reports that the Taliban got more and more unconfortable hosting Bin
Laden, and there were meetings between US officials and Taliban leaders
where they offered him to the US.

There was a documentary about this, see a copy of the Reuters story here
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a927.htm

and a more detailed (though probably less neutral) account he
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

It leads us to believe that Clinton, at the end of his presidency, did
intent to go after Bin Laden. But that was stopped when Bush came into
office.

The meetings continued only after 9/11, as CBS reported:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/...in312836.shtml
Interesting reading and I'll have to do some more digging. The first
thing that makes me think there's a lot more to this would be, how did
Bin-Laden continue to communicate and coordinate the 9/11 attacks if he
and his senior people were placed under house arrest shortly after Nov
2000 as they state in the story:
Quoted:

On November 2, 2000, less than a week before the US election, Mohabbat
arranged a face-to-face meeting, in that same Sheraton hotel in
Frankfurt, between Taliban leaders and a US government team.

After a rocky start on the first day of the Frankfurt session, Mohabbat
says the Taliban realized the gravity of US threats and outlined
various ways bin Laden could be dealt with. He could be turned over to
the EU, killed by the Taliban, or made available as a target for Cruise
missiles. In the end, Mohabbat says, the Taliban promised the
"unconditional surrender of bin Laden" . "We all agreed," Mohabbat
tells CounterPunch, "the best way was to gather Osama and all his
lieutenants in one location and the US would send one or two Cruise
missiles."

Up to that time Osama had been living on the outskirts of Kandahar. At
some time shortly after the Frankfurt meeting, the Taliban moved Osama
and placed him and his retinue under house arrest at Daronta, thirty
miles from Kabul.

Something isn't right here. We need to know a lot more. At that time
the plans very well might have been advanced enough that they didn't
need to stay in close touch, but given all the variables involved I
think that'd be a stretch.
Thanks for some more stuff to think about. I have to wonder just what
the Taliban was demanding for turning him over? Have you heard anything
on this? I can't believe that they were just going to cough up someone
who was providing tons of money to them, and was a hero to the hardline
extremists without getting a huge return from it.
Bill C