Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rep. ROHRABACHER (1999) -- How the Clinton Administration brought the Taliban to power
Senate testimony | April 14, 1999 | Rep. Dana Rohrabacher

Posted on 09/28/2001 7:01:18 PM PDT by Nita Nupress

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

1 posted on 09/28/2001 7:01:18 PM PDT by Nita Nupress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nita Nupress
bmmmmp
2 posted on 09/28/2001 7:07:11 PM PDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nita Nupress
The woman who ran the Clinton administration is now a member of the U.S. Senate. I do believe this makes Hillary Rodham Clinton a security threat to this nation.
3 posted on 09/28/2001 7:07:19 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
Yes, I do believe if she had to choose, she may just choose Arafat's wife over her New York constituents.

Come to think of it... she already did.

4 posted on 09/28/2001 7:12:28 PM PDT by Nita Nupress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nita Nupress
In the State Department, eh? You might have seen this earlier:

Terrorists had a friend in Clinton White House called Robin

Attention is sure to be focused on the role of Robin Raphel, former assistant secretary of state, in downplaying the threat from Taliban, as the gaze turns inwards.

The diplomat who had upset India by her insensitive remarks over Kashmir, aggressively pushed for staying engaged with the Taliban even when evidence available with the State Department pointed to the futility of winking at the abysmal human rights record and fundamentalist agenda of the clerics ruling from Kabul.

The examination of documents may give a new turn to the debate on whether there was an intelligence failure behind the success of the terrorists.

Sources, who are familiar with the contents of the reports submitted by the counter-terrorism and South Asia desks of the State Department, feel that attacks were perhaps facilitated by the failure to act on the intelligence available with it.

Lots of other stuff on this thread too...

5 posted on 09/28/2001 7:18:08 PM PDT by Brian Mosely
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely
Hey, wait a minute. Liberal peacenics and newsies have been telling us that the Taliban is a result of U.S. support of the Afghans against Soviet invasion. They would not mislead U.S., would they?
6 posted on 09/28/2001 7:25:22 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nita Nupress
vellly interesting--bump
7 posted on 09/28/2001 7:29:54 PM PDT by d14truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nita Nupress
The liberals are responsible for this mess. They have done great harm to America.
8 posted on 09/28/2001 7:30:23 PM PDT by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely
Thanks, Brian. I was looking for that link but got sidetracked when I saw something about Ozzy Osborne!

Actually, I was looking up info on Robin Raphel when I ran across Rohrabacher's Senate testimony.

I would get a lot more done if I could ever stay focused. :)

9 posted on 09/28/2001 7:36:23 PM PDT by Nita Nupress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely
It is my guess that this amoral, or immoral policy is based on the assumption that the Taliban would bring stability to Afghanistan and permit the building of oil pipelines from central Asia through Afghanistan to Pakistan.

Does Occidental Petrol factor into the desire for pipeline development?

10 posted on 09/28/2001 7:36:39 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nita Nupress
Attention Daffy Duck. Happens to all of us at some time.
11 posted on 09/28/2001 7:38:46 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter
I'm not sure...check this link...it's a source from the thread I posted above.

During two trips to Pakistan and Afghanistan in April and August 1996, US Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphael frequently lobbied for the Unocal pipeline, according to Pakistani and Afghan diplomats. In August, Raphael also visited Central Asian capitals and Moscow. "We have an American company which is interested in building a pipeline from Turkmenistan through to Pakistan," Raphael said at a press conference in Islamabad on April 21, 1996. "This pipeline project will be very good for Turkmenistan, for Pakistan and for Afghanistan."

12 posted on 09/28/2001 7:43:10 PM PDT by Brian Mosely
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bryan John Haung2
This should be widely read.
13 posted on 09/28/2001 7:46:43 PM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter
"Does Occidental Petrol factor into the desire for pipeline development?"

Wondered about that as well. But given that this was Clinton's (mis)handling and probably with help from Hillary; it is probably an Occidental Petrol competitor. . .

They never liked the Gore's. . .

14 posted on 09/28/2001 7:49:31 PM PDT by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
The woman who ran the Clinton administration is now a member of the U.S. Senate. I do believe this makes Hillary Rodham Clinton a security threat to this nation.

Indeed. And let us sincerely hope that she never ends up back in the White House. The thought of Freepers rallying around her in wartime would be pretty ugly.

15 posted on 09/28/2001 7:49:50 PM PDT by Pay now bill Clinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nita Nupress
A stronger Taliban is undoubtedly part of Clinton's legacy, but bin Laden would likely have attemtped this attack anyway. We need to destroy the Taliban, but the first target must be Al Qaeda. The cunning that allowed these attacks to succeed came from the Saudi and Egyptian members of Al Qaeda whose countries are modern enough to give them a background that would allow them to operate covertly in America.

