|
| Did the White House Give the Taliban $43 Million? |
|
Posted by FoM on September 28, 2001 at 12:41:36 PT By Dan Kennedy Source: Boston Phoenix 
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, a little-noticed decision by the Bush administration last May has emerged as a powerful symbol of US fecklessness.According to commentators of all ideological stripes — from the Nation’s Christopher Hitchens on the left to the New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg in the center to the Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly on the right — the US gave $43 million to Afghanistan’s Taliban government as a reward for its efforts to stamp out opium-poppy cultivation. That would have been a shockingly inappropriate gift to a government that had been sanctioned by the United Nations for its refusal to hand over international terrorist Osama bin Laden. Would have been, that is, if it had really happened. It didn’t. The truth is contained in the transcript of a briefing given by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who on May 17 announced the $43 million grant; it was aimed at alleviating a famine that threatened the lives of four million Afghans. Far from handing the money over to the Taliban, Powell went out of his way to criticize them, and to explain the steps the United States was taking to keep the money out of their hands. " We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, " Powell said. " We provide our relief to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan’s ruling factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it. " Powell did say one favorable thing about the Taliban: " We will continue to look for ways to provide more assistance for Afghans, including those farmers who have felt the impact of the ban on poppy cultivation, a decision by the Taliban that we welcome. " The bottom line, though, was — or should have been — easy enough to comprehend: humanitarian aid for Afghans, yes; money for the Taliban, no. (On Tuesday, the Taliban reversed themselves, announcing that opium production will resume if the US attacks.) Most media reports of Powell’s announcement got it right. Within days, though, the commentators began making hash of it. Among the first was Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer, who on May 22 criticized the Bush administration for its " recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. " Scheer did not respond to my requests for comment, so I can’t be sure where he got his information. But his Web site credits a New York Times article of May 18 that, though accurate, glosses over the matter of who precisely would receive the $43 million. Scheer apparently drew the wrong conclusion. A computer search for " Taliban " and " $43 million " since September 11 shows that Scheer’s error has become accepted wisdom. News organizations from Salon to the Denver Post have all repeated it as proof that the US has been coddling terrorists. Locally, Jay Severin, a talk-show host on WTKK Radio (96.9 FM), has been eviscerating the Bush White House. Asked where he got his information, Severin cited a column by the New York Post’s Michelle Malkin. Now, I’ll concede that Malkin got it more right than most. She noted that the money was intended to relieve Afghan suffering, but went on to say, " It’s money the Taliban don’t have to spend feeding their people, buying them medicine or building them houses, " thus freeing them to buy " guns and bombs ... missiles and aircraft " and " pilot training and living expenses for bin Laden’s followers in the US. " But that’s a specious argument, given that the Taliban have never shown the slightest inclination to feed, clothe, or otherwise care for the people of Afghanistan. Eli Lake, who covers the State Department for UPI and who wrote an accurate report about the $43 million grant last May, calls the notion that the White House gave the money to the Taliban as a reward for their anti-drug efforts " just absurd. " He notes that one of the Bush administration’s first actions upon taking office was to shut down the Taliban’s mission in New York, in compliance with UN sanctions. Lake recalls a conversation he had with Andrew Natsios, the former Massachusetts politico who is now the White House’s point man for foreign aid, around the time that the $43 million grant was announced. " He explained that the Bush administration, as a matter of policy, did not want to link needed aid to political considerations, " Lake says — whether it be in Afghanistan or in other rogue states with starving, suffering populations, such as Sudan and North Korea. It’s too bad, but not surprising, that some elements of the media couldn’t get it right. After all, no good deed, as they say, goes unpunished. Note: After this item was posted, I heard from Brendan Nyhan, of the Web site -- http://www.Spinsanity.org -- letting me know that he had reported on Scheer's error last June - and that he, in turn, had picked up on this from the Web site LeftWatch.com, which got the goods on Scheer way back on May 22, the very day his column appeared in the Los Angeles Times. Nyhan's Spinsanity piece can be found at: http://www.spinsanity.org/posts/200106-3.html#12a and that, in turn, includes a link to the original LeftWatch.com -- http://leftwatch.com/ -- report. Obviously I'm going to have to start reading both Web sites more regularly. Source: Boston Phoenix (MA) Related Articles: Drug War Redux - Reason Magazine Bush Administration Cut Faustian Deal with Taliban Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #8 posted by FoM on September 28, 2001 at 19:26:25 PT |
| Thank You for saying all those nice things about all of us.
