Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Arkansas, Exxon Is Threatening to Arrest Reporters But Otherwise Telling Nobody Nothing
- It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security
- An Outpouring of Love and Support for Bradley Manning to Receive the Nobel Peace Prize
- Exxon Tar Sands Spill Continues to Devastate Arkansas Community
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- Exxon Tar Sands Spill Continues to Devastate Arkansas Community
- Fukushima Meltdown Driving Increased Abnormalities Among US Infants
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- The Treason of Intellectuals
- The Growing Campaign to Revoke Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize
Popular content
Today's Top News
U.S. Refusal of 2001 Taliban Offer Gave bin Laden a Free Pass
WASHINGTON - When George W. Bush rejected a Taliban offer to have Osama bin Laden tried by a moderate group of Islamic states in mid- October 2001, he gave up the only opportunity the United States would have to end bin Laden's terrorist career for the next nine years.
The al Qaeda leader was able to escape into Pakistan a few weeks later, because the Bush administration had no military plan to capture him.
The last Taliban foreign minister, Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, offered at a secret meeting in Islamabad Oct. 15, 2001 to put bin Laden in the custody of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), to be tried for the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States, Muttawakil told IPS in an interview in Kabul last year.
The OIC is a moderate, Saudi-based organisation representing all Islamic countries. A trial of bin Laden by judges from OIC member countries might have dealt a more serious blow to al Qaeda's Islamic credentials than anything the United States would have done with bin Laden.
Muttawakil also dropped a condition that the United States provide evidence of bin Laden's guilt in the 9/11 attacks, which had been raised in late September and reiterated by Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef on Oct. 5 - two days before the U.S. bombing of Taliban targets began.
There had been sketchy press reports at the time that the Taliban foreign minister had made a new offer in Islamabad to have bin Laden tried by one or more foreign countries. No Taliban or former Taliban official, however, had provided details of what had actually been proposed until Muttawakil's revelation.
Muttawakil, who was detained at Bagram airbase for 18 months after the ouster of the Taliban regime and now lives in Kabul with the approval of the Hamid Karzai government, told IPS he had also offered a second alternative - a "special court" to try bin Laden that Afghanistan and two other Islamic governments would establish.
Muttawakil was believed by U.S. officials to have had the trust of Taliban leader Mullah Omar. A December 1998 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad said he was "considered Omar's closest adviser on political issues" and that he had become Omar's "point man" on foreign affairs in 1997.
The new Taliban negotiating offer came almost immediately after the U.S. began bombing Taliban targets on Oct. 7, 2001. The fear of the bombing – and what was likely to follow – evidently spurred the Taliban leadership to be more forthcoming on bin Laden.
But Bush brusquely rejected any talks on the Taliban proposal, declaring, "They must have not heard. There's no negotiations."
Bush rejected the Taliban offer despite the fact that U.S. intelligence had picked up reports in the previous months of deep divisions within the Taliban regime over bin Laden. It was because of those reports that Bush had authorised secret meetings by a CIA officer with a high-ranking Taliban official in late September.
Former CIA director George Tenet recalled in his memoirs that the CIA station chief in Pakistan, Robert Grenier, met with Mullah Osmani, the second ranking Taliban official, in Baluchistan province of Pakistan.
But Grenier was only authorised to offer Osmani three options: turning bin Laden over to the United States; letting the Americans find him on their own; or a third option, as Tenet described it, to "administer justice themselves, in a way that clearly took him off the table".
Osmani rejected those three options, as well as a subsequent proposal by Grenier on Oct. 2 that he oust Mullah Omar from power and publicly announce on the radio that bin Laden would be handed over to the United States immediately.
On Oct. 3, Bush publicly ruled out negotiations with the Taliban. They had to "turn over the al Qaeda organisation living in Afghanistan and must destroy the terrorist camps," he said, adding "There are no negotiations."
Milton Bearden, the former CIA station chief in Pakistan during the Mujahideen war against the Soviets, observed to the Washington Post two weeks after Bush had rejected Muttawakil's new offer that the Taliban needed a face-saving way of resolving the issue consistent with its Islamic values.
"We never heard what they were trying to say," Bearden said.
The Bush refusal to negotiate with the Taliban was in effect a free pass for bin Laden and his lieutenants, because the Bush administration had no plan of its own for apprehending bin Laden in Afghanistan. It did not even know what level of military effort would have been required for the United States to be able to block bin Laden's exit routes from Afghanistan into Pakistan.
The absence of any military planning to catch bin Laden was a function of Bush's national security team, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, which had firmly opposed any military operation in Afghanistan that would have had any possibility of catching bin Laden and his lieutenants.
Rumsfeld and the second-ranking official at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz, had dismissed CIA warnings of an al Qaeda terrorist attack against the United States in the summer of 2001, and even after 9/11 had continued to question the CIA's conclusion that bin Laden and al Qaeda were behind the attacks.
Cheney and Rumsfeld were determined not to allow a focus on bin Laden to interfere with their plan for a U.S. invasion of Iraq to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime.
Even after Bush decided in favour of an Afghan campaign, CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks, who was responsible for the war in Afghanistan, was not directed to have a plan for bin Laden’s capture or to block his escape to Pakistan.
When the CIA received intelligence on Nov. 12, 2001 that bin Laden had left Kandahar and was headed for a cave complex in the Tora Bora Mountains close to the Pakistani border, Franks had no assets in place to do anything about it. He asked Lt. Gen. Paul T. Mikolashek, commander of Army Central Command (ARCENT), if he could provide a blocking force between al Qaeda and the Pakistani border, according to Col. David W. Lamm, who was then commander of ARCENT Kuwait.
But that was impossible, because ARCENT had neither the troops nor the strategic lift in Kuwait required to put such a force in place.
Franks then had to ask for Pakistani military help in blocking bin Laden's exit into Pakistan, as Rumsfeld told a National Security Council meeting, according to the meeting transcript in Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War".
But Rumsfeld and other key advisers knew it would a charade, because bin Laden was a long-time ally of the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, and the Pakistani military was not about to help capture him.
Franks asked President Pervez Musharraf to deploy troops along the Afghan-Pakistan border near Tora Bora, and Musharraf agreed to redeploy 60,000 troops to the area from the border with India, according to U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin, who was present at the meeting.
But the Pakistani president said his army would need airlift assistance from the United States to carry out the redeployment. That would have required an entire aviation brigade, including hundreds of helicopters, and hundreds of support troops to deliver that many combat troops to the border region, according to Lamm.
Those were assets the U.S. military did not have in the theatre.
Osama bin Laden had been effectively guaranteed an exit to Pakistan by a Bush policy that had rejected either diplomatic or military means to do anything about him.
In an implicit acknowledgement that the administration had not been seriously concerned with apprehending bin Laden, Bush declared in a Mar. 13, 2002 press conference that bin Laden was "a person who's now been marginalised", and added, "You know, I just don't spend that much time on him…"
Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.
"You know, I just don't spend that much time on him," Bush said of bin Laden at a Mar. 13, 2002 press conference. (Credit:White House photo)
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

49 Comments so far
Show AllThanks. I thought I was the only one that remembered this. Bush might have had him billions of dollars and thousands of lives ago. But he wanted to be a war president.
What exactly are we doing over there? Besides securing fuel for the Empire.
If Osama had gone to trial, there would have been no excuse to attack Afghanistan. And UNICOL needs the route for their pipeline secured.
It has always been all about oil (or in this case, gas).
The US can always find an excuse to invade a country, or meddle in its affairs.
Its now just after 1pm on the west coast and Congressman Peter King (Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee) is on CNN saying that the information on where Bin Laden was came from waterboarding. So here we go, all the justifying of our country's use of torture. This will also be used to keep Guantanamo Bay open and running full tilt.
If one really stops and gives it serious thought what the U.S. has done since September 11, 2001 isn't in any real sense any different than what we are supposedly fighting. Torture, indiscriminate bombing, kidnapping and secret prisons, targeted assassinations.
Update at 1:30pm PST
Now they're saying that the photographs aren't going to be released so I'm a bit confused. Does that mean the photo out of Pakistan isn't real?