WFTR
Something that Hasn't Changed (Stop Blaming America!).
Bill

16 posted on 09/28/2001 7:52:31 PM PDT by WFTR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter, Brian Mosely
There's something in here about Unocal.

As for Clinton, this looks like "anticipatory damage control" to me -- Send someone after Inderfurth for an interview to "set the record straight" just in case Rohrabacher's words make the news cycle. I notice they didn't send anyone to interview Rohrabacker. :-)


Not for commercial use. Solely to be used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion.

The Boston Globe
September 20, 2001, Thursday ,THIRD EDITION  NATIONAL/FOREIGN; Pg. A32

 AMERICA PREPARES SHAPING STRATEGY / A COURTSHIP; US TRIED TO WOO TALIBAN IN '90S
 By Anthony Shadid, and John Donnelly, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON - During the Clinton administration, US diplomats held more than a dozen meetings with Taliban officials in a courtship aimed at getting the Afghan leadership to moderate its views and create the basis for a stable, broad-based government.

The meetings, at the level of ambassador and assistant secretary of state, took place off and on throughout the 1990s and were held in Washington and New York, in Kandahar and Kabul in Afghanistan, and in Peshawar and Islamabad in Pakistan.

That courtship persisted even after Osama bin Laden was blamed for the deadly attacks on two US embassies in Africa in 1998 and after US forces bombed his Afghanistan base.

At the same time, a similar private-sector effort was underway. A US-led consortium sought to win the Taliban's backing for a Central Asian pipeline that would carry oil and gas through Afghanistan. As part of that diplomacy, Taliban members were entertained in Houston and hosted at the University of Nebraska in a bid for their support. Though ultimately unfruitful, those contacts signified what US officials and others had hoped would be flexibility in the Taliban, a cast of fervent clerics and hardened war veterans who first emerged in Afghanistan in 1994.

"In the beginning, it was a question of who they were and whether they could establish some sort of law and order," said Karl F. Inderfurth, who oversaw relations with Afghanistan at the State Department from 1997 to 2000. "The feeling was, 'Gosh, wouldn't it be great to have some commercial undertakings.' "

Inderfurth and other US diplomats insist that Washington never supported the Taliban, even though two of its main allies in the region, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, were instrumental in the Taliban's rise and conquest of Kabul in 1996.

"The idea that we 'supported' the Taliban was never true," said Robin Raphel, Inderfurth's predecessor as assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs from 1993 to 1997.

"What we did do was treat them like the other factions," Raphel said. "As time goes by, they became what they've become, which is extremely conservative, and indulged all their worst instincts."

Despite their harsh restrictions - forcing men to wear beards, enforcing head-to-toe covering for women, and banning girls from school - the Taliban were welcomed early on by many Afghans. They were seen as bringing law and order to regions menaced for years by militias and bandits. Some of that sentiment was echoed at the time by a State Department spokesman who expressed hope the Taliban could "restore law and order."

"It wasn't immediately clear how dreadfully conservative they were going to be," Raphel said in an interview. She was among the first US officials to meet the Taliban in Afghanistan, where she traveled in April 1996 with other US officials.

The diplomats landed at Kandahar airport, a sprawling facility built in the 1970s with US aid and now bearing the scars of years of war. They were welcomed by Taliban representatives in turbans and flowing beards who escorted them for talks that lasted three hours at the old Governor's House.

Their specific mission: They sought the release of a seven-man Russian air crew detained for eight months. As in most of the meetings, the agenda broadened to the question of a political solution for the country.

"They were very polite," recalled Raphel, who wore loose garments and a head scarf out of respect for the Taliban's fierce insistence that women be covered. "They were quite respectful of me and of my position, and we pushed them hard on all issues. It was kind of a standoff, and we left."

Raphel met Taliban officials a half-dozen times.

Inderfurth kept up the policy, even as bin Laden - residing in areas under Taliban control - was blamed for the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. He met with Taliban officials in New York, Washington, Islamabad, and Kandahar.

"The Taliban will not go away," he said at a Senate hearing in October 1998. "This is a reality."

But by late 1997, Inderfurth said more recently, it was becoming very clear to US officials that the Taliban were not going to budge on human rights questions or on turning over bin Laden.

In November 1997, after Inderfurth and others held several unfruitful meetings with the Taliban on bin Laden and rights for women, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright visited the Pakistan border with Afghanistan and called the Taliban's treatment of women "despicable."

"By then, we knew that a lot of things would have to be addressed before we could move forward in any way with them," Inderfurth said.

But others thought the lack of clear opposition from the start gave a different message. Even after Albright's declaration, Bill Richardson, then US ambassador to the United Nations, met Taliban officials in Kabul in early 1998.

