Posted on 03/04/2002 6:22:39 PM PST by dubyaweluvya
ENRON GAVE TALIBAN $MILLIONS
The Enron Corporation gave the Taliban millions of dollars in a no-holds-barred bid to strike a deal for an energy pipeline in Afghanistan -- wile the Taliban were already sheltering terror kingpin Osama Bin Laden!
Enron executives even met with Taliban officials in Texas, where they were given the red-carpet treatment and promised a fortune if the deal went through.
That's the bombshell finding of an exclusive ENQUIRER investigation into the collapse of the company that ripped off Americans for millions of dollars. The ENQUIRER has also uncovered that some of the Enron money wound up supporting Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist network!
"Enron would do business with the devil if it would make the company money!" said a member of a Congressional committee investigating the company's collapse.
And Atul Davda, who worked as a senior director for Enron's International Division until the company's collapse, confirmed to The ENQUIRER: "Enron had intimate contact with Taliban officials. Building the pipeline was one of the corporation's prime objectives."
As The ENQUIRER revealed two weeks ago, Enron secretly employed CIA agents to carry out its dealings overseas. And a CIA insider disclosed: "Enron was wooing the Taliban and was willing to make the Taliban a partner in the operation of a pipeline through Afghanistan.
"Enron proposed to pay the Taliban large sums of money in a 'tax' on every cubic foot of gas and oil shipped through the pipeline."
Enron shelled out more than $400 million for a feasibility study on the pipeline and "a large portion of that cost was payoffs to the Taliban," said the CIA source.
Shockingly, Enron's wooing of the Taliban continued even after Al Qaeda agents bombed two American embassies in Africa in 1998, and the U.S. retaliated with missile attacks on suspected Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and Sudan.
"The U.S. was shooting missiles into Afghanistan, and it was clear that the Taliban were enabling Bin Laden and Al Qaeda," terrorist expert Jeffrey Steinberg, editor of the Executive Intelligence Review, told The ENQUIRER.
"Nonetheless the oil companies continued to work behind the scenes to complete the pipeline deal."
The pipeline project was originally proposed by Unocal Corporation.
And an FBI source told The ENQUIRER: "Enron and Unocal dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into Afghanistan and the Taliban. The pipeline would relieve our dependence on Saudi Arabia -- and Enron would make billions.
"When Clinton was bombing Bin Laden camps in Afghanistan in 1998, Enron was making payoffs to Taliban and Bin Laden operatives to keep the pipeline project alive. And there's no way that anyone could NOT have known of the Taliban and Bin Laden connection at that time, especially Enron who had CIA agents on its payroll!"
Said an Enron company source, "After the Taliban came to power in 1996, Tliban leaders were invited to Sugar Land, Texas, by Unocal and Enron executives.
"The Taliban's mullahs were given the royal treatment for four days in 1997!"
The visit was aimed at getting Taliban cooperation to build the pipeline, which would carry vast gas and oil deposits from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Enron had exclusive contracts with the former Russian republics, according to another former Enron employee.
The pipeline was to travel through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean.
When contacted by The ENQUIRER, U.S. State Department's press officer for South Asian Affairs, Len Scensny, confirmed that a Taliban delegation visited Sugar Land, Teas, in 1997 to discuss business with oil companies.
Three days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Unocal announced it had withdrawn from the Afghanistan pipeline project.
But the CIA insider said Enron and its CEO Kenneth Lay held on, waiting for the Taliban to give up Bin Laden as the Bush administration was demanding. "Enron figured the Taliban wanted to stick to their deal, that they wanted riches the same way Enron did.
"What Enron and Ken Lay didn't understand is that it was Bin Laden who was calling the shots, not Enron's Taliban friends.
"Now Enron and the Taliban are both goners!"
Published on: March 4, 2002
At the time, the U.S. only had a problem with Bin Laden, so Enron has an excuse.
It's the kid down the street growing a pot plant in his/her back yard that is giving the talibunnies their millions... Not a fine, upstanding american OIL producing corporation... Surely you jest.
If this is possibly true, would someone please help an old Grampa's fading memory.
Who was our President in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999?
So while X42 was wasting cruise missiles on camels and $10 Rei tents in Afghanistan, he, the CIA, and the Talibaners were real cozy?
Calling Ms Hilldebeast, please stop hugging Mrs Arafatty and return all the campaign funds from The American Muslems and then tell us you knew nothing about this!
If true, Demron strikes again. What were Leaky Leahy and Tommy Da$$hole doing during this time. Probably filling up huge suitcases of money from both sides!
Paging Joey LIEberman, Jino, senator, please investigate this while you are at it!
However, this could mess up some panties of the party of theives/terrorists/traitors, the Demonicrats in DC!
DEMRONGATE STRIKES BACK
"The Taliban's mullahs were given the royal treatment for four days in 1997!"
Well, I didn't see them in Sugar Land so it's not be true.
Great analysis! Isn't Lanny Davis, Clintoon's old lawyer/advisor buddy a high muckity muck with the Enquirer? If so this makes your analysis even more important!
