• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Access to Osama

  • Thread starter Thread starter banko
  • Start date Start date
B

banko

Guest
Not sure what opinion to form on this just yet...  any comments?

"How Bush Was Offered Bin Laden and Blew It

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

George Bush, the man whose prime campaign plank has been his ability to wage war on terror, could have had Osama bin Laden's head handed to him on a platter on his very first day in office, and the offer held good until February 2 of 2002. This is the charge leveled by an Afghan American who had been retained by the US government as an intermediary between the Taliban and both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Kabir Mohabbat is a 48-year businessman in Houston, Texas. Born in Paktia province in southern Afghanistan, he's from the Jaji clan (from which also came Afghanistan's last king). Educated at St Louis University, he spent much of the 1980s supervising foreign relations for the Afghan mujahiddeen, where he developed extensive contacts with the US foreign policy establishment, also with senior members of the Taliban.

After the eviction of the Soviets, Mohabbat returned to the United States to develop an export business with Afghanistan and became a US citizen. Figuring in his extensive dealings with the Taliban in the late 1990s was much investment of time and effort for a contract to develop the proposed oil pipeline through northern Afghanistan.

In a lengthy interview and in a memorandum Kabir Mohabbat has given us a detailed account and documentation to buttress his charge that the Bush administration could have had Osama bin Laden and his senior staff either delivered to the US or to allies as prisoners, or killed at their Afghan base. As a search of the data base shows, portions of Mohabbat's role have been the subject of a number of news reports, including a CBS news story by Alan Pizzey aired September 25, 2001. This is the first he has made public the full story.

By the end of 1999 US sanctions and near-world-wide political ostracism were costing the Taliban dearly and they had come to see Osama bin Laden and his training camps as, in Mohabbat's words, "just a damn liability". Mohabbat says the Taliban leadership had also been informed in the clearest possible terms by a US diplomat that if any US citizen was harmed as a consequence of an Al Qaeda action, the US would hold the Taliban responsible and target Mullah Omar and the Taliban leaders.

In the summer of 2000, on one of his regular trips to Afghanistan, Mohabbat had a summit session with the Taliban high command in Kandahar. They asked him to arrange a meeting with appropriate officials in the European Union, to broker a way in which they could hand over Osama bin Laden . Mohabbat recommended they send bin Laden to the World Criminal Court in the Hague.

Shortly thereafter, in August of 2000, Mohabbat set up a meeting at the Sheraton hotel in Frankfurt between a delegation from the Taliban and Reiner Weiland of the EU. The Taliban envoys repeated the offer to deport bin Laden. Weiland told them he would take the proposal to Elmar Brok, foreign relations director for the European Union. According to Mohabbat, Brok then informed the US Ambassador to Germany of the offer.

At this point the US State Department called Mohabbat and said the government wanted to retain his services, even before his official period on the payroll, which lasted from November of 2000 to late September, 2001, by which time he tells us he had been paid $115,000.

On the morning of October 12, 2000, Mohabbat was in Washington DC, preparing for an 11am meeting at the State Department , when he got a call from State, telling him to turn on the tv and then come right over. The USS Cole had just been bombed. Mohabbat had a session with the head of State's South East Asia desk and with officials from the NSC. They told him the US was going to "bomb the hell out of Afghanistan". "Give me three weeks," Mohabbat answered, "and I will deliver Osama to your doorstep." They gave him a month.

Mohabbat went to Kandahar and communicated the news of imminent bombing to the Taliban. They asked him to set up a meeting with US officials to arrange the circumstances of their handover of Osama. 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.

In the wake of the 2000 election Mohabbat traveled to Islamabad and met with William Milam, US ambassador to Pakistan and the person designated by the Clinton administration to deal with the Taliban on the fate of bin Laden. Milam told Mohabbat that it was a done deal but that the actual handover of bin Laden would have to be handled by the incoming Bush administration.

On November 23, 2000, Mohabbat got a call from the NSC saying they wanted to put him officially on the payroll as the US government's contact man for the Taliban. He agreed. A few weeks later an official from the newly installed Bush NSC asked him to continue in the same role and shortly thereafter he was given a letter from the administration (Mohabbat tells us he has a copy), apologizing to the Taliban for not having dealt with bin Laden, explaining that the new government was still setting in, and asking for a meeting in February 2001.