In part, the ambiguity revolved around the prospect of building a pipeline that would run roughly 1,000 miles from the Caspian Sea region through Afghanistan to the Indian subcontinent, a proposal that Raphel described as a "fabulous opportunity." Two groups vied for the project: Bridas, an Argentine oil company, and a US-Saudi consortium led by Unocal.

US officials say the project could have contributed millions of dollars to Afghanistan, whose war-wrecked economy relies largely on the thriving opium trade and international aid. More compelling for policy makers was the prospect of circumventing Iran, which offered another route for the pipeline.

For that project to work, stability was needed in Afghanistan, and the Taliban seemed to offer the best chance of reaching that goal.

At that time, US officials sent strong signals to Pakistan and the Arab world that Washington would not object to commercial ties, or perhaps diplomatic links, with the Taliban, said Abdul Raheem Yaseer, assistant director of the Center for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Nebraska in Omaha.

"The blessing of America for the development and success of the Taliban at the beginning affected everybody," Yaseer said. "It affected Unocal. They believed the Taliban might succeed, might have control of the country, and so everybody wanted to have them on their side. That's why Unocal wanted to cut a deal, because the Taliban already had the blessing of the Americans, Arab world, and Pakistanis.

"The US never admitted supporting the Taliban, but everyone knew the US was giving approval to whatever they were doing early on," he said.

Charles Santos, a vice president of a consortium partner, the Saudi-owned Delta oil company, said the consortium was never intent on undertaking the pipeline under a Taliban government and that the Taliban's lack of flexibility eventually doomed the project in 1998.

Along the way, Unocal, the consortium's main partner, engaged in its own private diplomacy. In early December 1997, a group of eight Taliban officials arrived in Houston as guests of the company.

Over four days, they held meetings with Unocal officals and also asked to do a little sightseeing. Unocal spokesman Mike Thatcher recalled that they wanted to see NASA headquarters south of Houston and a local shopping mall, where they reportedly bought stockings, toothpaste, combs, and soap.

They were also feted at the home of Marty F. Miller, then a Unocal vice president, where they reportedly marveled at his swimming pool and his Christmas tree, wanting to know why there was a star on top.

The group then traveled to the University of Nebraska. There, they toured the Center for Afghanistan Studies for two days. Yaseer, the assistant director, remembered one man in particular, who Yaseer said was an agent for Pakistani intelligence, which played a decisive role in the Taliban's rise.

"The group knew it," Yaseer said. "I resented his presence here. I never smiled at him, never said hello. I even approached some of the members of the group and asked, 'Why is he spying on you guys?' "

Five members of the group, including the suspected spy, left. Three stayed behind, because Mullah Ghows, at one time the Taliban's acting foreign minister, had become ill and stayed for a week in the hospital, said Thomas E. Gouttierre, head of the university's Afghanistan program.

Two other members, meanwhile, went on a tour of western Nebraska and South Dakota. "We showed them everything," Gouttierre said. "We went to the Black Hills, saw the museums. We even took them to Mount Rushmore, which they liked very much."



17 posted on 09/28/2001 7:52:42 PM PDT by Nita Nupress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Free the USA
IndiaVotes
18 posted on 09/28/2001 7:55:52 PM PDT by Stentor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nita Nupress
Agree regarding Clinton. He is exposed on several fronts. On the one hand you have articles like this. In addition you have the "father of triangulation", Dick Morris, out there calling the case against Microsoft "Clinton's case" instead of "the governments case". Huge distinction here. Imagine that the "faux wealth" created with debt during the Clinton administration has all but vanished. If Schippers can get anywhere with his attempt to tie this group of terrorists to the OKC bombing, then Clinton is toast. Look forward to some serious spinning over the next few days, weeks, months...
19 posted on 09/28/2001 8:04:47 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter
Thanks Nita for your efforts. . .this is really incredible. .The 'other' thread has the 'incredible' as well.

Hope everyone will send this info and/or links to friends, students. . .

Maybe even print some; keep them handy to pass on to a Liberal, on the street. ..in your office; or the friend you are having lunch with.

"They should be held responsible for their policies, and the American people should know, through documented proof, what they are doing."

Who knew? . . .and who knew and did not report?

a p.s. of sorts. . .Interesting this blatent lie of a story is surfacing; Washington Post as well. . .as more information shreds the Clinton's. . .there was another posted earlier from Counterpunch. . .Guess they KNOW the truth will soon hit the fan; and they are already spinning to detract/deflect. . .

The article, Posted/Titled 'Shameless Leftist Lies'. . . 'Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban', is an attack on George W. Bush for changing U.S. foreign policy toward the extremist Islamic government of Afghanistan. Scheer writes. . .

20 posted on 09/28/2001 8:24:56 PM PDT by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson