digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Bush Gave Taliban $43 Million Four Months before 9/11

dailykos.com — "Sadly, the Bush Administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at US insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • tufftugg, on 07/15/2008, -13/+130 Take a bow.
    • thingamajig, on 07/15/2008, -1/+11Have you seen this?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ
    • paradexes, on 07/15/2008, -8/+8Original title to the article was changed. This was a bait and switch article.

      That said, where is the actual source for this? Not that I don't believe it. It seems very believable. But still I think we need to be doing more fact checking seeing as we have been duped by media outlets before. Plus the fact that the Dailykos did a bait and switch on their title with a lameass justification (they know better than this) raises all sorts of red flags for me. It is not much different than FOX but with a liberal spin instead.
      • Modulo, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6Yes, nothing says sneaky underhanded attempt to pull the wool over your eyes like them actually saying "UPDATE: I've changed the title. The original title, "Bush Gave Taliban $43 Million Four Months before 9/11", was causing the discussion to focus on a single example--and not on the idea I was trying to get across.". Is there some kind of a special surgery you had to have to be able to ram your head that far up your own ass?
      • nycmac247, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1did you RTA?
      • Charlotte_Web, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2It's based on a bogus assertion by a reporter for the LA Times:

        http://thephoenix.com/Boston/boston/news_features/ ...

        Bush did not give the Taliban $43 million. It's an outright lie. The $43 million was for relief aid for the Afghan people, and was given to the UN to administer, specifically to avoid giving it to the Taliban.

        This DailyKos article is based on a lie, but no surprise there.
    • jabberwolf, on 07/16/2008, -10/+3Dailykos
      Of course it's credible, why wouldn't it be?
      We don't need no stinkin' sources !!
    • halfabean, on 07/16/2008, -0/+11As far as I remember, this was common knowledge before the terrorist attacks. The money was exchanged as part of the war on drugs in exchange for the taliban keeping the opium supply out of Afghanistan down.

      And if I recall correctly, this policy was in place before Bush.

      That said, I didn't read the article nor do I have a source.
      • HumanCattle, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4Yes, common knowledge... and as usual, shoved straight down the memory hole.

        We need to keep raising these points over and over. Repetition is key.

        It's our job to sort of "catapult" the propaganda into people's minds.
      • Hangly, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2Yeah. Keep the supply down.

        And by down, of course, we mean up.
    • ritzcracker, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ghqoYxmaUE
    • Charlotte_Web, on 07/16/2008, -0/+11Here's a much less biased source covering the same story (CNN):

      http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanist ...

      FTA:

      "Warning that Afghanistan is "on the verge of a widespread famine," Secretary of State Colin Powell Thursday announced a $43 million package in humanitarian assistance for the Afghan people."

      ALSO...

      "Powell said the U.S. aid is administered by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, and bypasses the Taliban, "who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it." "

      ARTICLE BURIED AS INACCURATE; BUSH DID NOT GIVE "THE TALIBAN" $43 MILLION. He gave $43 million to the destitute Afghan people, as administered through the UN.

      http://thephoenix.com/Boston/boston/news_features/ ...
      • nycmac247, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3This reminds me of when I heard a guy talking about "the insurgency" in Iraq. I said ... "Yeah, the people who live there"? He couldn't get his head around that. From my understanding, no matter what is said, no matter how it is spun "The Taliban" = "The people" since the high percentage of village leaders belonged to the Taliban?
      • Hangly, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1Hello, I am a Nigerian prince being held against my will. I am looking for a sucker^H^H^H^H^H kind soul who can help me get my millions and millions of rich dollars out of the country.

        I selected you for this honor for no particular reason.
    • Migito, on 07/16/2008, -5/+4You people are ridiculous. As if something like this would've escaped everyone for all these years. What a stupid thing to fall for. This article is biased and idiotic. It's on the exact same level of people that say Barack Obama is a muslim. Grow up, Diggers, and stop with this repugnant group-think thing. If you did a real assessment of the war at the moment you'd see that the surge is TOTALLY working and Bush is doing his best to do what's right. Sure, he's hardly the greatest president ever, but with the way you people act, you've cut down the meaning of "President of the United States of America" to a position that requires none of your almighty respect. It makes you look bad, it makes any future president look bad, and it makes America look bad. You people are simply unpatriotic.
      • rudeboyskunk, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6Why do people push the whole "the surge is working" argument? We shouldn't have been there in the first place!!

        And why is being unpatriotic such a terrible thing? I didn't choose my country of birth, so why should it matter?
      • xleu, on 07/16/2008, -1/+0The point people make isn't whether or not we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but what we do now that we are there. What do you suggest, we pull out everything now and basically commit the entire current Iraqi government and its supporters to death?
      • Hangly, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2Shh. Patriots don't ask questions.
    • bone625, on 07/16/2008, -0/+8A little Muse? Yeah? Yeah?
    • jaydoj, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=t4BlwdQTObo&feature= ...

      enjoy
    • Hangly, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I remember this being reported back in 2001 when the only people who would touch this stuff were counterpunch.org and antiwar.com. People would see me reading those sites, walk up to me and spit on my neck.

      Man things have progressed since then.
  • RHMiller, on 07/15/2008, -54/+177Newsflash - the President does not control the purse-strings, congress does. He can't spend a nickel without its consent nor could he have pulled off the Iraq debacle without their votes.

    Bush will soon be gone (thank God). Let's start holding the hundreds of other elected politicians (Senate and House of Representatives) accountable for once.
    • caferrell, on 07/15/2008, -6/+141The President has hundreds of millions of discretionary funds available for dispersal without Congressional approval
      • bonds, on 07/16/2008, -5/+12up up down down left right.............
      • djholybolt, on 07/16/2008, -3/+7there is no unlimited lives code in this expansion of contra..
    • ciaran036, on 07/15/2008, -3/+33The article refers to the "Bush Administration".
      • RHMiller, on 07/15/2008, -16/+7The title says "Bush gave".

        Whatever. Semantics.

        I was trying to make a bigger point about government accountability.
      • Carthagefield, on 07/15/2008, -14/+5The Bush administration is the Executive branch. The Executive branch (barring exceptional circumstances) can't act without the approval of congress (the Legislative branch).
      • MadKennyP, on 07/15/2008, -2/+21Of COURSE the Executive Branch can act without approval of Congress. The Executive Branch is allocated money in Congress's budget, but oftentimes has discretion on where that money is spent through the agencies.
    • mydigga, on 07/15/2008, -6/+31I think the single digit approval ratings we are giving Congress shows we are trying to hold them all accountable. That doesn't seem to be affecting them though.
      • inboxnews, on 07/15/2008, -2/+19You have to VOTE THEM OUT. Anything short of that is 'just words'.
      • Wargalas, on 07/15/2008, -7/+4@inboxnews

        You see, logic doesn't hold much water around here. It's all about complaining about this and that. Action is for the other guy.
      • paradexes, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4Action is for the people who are not sitting around their computers all day on digg...oh wait :S powers off comput*
      • winnestow, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2how do you vote this out? he stays a day or two in iowa every year, he has 20M, he has so much power he can do anything he wants.

        http://state29.blogspot.com/2008/05/why-is-tom-har ...
    • Infowarmachine, on 07/15/2008, -3/+5surely you dont really believe that
    • td001, on 07/15/2008, -5/+2so yes, Congress is also retarded.
    • qdkk, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2It was the REPUBLICAN congress that acquiesced to Bush's agenda.
    • Gephoria, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1People are 2 stupid to hold others accountable, let's elect another accident into the executive branch

      i work in a cocllege library and i have to say there are some stupid people coming up in the generation behind me....

      "Is there a word processor on these computers"
      as i look at the screen she's mousing over MSWord
      stupid bitch
  • Ablue, on 07/15/2008, -21/+74reply if you are outraged!
    • ciaran036, on 07/15/2008, -1/+61OUTRAGED!
    • maxpower17@digg, on 07/15/2008, -2/+19outrage can't even begin to explain how pissed off i am
    • megamod, on 07/15/2008, -4/+12poop?

      Sorry I had nothing to say but I am also outraged.
    • TheDeepFriar, on 07/15/2008, -10/+5*SOMETING NASTY ABOUT BUSH/OUR GOVERNMENT*
      (sry--I couldn't think of anything off the top of my head)
      • ravage86, on 07/15/2008, -0/+6Really, with all the material you have to work with you couldn't come up with something? You, sir, are out of practice.
      • roflbrothel, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6Yeah, this is kind of the t-ball of *****-talkery...
    • brainboy77, on 07/15/2008, -2/+11knew this was coming. still outraged.
    • Iaianrocks, on 07/15/2008, -1/+19OUTRAGED , yet somehow not surprised. REVOLUTION (not just the ron paul kind, but the real kind!)
      • spkrcity, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1The Ron Paul kind IS the real kind. We gotta organize first.
      • Gemfinder, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I'm thinking specifically the Defenestration Technique might be something to consider.
        Reference "Prague under the Hapsburgs."
      • Waterrat, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1AAARGGG!
    • blitzkrieg047, on 07/15/2008, -0/+10RAAAAAAAAAAGE
    • t3rmv3locity, on 07/15/2008, -3/+4Bush: RESPECT MY AUTHORITEH!!!
      • jayobear, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2Digg Rule #57:
        You do not reference Southpark unless it has something to do with Al Gore.
    • seanc6610, on 07/15/2008, -0/+10that *****.
    • DavidtheDuke, on 07/15/2008, -0/+25I'M MAD AND HELL AND GONNA PRESS THE SAVE REPLY BUTTON NOW
    • LeviTheSmith, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2*****
    • bobdigi, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4ZING
    • Conguent, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4!!!
    • Lewie, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4*****' thing sucks!
    • roflbrothel, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4I am quite perturbed and have a mind to send a very strongly worded, but polite, letter to my representatives! This is highly irregular!
    • Shrubber, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4I am THOROUGHLY RAGED-OUT!
    • alach11, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6POWERTHIRST!
      • appleseed1234, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2IT'S LIKE CRYSTAL METH IN A CAN!
      • phort99, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2IT'S CRYSTAL METH IN A CAN!
      • DeadSkinMask, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2I want to kick bush in the face with my...ENERGY LEGS!!!!!!!!!
    • forceuser, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3RAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
    • dksupremacy, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3REPLY!
    • PATSCRU, on 07/16/2008, -4/+3lol hay guize wat's goin on in this thraed?
    • epadafunk, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3***** THE RIAA!
    • markusv3000, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3pissed
    • lamiaconfitor, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Going after a record number of replies? still, outraged. But what about the Billions and billions we spent with/ on them in the past before that? in reality, we were betrayed (and betrayed an 'ally' that we had in them for quite a while... since the administration of the 'great communicator.')
    • Gemfinder, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Furious.
    • KidSupreme, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1somewhat outraged
    • happy84k, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1omgwtfwooot
    • nellshini, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I HAVE FURY!
    • Iztikeit, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I don't think I can get any more pissed at my government, barring an instillation of a despot.
      • Ablue, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1despot 1.1


        [******************--]
        installation 99%
  • lazerus9, on 07/15/2008, -7/+94Yes, but the money was only to be used for cave renovation and fortification!
    • davidamerland, on 07/15/2008, -0/+7What? No water fountain features to make the caves more livable? What barbarians! We should bomb them then!
      • brokencrystal, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1No, we are saving our bombs for Iran!
    • Tayls, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Well, someone had to pay for the flight lessons.
    • Hangly, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Close!

      Some background:

      Oil barons court Taliban in Texas
      By Caroline Lees
      Dec. 14, 1997

      THE Taliban, Afghanistan's Islamic fundamentalist army, is about to sign a £2 billion contract with an American oil company to build a pipeline across the war-torn country.

      The Islamic warriors appear to have been persuaded to close the deal, not through delicate negotiation but by old-fashioned Texan hospitality. Last week Unocal, the Houston-based company bidding to build the 876-mile pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, invited the Taliban to visit them in Texas. Dressed in traditional salwar khameez, Afghan waistcoats and loose, black turbans, the high-ranking delegation was given VIP treatment during the four-day stay.

      The Taliban ministers and their advisers stayed in a five-star hotel and were chauffeured in a company minibus. Their only requests were to visit Houston's zoo, the Nasa space centre and Omaha's Super Target discount store to buy stockings, toothpaste, combs and soap. The Taliban, which controls two-thirds of Afghanistan and is still fighting for the last third, was also given an insight into how the other half lives.

      The men, who are accustomed to life without heating, electricity or running water, were amazed by the luxurious homes of Texan oil barons. Invited to dinner at the palatial home of Martin Miller, a vice-president of Unocal, they marvelled at his swimming pool, views of the golf course and six bathrooms. After a meal of specially prepared halal meat, rice and Coca-Cola, the hardline fundamentalists - who have banned women from working and girls from going to school - asked Mr Miller about his Christmas tree.

      "They were interested to know what it was for and what the star was," said Mr Miller, who hopes that Unocal has clinched the deal. "The first day, they were stiff and cautious. But before long they were totally relaxed and happy," he said. Unocal, which heads an international consortium of companies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Japan, has been bidding for the contract since vast oil and gas reserves were discovered in Turkmenistan, one of the southernmost states of the former Soviet Union, in 1994. The fuel has so far been untapped because of Moscow's demands for high transport fees if it passes through Russian-controlled territory. The quickest and cheapest way to get the reserves out is to build a pipeline through Afghanistan.

      It will supply two of the fastest-growing energy markets in the world: Pakistan and India. The Unocal group has one significant attraction for the Taliban - it has American government backing. At the end of their stay last week, the Afghan visitors were invited to Washington to meet government officials. The US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban's policies against women and children "despicable", appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract. The Taliban is likely to have been impressed by the American government's interest as it is anxious to win international recognition. So far, it has been recognised only by the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

      Unocal has promised to start building the pipeline immediately, despite the region's instability. There is fighting just 87 miles from the planned entry point of the pipeline in the northwest of the country. The Taliban has assured Unocal that its workers and the pipeline will be safe, but it cannot guarantee that it will not be attacked by opposition forces.

      The consortium has also agreed to start paying the Taliban immediately. The Islamic army will receive tax on every one of the million cubic feet of fuel that passes through Afghanistan every day. Unocal has also offered other inducements. Apart from giving fax machines, generators and T-shirts, it has donated £500,000 to the University of Nebraska for courses in Afghanistan to train 400 teachers, electricians, carpenters and pipefitters. Nearly 150 students are already receiving technical training in southern Afghanistan.

      But it was the homely touches which swayed the Taliban. When the delegation left Texas, one of their entourage stayed behind. Mullah Mohammad Ghaus, the former foreign minister and a leading member of the Taliban ruling council, remained in Texas for medical treatment. Years on the front line damaged his eyesight. Unocal bought him a battery-powered magnifying glass and are paying for him to go to an optician.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk
      /htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1997%2F12%2F14%2Fwtal14.html


      ***SPOILER SPOILER
      The $43 million was clearly a bribe to win the pipeline deal for Unocal. The deal fell through. In early 1998, immediately after Afghanistan rejected the offer the media began bitching about the savage TV-hating Taliban.
  • angusm, on 07/15/2008, -4/+215We paid the Taliban $43 million to eliminate the Afghan opium crop and they did. Then we spent God knows how much to kick them out of power. Now opium production has regained or exceeded pre-Taliban levels (estimates for recent harvests run from anywhere between 3500 to 8000 tons, against an estimated 4000 tons in 2000), and Afghanistan is once again the world's largest producer.

    Judging by past performance, the next move is going to be to try to bribe some of the Afghan 'warlords' (both the ones who are part of the government, and the ones who aren't) to eliminate the opium crop in the areas that they control. With the value of the crop estimated at $3 billion, persuading them that it's in their interest to eliminate production is going to cost a lot more than $43 million. And since these are people who aren't really our friends any more than the Taliban were, any money we give them is likely to come back to haunt us further down the line.

    Lather, rinse, repeat.
    • FreedomAmerica, on 07/15/2008, -2/+35Your correct , after we took it over and under the UN supervision of the poppy fields, the production has increased to all time highs.(92% of the worlds supply) Seems weird don't it, we can spay our own city's with crap everyday yet we cant seem to spray a little pesticide on a poppy field in a 3rd world nation we control. It because we don't want too. The contras ring a bell, we let them produce it and pay a nominal fee, then our big wigs under the cover of night fly it back home to make massive profits. The same wigs either own the private prisons or their partners do, all for the same profit. Sell the drugs to American people at huge mark up, arrest American people for having the drugs you sold them, put them in your prison and charge the government 200 thousand a year for housing them, great business.

      The American drug war is a joke, the use our money to pretend to fight drugs all the while bringing them home for our youth. Hell last September a CIA plane crashed with 4 tons of coke on board, yet no one notices.

      It is time to stop pretending we live in this fantasy land and wake up.
    • tufftugg, on 07/15/2008, -1/+4 You think they stopped opium production back then, put down the pipe.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/15/2008, -3/+0Damn, a new war on ME drugs might make a better long term budget item.
      Got to have wars on something. Politicians beating the People again.
      Maybe we deserve it if we are afraid of Libertarians? Mr. TV
      guy, those Libertarians scare me. Don't worry little pinhead. Give us
      your savings and we will keep you safe.
      • bjornski, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Privatize it all!

        That fixes everything.
    • mbraynard, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1You realize that the warlords to not net or gross the street value of the drug?
    • twrife, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Why is it any of our business if they grow opium in Afghanistan?
  • JeremyGrieves, on 07/15/2008, -7/+26It has to have Paris Hilton in the title or a picture of some new mangled technology (A phone AND a toaster oven! Where's my credit card?) for the great silent majority to take notice.
    • PolishLogic, on 07/15/2008, -16/+1Does it?
    • clutcher, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2So you're saying there's a phone with a toaster oven feature?
    • Halsfield, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1lets stop using her name, it just feeds the beast.
  • Natitude, on 07/15/2008, -6/+44Is anyone still surprised by this stuff????
    • TheDeepFriar, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3I am--though I probably shouldn't be :[
    • jabberwolf, on 07/16/2008, -5/+2From DailyKos - no not really.
    • blipblipbeep, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2I'm not surprised any more. Although I'm waiting for a group of American's to kick the (shrub's) ass and his cronies. As its looking like America is starting to migrate back to there t.v sets now that they know the truth.

      C'mon America linch that tyrant.
    • frozenpxl, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2Do you like question marks????
    • runnernerd, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2No.

  • Bukowsky, on 07/15/2008, -4/+17I like how they felt the need to update & change the title:

    FTA - "UPDATE: I've changed the title. The original title, "Bush Gave Taliban $43 Million Four Months before 9/11", was causing the discussion to focus on a single example--and not on the idea I was trying to get across."
    • gettophilosophr, on 07/16/2008, -3/+7I like how 500 killed in 7 years makes the ragtag bunch that is the Taliban "resilient, formidable, and more than capable...". Are we seriously that pussy of a nation?

      "The Taliban have proven resilient, formidable, and more than capable of waiting out their enemy in a war of attrition. "
      • erhanaltay, on 07/16/2008, -3/+4This is a good point. The American Armed Forces is more than capable of winning this war, along with the Iraq war if we would only untie their hands. War isn't some cozy feel good operation. Its hell. If America is serious about winning either war (Iraq or Afghanistan) it needs to start waging war the way it was meant to be waged. I'm talking Total War -- no civilians.
      • gettophilosophr, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1This was a horrific point. :-P
      • TheCasablancan, on 07/16/2008, -3/+5My cousin is in the Marines, and is currently over seas. He told me that once they received information that american/iraqi contractors were being fired on by some guys with ak's in trucks. My cousin's team was nearby and said that the enemy was in sight, then requested permission to fire. Their commander gave permission, then was interrupted by the "Mayor" of this FOB. They were told not to return fire because it was probably only "Celebratory Fire". The guys with ak's left and probably shot up some other people.

        They aren't allowed to do their job. They aren't meant to be an occupying force. They are meant to kick ass, take names, then get the hell out. I know it sounds terrible, but if you don't cut out all of the cancer, it will grow back every time. It is better to make a single clean cut than to let a limb rot off and infect the rest of the body.
      • Lukesed, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5What do you mean, win the war? There are no flanks or battalions on the other side. There are no supply lines. There are no great battles to be had. What are your conditions for victory? Everyone who doesn't like the United States dead? That is unattainable. Every person you kill is a potential propaganda piece that will be used to inspire hatred somewhere else.
      • CptBuck, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1The Pashtun in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan have lived in those mountains for thousands of years. They've been fighting to defend that home for about the same length of time, against Alexander, the Arabs, the Mongols, Britain, the Soviets, and now the U.S. The idea that U.S. technology or strength of military is any sort of advantage in that place is somewhat ridiculous. Sure, we can drop thousand pound bombs and they can't retaliate but their ability to go to ground and not be found should not be underestimated. Obama and McCain (and Sec Def. Gates for that matter), have both called for about 2 additional brigades; it isn't enough.
  • SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -8/+71I bet it's chicken feed compared to what's going on in the black hole that is the DOD.

    Bush also gives Pakistan president Musharraf's government about $200 million annually and his military $100 million monthly in the form of 'untraceable' "direct cash transfers." http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives ... Cash transfer = drug money. Always has, always will. Heroin coming out of Afghanistan, no doubt.

    Why is the administration so rife to payoff Pakistan of all places. Bribes? For ISI assistance carrying out 9/11 "surprise" attacks perhaps?

    They've gutted all the domestic agencies. Where is that money going? They have so many ways to get so much money and no qualms about how and what they spend it on. ***** disgusting. They do whatever they please, no accountability, no one to answer to but themselves as they continue to sell us all out, freely giveaway our tax money to whoever they please and sell our country out in the process. And we serfs have no say in the matter whatsoever. Why don't we get to "vote" on that?

    About $10.58 billion has gone to Pakistan since 9/11. That puts Pakistan in an elite category of U.S. foreign-aid recipients: only Israel, Egypt and Jordan get more or comparable U.S. funding.

    The big question remains: what for ?
    • caramba420, on 07/15/2008, -10/+1We want to ensure the stability of their government, that's what for. A military dictatorship is better than a sharia theocracy with nukes. Just like how a totalitarian regime in Iraq was better than what exists now.
      • SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3Do you even know how the president of Pakistan came into power?
    • tschau, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2To add to what caramba said:

      that money helps prop up governments friendly to us and keep regions stable. Pakistan has a very important border with Afghanistan, and also happens to border Iran. The U.S. has a vested interest in Pakistan not going the way of Afghanistan.

      Consider logical theories as well as conspiratorial ones.
      • SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -0/+5The corporation of the US- presence in the middle east has done nothing but destabilize it. Consider the truthful reality as well as Pentagon propaganda soundbites.

        Speaking of "keeping regions stable", Iraq is in midst of a 'civil' war (such a dumb term. As if anything about "war" is "civil"..) The last thing the administration wants is "peace in the middle east." That would mean an end to the neoCON war fetishist PNAC manifesto plans, no more endless profits for the defense industry, military industrial complex and central banks, and bye-bye years of perpetual war profiteering. They're not about to cut their nose off despite their face anytime soon and stop that flow of money.

        All this war accomplished is more disrespect and hate toward the US. There are many countries that would have supported the dollar before the war but now there is a movement from many countries and with the dollar sinking like the Titantic.

        This hostile corporate takeover (aka "war") isn't meant to be "won." The goal is to sustain for as long as possible for maximum profit. For as long as they can get away with it. Destabilize the entire country, destroy it to a bloody pool of body parts, and award Halliburton/KBR billions of taxpayer dollars in no-bid cost/plus government contracts to re-build it. "We have to destroy the village in order to save it!" War is the ultimate profit.

        Afghanistan, Iraq, same thing. Destabilize the country, assimilate the local central bank under the Federal Reserve monetary system, control the currency and printing of money, establish permanent US military bases on their holy lands and secure the oil fields for corporate exploitation to establish a market. Does anyone really believe the US government would be in Iraq if 9/11 never happened? Now the PNAC war profiteers are salivating at Iran. The US is currently attempting to destabilize the government there again. Con-gress just authorized 400 million to do so. And the CIA overthrew the first elected democratic government in Iran in 1953. (Which they promptly replaced with a dictatorship under the Shah).

        This has been going on since 1953. Support for democracy around the world is a sham.

        Iran - 1953 CIA coup replaced with dictatorship
        Iraq - 1980s US supplied biological and chemical weapons and intelligence to Saddam Hussein for Iran-Iraq war
        Pakistan - diplomatic and monetary support and for Pervez Musharraf's dictatorship.
        Panama - longstanding support and payment from the CIA for Manuel Noriega (until he crossed them)
        Numerous other South American dictatorships from the 50's onward.

        The list goes on.....

        Americans cannot teach democracy to the world until they restore their own.

        Your favorite country has something called 'Inter-Services Intelligence' (ISI)... Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, Director of Pakistan's secret service ordered Saeed Sheikh to send $100,000 to 'lead hijacker' Mohamed Atta before the 9/11 "surprise" attacks. Is that helping our country? Your savior, Pervez Musharraf did NOTHING about it and the US did not investigate.

        The 9/11 cover-up commission found it "of little practical significance" to investigate this crucial money trail of a crime that led to the death of over 3000 people, an unsolved crime that was directly responsible for 2 middle east wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with a third in the works with Iran. Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/22/usa.se ...

        Quite the cast of characters. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?

        Meanwhile, the administration gives Pakistan president Musharraf's government some $200 million annually and $100 million monthly of our tax money for his military in the form of 'untraceable' "direct cash transfers.".. all to 'keep governments friendly' and the region stable, of course.."because we can!"

        Pakistan's ISI was involved in 9/11. Right now the aide US gives Pakistan goes to the ISI.

        Musharraf's presidency has been hanging on by a thread for 6 years. Anytime Pakistan needs more money, it just threatens to collapse, and the US is there scurrying to it's every demand and request to give it more "foreign aid." As Pakistan builds more nuclear weapons, the US administration will need to give it more and more aid to guarantee collapse of a radical nuclear nation that harbors so-called "al-qaeda" doesn't occur. As the US economy goes bankrupt from endless war spending and taxpayer funded free 'untraceable' cash giveaways to foreign dictators.

        The current administration is still trying to sell us that the people fighting in the Iraqi civil war where the same people that attacked us on 9/11..

        Look at the state of Pakistan now. Is this how Musharraf spends the US taxpayer- funded monthly $100 million dollar cash giveaways? http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1645 ...
      • caramba420, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0The current destabilization in Pakistan has everything to do with our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, not so much the aid that we have given Musharraf. Bush's blunders (if it is even fair to call them 'blunders' rather than malevolent actions) are destabilizing all of the Middle East and Central Asia (the exception being Iran, who is emerging as the geopolitical winner in this whole debacle). It is well known that there are elements in the ISI that are very friendly with the real terrorists. It's a delicate balancing act for Musharraf. When we give him military aid, it's not going to the ISI, it's going to the standing army that he is sure will be loyal to him.
    • Naieve, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1Considering Pakistan is pretty much the "premier" region in the war on terror, and that the Pakistani's are a nuclear nation.

      You could call it bribes to attempt to get them to fight the terrorists they are breeding instead of exporting them.

      Secondly, I accuse you, SickOfGovtLIES of aiding terrorists with money you got selling crack to 12 year old children.

      As this clearly follows your level of evidence, you cannot be adverse to my accusation.
      • SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -0/+8"Considering Pakistan is pretty much the "premier" region in the war on terror"

        "war on terror" huh. You buy that bull ***** they're marketing to you? Obviously...

        Whenever the government declares "war" on anything, you can be assured it's a monumental FRAUD. "War on (some) drugs." "War on terror." This only brings about MORE of what they're declaring "war" on.

        Brilliant scam. Declare a "war on terror", keep this 'war' going indefinitely, until you hit bust. By declaring a "war on terror", you don't have to end it. Because there is no one country to defeat.

        This "war" isn't meant to be "won." It is intended to be sustained indefinitely, for maximum profit. For as long as they can get away with it. 4 years later, over 1.5 million murdered Iraq civilians, over 4 million displaced refugees, 4000+ US service people killed, countless 1000's more permanently maimed and PTSD'd for life, still going stronger than ever with no end in sight. And now the PNAC manifesto neoCON war fetishists want IRAN.

        The so called "war on terror" is a scam. The 'war' is on us, the American people. To take away our rights, liberties, privacy rights and Constitutional freedoms under the guise of fighting an invisible enemy (see the mockery of patriotism "Patriot Act", Constitution nullifying "Department of Homeland (in)Security", NSPD-51 'presidential dictatorial powers act", HR1955 "thought crimes' legislation, dozens of "secret laws", Signing Statements, Military Commissions Act which eliminates due process, wiretapping and spying on American citizens, Real-ID act, Real-ID card with RFID tracking (aka National ID cards), Secret prisons where torture is committed, massive data mining effort by NSA to collect personal data & private bank records, medical records & credit history data on US citizens across the nation, the erosion of Posse Comitatus rendering it null & void, increased police powers and surveillance, cameras on street corners and intersections nationwide, Warrant-less spying, Public Law '109-364, FISA act violations, and on and on.)

        Can you feel the freedom? Who are these terrorists that "attacked us because they hate our freedoms and way of life" again?

        As Americas borders are left wide open, unprotected.

        Some "war on terror" huh? Eradicate our privacy rights, give us a civil rights destroying "Patriot Act" and unconstitutional Hitlerian "Homeland (in)Security" scheme, take more of our American freedoms away, turn America into a borderline Orwellian POLICE STATE but leave USAs borders and ports unsecured. Great protection!

        Sounds like they're really serious about "protecting" us right. We are no more "safer" now than we were on 9/11 it's all a giant sham. It makes absolutely zero sense to claim to be "fighting terrorism" overseas while leaving your own front door unlocked. No sense at all.

        Destruction of American freedoms. Compliments of a "war on terror" hoax. Fear tactics to keep the American sheeple AFRAID and willing to give up their civil liberties and Constitutional rights to be "Protected"! Fake security for a pre-fabricated "threat" Brilliant scam. Gotta hand it to those PNAC chickenhawks they really know how to "cover all the bases" and market their hostile corporate takeover (wars) to a dumbed down TV soundbite addled American public like true advertising experts.

        "They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, (1759)

        If you give up your liberties, your rights, at a time of "crisis", you will *never* get them back.

        Once those hard fought, won and died for-freedoms and civil liberties are legislated away at the stroke of a pen and GONE, they're gone for good.

        We are now a nation of paranoids scared of a crippled bogeyman on TV and evil terrorists hiding under our bed and around the corner. A nation of duped, TV conditioned manipulated serfs who are afraid of their neighbors and friends, and who are willing to give up all their freedoms that our forefathers fought so hard for, in order to be 'safe'. Starting an illegal war is OK, lying to the whole world is OK, spying on our own citizens is OK, waterboarding is OK, murdering civilians overseas is OK. We just all sit there like good sheeple.

        The manufactured 'terror threat' is being (ab)used to assault Constitutional rights and destroy civil & privacy rights in the U.S. No 'freedom hating' foreign terrorist could have EVER accomplished that. No 'jihadist' could have been so successful in destroying what's left of America's Constitution, curtailing liberties, extinguishing American citizens privacy rights and eviscerating our hard fought, won & died for freedoms as the Bush administration has so underhandedly done. Never in a million years.

        They’re NOT keeping us “safe”, yet they’re taking away all our freedoms and privacy, which should tell you something! How many freedoms must we lose before you wake up to this fact? The “war on terrorism” is pure bogus and hoax on world.

        Funny, Bush & Dick rhetoric says the "terrorists" attacked us because they are "enemies of freedom" and "hate our freedoms!" Is anybody still stupidly NAIVE enough to believe that ? and their phony "war on terror" what a joke! Right out of a bad 'Batman" cartoon.

        'hate our freedoms and American way of life"

        "attacked us because they are enemies of freedom"

        "the terrorists are evil and enemies of freedom"

        Yet what does George Bush & related PNAC neoCON traitors give us after 9/11?
        'Homeland (in)Ssecurity"
        "Patriot act" 1 & 2, the sequel. goodbye United States Constitution
        "NSPD 51"
        "Military Commissions act" which destroys due process
        'Wiretapping laws"
        Spy bill legislation'
        FISA act violations
        'Public Law '109-364'
        'HR1955'
        Erosion of Posse Comitatus rendering it null & void
        Guantanamo
        Secret Prisons
        Signing Statements
        and on
        and on
        and on, ad nauseam.

        all of which destroy hard won, fought & died for American freedoms, rights to privacy, civil liberties & individual rights under the Constitution. Once those freedoms are gone they're gone for good, we will never get them back. This is no longer America.

        No terrorist could have EVER accomplished that. Oh wait...

        "the Pakistani's are a nuclear nation."

        ..So given your 'logic', that means the US government has to pay them $10.58 billion dollars per year of our tax money because they have nukes? So the administration can waste billions of US taxpayer dollars to bribe them to be "friendly" ***** don't make sense. Where did Pakistan get their nukes from in the first place?

        "You could call it bribes to attempt to get them to fight the terrorists they are breeding instead of exporting them."

        If America had REAL leadership and a real security plan and military in place, we wouldn't have to worry about paying off and bribing anyone...

        What do you make of Saudi Arabia exporting 1,500 Al Qaeda terrorists on promise to be good" http://www.nysun.com/article/67016?page_no=1
        Should US taxpayers be forced to give away even more of their money to bribe the Saudi government to keep terrorists within their own borders or what.

        All it took was a promise "not to wage jihad on the Arabian Peninsula for the Saudi royal family" to free 1,500 imprisoned Al Qaeda members, declaring they had been "reformed after counseling." On the promise to refrain from 'jihad' only **WITHIN** the Arabian Peninsula right. What about the REST of the world? It's OK for them to wage it there, just not 'within the Arabian Peninsula.' Hmmmm... The stench of rat is overwhelming..

        LOL! Can you believe that *****. Where is the outrage from the "freedom fighting" "war on terror" Bush administration that is so concerned for our 'safety' and "protecting America from 'evil terrorists who hate our freedoms and way of life" ? Aren't they the least bit concerned for our "safety" with this little discrepancy?

        With Americas borders left open, unprotected, unsecured for over 6 years after 9/11, and Saudi Arabia's recent release of '1,500 Al Qaeda terrorists on promise to be good' anything can happen. We're 1 more false flag attack away from total martial law + suspension of 2008 elections under the 'patriot' act..Hello presidential directive NSPD-51! Can I get a "Real-ID Act" on the side with that please?

        "Secondly, I accuse you, SickOfGovtLIES of aiding terrorists with money you got selling crack to 12 year old children."

        Cute. Is that your method to win friends and influence people?

        Thirdly, if we want to go after terrorists, I.E., people who use terror for political or monetary gain, let's make the green berets charge the white house.

        "As this clearly follows your level of evidence, you cannot be adverse to my accusation."

        Pakistan's ISI was involved in 9/11. Where have you been? Talk about being adverse to reality.

        "The Pakistan connection.

        There is evidence of foreign intelligence backing for the 9/11 hijackers. Why is the US government so keen to cover it up?

        Michael Meacher - Thursday July 22, 2004- The Guardian

        Omar Sheikh, a British-born Islamist militant, is waiting to be hanged in Pakistan for a murder he almost certainly didn't commit - of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002. Both the US government and Pearl's wife have since acknowledged that Sheikh was not responsible. Yet the Pakistani government is refusing to try other suspects newly implicated in Pearl's kidnap and murder for fear the evidence they produce in court might acquit Sheikh and reveal too much.

        Significantly, Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?

        Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn't the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?"

        "With CIA backing, the ISI has developed, since the early 1980s, into a parallel structure, a state within a state, with staff and informers estimated by some at 150,000. It wields enormous power over all aspects of government. The case of Ahmed confirms that parts of the ISI directly supported and financed al-Qaida, and it has long been established that the ISI has acted as go-between in intelligence operations on behalf of the CIA."
        /etc
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/22/usa.se ...

        Just because you fail to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it's non-existent.

        Furthermore,

        The Pakistan Connection Pakistani terror networks were behind the 7/7 bombings and the London airline plot. What will we do about it? http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic ...

        The Pakistan connection: suspicion falls on al-QaidaBritish citizens arrested in Karachi and Lahore linked to planes conspiracy http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/aug/12/pakistan. ...

        Watch the Moyers documentary to get a better idea who is behind the mysterious "terrorist attacks" worldwide..

        The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis, by Bill Moyers
        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655 ...
        "This is the full length 90 min. version of Bill Moyer's 1987 scathing critique of the criminal subterfuge carried out by the Executive Branch of the United States Government to carry out operations which are clearly contrary to the Constitution and wishes and values of the American people. The ability to exercise this power with impunity is facilitated by the National Security Act of 1947. The thrust of the exposé is the Iran-Contra arms and drug-running operations which flooded the streets of our nation with crack cocaine. The significance of the documentary is probably greater today in 2008 than it was when it was made. We now have a situation in which these same forces have committed the most egregious terrorist attack on US soil and have declared a fraudulent so-called "War on Terror". The ruling regime in the US who have conducted the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, are now banging the war drum against Iran. We have the PATRIOT act which has stripped us of many of our basic civil rights justified by the terror of 9/11 which is their own doing."
      • kinggimped, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4That was actually well worth reading.

        +5 insightful.
      • GovernmentSp00k, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Agreed! She rocks!! I wish I could Digg it 100 times. You owe it to yourself to watch Bill Moyers The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis film it's worth it. Remember he made this in 1987. The covert government he investigated hasn't gone away. It has only become even more illusive, unfortunately : ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655 ...
      • SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Thank you both.

        Hope you had as much fun reading as I did typing it ": )
    • acliffhang3r, on 07/16/2008, -0/+8Pakistan is a failed state that has become the epicentre of islamic terrorism. It's primary exports include drugs and terrorists all supported by handouts from the gulf states where pakistani leaders regularly visit with a begging bowl and periodic 'stabilization' funds from the US. American funding for the army is diverted partly into training the very terrorists that NATO is currently fighting. The military establishment is confident it can play this double game, smug about the control it wields over these groups while extorting more cash from the US (that is your tax-payer money being used against you).
    • Ransack, on 07/16/2008, -0/+7Pakistan is a terrorist state.
    • ltdan10, on 07/16/2008, -7/+0OH, THIS IS A BLOG? I'M SURE THAT IT'S A VERY CREDIBLE SOURCE FOR INFORMATION SUCH AS THIS. not! GIVE ME A BREAK. WE WOULD HAVE HEARD ABOUT THIS NOW. AT LEAST HE DOESN'T HAVE COUSINS IN THE TALIBAN...
    • solid12345, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1"What for"

      To keep stability. As much as liberals like to talk about his propping up dictatorships in that part of the world, there is NO legitimate and sizeable democratic movements in the mideast. Most citizens are either loyal to two things, their king or president or their local madrassa and warlord shiekh/cleric.

      It is our job to make sure the presidents and kings stay in power and not the crazy clerics who carry a Quran in one hand and an AK-47 in the other.

  • AlaskaLoneWolf, on 07/15/2008, -10/+4No wonder he was inside a school classroom when it all went down. It's all making sense to me now...
  • brainboy77, on 07/15/2008, -3/+33"they hate us for our freeedom." no, it's probably cause we sent them enron stock.
  • killcops, on 07/15/2008, -15/+3alex jones! boheeeemian grooooove!
  • Tribunis, on 07/15/2008, -2/+5They didn't need to change the title, that's all I care about!
  • kojaa, on 07/15/2008, -7/+44it was us who CREATED the talliban, FUNDED and ARMED them, when they fought the soviet evil empire, now that they are fighting the neocon evil empire they're terrorist.
    • twitchr, on 07/15/2008, -3/+12Don't forget Sadam as well...
    • c4kdc, on 07/15/2008, -1/+9i wholeheartedly agree.
    • Naieve, on 07/16/2008, -3/+7Nope, we funded the mujhadeen.

      The Taliban came later and was funded by Pakistan. In large part their secret police.
      • bjornski, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Money has flowed pretty freely to both groups.
      • yuanzhoulu, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2Pakistan != Pakistan gov't != Corrupt parts of Pakistan gov't
    • DrDreyfus, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1America considers them terrorists because they killed over 2000 American civilians 7 years ago.
    • brokencrystal, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4"it was us who CREATED the talliban, FUNDED and ARMED them"

      It wasn't me. I didn't do it. I want no part of this!
      • Gartland32, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Do you pay taxes?
      • cmackattack, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Explain how not to pay taxes, yet still live in the states and own something that won't be taken by gun-pointing irs agent...I'd be totally for it. State and local taxes okay...federal...go ***** yourself till I have true representation, or the republic is restored and my rights are protected.
    • solid12345, on 07/16/2008, -4/+1Funny, the left keeps saying right-wingers are idiots who think "oh thought they were are all Muslims!" yet it is liberals who cannot differentiate between a multi-national mujahadeen force in Afghanistan and a local thug tribal group called the Taliban.
  • Aerandir, on 07/15/2008, -6/+12Daily Kos Update: (New Article Title)
    FTA: " - Bush Administration has Never Taken the Taliban as a Serious Threat - UPDATE: I've changed the title. The original title, "Bush Gave Taliban $43 Million Four Months before 9/11", was causing the discussion to focus on a single example--and not on the idea I was trying to get across."

  • lebsoljah, on 07/15/2008, -24/+4CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS 9/11 WAS NOT AN INSIDE JOB!!! HOW DO I KNOW???!?!?! IT's NOT FRONTPAGE NEWS AND BUSH WAS IN A SCHOOL WHEN ALL THIS HAPPENED SO IT CANT BE AN INSIDE JOB. THE PNAC DOCUMENT DOESNT SAY THAT THEY PLANNED 9/11 SO YOU IDIOTS ARE WRONG!!! 9/11 WAS NOT AN INSIDE JOB!!!

    Well we all saw 2 planes hit towers and we did see the president in a school innocently reading a story to kids so it can't be an inside job because thinking like that is wrong because Bush is not an evil guy and how can we make assumptions when we don't have proof... Al Qaida is evil and they want to kill us because WE BELIEVE WHAT BIN LADEN SAYS IN HIS VIDEO CLIPS RELEASED FROM AL JAZEERA... I have no idea why they diverted their ressources to Iraq, which has nothing to do with the attacks but it can't be an inside job... it can't... it's not in the news so it can't.... NO IT'S NOT AN INSIDE JOB... NUTJOBS THINK IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB... Bush is a good guy he would never fly planes to kill his own people he was in a school reading a story to innocent kids... an offical story book... How can he give the orders when he was in a school reading to kids... there is not proof so it can't be true... those nutjobs are too stupid their claims are baseless like saying that the moon is made of cheese... IGNORE THOSE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS THEIR CLAIMS ARE BASELESS THEY HAVE NO PROOF OF THEIR CLAIMS AND THIS ADMINISTRATION WOULD NEVER ATTACK ITS OWN PEOPLE AND THERE WOULD BE SOME WHISLTEBLOWERS BECAUSE 10000000 PEOPLE WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE INSIDE JOB BECAUSE THIS ADMINISTRATION IS THAT THOUGHTLESS




    /idiot
    • BonersMilloy, on 07/15/2008, -0/+5Wtf is this? If you are gonna rage about something in a comment that long, please use proper grammar.
    • tykwondingo, on 07/15/2008, -0/+6CAPS LOCK - UNLEASH THE FURY!!!

      where the hell did that come from? chill out, guy...
      • lebsoljah, on 07/15/2008, -4/+2LOL

        That's not me...

        I'm guessing those who I try to portray are digging me down on this... Wow so many.... I'm being burried like a bitch... Wow... OK now I understand the reason why America is in such deep... ... . .. .
    • blipblipbeep, on 07/16/2008, -0/+0People that use the word "evil" are evil.
      • Deadpixel1221, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1So you realize you just admitted you're "evil"?
    • TheGeneral07, on 07/16/2008, -0/+0I just don't know where to even begin...
  • p51d007, on 07/15/2008, -17/+12Like I would believe ANYTHING on the Daily KOS site, just as I would believe anything on Michael Savage's website. Plus, as posted earlier, the President of the United States can't spend a penny. He can ask all he wants, but ALL spending measures have to start in the House of Representatives. Yes, he signs bills, but, as with "earmarks", some are buried so deep in something else, it would take a person a year to find it all. Plus,
    how they are worded makes a huge difference. Not to mention, this money was mostly for getting rid of opium,
    which, unfortunately, is about all that can grow in that h*ll hole
    • lhbaker, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2The article points to The Nation, where there is an article by Robert Sheer written in May, 2001. Did the Daily Kos go back in time and change the Nation?

      You deserve George W. Bush more than anybody I've ever encountered.

  • Betrayal, on 07/15/2008, -12/+59Lewinsky Blow job investigation: Approx 40+ Mio $

    9/11 Investigation: Approx 11 Mio $

    War profits from 9/11: Billions and Gazillions

    Being Dictator for 8 Years?: Priceless
    • swrostmore, on 07/15/2008, -2/+12The investigations of Clinton were more like $80 million. That's why I lol when Bob Barr talks about libertarianism.
    • freedomkeeper, on 07/15/2008, -10/+3"War profits from 9/11: Billions and Gazillions"
      Gazillions? Really? That much, huh?
    • jabberwolf, on 07/16/2008, -15/+3Blowing the crap out of the country that habored the Taliban and enlsaved women, executed people in soccer stadiums.... Seperate issue but just as awesome = Getting rid of Saddam.

      Much more than priceless.
      • broncfan23, on 07/16/2008, -0/+0Why is that comment buried when its the truth?
    • mal1964, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Do you know if there is a way to turn off the auto scroll on digg comments?
      Its got to go!
  • mal1964, on 07/15/2008, -14/+4It happens all the time. By all administrations
    • swrostmore, on 07/15/2008, -2/+2*****, prove it
    • CyphreDias, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3All the administrations have been controlled by the same people. Both sides. America was taken-over in 1913 when the FED was instituted by a fraud in the congress. The fraud has been aloud to continue to this day. We could eliminate the FED and refuse to pay the national debt (owed to the FED) based on the fact that it was created by way of a fraud and is the product of a rotten tree. The debt is the product of a rotten tree. Any politician who refuses to address the FED fraud is part of the fraud.
  • mal1964, on 07/15/2008, -15/+2It happens all the time. By all administrations
    • brainboy77, on 07/15/2008, -0/+5Double posts. It happens all the time. unless there's a delete post button. which there is.
  • hivoltage815, on 07/15/2008, -12/+7"What’s worse is that John McCain is of the same school of thought. From his vote to invade Iraq, to his obsession with the "surge" in 2007, to his fetish for war with Iran, John McCain has displayed a stunning lack of awareness and knowledge when it comes to the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

    I am not a fan of John McCain, but the "surge" in Iraq was the best thing we did and is likely leading to victory. Should we have invaded Iraq, probably not, but does that mean we should accept defeat and just leave the country in turmoil, absolutely not.
    • Naieve, on 07/16/2008, -1/+9The surge was a short term lull in the violence meant to give the Iraqi politicians a chance to come to some sort of an agreement. The Iraqi's have most emphatically not done so.

      The surge was equal parts Petraeus and his tactics and US money. You see they went with a bottom up strategy to affect the lull in violence, by going to over 200 of the warlords in Iraq and giving them and their men lucrative contracts. While the money flows the warlords don't fight. We bribed murderers.

      I thought when 9/11 happened and Bush outlined his plan, that a UNITED States, which at the time we were, was going to go into the ME and fix their culture. It is a culture that demeans womens, supports terrorism, continues to use slavery, etc.... I though great when we took out Saddam, there goes the first genocidal dictator and the largest war starting nuisance in the area.

      Unfortunately, our planning was all long term. We laid out a good strategy for the long term way to affect our goals, but there was ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NO SHORT TERM PLANNING. The mismanagement of the War in Iraq is what I personally blame Bush for. I watch a new conspiracy theory pop up about him every time I go onto Digg. It's like a new world sport, seeing who can come up with the most outrageous semi plausible thing to blame Bush for.

      What is so sad is that people now blame Bush for the failings of the entire government, as if he actually was a dictator. He is not.

      Until we look at the government as a whole, we will not solve a single problem in another country, let alone in our own.

      It is time we took our bloated governmental bureaucracy in hand and started fixing it.

      The entire government is to blame for where we all find ourselves, both sides of the aisle.

      Until we accept that, expect more of the same.

      We are still in the denial stage people. Keep scapegoating Bush for everything, and see where it gets you.
      • kenya1, on 07/16/2008, -1/+0It is time we took our bloated governmental bureaucracy in hand and started fixing it.

        Any ideas/thoughts about how we go about "fixing" our government? It seems almost futile.

        This probably won't make any friends, but seems to me if all our elected representatives and senators had been in D.C. on 9-11, say, somewhere in close proximity to our Capitol building, AND if our good ol' President and VP were also in close proximity, AND if the Capitol building had been a target, AND one of the commandeered jets actually hit the Capitol building (let's not forget to add all those wonderful Lobbyists into the mix) ONLY THEN could we start thinking about starting over. I know. At what cost, etc.

        Remember- it's just a thought. I'd rather choose for it all to start over like it did in the Stephen King book The Stand. Captain Tripps seems almost cleaner.

        Do we GET to choose?
      • Naieve, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1First thing we need to do is get the money away from politicians.

        Election Law reform.

        After we enact a short term fix to putting people in power, we change the election system completely to solve the problem. I'm talking about a system where people run on their merits, not their money and influence. The two party system has to go.

        From there we start fixing the government. Personally I recommend another Constitutional Convention, where they go over everything, wiping away every single law tacked on by some TREASONOUS politician for the benefit of a particular group.

        Simply getting rid of the current crop of politicians does nothing if you do not first get rid of the system that allowed them to come to power.
    • jabberwolf, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1"his obsession with the "surge" in 2007, " = Which worked.
      Yeah lets not obsess over that and leave IRAQ A SECOND TIME and see if that works again.

      Yeah lets not obsess over things that actually work... just repeat the mindless slogan "yes we can"

      Yes we can... what? Not important !!

      • Naieve, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3jabber I actually research the subject and talk to West Point combat veterans on the matter.

        The surge failed.

        Which is why Petraeus was given CentCom.

        He told them he could do it short term, but without an Iraqi resolution to the matter he could not make a long term fix.

        The Surge was not conducted with the hopes of it working, the Surge was a PR Operation conducted for the election.

        Petraeus gave the Iraqi's the chance they weren't going to use and the Republicans the PR they needed during the election, and was given a cookie called Central Command.
      • licnyc, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1"Yeah lets not obsess over things that actually work... just repeat the mindless slogan "yes we can"' - I am done listening to idiots then send our troops into battle without armor and then try to pass the blame with *****. You can try to over-simplify reality or use romper room finger pointing, but this discussion is about bush/middle east and history tells a different story.
    • licnyc, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4surge = (it took 4 years to figure out they needed more troops). I really don't understand how everyone is patting themselves on the back about the glorious surge. It was a train wreck thanks to our incompetent leaders and more troops were needed to band aid the situation. That is really not a glowing achievement. Even better the surge hasn't really done anything because we are paying off the bad guys not to kill us with more weapons/bribes and the strict shiite now run certain parts of the country which means its back to the days of the taliban.
    • Abomonog, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1This "surge" isn't doing a damned thing but getting more people killed. This hunt and peck method of warfare we have been using in Iraq will do nothing but get U.S. troops killed.

      http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.ph ...

      Until Baghdad looks like Berlin in the above photos we are never going to win in the middle east. The Taliban and Al Qaeda see our military as weak and cowardly and we have for the most part shown this to be true.

      Until we show them that they will die to the last man and we will level everything in our path to get to them we will never win and eventually they will find a nuke and set it off in Baghdad anyways. Until we get down to the real business of war this is inevitable.
      • hivoltage815, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1But the reports from every general on the ground that we have made immense progress and that we ARE winning is simply propaganda right?
      • Naieve, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Yes it is propaganda. Despite the progress, it is not the kind of progress we need. The military commanders have made progress on what they have been assigned to do by their civilian leaders. The problem is that what needs done has absolutely nothing to do with the military situation. The political situation in Iraq is the largest problem.

        We have told the Iraqis we are going to leave before we finish. Not from the Leaders of our country, well okay they said it too, but mostly from the people who elect them. Once that was assured the Iraqi sects began setting themselves up for the after game, when we leave. They have absolutely no reason to settle their differences if we aren't forcing them to. They are just dividing up the spoils and preparing for the end game.

        We went into Iraq with no real short term planning, and while the military has worked wonders with the number of troops it had, it was completely hamstrung by BOTH political parties. We didn't send enough troops to begin with to secure the peace. While most West Pointers will say that disbanding Saddams Army was a mistake, I think the lack of troops and pathetic support our government gave to the training of a New Iraqi Army and Police Force was the deal breaker. Right there we lost the PR war, once we lost the PR War we did not have the will to keep the pressure on the Iraqi's for the long term.

        Our public will not stand for a long unpopular war. Had we kept the PR going good and committed more men to security, we might have clamped down on the violence enough for us to be drawing our troops down into a training and advisory command. That would have allowed us to tell the Iraqi's, no we aren't leaving till your politicians come together and settle their differences. That is what this was about, changing the Middle Eastern culture by forcing them to work together.

        I truly thought our nation was once again the UNITED States, but it did not take long for us to divide ourselves. Considering the ethnic makeup of the Middle East Countries that the Colonials set up, and the aversion of Democracies to protracted conflicts, we should have simply knocked out the Taliban and waited for the next 9/11.
  • painperdu, on 07/15/2008, -12/+60Too many DOCUMENTED coincidences between BushCo and 911 to ignore.
    • sageisgay, on 07/15/2008, -1/+22yet again.. noone cares.. because angelina jolie gave birth to twins this week!
    • eggballs, on 07/15/2008, -3/+13How anyone cannot at least question Bush's involvement with 9/11 is beyond me. The argument that "he's too stupid to pull it off" overlooks facts like the one noted in this article. He might be too stupid, but his dad isn't.
    • misterloot, on 07/16/2008, -2/+8I totally agree painperdu.
  • JeTed, on 07/15/2008, -9/+2This is so old! I don't like Bush, but this is fairly bogus complaint. Clinton ok'd the 43 million and it was sent in the form of aid not cash. This was widely reported on after 9/11.
    • EricSchC1, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3Where's the proof Clinton ok'd it?

      I thought presidents couldn't spend money w/out congressional approval, huh? /devil's advocate
    • zombies187, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Clinton OK'd the money? I remember reading about it AFTER Bushselection not before. Do you have a source? You must since it was 'widely' reported.
      • JeTed, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Yes I do. http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011008.html
      • zombies187, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Dude, thats an editorial. An opinion piece. I don't even see the claim that Clinton OKd the money in this oped.
      • JeTed, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Do I have to do everything? Here's the link from CNN that he cites.
        http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanist ...
      • zombies187, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Well done jeted, but there is still no reference to Clinton in this news article. Are you guys aware that I am asking for a citation of Clinton OKing that money?
      • JeTed, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1From the CNN article in 2001.

        "The sum brings U.S. assistance to $124.2 million for this year, making the United States the largest Afghan donor for the second year in a row."

        So the US had been the biggest donor from the year before, 2000, Clinton's last year in office.
  • sageisgay, on 07/15/2008, -8/+1it's going to be funny when future civilizations learn about the united states and this administration will be the last chapter of the downfall.
    • freedomkeeper, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3I don't know if future civilizations will find the downfall of the US funny, but they will have no choice but to attribute the majority of global progress over the last century to the US. They won't be able to deny that the US lifted billions out of poverty, raised the standard of living for the entire planet, milked itself dry giving global humanitarian aid and defended the free world from socialist tyranny for most of the 20th century.
  • helenkupo, on 07/15/2008, -3/+2WTF!?
  • zebraz, on 07/15/2008, -14/+4" Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now
    been in 57 states. I think one left to go."-- Barack Obama
  • EelfinnTy, on 07/15/2008, -1/+17If you haven't realized it yet this is how the US works. We fund A to fight B. Then when they serve their purpose we take them out.

    We funded Bin laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Now we are fighting Bin laden and his organization.
    We funded Hussein to fight Iran. Then we took him out of power.

    We are now funding militant groups in Iran in their fight against their government…
    • SwampFox82nd, on 07/16/2008, -0/+11Wisely posted, EelfinnTy. The name of this tune is called sales! The United States sells more weaponry than any country on earth. During Cuba, did you know that the CIA financed both Battista AND Castro???

      In Panama, the CIA financed Manuel Noriega!!! In Columbia, the CIA financed both the rebels and the Contras at the same time?

      How on earth should anyone know this fact? I was there with the 82nd Airborne Division, 501st Battle Group.

      PS: And you know the name of the CIA operative in Cuba, Panama, and Columbia? George Hubert Walker Bush. I wondered why a CIA covert operator who asked the 82nd to provide fire support for him wouldn't meet with us personally? We were told his ID would reveal top secret activities by the CIA...

      How would you have felt knowing the man who masterminded Iran-Contra would be the same man who set the Contra up...
    • spaceman77, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Yes and Noriega was on the CIA payroll (classified open document ie: truth) to help move cocaine north to the US (submerged detail). He got uppity and that's why they took him out.

      Tarik Aziz (Hussein's right -hand man) said that Saddam under-estimated the american governments' response when he grabbed Kuwait. Again somebody got too uppity., take him out!
      • spaceman77, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1correction: that's "declassified"

        ahem
  • xiphrex, on 07/15/2008, -0/+7Everyone knows this, who else funded the destruction of the Soviet Union...

    USA plays the world like chess pieces and we are but their pawns!
  • Suzilla, on 07/15/2008, -1/+6OLD STORY.