The Bush administration sent Mohabbat back, carrying kindred tidings of delay and regret to the Taliban three more times in 2001, the last in September after the 9/11 attack. Each time he was asked to communicate similar regrets about the failure to act on the plan agreed to in Frankfurt. This procrastination became a standing joke with the Taliban, Mohabbat tells CounterPunch "They made an offer to me that if the US didn't have fuel for the Cruise missiles to attack Osama in Daronta, where he was under house arrest, they would pay for it."

Kabir Mohabbat's final trip to Afghanistan on the US government payroll took place on September 3, 2001. On September 11 Mohabbat acted as translator for some of the Taliban leadership in Kabul as they watched tv coverage of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Four days later the US State Department asked Mohabbat to set up a meeting with the Taliban. Mohabbat says the Taliban were flown to Quetta in two C-130s. There they agreed to the three demands sought by the US team: 1. Immediate handover of bin Laden; 2. Extradition of foreigners in Al Qaeda who were wanted in their home countries; 3. shut-down of bin Laden's bases and training camps. Mohabbat says the Taliban agreed to all three demands.

This meeting in Quetta was reported in carefully vague terms by Pizzey on September 25, where Mohabbat was mentioned by name. He tells us that the Bush administration was far more exercised by this story than by any other event in the whole delayed and ultimately abandoned schedule of killing Osama.

On October 18, Mohabbat tells us, he was invited to the US embassy in Islamabad and told that "there was light at the end of the tunnel for him", which translated into an invitation to occupy the role later assigned to Karzai. Mohabbat declined, saying he had no desire for the role of puppet and probable fall guy.

A few days later the Pizzey story was aired and Mohabbat drew the ire of the Bush administration where he already had an enemy in the form of Zalmay Khalilzad, appointed on September 22 as the US special envoy to Afghanistan. After giving him a dressing down, US officials told Mohabbat the game had changed, and he should tell the Taliban the new terms: surrender or be killed. Mohabbat declined to be the bearer of this news and went off the US government payroll.

Towards the end of that same month of October, 2001 Mohabbat was successfully negotiating with the Taliban for the release of Heather Mercer (acting in a private capacity at the request of her father) when the Taliban once again said they would hand over Osama Bin Laden unconditionally. Mohabbat tells us he relayed the offer to David Donahue, the US consulate general in Islamabad. He was told, in his words,that "the train had moved". Shortly thereafter the US bombing of Afghanistan began.

In December Mohabbat was in Pakistan following with wry amusement the assault on Osama bin Laden's supposed mountain redoubt in Tora Bora, in the mountains bordering Pakistan. At the time he said, he informed US embassy officials the attack was a waste of time. Taliban leaders had told him that Bin Laden was nowhere near Tora Bora but in Waziristan. Knowing that the US was monitoring his cell phone traffic, Osama had sent a decoy to Tora Bora.

From the documents he's supplied us and from his detailed account we regard Kabir Mohabbat's story as credible and are glad to make public his story of the truly incredible failure of the Bush administration to accept the Taliban's offer to eliminate Bin Laden. As a consequence of this failure more than 3,000 Americans and thousands of Afghans died. Mohabbat himself narrowly escaped death on two occasions when Al Qaeda, apprised of his role, tried to kill him. In Kabul in February, 2001, a bomb was detonated in his hotel in Kabul. Later that year, in July, a hand grenade thrown in his room in a hotel in Kandahar failed to explode.

He told his story to the 9/11 Commission (whose main concern, he tells us, was that he not divulge his testimony to anyone else), also to the 9/11 Families who were pursuing a lawsuit based on the assumption of US intelligence blunders by the FBI and CIA. He says his statements were not much use to the families since his judgment was, and still remains, that it was not intelligence failures that allowed the 9/11 attacks, but criminal negligence by the Bush administration."