CNN also says that there's explosions in Kabul, and now that there's some sort of foiled terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant in England.
Seems the blowback's already started.
I have just read that the reason the White House is not releasing a photo of the alleged dead bin Laden is because it is, in their words, too gruesome, and therefore would supposedly be too "inflammatory" if seen by the outside world. The death of this alleged mastermind of 9/11/01 raises more questions than it does answers and yet so many members of the media including such independent media as Democracy Now! seem to accept without question what they have been told by the U.S. government.
If Democracy Now! really wished to demonstrate that they go where other news programs fear to tread then they would have David Ray Griffin on their show since he is the author of the book Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? But, alas, Amy Goodman seems unwilling for whatever reason to do this.
The funny thing is that Congressman Peter King might be telling the truth and the information on where Bin Laden was did come from Guantanamo. I have already posted this link here a couple times, but here it is again, check it out: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/03/osama-bin-laden-abbottabad-hideout
It looks like the government had known for three years where Bin Laden was and they did nothing about it until after WikiLeaks published the information last week. It also looks like nobody paid much attention to it at the time (or since.) It's entirely possible that Obama's decision to take out Bin Laden resulted from the fear of being exposed by WikiLeaks - if anybody seriously looked into it and if it turned out that the US knows where Bin Laden is and they are not doing anything with that fact, the commander in chief would certainly look bad, to say the least. If that's the case, that would mean that Assange, ironically, really does have blood on his hands - Bin Laden's blood. I wonder what Joe Lieberman, Sarah Palin, et al, would think about it.
I am speculating here of course. Maybe I'm connecting the wrong dots, but . . draw your own conclusions.
Where did you get the idea that I approve of torture?! I don't.
OK. Fine. But I didn't address that issue in my post.
Never mind.
"carter, with his sweaters, solar panels, and his warnings about energy, was our last chance for sanity... and we blew it."
Few few know this or if told can not get their heads around this information. Usual tactic is to call Carter "soft" and make that the reason why he lost. Fact is the guy was damn smart and that is not a good quality for a "puppet".
If I remember correctly from Michael Moore's documentary, Farenheit 911, weren't the Bushes and the Bin Ladens friends or business partners?
This is not news to the few of us interested in facts. The US is never interested in the rule of law when it applies to other nations. Our leaders old and new like to kill people in other lands, especially if they are of the brown or yellow variety and do not worship Heysoos.
Along the same lines few care to know the Japanese attempted on numerous occasions to surrender. The US would not hear of it under any circumstances except ones they knew would not or could not be accepted. We had new weaponry to try out! Just like we tried out Daisy Cutters and all sorts of fun phosphorus and depleted uranium this go around.
PS. There are no terrorist attacks here. Do you really think there was a sleeper cell in NE awaiting the death of bin Laden? Horse Hockey!!
that asshole faux cowboy.
I, too, remember this.
the invasion of Afghanistan was planned well before the demolition of the WTC.
9-11 and the consequent War on Terror was a win-win situation for the powers behind the American empire, as Snydly over at the CD article on JSOC posted in his comment:
“…it all plays out like a movie---Isreal gets a US presence in the middle-east, Riyad gets the US bases out and dollar-denom oil, oilcorps get Iraqi oil, AQ gets to hit Great Satan, neocons get the Patriot act, landlord gets the insurance, corp and def dept looters get their investigations crushed, MIC gets a blank check, minor actors get security posts on the dole, conspiracy buffs get hours of outrage, and we're off to the races.”
Obviously the Bush administration could not have an international court try OBL. Simply 9-11 was an inside job, Bin Laden was a CIA agent, and there was obviously no evidence to link Bin Laden to 9-11.
I think we may have to go a little further here. Since it is now the Obama administration which is in charge it would appear that they were just as reluctant as the former regime in having bin Laden appear in a court of law to tell an international body just exactly what he did or did not know concerning the terrorist attacks that occurred in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. And yet our supine media appears to be extremely willing to accept what our government has said about the events that took place on 9/11/01 as well as believing what the Obama administration has told them concerning the death of the alleged mastermind of 9/11/01 named Osama bin Laden.
