On the eve of President Obama’s address to the nation regarding his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, a startling revelation was unleashed today as a new Senate report accused Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top military commander Tommy Franks, with the blessing of President Bush, of intentionally allowing Osama bin laden to escape capture.
President Obama is expected to announce tomorrow the increase of approximately 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan. Obama did not make this decision in haste, taking three months to deliberate. On Sunday he told U.S military commanders he had settled on a plan and gave the order to carry it out. He also informed top advisers of his decision and briefed allies on Monday. Tuesday Obama will talk to congressional leaders before delivering his speech to the nation. (Reuters)
Robert Gibbs, White House Spokesman stated, “The commander in chief delivered the orders.”
“We are there to partner with the Afghans, to train the Afghan national security forces, the army and the police so they can provide security for their country and wage the battle against an unpopular insurgency in that country,” Gibbs continued.
Influential partners/leaders of that unpopular insurgency, Osama bin Laden and his top deputies, could have been captured in late 2001 according to the Senate Foreign Relations Committees report released today.
The report states categorically that bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora, a mountainous area in eastern Afghanistan, when the U.S. had the means to mount a rapid assault with several thousand troops at least, cutting off an escape route for bin Laden and his henchmen. Instead, Rumsfeld turned down requests for the larger troop presence to block the escape route.
According to Democratic congressman, Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York, that slip-up may not have been accidental.
“Look what happened with regard to our invasion into Afghanistan, how we apparently intentionally let bin Laden get away,” Hinchey said on MSNBC on Monday. “How we intentionally did not follow the Taliban and al-Qaeda as they were escaping up into the northeast of Afghanistan, over into the Pakistani border?”
Hinchey answered his own question: “That was done by the previous administration because they knew very well that if they would capture al-Qaeda, there would be no justification for an invasion of Iraq.” (Salon)
The report states that a review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants “removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora.” (AP)
“Removing the al-Qaida leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the threat,” the report says. “But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide. The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism.” (AP)
So why did Bush and Rumsfeld – and most likely Cheney – decide to let bin Laden escape? Because Osama bin Laden allowed them to put a name on the face of “the war on terror,” their constant battle cry. If that face were removed, there would be no more justification for the war in Iraq as Rep. Hinchey said.
They used bin Laden as the carrot on the stick. Dangling it in front of the country, the world in fact, as a reason to keep fighting. To catch him would take away that political and emotional clout. So, the Bush administration decided to take the risk of playing cat and mouse with bin Laden rather than catch him, using him to invoke patriotism to advance their own political agendas.
Eight years later, President Obama is left with the cleanup of Afghanistan. If bin Laden had been captured eight years ago, we could have been building a nation instead of destroying one. We could have used those war resources to build schools, towns, farms and roads. We could help teach the children to read instead of fight. All the people of Afghanistan want is a peaceful life. Instead, they were used as pawns by the Bush administration. What a waste.
Cheri Cabot, Politics Correspondent
Cheri’s column, “Personal About Politics,” published every week, will reflect on how the life of a 60 year-old, middle class woman is affected by politics, policy and the current state of the nation - a look at the personal aspects of politics. Her column is part of Gather Essentials.
Cheri is a freelance writer, living in Southern California. She has two grown children and is the proud grandmother of three.
You can find all of Cheri’s columns on Personal About Politics at www.personalpolitcs.gather.com, The Obama Watch at theobamawatch.gather.comor her home page here, www.ccabot.gather.com.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
email
print
Comments: 49
Cheri, I saw nothing in the report that says the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Franks intentionally let bin Laden escape Tora Bora. That may have been the spin certain liberal congressmen and blogs suggest, but the report does not say that.
It says that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Franks left it to the Northern Alliance to get bin Laden while they changed their focus to planning an invasion of Iraq. It says on November 21, 2001, when Franks was in Florida guiding the Afghanistan war and the assault on Tora Bora, Bush told Rumsfeld (and Rumsfeld told Franks) that Franks should immediately update and finalize an Iraq plan that had been previously developed so as to take advantage of the situation after 9/11. So it seems that no one intentionally let bin Laden get away, they just botched it despite commanders on the ground insisting that they would lose bin Laden if left only to the Afghan fighters (which the commanders said were totally inadequate and untrustworthy for the job). And they botched it because of being distracted by their desire to take out Saddam Hussein even though Saddam was not involved in 9/11.
Of course she won't reply to you because she has made her bombshell and the fans are ignoring the difference between her opinion and the report.
We're talking about a corrupt government that the population doesn't trust, a mountainous country, with no clear borders, that has for centuries been invaded, & repulsed, most recently by the Russians, who we helped Bin Laden to defeat. It's a country with a 90% illiteracy rate, a basic rural economy, based on opium poppies, & a corrupt government, ruled by imans & warlords.
There is no way, even over decades, that anyone could convert this country to a concept of a sustaining economy based on an economic competitive infrastructure by western standards, much less than what we might determine to be a "democracy."
If the unnecessary war in Iraq has been a nightmare, Afghanistan is your worst dream. When was the last time you ever heard of a Congressperson referred to as a "Statesman" instead of a Dem., or Repub?
Terrorism knows no geographic borders. It's based on fear & hatred, which is universal in it's concept. It is intended to defeat us from within, by giving up our freedom for a sense of false security.
That is when I was born! ;^)
I am sick to death of the instant world we have now--some need to learn that there is no reset or pause option on life. We cannot gain a day or month or year, of these, we can only loose.
POTUS 44 did take time to assess the situation for HIS knowledge base from many sources which is the most laudable Presidential act of defense and decision making I have witnessed in decades. Knee-jerk reactions are vastly over-rated and ill advised universally, not to be mistaken with being quick on you feet. Microwave thinking is okay for the GOP as long as they are not at the helm.
I can embrace a thinking man or woman over a jerk who continually makes quick decisions with hubris in place of authority and leadership.
There I have said enough--a vent I was not aware of. ;^)
The President's speech revealed little but the inability to please everyone. Reinforce but pull out soonest. Fuzzy goals just like his predecessor. Nice obligatory shot at the Bush team as an excuse for both possible failure and the last year of major problems. Lots of fine words but the decision to reinforce came months later than it should have.
Despite all the rhetoric, the reinforcement call still came. More than I expected actually though short of what was requested. Perhaps the theater commander preempted that with a larger call than he received, anyway let's hope so.
The CYA statement this prolonged study was to send a public message to the Afghans was senseless. The delay will cost more troops as they now have to retake the ground given up several weeks ago; that is directly the fault of the CiC-not anyone else. We have publicly claimed to put Afghanistan on notice we are leaving in 18 months, within hours the CENTCOM commander and SecDef both said that wasn't quite true...Looks a bit confusing to our friends anyway, delightful to our enemies. So we have in effect told our enemies, we are leaving soon enough-be patient. At the same time we have told the Afghans to pull a miracle out of your butt and rapidly expand a quality force to take over for us. Remember when that was tried under congressional pressure in Iraq? Of course not, no one does. Some poorly trained units that shattered under combat and lots of infiltrators into their ranks that took months to ferret out.
It takes years to create effective units. It takes us over a year to train an effective infantryman and we do so with a minority of the country doing the job within established units with centuries of tradition. The Afghan army has no such tradition, many solid units, nor a basis of much national trust yet. It would take a miracle to stand up a large effective army within 18 months, never mind one with good logistical support.
Finally anyone note the crucial time period of that 18 months? Presidential election time. Coincidence maybe?
It would be nice to have a candlelight vigil for the One Million People Dead, Two million refugees and thousands of Iraqi Girls working in prostitution in Damascus Syria, so that their families can eat. A candlelight vigil for the children that lost an arm, a leg, or that are disfigured.
I wrote this in Gather.com - It is Real History :
The DeWesternization of the Middle East - And the Obama Stravaganza at West Point - Taking a look at REALITY and what really happens
Vicente Duque
Then that she is running borders to get food. It broke my heart. I was thinking about my 6 year old granddaughter having to do something that dreadful.
We need to be using books not bullets.
Thanks Cheri :
I hope that Mr Obama doesn't go very aggressive with many bombs and dead people. Or that he can repent later from so much Militarism.
The Richest and most Creative, Productive Nation in the World could use those resources to help rebuilding Afghanistan and avoide the Starvation that this War has produced in this country.
The American Founding Fathers dreamed of a Better World and not this Hell of Fire, Blood, Starvation, Fear and Terror.
Vicente
Bush and Co. had mapped out the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Sadaam long before 911. They let that happen to create a reason for war. Then, they let bin Laden escape at the last minute (and there have been reports of perplexed military personnel who were part of that pull-out that have confirmed this) in order to extend the fear and create the grounds for going into Iraq. Bush and Co. had no intention of catching bin Laden - he put his relatives on a plane out of the US right after the 911 attacks - it was a fully planned trip. His family has been in bed with the Saud's forever. Bin Laden is a misbehaving relative, but fully funded by his Saudi family in his efforts to disrupt the West. This was simply a tit-for-tat with the Bush clan.
Anybody who cannot see this is blind. War is what they wanted. Lil Bush wanted to prove to his Daddy that he could finish what his Daddy couldn't. He put the lives of the military and political and economic future of the US on the chopping block to prove to his father that he could be a success where his dad had failed. If it wasn't so absolutely revolting, it might be a bit humorous in a pathetic sort of way.
Tony Bliar, his cohorts and minions SHOULD be held responsible for each and every death, maiming and mental illness suffered by our troops in Iraq.
I don't know how these people can sleep at night. The unnecessary deaths of innocents and the destruction of two countries are meaningless unless those who caused these horrors are brought to justice. What was the point of the Nuremberg trials? The entire world watched as those who weren't even the decision makers were tried. Can't we even find the will to bring the people who made the decisions to justice?
By letting bin Laden escape, Cheney and Rumsfeld could continue and expand the so-called war on terrorism and to execute the neo-con plot to occupy Iraq in hopes of planting the seeds of a stable secular democracy in the heart of the Middle East while putting Afghanistan on the back burner.
The Bush legacy is now evident in that President Obama is committed to continue the occupation of Afghanistan in a theatre of war that is already eight years old. One would hope that Obama's plan for a three year deadline for U.S. military presence in Afghanistan is a realistic commitment that is both plausible and prudent. Obviously, the plan amounts to substantial efforts at nation building and counter-insurgency. But that military strategy is extremely vulnerable to acts of terrorism which wreak havoc on the best laid plans of U.S. policy-makers. That is why Pentagon planners are torn between counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism strategems. The former involves nation building; the latter on combat operations.
I'm sure that their first thoughts when the towers fell were "How do I turn this to my advantage?" and the result of that thinking was to blame their ideological opponents for the 9/11 attacks and then turn around and invade Iraq. None of that had anything to do with protecting Americans. It only had to do with lining their pockets and improving their personal positions.
They should all be tried.
Why the thunder are we continuing this unnecessary war? What will we gain?
I want to hear what the president says tonight to justify escalating a lost war--echoes of Vietnam?
There will always be comparisons to Vietnam, it is inevitable, however, I hope Obama has used the past 3 months learning and reflexing on our past mistakes.
I know there are those who will defend the bastard 43rd and his crew, but they will never admit that all the hand holding with the Saudis wasn't for a reason.
War is based on a lot of lies. The first victim of War is Truth.
War is based on falsities without end, on fallacious arguments.
War is Eternal Revenge. Millions have to pay for what a bunch of idiots did. And the idiots lost their lives in the attack of the Twin Towers.
America is the most Wonderful Nation in the World, but it is slowly decaying like Radium, Uranium, Polonium, it can decay for centuries.
All assumptions and suppositions of Mr Obama's speech are wrong.
I show it here in Gather.com :
The Autumn of Mr Hamid Karzai in Gourmet Europe, enjoying his millions - Politics that depend on a dictator and corrupt system - Are the Afghans chicken scared of a Hawk ??
Vicente Duque
The Liberal Warrior................................ml
But, as Obama stated, they are a very real threat and we have to try to contain them, and above all, keep nuclear weapons out of their hands.
One of the main objections to the suggestion that 9/11 was not the act of 19 terrorists, mostly from Saudi Arabia, trained and funded by Al Qaeda, is that an act of mass murder on that scale being committed by or at the behest of an American president and/or high ranking members of his administration is simply too heinous to consider.
But if that administration is willing to let the main perpetrator of that mass murder go free in order to advance their own agenda, using the emotions that arose as a result of 9/11 to manipulate the American public, then how is that morally different than committing the murders themselves, or arranging to have them committed, to further that agenda?
Hate to say "I told ya so!"
However, what's worse, is that it lends the idea that we can do this sort of irresponsible behavior every ten years or so, and patch up the bloodworks with a succeeding administration.
I'm afraid President Obama has become distracted, and is falling for the Neocons old line, of letting them off the hook for their criminal negligence. Once upon a time, he - and we - had the opportunity to treat Bush & Co. with the contempt, and the criminal charges they deserved.
Yet, as time goes by, they'll hunker down in their hidey holes, bask in the warmth of getting away with it, and promptly forget that they were caught with dirty hands, fingers in the till and pants down.
Great article! There are various reasons for Obama to take a hard line stance in Afghanistan. One of those not mentioned is that Obama wants to send the message to all the world that he wants to be a president over building America and having peace in this world, but that he is capable of hard decisions, strong stances, military action, and peaceful policies. And those troops to be sent in there are emblematic of Obama's intent and power to utilize every mode of strength possible. He knows full well that this action buys him full responsibility for management of American resources in Afghanistan.