Here's the URL for that article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

I found a few similar articles:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/28/attack/main312836.shtml
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040605/asp/foreign/story_3334983.asp
http://www.dw-world.de/dwelle/cda/detail/dwelle.cda.detail.artikel_drucken/0,3820,1430_AD_1226769_A,00.html

The site this article is from is pretty "anti-bush", so in fairness to bush, he might not have ever known of this and it could have been bumbling on the part of his staff... but if this is true I'd like to know the reasons behind it. Did someone just not want to co-operate with the Taliban? Or did they just not want to share the credit for capturing Osama?

 
Well, at this point it really doesn't matter what the damn reason. A whole BUNCH of innocent American civilians got plugged, the towers collapsed, a mini USA depression happened and then thousands of Afganistan and Iraqi people died. And they voted him in again! Not that I'm really all that surprised, but hey? You might as well keep the prick who made your nation look like a bunch of lunatics going against international law and invading a country, make it seem like you WANTED it that way... Umm.. Right?  ::)

I have no faith left in the American people. I was just starting to think that they really weren't that bad as a nation. I dunno, just my opinion. I'd be just as bad as them becuase I'll be voting Conservative in our next election anyway. Our Conservative party is like the American Republican party in many ways.

In short, it's probably many factors that contributed to the errors in communication. Maybe they didn't just want Osama? Maybe they knew that other higher ups alongside him needed to be taken out as well? Maybe they knew that wouldn't appease the people's families who died in 9/11. Maybe they didn't give a shit about Osama as much, needed him alive as an excuse to invade 2 nations and cause havoc. Who knows? I don't for sure, do any of us? No... Will we ever? Almost 110% sure NOT.

Joe
:rage:
 
::)

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda

Personally from diggin in other stuff I dotn think I woudl put to much stock in that article.


Recruit Joe - you obviously missed the point that the US had clear writ to act by UN resolution.  IRAQ had nt in fact prooved to the UN that they had destroyed their stock of WMD's - the onus was on Iraq to prove they had - not on the US or others to prove they had not.


 
Recruit Joe - you obviously missed the point that the US had clear writ to act by UN resolution.  IRAQ had nt in fact prooved to the UN that they had destroyed their stock of WMD's - the onus was on Iraq to prove they had - not on the US or others to prove they had not.

KevinB- You obviously missed the point where the US was told that they weren't allowed to INVADE IRAQ by military force. Yes Iraq failed to comply, yes Saddam was being an idiot, yes the US and the rest of the UN vote that "serious consequences" would happen if Iraq didn't comply, but when the US asked the REST OF THE WORLD if they could be authorized for military action/lethal force.... They went against the grain, broke international law as it was and invaded.

No way around that fact, the UN voted NO in the end...

But I do agree with you not too put too much trust in this article. Simply too many unknowns to even comprehend a viable truth.
:-\
 
Wrong, Mr Recruit Joe -- no international law was broken.  There laws being invoked are not binding on the US as we've never accepted them -- and never will. 

Look it up.
 
KevinB said:
::)

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda

Personally from diggin in other stuff I don't think I would put to much stock in that article.



I agree KevinB.  It's the things we look back at NOT having done that usually bite us in the ass!

Cheers!! :cdn:

The Army Guy
 
Old Guy said:
Wrong, Mr Recruit Joe -- no international law was broken.   There laws being invoked are not binding on the US as we've never accepted them -- and never will.  

Look it up.

So, does that mean that the US of A is a "Rogue State"? Maybe we should start imposing some sanctions...  :P

 
Wrong, Mr Recruit Joe -- no international law was broken.  There laws being invoked are not binding on the US as we've never accepted them -- and never will. 

Look it up.

Ohh yes how could I have forgotten? The USA is like the chubby bully in grade 5 who wants to always have his way as he wants it but everyone else has to do what he says... Just like how they didn't sign the no land mines deal either.

So why is the USA in the United Nations and a permanent member if they're not abiding or accepted or even INCLUDED in the laws that govern international politics?

Basically that means they really don't care. Geeez... Wonder why 9/11 happened? Hmmm, can't put my finger on it....

::)

You'll get bitten if you stick your hand where it doesn't belong. Everyone knows that, human nature!
 