Erroll,
Bravo.
I don't know what to believe there are so many lies. Politicians lie to the point that when we prove what they say is a lie we are told that all politicians lie it is a given. And I say then how can you call America a free country and why do you claim to be fighting for freedom? There is no freedom without truth. Lies enslave us all to the human bondage of the will of the liars. Charlie Reese in his last column wrote: "One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country." There must be a better way to govern a country.
There never could be a trial of Bin Laden or any other of the 'alleged' 9/11 conspirators. Too many truths would rise their ugly heads which we cannot afford to have out in public. Our "Cowboy Mentality" wins again.
I still believe that OBL died in 2001. (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23691.htm). That they killed him, and then buried him immediately at sea so that there could be no independent verification was more or less confirmation of this. For me, this has more than the usual Jessica Lynch / Nigeria uranium / pulling of Saddam's statue / WMD / Kuwait incubation massacre smell about it. The megaphone was turned up so very loud on this one in order to silence the doubters. Anyone who doubts the propaganda, when the megaphone is so LOUD, has to be a whackjob afterall.
I guess in me there was not much in me, but a least a distant glimmer of hope that this OBL FRAUD might have been about claiming victory and cutting our losses. But it seems the USA has to get much broker and the population much more desperate than it is currently for that to happen. I guess it must have been partially to flood the news to drown out the bad publicity in Libya, and partially to give Obama a boost in the polls.
But there was no surprise at Clinton's announcement. After all, the Taleban offered Bin Laden for trial in the World Court in the Hague a week before Afghanistan was invaded, and that did absolutely nothing to stop the invasion. Of course if OBL actually had nothing to do with 9/11 then such a trial actually constitutes a threat and this offer could have caused an invasion if one had not already been imminent. But had the stated reason for the invasion, (to get OBL) been genuine, a trial in the world court should have been exactly what the USA wanted.
The late Prime Minister Bhutto stated in 2007 that OBL was dead.
Maybe he died--again!
Who knows what really happened--all I do know is this reaks of bullshit.
All true, but it only applies if the goal was to catch Osama, not to start a war for oil, the MIC and Israel.
And the corporate media is being flooded with 'talking heads' and news items calling anybody who doesn't agree with 'facts' a 'psychopathic conspiracy nut' (words I actually heard when this topic was discussed on the local CBS outlet).
No matter the 'just the facts, ma'am" keep changing as the Obama "Wag the Dog" alumni keep adjusting them for consistency.
At the Capitalist's Cafe.
The George W. Bush administration's main course was to start the war in Iraq
(the menu was created by the Project for the New American Century).
September 11, 2001 gave them the perfect appetizer.
Why would they want to harm the waiter (Osama)?
But then, the waiter became the cherry on top of Obama's dessert.
No tip.
No tab (for them).
Be careful that you don't slip and fall on all of the blood.
PNAC--Birdbrain is spot on.
1. First the story was "Osama did it."
Then the story was "he's unfindable and he taunts us from his hidden cave."
Now the story is "We got him!" and Obama called in the strike personally.
Why they are playing this card now is open to question.
Video -- gets interesting at 1:14:09 mark although the whole film is really well done.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/1049.html
================================
2. He's dead (for the ninth or tenth time.)
His body was thrown into the sea according to Muslim custom...
Uh, oops, there isn't and never has been a Muslim custom of dragging dead bodies hundreds of miles and dumping them at sea.
Oh well, but al Qaeda is real, right?
Sure. It's as real as any other FBI/Hollywood fantasy.
Video:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/59.html
================================
3. They buried his body at sea.
Whose bright idea was that?
Absurd.
Never in history has a man died so many times. I assume this is the last time.