It is a nice community. I've had a life that has been at times very hard and all I want is to be able to live my life and enjoy my life with my husband and family and have people to talk to on line that have a common interest. That is what we have and you can visit with people whenever you can and that is really something. I still marvel at the Internet. I get dazzled easily I guess! LoL! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by Shishaldin on September 28, 2001 at 16:59:08 PT |
| Greetings fellow SCruzer SParker (and of course, FoM, Kapt, dddd, S_O, Dan B, freedom fighter, observer, et al)! I'm a long time lurker & infrequent poster, but CNews does have a *fine* on-line commmunity, one I begin to miss badly if I'm away more than a day or two. The depth and breadth of knowledge, wisdom, guts, and just plain humanity that appears on these pages is truly inspiring. In these "interesting times", it's reassuring to know that others feel and think the same way I do. Happy Posting SParker! If you see a Nissan on Hwy 1 with a stopthedrugwar.org bumper sticker on it, flash a peace sign at the driver and say hi. A note to FoM, KEEP ON KEEPIN' ON. You're doing one hell of a job! Your efforts are appreciated more than you know... Peace and Strength, Shishaldin [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by FoM on September 28, 2001 at 14:48:21 PT |
| That was so nice and you are welcome here. We do have a fine group of people. I had to laugh when I saw dddd and Dan's comments when I was away today. It is a good community of people that are smart but most of all considerate of others. That's what I like so much about C News. Enjoy! [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #5 posted by sparker on September 28, 2001 at 14:37:54 PT:
|
| Sorry about the old article link. It was listed under today's Bush Watch (www.bushnews.com) Headlines, so I assumed it was more current. Then I was so blown away by what I read that I never even noticed the publication date. Anyway, at least it got me past my initial inertia of figuring out how to register and post comments. Good luck keeping me quiet now! This website and it's regular user community are just the best. I've been a regular reader for so long now that I almost feel like I know you guys, and I am very proud to have you in my extended family. I look forward to further working through my "shyness" and giving you a chance to get to know me. Peace and Love from Santa Cruz! SParker [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by FoM on September 28, 2001 at 14:07:51 PT |
| If you look up in the left hand corner of the article you will see a published date and it was May 1, 2001. It is an interesting article though. I guess they will be keeping the link so that's good. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #3 posted by sparker on September 28, 2001 at 13:34:41 PT:
|
| Here's a scary little nugget from (believe it or not) the ABC News website. I hope FoM can get it posted here before you-know-who makes them take it down. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #2 posted by tdm on September 28, 2001 at 13:25:23 PT:
|
| of the ways tax dollars meant for "good" purposes are in no way assured of achieving their goal. The government's role is not to do good in the world; it is to defend its citizens right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from violent or coercive attackers. I would gladly volunteer my tax dollars if I knew the government would only use them to protect me and my property from harm. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on September 28, 2001 at 13:09:52 PT:
|
| for the horrors they have committed against their own people...with our money? There's an old English saying: "To share the wealth, the Communist's willing; He'll tax your last penny but keep his shilling." Think about this: all during the Cold War, we gave trade credits to the Soviets. Their economy couldn't have lasted 10 years without those massive infusions of 'aid'. And what did they do with it? 'Invest' it in their military machine oriented economy...and threaten us with its products. Granted, some of that aid went to food...mostly for the bellies of the Sov soldiers. The civilians saw precious little of it, as 4D can no doubt tell you of the long lines they stood in, in hopes of getting anything. While Party apparatchiks went to special stores; rewards for their loyalty. My point? The food the Tali's got as part of this money went only to people under Tali control...and as the old saying goes, "Whose bread I eat, his song I sing." They were given that money partly because of their 'staunch' anti-drug efforts. Yeah, right. Why else would the US support a regime bent on it's destruction? The White House can back-pedal all it wants, but the proof of the pudding is right there. They were suckered, and now the Tali's threaten to unleash cheap opiates upon the world as if it were a kind of weapon. From the storage warehouses where they had kept their supply all along. While they destroyed their own people's supply as a gesture to gain our attention. Kept their 'shilling', just as many of us had expected. The administration has several pounds of egg on it's face...attached with super glue. And no amount of loud protests to the contarty can remove this sign of infinite gullibility...and culpability in the murders of those killed in the stadiums by Tali's fed with US taxpayer funded food in their stomachs. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |