Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
By Robert Scheer
Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times
Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.
That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.
Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.
Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.
~MORE~
Buying enemies as a foreign policy is a time honored tradition among the U.S. politicos, going way back to the Jefferson Administration.
ReplyDeleteIt's never worked worth a shit and always comes back to bite us in the arse.
Stupid politicos are a time honored tradition in this country too.
The myth that won't die (2/27)
ReplyDeleteBy Brendan Nyhan
Since it was first created by syndicated columnist Robert Scheer, the myth that the Bush administration "gave" $43 million to Afghanistan's Taliban regime in 2001 has circled the globe and circulated throughout the mainstream media in the US. Even after myriad attempts to correct the record, this pervasive bit of disinformation refuses to die.
As we have noted many times, President Bush granted $43 million in food aid and food security programs to relieve an impending famine in Afghanistan in May 2001, continuing an aid program initiated by President Clinton. The programs were administered directly by the United Nations and NGOs, bypassing the regime.
Scheer's June 2001 column, however, claimed that this constituted a "gift of $43 million" to the Taliban while never once mentioning the famine in the country or that the "gift" was food aid that bypassed the regime. Scheer's distortion has set off a series of echoes that shows no signs of fading.
As Dan Kennedy points out, the most recent issue of The New Republic contains an article by Samantha Powers repeating the error (link requires subscription). "We can go to war against the Taliban," she writes, "never acknowledging our previous aid to the regime--we offered a grant of $43 million as late as May 2001--for its help quashing opium production." In fact, while Secretary of State Colin Powell did link the granting of the aid to the Taliban's previous crackdown on opium production in part, saying that the US was concerned about farmers hurt by the ban and that the US "welcome[d]" the decision, it was simply not a "grant" to the regime.
Similarly, Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes, co-host of "Hannity and Colmes," said this on February 11: "By the way, in terms of Afghanistan, we supported the Mujahadeen. George Bush gave $ 43 million to the Taliban in April of 200[1]. And if it were the other way around and a Democratic president had done that, you would go crazy." (Colmes also repeated the myth on May 16 and June 3 of last year.)
And finally, in early January 2003, Cathy Young claimed in the Boston Globe that "[t]he Taliban also profited from our war on drugs, receiving $ 43 million from the US government in 2001 for the purpose of eradicating Afghanistan's heroin-producing poppy fields." This is obviously untrue; the aid came after the crackdown, and was not "for the purpose" of eradication.
Whatever one's opinion of President Bush's policy toward Afghanistan before the September 11 attacks, pundits owe their readers some context. These allegations, as written, are simple misinformation.
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_02_23_archive.html
The myth that won't die (2/27)
ReplyDeleteBy Brendan Nyhan
Since it was first created by syndicated columnist Robert Scheer, the myth that the Bush administration "gave" $43 million to Afghanistan's Taliban regime in 2001 has circled the globe and circulated throughout the mainstream media in the US. Even after myriad attempts to correct the record, this pervasive bit of disinformation refuses to die.
As we have noted many times, President Bush granted $43 million in food aid and food security programs to relieve an impending famine in Afghanistan in May 2001, continuing an aid program initiated by President Clinton. The programs were administered directly by the United Nations and NGOs, bypassing the regime.
Scheer's June 2001 column, however, claimed that this constituted a "gift of $43 million" to the Taliban while never once mentioning the famine in the country or that the "gift" was food aid that bypassed the regime. Scheer's distortion has set off a series of echoes that shows no signs of fading.
As Dan Kennedy points out, the most recent issue of The New Republic contains an article by Samantha Powers repeating the error (link requires subscription). "We can go to war against the Taliban," she writes, "never acknowledging our previous aid to the regime--we offered a grant of $43 million as late as May 2001--for its help quashing opium production." In fact, while Secretary of State Colin Powell did link the granting of the aid to the Taliban's previous crackdown on opium production in part, saying that the US was concerned about farmers hurt by the ban and that the US "welcome[d]" the decision, it was simply not a "grant" to the regime.
Similarly, Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes, co-host of "Hannity and Colmes," said this on February 11: "By the way, in terms of Afghanistan, we supported the Mujahadeen. George Bush gave $ 43 million to the Taliban in April of 200[1]. And if it were the other way around and a Democratic president had done that, you would go crazy." (Colmes also repeated the myth on May 16 and June 3 of last year.)
And finally, in early January 2003, Cathy Young claimed in the Boston Globe that "[t]he Taliban also profited from our war on drugs, receiving $ 43 million from the US government in 2001 for the purpose of eradicating Afghanistan's heroin-producing poppy fields." This is obviously untrue; the aid came after the crackdown, and was not "for the purpose" of eradication.
Whatever one's opinion of President Bush's policy toward Afghanistan before the September 11 attacks, pundits owe their readers some context. These allegations, as written, are simple misinformation.
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_02_23_archive.html