Video:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/1092.html
==============================
Brasscheck TV
2380 California St.
San Francisco, CA 94115
STIV, thank you for both your argute posting and the video website. my father used to remind us from toddlerhood, "believe none of what you hear and only half of what you read; the mark of a sagacious mind is being able to assess which half that might be." however, i long ago concluded my father was delusional; one must believe nothing, particularly from the perfidious mouths of our benighted 'leaders'... one must be more skeptical than a pyrrhonist to survive all these duplicitous politicians, military & corporate spokespersons, and their sycophantic myrmidons in the msm... lest one is left w/out a shred of one's sanity intact. in the late 1960's, while in grad school at the univ. of iowa, i took a course in the rhetoric and public address dept. on how politicians, corporations, the military, and the press manipulate language w/ rhetorical devices to blatantly fabricate, whilst simultaneously appearing to be a sober and honourable purveyor of 'truth'... facts notwithstanding. i was sufficiently naive at the time to be stun-polled. sometimes one yearns for a retrogression to that ambit of innocence. altho' naivety is the 'path of least resistance', it is actually a euphemistic equivoque for 'the laze-factor'.
As far as I can tell there the Americans have never even come close to telling the truth about why they are starting one of their unjustified wars. They are chronic liars and only stupid people would believe the reasons they give for their slaughters.
already in the twenties, the u.s. gov't was thinking about war with japan...
How did such an incompetent ever become president of the US? I understand how a dementia patient could do so because he had handlers that allowed him to cover it up such as his wife, Nancy (a treacherous action to be sure), but how could a verifiable idiot get into that position, not once but twice? Are Americans really that foolish? Bush is totally responsible for the state of chaos that exists in the country and in the world today and he should be considering his mistakes in the comfort of a cell somewhere.
This article by Gareth Porter is one of the best detailed and sourced accounts of the October, 2001 time line of formal and back-channel diplomatic efforts by Mullah Omar's Taliban regime to turn over bin Laden in exchange to avoid a United States invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Muttawakil's description of the attempts to hand over Osama for trial first through the OIC, then through a special court established by Afghanistan and two other Muslim states when Plan A was rejected by the Bushies, is an important piece of history.
Back in late September and early October of 2001, I actually was writing letters to the editor of my local newspaper advocating that rather than a trial in a US court, or a trial in the Hague, instead a trial under Islamic law in a Muslim tribunal was the optimal end result for US national interests. War could be avoided. A conviction (and presumably a death sentence) would enable mainstream Islamic clerics and the vast majority of ordinary Muslims to send a message that desperately needed to be sent. Despite the hysteria of the moment, Islamaphobia was not a matter of necessity. It was a choice.
I had know idea that a workable remedy along those lines was actually in the diplomatic pipeline behind closed doors, only to be brusquely rejected out of hand by the Bush/Cheney White House. Why? This is a significant question that goes far beyond the niceties of "just war theory" under international law.
Gareth Porter suggests that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz questioned "the CIA's conclusion that bin Laden and Al Qaeda were behind the 9/11 attacks", and that "Cheney and Rumsfeld were determined not to allow a focus on bin Laden to interfere with their plan for a US invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein." I find this a very plausible reading of the domestic decision making pecking order at work in the inner circle of the Geroge W. Bush White House during the fall of 2001. This is important nuance.
Osama bin Laden alive somewhere on trial - anywhere in the world, before any sort of secular or religious tribunal - could disavow all linkage of 9/11 to Saddam Hussein's intelligence service, and scoff at the notion of future hand-offs of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq to Al Qaeda. If both Saddam and Osama personally and publicly (plus virtually all internation experts on the shifting rivalries and alliances in the Middle East or within the wider Muslim world) denounced this connection loudly and in unison as a complete fairy tale, Little George and Tony Blair lost their propaganda trump card.
Therefore, Osama dead or Osama maybe alive in hiding, had much more utility than Osama alive and talking. What if, after exculpating Saddam, bin Laden had said the Pakistani ISI or the Saudis had facilitated 9/11? What if Osama said the Mossad had helped? What if he claimed rogue elements within the CIA had enabled the WTC attack?
The tortured, failed diplomatic run up to the 2001 US bombing and invasion of Afghanistan continues to intrigue me. Thank you, Gareth Porter, for helping tease out a glimpse of the devil from inside the murky, highly classified details.
Bill from Saginaw