"When Clinton was bombing Bin Laden camps in Afghanistan in 1998, Enron was making payoffs to Taliban and Bin Laden operatives to keep the pipeline project alive. And there's no way that anyone could NOT have known of the Taliban and Bin Laden connection at that time, especially Enron who had CIA agents on its payroll!"
Obviously Clinton was completely unaware.
http://truthout.com/01.09B.Zahn.Butler.htm
"AMERICAN MORNING WITH PAULA ZAHN, CNN
Explosive New Book Published in France Alleges that U.S. Was in Negotiations to Do a Deal with Taliban
Aired January 8, 2002 - 07:34 ET
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Time to check in with ambassador-in- residence, Richard Butler, this morning. An explosive new book published in France alleges that the United States was in negotiations to do a deal with the Taliban for an oil pipeline in Afghanistan.
Joining us right now is Richard Butler to shed some light on this new book. He is the former chief U.N. weapons inspector. He is now on the Council on Foreign Relations and our own ambassador-in- residence -- good morning.
RICHARD BUTLER, FMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good morning, Paula.
ZAHN: Boy, if any of these charges are true...
BUTLER: If...
ZAHN: ... this...
BUTLER: Yes.
ZAHN: ... is really big news.
BUTLER: I agree.
ZAHN: Start off with what your understanding is of what is in this book -- the most explosive charge.
BUTLER: The most explosive charge, Paula, is that the Bush administration -- the present one, just shortly after assuming office slowed down FBI investigations of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan in order to do a deal with the Taliban on oil -- an oil pipeline across Afghanistan.
ZAHN: And this book points out that the FBI's deputy director, John O'Neill, actually resigned because he felt the U.S. administration was obstructing...
BUTLER: A proper...
ZAHN: ... the prosecution of terrorism.
BUTLER: Yes, yes, a proper intelligence investigation of terrorism. Now, you said if, and I affirmed that in responding to you. We have to be careful here. These are allegations. They're worth airing and talking about, because of their gravity. We don't know if they are correct. But I believe they should be investigated, because Central Asian oil, as we were discussing yesterday, is potentially so important. And all prior attempts to have a pipeline had to be done through Russia. It had to be negotiated with Russia.
Now, if there is to be a pipeline through Afghanistan, obviating the need to deal with Russia, it would also cost less than half of what a pipeline through Russia would cost. So financially and politically, there's a big prize to be had. A pipeline through Afghanistan down to the Pakistan coast would bring out that Central Asian oil easier and more cheaply.
ZAHN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) as you spoke about this yesterday, we almost immediately got a call from "The New York Times."
BUTLER: Right.
ZAHN: They want you to write an op-ed piece on this over the weekend.
BUTLER: Right, and which I will do.
ZAHN: But let's come back to this whole issue of what John O'Neill, this FBI agent...
BUTLER: Right.
ZAHN: ... apparently told the authors of this book. He is alleging that -- what -- the U.S. government was trying to protect U.S. oil interests? And at the same time, shut off the investigation of terrorism to allow for that to happen?
BUTLER: That's the allegation that instead of prosecuting properly an investigation of terrorism, which has its home in Afghanistan as we now know, or one of its main homes, that was shut down or slowed down in order to pursue oil interests with the Taliban. The people who we have now bombed out of existence, and this not many months ago. The book says that the negotiators said to the Taliban, you have a choice. You have a carpet of gold, meaning an oil deal, or a carpet of bombs. That's what the book alleges.
ZAHN: Well, I know you're going to be doing your own independent homework on this...
BUTLER: Yes.
ZAHN: ... to see if you can confirm any of this. Let's move on to the whole issue of Iraq. The deputy defense secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, at one time was considered one of those voices within the administration...
BUTLER: Yes.
ZAHN: ... that was pushing for moving beyond Afghanistan. He seemed to back off a little from that yesterday.
BUTLER: Yes. ZAHN: What do you read through the tea leaves here?
BUTLER: A very interesting report that the administration will focus on the Philippines, Yemen, Somalia as places where there are al Qaeda cells. But the word Iraq wasn't used by the man who was the chief hawk -- used as a, you know, as a future target. So what I interpret from that is this: That very likely our allies have been saying to us, this is too hard. This is really serious. Be careful. Saddam is essentially contained at the moment. Don't start, you know, a bigger problem either in the Arab world or in the coalition by going after him. And Wolfowitz, it seems, has probably accepted that.
ZAHN: A quick thought on the Israelis intercepting this latest armed shipment? What that means? You've got to do it in about 15 seconds.
BUTLER: It's extraordinarily serious, because it seems to have been tied to Yasser Arafat himself. It needs to be further investigated, but you know, Paula, the potentiality that this could once again prove an impediment to resume peace negotiations is really quite serious.
ZAHN: Thank you as usual for covering so much territory. Richard Butler, see you same time, same place tomorrow morning.
BUTLER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
ZAHN: We appreciate your insights.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.