Recruit Joe said:
And they voted him in again! Not that I'm really all that surprised, but hey? You might as well keep the prick who made your nation look like a bunch of lunatics going against international law and invading a country, make it seem like you WANTED it that way... Umm.. Right?   ::)

I have no faith left in the American people. I was just starting to think that they really weren't that bad as a nation.  Our Conservative party is like the American Republican party in many ways.


Joe
:rage:


Your a "Real Gem"
 
Your a "Real Gem"

Yeah thanks, sure I'll take that as a compliment.
Do you have an opinion? Go ahead, share it!

Did you not like the part where I mentioned that I have no faith in the American people? Or before that where I mentioned that Bush made the nation look like a bunch of lunatics?

I apologize if I made you upset in anyway, honestly, but that's life.

Please do share your reason here or in a PM to me why I'm a "Real Gem"... I can be a jackass but I'm open to critisizm.

PS> Yes I know the real lunatics were the suicide-hijackers who completed the 9/11 catastrophy.
 
Recruit Joe said:
Ohh yes how could I have forgotten? The USA is like the chubby bully in grade 5 who wants to always have his way as he wants it but everyone else has to do what he says... Just like how they didn't sign the no land mines deal 1either.
So why is the USA in the United Nations and a permanent member if they're not abiding or accepted or even INCLUDED 2in the laws that govern international politics?
Basically that means they really don't care. Geeez... Wonder why 9/11 happened? Hmmm, can't put my finger on it3....
::)
You'll get bitten if you stick your hand where it doesn't belong. Everyone knows that, human nature!
1. They did not sign the land mine accord because that would have meant digging up the ENTIRE belt between N&S Korea, it is important to note that neither did Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, India and quite a few others.. landmines are also an excellent means of defense. In my opinion Canada should never have signed it.
2. Please give examples of how they are not 'abiding' to set rules, *note* resolutions voted into place by the very countries about to be attacked do not count. Please give examples of how the U.S. has not 'accepted' these rules? and, since they are part of the ruling five(7?) they can overturn or disregard resolutions, ie.. Israel etc...
3. (Insert sarcasm here) Oh yes of course, America does not care in the least that people are flying planes into it's buildings or that there are more ideological extremists' just lining up to blow themselves up... like heck, it is probably good for their skin! (End Sarcasm) What evidence do you have that America is like a gr. 5 fat boy just bullying his way around the playground? or that 9/11 is a by-product of it's international philanderings?
 
KevinB- You obviously missed the point where the US was told that they weren't allowed to INVADE IRAQ by military force. Yes Iraq failed to comply, yes Saddam was being an idiot, yes the US and the rest of the UN vote that "serious consequences" would happen if Iraq didn't comply, but when the US asked the REST OF THE WORLD if they could be authorized for military action/lethal force.... They went against the grain, broke international law as it was and invaded.

The US was never told they weren't allowed to INVADE IRAQ.   They WERE told that the UN did not authorize them to invade Iraq.   It would have required a separate motion in the Security Council INSTRUCTING the US NOT to invade Iraq to conclude that they weren't allowed to invade.   That never happened and would never happen.

Being told that people don't agree with my actions is not the same as being told not to act.

The UN is not the REST OF THE WORLD (don't your fingers get tired working those caps so hard? mine do and it breaks my train of thought. where was I.... Oh yes) the UN is a place where countries get together to discuss situations.  

Certainly some, a large number, of countries disagreed with the course of action the US wanted to pursue (many of them potential targets as they are failed states, supporters of state terrorism, threats to the US and general all around nasty individuals that wouldn't recognize democracy if it bit them) but equally a large number of countries agreed.   Including such notorious warmongers as Norway, Denmark and Holland, not to mention the usual suspects Britain, Australia, Poland, the Czechs, Hungary..... but I am sure you know the list of the 44 countries that joined the coalition by heart.

Nowhere does the UN say that a country can't defend itself against a threat.   The only points up for debate are what is a threat, who gets to define it, when and how can a nation react to a threat and most crucially what if it perceives a threat and is prevented from acting because other nations don't perceive the threat or fear the consequences of action.

Of such distinctions are legal careers made.   Ever discussed harassment cases?   Harassment occurs when the victim perceives it to have occured.

A threat occurs when the victim perceives it to have occured.

A harassment victim usually goes to the police and the courts to have the harasser prevented from continuing.

What is the victim to do if the police and the courts can't or won't take action and the harassment is perceived as continuing.

A harassment victim may move away.

A country can't.
 
Quotes from Recruit Joe,
I have no faith left in the American people.

Ohh yes how could I have forgotten? The USA is like the chubby bully in grade 5 who wants to always have his way as he wants it but everyone else has to do what he says... Just like how they didn't sign the no land mines deal either.

Quote,
that neither did Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, India and quite a few other

So, unless you have just a baseless prejudice, you should have no faith in these other countries either then, correct?

EDIT: good post Kirkhill,....Hey Joe, all your facts are getting blown away, well at least you have rhetoric to guide you. :-[
 
QORvanweert said:
2. Please give examples of how they are not 'abiding' to set rules, *note* resolutions voted into place by the very countries about to be attacked do not count. Please give examples of how the U.S. has not 'accepted' these rules? and, since they are part of the ruling five(7?) they can overturn or disregard resolutions, ie.. Israel etc...

Just curios if anyone knows what resolutions were voted into place by the countries about to be attacked, I'd like to find out more about that...
 
Recruit Joe said:
Yeah thanks, sure I'll take that as a compliment.
Do you have an opinion? Go ahead, share it!

Yes, just keep up the good work.
 
With all respect to Recruit Joe, if it comes to a choice between trusting the American view (even as espoused by the Bush Administration) and the view of the "rest of the world," I'll take the American view. As bad as it may sometimes be, consider the alternatives. The American people looked at world opinion and perfomed a collective analysis that somewhat paralleled what follows here....

We're defining the "rest of the world" as represented by the UN - the organization that stood idly by and allowed 800,000 to be slaughtered in Rwanda (I'm aware that the "great powers, including the US, did nothing as well - I'm just pointing out the UN's shortcomings here), that couldn't solve Somalia, couldn't deter Saddam Hussein, that allows countries like Libya and Zimbabwe to sit on and even chair its human rights organ, that placed excessively restrictive rules of engagement on UN troops in the Balkans, and finally had to hand the problem over to NATO...... etc.

Or maybe we could look at the "other" nations whose opinion is "better" than that of the US Administration:

- France. This nation has actively tried to split Confederation and take Quebec out of Canada, if you remember. They were one of Saddam's biggest suppliers of weapons. It was French officers supplying information on NATO operations to Serbia during the Kosovo conflict. Let's trust them, shall we?

- Or Russia? The soft, gentle, understanding rulers of Chechnya? Who also supplied weapons to Saddam, who gave Milosevic at least tacit backing through most of the Kosovo conflict as his troops chased civilians from their homes (not to absolve the KLA of their atrocities, of course), who tried to intimidate the Baltic states out of joining NATO....

- Maybe China? That bastion of progressive social thought and practice, home to Tianenmen Square, which intimidates and bullies the rest of the world into refusing to recognize democratic Taiwan and threatens to invade on a regular basis, which has killed tens of millions of its own people, which is actively destroying Tibetan culture, and which doesn't allow its own people freedom of speech, the press, or political activity. Maybe their public opinion is more legitimate than that of the United States....

- Perhaps all the Arab dictatorships? After all, Mubarak and Assad and King Hussein and the Saudi royal family define legitimacy. Leave aside the political thuggery and imprisonments, the suppression of religious freedoms, the lack of real democracy, and their personal enrichment off the backs of their own peoples - they don't agree with the Americans either.

Explain to me why "the rest of the world" has a more legitimate point of view than the United States. Maybe you have no trust left in the American people, but I fail to understand why, when comparing them to everyone else. The rest of the world may think alike, but that doesn't make them right. For myself, I don't trust them....
 
I agree that I'd rather side with the US as opposed to China, Russia, the Arab dictators, the Asian dictators, etc. There are plenty of people in the world that are a lot worse than the US. However, the US is supposed to be a Democracy, the rest of the countries Guardian has mentioned (with the exception of France - not exactly sure what their goal is in all of this) are all Dictators. I think that is where most people are getting confused. Most countries are stuck with a communist / despotic / dictator style of government, and in a lot of these countries the general population doesn't know any better. In the US, Bush gets elected by a very narrow majority and continues his policy that not only a lot of Americans disagree with, but a lot of the world disagrees with. Almost the whole world supported the war on terrorism, but how many support the war in Iraq? Here's something else to consider...

The following letter appeared in the Sunday, March 30, 2003 edition of the Halifax Herald. The writer is Silver Donald Cameron:


Ambassador Paul Cellucci
Embassy of the United States of America,
490 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario

DEAR MR. AMBASSADOR:

Your recent remarks about Canada's policy with respect to Iraq were
inaccurate, inappropriate and offensive.

Prime Minister Chretien is maintaining a delicate balance between U.S.
pressure and Canadian opinion -- a familiar position for Canadian prime
ministers -- and he will not tell you to go pound sand. But someone should.

Fundamentally, you argue that the United States would instantly come to
the aid of Canada in an emergency, and Canada should therefore
participate in your ill-advised attack on Iraq. "There is no security
threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and
able to help with," you are quoted as saying. "There would be no debate.
There would be no hesitation. We would be there for Canada, part of our
family."

Codswallop. And that's being diplomatic.

The primary threat to Canadian security has always been the United
States. A monument in Quebec honours my earliest Canadian ancestor for
repelling an invasion from your home state of Massachusetts in 1690. The
very first instance of military co-operation among the 13 colonies
occurred in 1745 under the leadership of James Shirley, your predecessor
as governor of Massachusetts, whose army invaded Nova Scotia and
captured the Fortress of Louisbourg.

Thirty years later, during the American Revolution, your privateers
sacked our ports. We were at war once more in 1812-15. The birth of
Canada in 1867 was prompted by fears of a U.S. invasion. That's why our
railroad runs along the Gulf of St. Lawrence, far from the U.S. border.
Do you remember Manifest Destiny, the 1840s U.S. doctrine which held
that your country had a God-given mission to rule
all of North America? Do you remember "Fifty-four-forty or fight," the
slogan that rallied Americans to threaten an invasion in 1902 over the
Alaska boundary?
Yours is the only country that has ever invaded ours, and it would do so
again in a wink if it thought its interests here were seriously threatened.

And how does your sentimental mantra of perpetual willingness to spring
to our assistance apply to the First World War, which we entered in
1914, while you stayed out for three years? We went to war against
Hitler in 1939, while you were moved to join your sister democracies
only after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor two years later. A
million Canadians fought in the Second World War, and 45,000 died. We
need no lectures from Americans about the defence of liberty and democracy.

Nevertheless, despite the strains of our history, we are probably as
close as any two nations in the world. Many Canadians -- I am one - have
family members who are American citizens. Our two nations fought
together not only in two World Wars, but also to repel the invasions of
South Korea in 1949 and Kuwait in 1991. And when great catastrophe
strikes without warning, our people have indeed been there for each
other. As governor of Massachusetts, you must have been present at the
lighting of the Christmas tree in Boston each year -- an annual gift
from Nova Scotia to commemorate the immediate and massive assistance of
Massachusetts after the Halifax Explosion in 1917.

Our chance to reciprocate came on Sept. 11, 2001, when Canadian
communities took in, on an instant's notice, 40,000 passengers from U.S.
planes forced down by the terrorist attacks. Halifax alone hosted 7,200.
We housed them in our homes and schools and churches, fed them and
comforted them and treated them as family. We probably gave more
immediate and practical assistance to Americans than any other country.
Yet when your president later thanked nations for their help, he did not
mention Canada.

The Iraq conflict, however, is not an unforeseen disaster, but a
deliberate choice. Your president has squandered a worldwide outpouring
of sympathy and solidarity in less than two years -- an astounding
diplomatic debacle. Your own remarks, with their dark hints of economic
revenge, are entirely consistent with the Bush administration's policy
of diplomacy by bullying, bribing and threatening.

A huge body of opinion, even in the U.S. and Britain, judges this war to
be illegal, reckless and irrelevant to the fight against terrorism. Your
government appears to have forgotten Osama bin Laden, and not to have
noticed that the Sept. 11 terrorists were mostly Saudi, not Iraqi. They
lived not in Baghdad but in Hamburg and San Diego. The Iraq campaign is
a sideshow, a grudge match, a distraction. It will breed more martyrs,
and more terrorists.

Back in Massachusetts, in 1846, a young man was arrested and jailed for
refusing to pay taxes, to avoid supporting his government's deplorable
policies. He explained this in an essay, On the Duty of Civil
Disobedience, which has ever since inspired people like Gandhi and
Martin Luther King. His name was Henry David Thoreau, and no doubt the
governor of Massachusetts thought he was a pretty poor American. He was
not; like King, he was a voice for what is finest in American life and
values. And the issue on which he took his stand may sound a bit
familiar. He was opposed to an imperial war - the unprovoked U.S.
invasion which stripped Mexico of 40 per cent of its territory.

Good citizens - and good friends - oppose bad policies. By telling you
the truth, they strive to save you from folly. They may be mistaken, but
they are not your enemies. That is the message you should take back to
the White House, whether or not there is anyone there who will
understand it.

Sincerely,

Silver Donald Cameron


Award-winning author Silver Donald Cameron lives in D'Escousse, NS



The US went to war with Iraq, but I doubt it was for anything other than their own benefit.
 
A huge body of opinion, even in the U.S. and Britain, judges this war to
be illegal, reckless and irrelevant to the fight against terrorism. Your
government appears to have forgotten Osama bin Laden, and not to have
noticed that the Sept. 11 terrorists were mostly Saudi, not Iraqi.

As far as I'm concerned this sentence embodies the problem. The link between Iraq and terror organizations IS proven. Troop have training found camps, training materials, and literature on the ground. 

As for the hunt for Osama, it seems to me a large amount of US troops are still in Afghanistan and not part of ISAF. Are they there on vacation?
 
Stipulating that "The Rest of the World" - a broad term - is of a different opinion than the majority of the American people (and some others) is it fair to ask what informs that opinion?

Where does "The Rest of the World" get its information?

Some places have no contact with the outside world.  Some places only get their news from Priests and Mullahs and the occasional wanderer - those places still exist.  Some places get their news through state sponsored media and the people are organized by the government into "spontaneous" demonstrations.  Some places get their news through media, that if not state controlled are government friendly and believe in the power of the centre (a combination of the sense of power of the journalist, a desire to make things better and a market requirement to reach as many customers as possible?)

How many places do people get opposing information, and I'm making no claim as to which side has the right information, presented with equal force and in equal amounts so that it is possible to say that people have an "informed" opinion?

In many cases, it seems that the trial in the court of public opinion is being conducted with only the State Prosecutors being allowed to present their case.

 
As for â Å“The Rest of the Worldâ ?, who exactly is that?

Most of world is made up of dictatorships and corrupt pseudo-governments. Are those the opinions you're talking about?

The UN? I think enough has been said on what a joke it's become. If we listened to the UN, we'd be bombing Israel.

France, Germany, and Russia? These are the people who were illegally dealing with Iraq in the first place and stood to lose a lot of money if Saddam was removed. Their â Å“moral high groundâ ? doesn't exist, and their opinion biased by the money they stood to lose if Saddam was removed.

Oh, and by the way, where are the UN's sanctions against France, Germany, and Russia for violating the embargoes against Iraq? They're blatant disregard for the sanctions are the reason why Iraq didn't care about UN resolutions and did not feel compelled to obey them. So again, where are France, Germany, and Russia's punishments for violating actually UN resolutions that they were bound to?

Ah, yes they're aren't any because the UN has become an ineffectual partisan organization.

The bottom line is that the US acts in its own best interest, while other countries acted in their own best interest (whether that interest is financial, or just plain fear of being next on the list). I'm not sure whose interests Canada is acting out of, but the more I think about it, the more I think it's not our own.

Oh, and the â Å“Rest of the Worldâ ? can bite me.
 
Back
Top