Following the assassination of Osama bin Laden May 1, 2011, the media has been inundated with articles about the attack, the secrecy of the attack, the tension between Pakistan and the US following the attack, visits to Ground Zero, playbacks of the 9/11 catastrophe which brought down the World Center Twin Towers, denunciation by bin Laden's son that his father's murder violated international law, and there's something new every day.
Adding insult to injury, we have also had the displeasure of seeing former Bush administration officials give us their opinion and expect us to thank them for introducing torture programs, illegal prisons like Guantanamo and Bagram, not to mention Abu Ghraib, extraordinary renditions, and why George W. Bush should get more credit for the killing of bin Laden than he's received.
Which begs the question as to why is it that former President George W. Bush did not jump at the Taliban's offer to deliver Osama bin Laden to him, or a third party, as the United States was barely two weeks into the bombing campaign of Afghanistan.
Why isn't anyone talking about this? Let us look at some of the headlines the offer provoked when it was announced:
CNN: U.S. rejects Taliban offer to try bin Laden
Washington Post: Bush rejects Taliban Bin Laden offer
The Independent: Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden
We can all agree that the above three are all credible news sources. But it will not suffice, and included with the article is a video of Ari Fleischer, who was then Bush's press secretary, taking questions, the first one of which clearly states that Afghanistan will give up Osama bin Laden, deliver him to Saudi Arabia, if the US would stop the bombing and sanctions they have imposed on the country. Ari Fleischer states that he will 'get back' to the reporter.
The official line of Bush's refusal was that he stated there would be 'no negotiations'. In other words, we are at a point in time when we can have the so-called mastermind of the war on America, the one who allegedly plotted 9/11, who caused untold numbers of deaths in the years that were to come, (which could have been prevented) and we are refusing to 'negotiate', even though it is not negotiation which is being sought. The only thing Afghanistan is asking for prior to their delivery of the most wanted terrorist in the world is the evidence against him.
Because there was no evidence.
And bin Laden never did take responsibility for 9/11, though he was behind many other attacks against US interests, like the one against the USS Cole on October 12, 2000.
But had Bush accepted the offer (and what president in his right mind wouldn't?) then our planned invasion of Iraq, which was hatched prior to the attack on Afghanistan would lose its initial excuse and prevent us from occupying that country. All of the surveillance and infringements on US civil rights that were done in the name of security would not happen. The Patriot Act would not exist. People would not need to be tortured or waterboarded. Private contractors would not be given lucrative deals to enter two theaters of war, and enrich their purses. Defense contractors would not be as busy developing new and more sophisticated weapons for fighting this war. Was it surprising that at one point, George W. Bush stated that bin Laden was no longer that important any more?
Bush could have had bin Laden in the year 2001. He refused because he had no evidence against him for the 9/11 terror attacks and he wanted to wage war, and bin Laden would just get in the way of that strategy.
Comments