    BushCo's coziness with the likes of the Saudis and the Talaban was there for all to see, along with his track record of crashing every business or project he was given to run.

    Glad to see people are finally waking up.
    • KazamaSmokers, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Who's waking up? If Bush could run for a third term, Talk Radio would put on a full-court press for him and the Middle America and Dixie morons would vote him in again.
  • EvansHall, on 07/15/2008, -0/+10Where's the Digg article about the BILLIONS we're giving to Musharraf?
  • dmjarrington, on 07/16/2008, -1/+8GAH. I hate these assholes.
  • willgonz, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6I told you!
  • BikerDude69, on 07/16/2008, -2/+16It's hard to vote them out when the voting machines are rigged and the electoral college overrides the popular vote.
    • yuanzhoulu, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2exactly, as a massachusetts resident that is exactly why i did not vote in the last election: my (kerry) vote would not make a difference.
  • blipblipbeep, on 07/16/2008, -4/+3Tap tap tap, Waiting! When the hell are you lot in America going to linch that bastard bush?
    • DrDreyfus, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3This isn't the ***** Middle East where you kill the leader you dislike - even if you strongly disagree with him. Welcome to democracy?

      lynch*
      • toastjam, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1While democracy is not about mob rule, the idea IS that if enough of us dislike a leader he ceases to be so. Or at least, one would hope.
    • jaydoj, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2not to mention we have become so sentient and useless as a population that we couldn't do anything about it when he stole the first election. We stopped producing as a country, and we consume more than anyone in the world...that was our downfall.
  • brewer, on 07/16/2008, -8/+17Buried as inaccurate. CNN, May 17th, 2001:

    WASHINGTON -- Warning that Afghanistan is "on the verge of a widespread famine," Secretary of State Colin Powell Thursday announced a $43 million package in humanitarian assistance for the Afghan people.

    Powell also called on other nations to send aid to the Central Asian nation.

    "If the international community does not take immediate action, countless deaths and terrible tragedy are certain to follow," Powell said.

    The package includes $28 million worth of wheat from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, $5 million in food commodities and $10 million in "livelihood and food security" programs, both from the U.S. Agency for International Development.
    • Berkana, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1Give us a link.
    • Naieve, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3An inconvenient Truth indeed.
    • zombies187, on 07/16/2008, -4/+1CNN never lies! The Taliban couldn't have profited from this in anyway. They couldn't have sold or traded the supplies because CNN would have known that would happen. Because they are psycic. So you see, we made a deal with the Taliban...to give food and help to the people of Afganistan. When we make a deal with the Taliban, you can be sure they do what we expected them to do. Making a deal with the Taliban is what the UN didn't want to do. Well look how not wanting to make a deal with the Taliban turned out on 911! I blame the UN!
      • brewer, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1you sound very rational and have well reasoned arguments. thank you for your valuable input.
    • CanTheSpam, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4I love to find government failures as much as the next guy, but I don't think that this is one of those times.

      Good research, brewer!
    • BobNoxious211, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1And heaven knows, money NEVER gets re-routed in government. Agriculture? Uh huh.

      The #1 crop in Afghanistan is..........well, not wheat.
  • jellygraph, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2As if nothing the Bush administration does isn't highly ironic.
  • dizilbdog, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2I'm wondering at one point and I don't know if this could ever happen, but they just say you know what "***** this I'm not fighting anymore." I mean these soldiers are going on five years. I mean come on now. I don't know I'd just like them to come home.
  • baudbwoy, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2so here is the money for the September thing we talked about...wink wink
  • SwampFox82nd, on 07/16/2008, -3/+4Fellow Americans, I know this is "old news," but the truth has remained silent -- for a damned good reason! George Hubert Walker Bush doesn't want us to know who is really behind all this garbage. Name the last war where the name George Hubert Walker Bush wasn't in the middle of all the violence. WW-I.
    • NickLB, on 07/16/2008, -0/+0I don't know who this "Hubert" guy is but he sounds like a real jerk. ;)
  • TacoHell, on 07/16/2008, -0/+10Its just another coincidence, just like this one:

    U.S. OK’d plan to topple Taliban a day before 9/11
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4585010/
    • Xill, on 07/16/2008, -2/+5Stop hitting people with the truth you conspiracy theorist nutcase. /Sarcasm
      • DrDreyfus, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2Holy *****.

        You actually think the American government murdered over 2000 of it's citizens?
  • phalanxcronos, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4I thought everyone knew this....like 6 years ago? We were also in negotiations to put a pipeline in too.
    • lhbaker, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2It bears repeating.
    • spaceman77, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Everyone does not know this. Americans are sheltered thanks to their corporate media. I have had Americans (tourists) disagree and stare at me in disbelief when I tell them the Bush family and the Bin Laden family are close business associates. The ignorance is breathtaking.

      Open your mind and read from many sources (left wing, right wing, any wing) and shut off the TV.

  • benichols, on 07/16/2008, -4/+0FTW!!!
  • gab00n, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4They even flew the top guys to safety when we invaded Afghanistan, they said that was an accident but I doubt it.
  • BluesFan, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1I wonder how much they paid creating the Taliban in the first place or maybe I'm thinking al qaeda.

    Funny how we helped them beat the Soviet Union back in the 80's and then they strangely turned on us a decade later attacking us on 9/11.

  • Liability, on 07/16/2008, -4/+2
    I LOVE AMERICA
  • use2bacanadian, on 07/16/2008, -9/+3The Daily Kos, always a good source of information for the critically minded thinker - sort of like Hollywood tabloids at the super market are a good source of information for UFO enthusiast.
    • travis1982, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Ohhhh Silly Captrick...I'm guessing your name is Richard..not Gary Olsen. To say an entire country sucks is just ignorant. A human being can "suck", but to label a country the way you have been doing since you were first old enough to write semi-coherently, and still write only semi-coherently mind you, is just ridiculous. Your "knowledge" is acquired from sources such as Wikipedia, and other nonsense plagued websites and you still attempt to instill it as your own. I know this because you have a complete lack of grammar skills and comprehension of the English language, yet when you are going into some detail about a subject that demands a technical expertise, your spelling and grammar seem to magically be present. Well Richard...I call Shenanigans. You sir, are an idiot.
      • lhbaker, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Unabomber? Is that you?
      • DrDreyfus, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Right. But I'm sure you digg the comments like:

        "***** AMERICA"
        or
        "American's don't care about Iraq because Angelina Jolie just had twins"

        And btw, for someone criticizing another for their generalizing, you sure make a lot of assumptions about them.
      • travis1982, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1RELAX. I wrote in the wrong FORUM. Same ***** though. Even so, did you even read my comment, the point was that it's STUPID to bash peoples countries.
    • lhbaker, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2Shut up and change your name to wentback2canada.
      • travis1982, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1NO...Canada doesn't want this retard. Send him to Mexico.
  • justice7, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1being realistic, $43 million isn't a whole lot of cash when talking weapons. Sure, it buys a lot of AK47's, but one bomber or a couple fighter jets and its gone.
    • kinggimped, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Oh sure, it's nothing. How ridiculous that this is considered news.

      Man, it's cold out here. I'm gonna go grab a couple of million and light a fire. BRB.
  • Xill, on 07/16/2008, -5/+9Attention debunkers, close your eyes, shut your ears.
    The truth about 9/11 being an inside job make make your tiny brain burst.
    • Arkons24, on 07/16/2008, -8/+2Or my mouth explode with laughter.
    • sexualwasabi, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I agree... sadly this is the world we live in

      Bush and company trained and planned it all out (well I guess his cronies did, hes too stupid to plan 9/11)
  • crackberri, on 07/16/2008, -13/+2When are these Hilter loving Demotards going to realize this is propaganda......
  • Arkons24, on 07/16/2008, -3/+5lol. I'm sure this will come to a surprise to most of you who know nothing of foreign policy, but Clinton gave them a ***** more than that. A ***** more and while they were harboring Bin Laden while we were trying to capture him. Guess what? We also supported the Taliban taking power in Afghanistan .... And guess what, if we did it all over again tomorrow, we'd do the same ***** thing again. Was the seemingly best course of action to stabilize a country following a massive invasion by a foreign power and subsequent decade long civil war. Our money had nothing to do with 9/11 so quit with the ***** conspiracy making.

    You guys never stop to think about reality and instead choose to live in your fantasy worlds where all our leaders have complete omniscient powers.
    • Arkons24, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Also why doesn't digg have the option to bury something because it's disingenuous.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.