Write Review
1,979,141 Total Reviews 4,046 New Reviews
9,311 Users Online

Politics and Religion

more holes for the Obama narrative..
NeedleDicktheBugFucker 22 Reviews 3709 reads
posted

Osama bin Laden mission agreed in secret 10 years ago by US and Pakistan
Posted by guardian.co.uk on 05/10/2011 at 10:01 AM
0diggsdigg
The deal was struck between Pervez Musharraf and George Bush in 2001 and renewed during the 'transition to democracy' – a six-month period from February 2008 when Musharraf was still president but a civilian government had been elected. Photograph: Joshua Roberts/Reuters


The US and Pakistan struck a secret deal almost a decade ago permitting a US operation against Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil similar to last week's raid that killed the al-Qaida leader, the Guardian has learned.

The deal was struck between the military leader General Pervez Musharraf and President George Bush after Bin Laden escaped US forces in the mountains of Tora Bora in late 2001, according to serving and retired Pakistani and US officials.

Under its terms, Pakistan would allow US forces to conduct a unilateral raid inside Pakistan in search of Bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the al-Qaida No3. Afterwards, both sides agreed, Pakistan would vociferously protest the incursion.

"There was an agreement between Bush and Musharraf that if we knew where Osama was, we were going to come and get him," said a former senior US official with knowledge of counterterrorism operations. "The Pakistanis would put up a hue and cry, but they wouldn't stop us."

The deal puts a new complexion on the political storm triggered by Bin Laden's death in Abbottabad, 35 miles north of Islamabad, where a team of US navy Seals assaulted his safe house in the early hours of 2 May.

Pakistani officials have insisted they knew nothing of the raid, with military and civilian leaders issuing a strong rebuke to the US. If the US conducts another such assault, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani warned parliament on Monday, "Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force."

Days earlier, Musharraf, now running an opposition party from exile in London, emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the raid, terming it a "violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan".

But under the terms of the secret deal, while Pakistanis may not have been informed of the assault, they had agreed to it in principle.

A senior Pakistani official said it had been struck under Musharraf and renewed by the army during the "transition to democracy" – a six-month period from February 2008 when Musharraf was still president but a civilian government had been elected.

Referring to the assault on Bin Laden's Abbottabad compound, the official added: "As far as our American friends are concerned, they have just implemented the agreement."

The former US official said the Pakistani protests of the past week were the "public face" of the deal. "We knew they would deny this stuff."

The agreement is consistent with Pakistan's unspoken policy towards CIA drone strikes in the tribal belt, which was revealed by the WikiLeaks US embassy cables last November. In August 2008, Gilani reportedly told a US official: "I don't care if they do it, as long as they get the right people. We'll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it."

As drone strikes have escalated in the tribal belt over the past year, senior civilian and military officials issued pro forma denunciations even as it became clear the Pakistani military was co-operating with the covert programme.

The former US official said that impetus for the co-operation, much like the Bin Laden deal, was driven by the US. "It didn't come from Musharraf's desire. On the Predators, we made it very clear to them that if they weren't going to prosecute these targets, we were, and there was nothing they could do to stop us taking unilateral action.

"We told them, over and again: 'We'll stop the Predators if you take these targets out yourselves.'"

Despite several attempts to contact his London office, the Guardian has been unable to obtain comment from Musharraf.

Since Bin Laden's death, Pakistan has come under intense US scrutiny, including accusations that elements within Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence helped hide the al-Qaida leader.

On Sunday, President Barack Obama said Bin Laden must have had "some sort of support network" inside Pakistan.

"We don't know whether there might have been some people inside of government, outside of government, and that's something we have to investigate," Obama said.

Gilani has stood firmly by the ISI, describing it as a "national asset", and said claims that Pakistan was "in cahoots" with al-Qaida were "disingenuous".

"Allegations of complicity or incompetence are absurd," he said. "We didn't invite Osama bin Laden to Pakistan."

Gilani said the army had launched an investigation into how Bin Laden managed to hide inside Pakistan. Senior generals will give a briefing on the furore to parliament next Friday.

Gilani paid lip-service to the alliance with America and welcomed a forthcoming visit from the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, but pointedly paid tribute to help from China, whom he described as "a source of inspiration for the people of Pakistan".

inicky461823 reads

but why does it poke holes in Obama's story?  I don't recall the Administration saying anything about what deal may or may not have existed in 2001.  Any such deal would have lapsed with the new Paki gov't. anway.  Was there a new deal or understanding?  WHo knows and who cares?  So what's the point?  Deal or no deal, the SEALs were ordered to go in and get Osama and they did.

ReplyQuoteReport
NeedleDicktheBugFucker2063 reads

This question was answered in the very first sentence of the story. Did you read the story?

"""The deal was struck between Pervez Musharraf and George Bush in 2001 and renewed during the 'transition to democracy' – a six-month period from February 2008 when Musharraf was still president but a civilian government had been elected.""""

Nevertheless, much is being made about what a "bold decision" Obama made with one of the elements being the potential for straining relations with Pokiston. With this agreement already in place, there was no political risk.

I've got no problem creditting Obama with pulling the trigger on this whole deal. What I do have a problem with is his minions acting as if he's some kind of gunslinger. I mean we've all seen the pictures of the situation room. He was safe and sound in DC, yukking it up with his pets in the press while the SEALS were the ones taking ALL the risk.

I also have a problem with his sychophants acting as if "credit" were finite. I've taken a LOT of shit over the years backing some of the things Bush did. Excuse me if I indulge in a little vindication, ya know what I mean?

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky461177 reads

I did miss the second half of the sentence, and yes I read the rest of it.  But, as the story points out, the new government hadn't taken office yet.  We have no idea whether they accepted Musharraf's "renewal" of the old deal (if it ever existed, which you simply assume).  The new government resulted from Musharraf being virtually run out of office, and they may not have known about the agreement at all.  Was it written down anywhere?  Are you that familiar with it? I doubt it. And, if such a deal was in place, the Pakis are certainly raising holy hell about the raid.  Well, OK, maybe they reserved the right to do that as cover for giving it "a wink and a nod."  The point is, you don't know and neither do I.
Still, you can be sure the Pakis were never informed of the raid first, because they couldn't have been trusted with the info.  Also, keep in mind that, according to stories printed today, the SEALs were prepared to shoot their way out, if necessary.  Not exactly what you prepare for if the locals are on your side.  In the end, it's all a question of what you want to believe.
Finally,  I don't think any of this matters in terms of giving Obama credit for taking a huge risk.  Even if the Pakis were secretly OK with it, if things went wrong -- and lots could have gone wrong -- it was Obama who would have taken the political fall.
I'm not sure what "vindication" you find in your version of this, but it's hard for me to see any.  I've already given Bush some credit for supporting the military assets that pulled this off but don't see anything else to laud him for.

-- Modified on 5/10/2011 6:27:55 PM

ReplyQuoteReport
NeedleDicktheBugFucker1031 reads

The vast majority of the American people support going after Osama and certainly if anything had gone wrong 1. people understand nothing goes perfect in war, and 2. His press would have been certain to accentuate only the positive.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky461164 reads

If the mission had failed he would have been roasted and portrayed as weak and feckless because people only understand "nothing goes perfect in war" for someone they already support.  His press would certainly have tried to accentuate the positive...but what positive would there have been?  Especially if some of our people got killed.  I think to portray this as a "no risk" mission is completely wrong.  I think people who do that are those who want desperately to give Obama as little credit as they possibly can.

ReplyQuoteReport
NeedleDicktheBugFucker1661 reads

by some. His dithering overnight about the mission did nothing BTW to change that perception.

He would have only lost MORE ground on that issue if he HAD NOT pulled the trigger.

I'm perhaps overstating the case by saying there was "no risk". But it is a severe overstatement to call it HUGE.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky461558 reads

How do you know he "dithered?"  I'd say he deliberated.  And what harm did it do?  Clearly none, based on results.  Actually, it's kinda nice to have a President who thinks before he acts, asks tough questions and then does what's needed.  And, yes, I think it was a huge risk, based on what could have happened.  Like, for instance, Osama could have been elsewhere and the Pakis could have surrounded our guys in the compound, followed by a blood-bath.  I wonder what you'd have said then?

ReplyQuoteReport
NeedleDicktheBugFucker1518 reads

anyone can play the hypothetical game. what if while Obama THOUGHT and THOUGHT, and THOUGHT, Obama slipped out?

What would you be saying then?

On risk, in light of the FACT that none other than the previous CIC said Saddam Hussien had, and would surely use again, WMD, against the backdrop of 9/11, what would Bush haters be saying IF it were shown that Iraqi WMD ended up killing 100,000 Americans in say a 9/11 style attack on a major metropolitan area?

We know what they were saying about the August PDB.."Bin Ladin Determined to attack". Lefties considered THAT a warning and blamed Bush for not preventing 9/11.

Again, what would they be saying in light of these warnings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjcofMFHsA

Tell me about risks...

ReplyQuoteReport
mattradd1778 reads

I've heard someone make that claim. Oh, ya! And, the Republicans, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, all of them would have given him a pass if he failed, right???

ReplyQuoteReport
NeedleDicktheBugFucker971 reads

They dont count. I'm just refering to the average citizen. Though this is one thing about Obama I've noticed. More then anyone I've ever seen, he plays to the Cacophony. His responses often sound like someone fiddling to and fro like we do on messages boards.

Reality is, even if the mission had gone terribly wrong, (it was MONTHS of planning) the average citizen would have understood especially since the press is so sympathetic to him. Remember Chris Matthews, saying he was going to make it his mission that Obama succeed?

As it is, Rachel Madcow, Chris Matthews, Lawrence ODonnel, Randy Rhodeapple, Stepahnie Miller, are all foisting him up like he's Eisenhower on 6/6/1944.

Gimme a break.

ReplyQuoteReport
mattradd905 reads

you say that those public mouth pieces on the right are not to be taken seriously, and have no sway on public opinion, yet you seem to give credit to the mouth pieces who support him, some credence. Your "average citizen" has his opinion formed by what s/he hears, sees or reading in the news, press and talk shows, and s/he tends to gravitate to sources of information that given him/her the information that s/he wants to believe. It goes both ways.

ReplyQuoteReport
NeedleDicktheBugFucker1584 reads

You, like Obama himself pay for too much credence to what "the mouthpieces" say. (Obama one this count is the worst I've ever see BTW).

The average J.Q. Public who comprise the majority are not idealogically driven like any of the partisans mentioned. What else explains Obama's election, followed up by the asskicking his party took in November? People care about what works and what doesn't and clearly Dems have failed to produce much except for their own base and cronies.

So, if this mission were to have gone terribly wrong despite the fact it was planned as well as it could have been planned yet some unforseen or unpreventable situation had arisen, that would have been explain on a risk reward basis and the vast majority of people would have given him a pass.

Only if HE had FUCKED UP would they had looked harshly on him and he would suffer politically. In which case hopefully you're not such a blind partisan you'd agree he had it coming. Now of course, The MSNBC O'bootlicker would still defend him to the death and maybe you would too.

ReplyQuoteReport
mattradd720 reads

Two problems I have with your correction of my thinking.

First, of all I've heard, read, and saw in the media,and all that I've heard from the many people I've spoken with, none of them have expressed what you believe.

Second, from what I've read of your posts, you are a "blind partisan."

I stand, uncorrected!

ReplyQuoteReport
NeedleDicktheBugFucker1467 reads

"Let me see if I understand this correctly".

Well, you didn't. So I corrected you.

Either you are just ignoring what you post in the first place or insisting you have the right to put words in my mouth.

BTW, you have yet to make a persuasive arguements ON THE MERIT of what I said. By all means, let me know what GREAT political risk Obama took by pulling the trigger on this mission.

That is, if you can.

ReplyQuoteReport
mattradd739 reads

that there's a difference between correcting a persons thinking, which of course, you did not do, from that of correcting a person. The later makes you sound very parental, teacherly or downright correctional as in corrections officer. And, your whole argument boils down to, "because I say so!" I'm not buying it! And, I'm not invested, in the least, in changing your mind. Given, neither of us is bringing any scientific research to the question I view my opinion as being as valid as yours, and I find no reason to change it.

ReplyQuoteReport
NeedleDicktheBugFucker1174 reads

fair enough.

I'm just voicing my POV and the reasons for it.

Np

ReplyQuoteReport
NeedleDicktheBugFucker1135 reads

You, like Obama himself pay for too much credence to what "the mouthpieces" say. (Obama one this count is the worst I've ever see BTW).

The average J.Q. Public who comprise the majority are not idealogically driven like any of the partisans mentioned. What else explains Obama's election, followed up by the asskicking his party took in November? People care about what works and what doesn't and clearly Dems have failed to produce much except for their own base and cronies.

So, if this mission were to have gone terribly wrong despite the fact it was planned as well as it could have been planned yet some unforseen or unpreventable situation had arisen, that would have been explain on a risk reward basis and the vast majority of people would have given him a pass.

Only if HE had FUCKED UP would they had looked harshly on him and he would suffer politically. In which case hopefully you're not such a blind partisan you'd agree he had it coming. Now of course, The MSNBC O'bootlicker would still defend him to the death and maybe you would too.

ReplyQuoteReport
anonymousfun1770 reads

Stop hallucinating.

ReplyQuoteReport
anonymousfun2226 reads

Musharaff would never, ever do it. He was 100% military man, he is patriotic and not foolish. Sometimes, we think we can do everything and anything by throwing money at people. Didn't happen. Pure BS by The Guardian, are they owned by Murdoch? Used to be decent paper. May they are becoming a Tabloid.

ReplyQuoteReport
fcstart1733 reads

Its the Times thats owned by Murdoch aswell as the Sun but we don't want to go there

ReplyQuoteReport
aliaslover#11535 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
Dacker1382 reads

I'm chalking this one up to a right wing roomer/ misrepresentation of the facts until some documentation is released.
This is a lame attempt to send some kind of credit back to the Bush administration for this kill.
Right along with water boarding a prisoner got the information that help locating him....  what was it 1 or 2 years after the practice was stopped?
Fact of the mater is Bush went to the wrong country, under false pretenses and made catching bin Laden a much lower priority.

ReplyQuoteReport
anonymousfun2697 reads

Another right wing try to get Bush credit. Mushraff may many things, he is not a traitor. He was a General Pakistani army, he will not sell out his country. I don't like him personally but, there is a limit to conspiracy theories and lunatic conspiracy theories.

Bush didn't do jack shit to OBL, Bush lost OBL in Tora Bora, moved troops out of Afghanistan to start another war on lies in Iraq. Righties can and will try to get him credit. Bush is not that cerebral by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

OBL was in Pakistan for over 5 years living in the house, how come Bush didn't get him, if he had secret agreement? That in itself is absurd. If Bush knew, had the intelligence, and had the secret agreement, was the Cowboy scared?  Bush himself ridiculed Obama during his campaign when Obama said that he would go after OBL if he is Pakistan, he said and he did. End of story.

Give up the and stop piling up BS at Himalayan proportions.

ReplyQuoteReport
fcstart1609 reads

Guardian is hardly right wing its further to the left than pretty much any mainstream US newspaper

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!