| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
acd
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:29 pm Post subject: Why did Bush give $43 million to the Taliban in May, 2001? |
 |
|
Why am I learning of this through an obscure website (obscure compared
with the monolith that is U.S. corporate media)?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/14/203232/585/547/551678
May, 2001:
Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-US terrorists, destroy every
vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush Administration
will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in
the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still
takes seriously.
That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the
Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American
violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last
Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other
recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban
and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is
against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are
most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this
administration's attention.
Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-
American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which,
among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American
embassies in Africa in 1998.
Sadly, the Bush Administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at
a time when the United Nations, at US insistence, imposes sanctions on
Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
bmovies
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: Why did Bush give $43 million to the Taliban in May, 200 |
|
|
On Jul 15, 11:29 am, acd <po...@manlymail.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Why am I learning of this through an obscure website (obscure compared
with the monolith that is U.S. corporate media)?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/14/203232/585/547/551678
May, 2001:
Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-US terrorists, destroy every
vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush Administration
will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in
the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still
takes seriously.
That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the
Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American
violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last
Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other
recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban
and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is
against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are
most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this
administration's attention.
Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-
American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which,
among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American
embassies in Africa in 1998.
Sadly, the Bush Administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at
a time when the United Nations, at US insistence, imposes sanctions on
Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.
|
http://www.spinsanity.org/posts/200106-3.html#12a
6/12 - Scheer propaganda
Robert Scheer, a syndicated columnist, has written an an outrageous
piece of propaganda about the Bush administration that needs to be
debunked. Originally published on May 22, it was picked up on The
Nation's website last week.
In the article, Scheer condemns Bush for a "recent gift of $43 million
to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan", which he alleges is intended to
reward the theocratic regime for its recent crackdown on opium
production. He calls the US the "main sponsor" of the Taliban,
extensively condemns the very real repression and human rights
violations of the regime and then blames the US for supporting the
perpetrators of those acts.
Reading this without any context, you might be outraged. That's
because you have no way of knowing that it's a wild factual
distortion, as Bryan Carnell of LeftWatch.com points out. The US did
not give a "gift" to the Taliban. In fact, it was widely reported by
CNN and others that the aid consists of $28 million in surplus wheat,
$5 million in food commodities and $10 million in "livelihood and food
security" programs intended to help alleviate a looming famine.
Moreover, as Secretary of State Colin Powell said in his announcement
of the aid, it will be distributed through international agencies of
the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations, not the Taliban.
Powell specifically added that the aid "bypasses the Taliban, who have
done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and
indeed have done much to exacerbate it."
The aid does indirectly help the Taliban by helping prevent mass
famine. And it does mitigate the effects of the ban on poppy
cultivation and thereby discourage farmers from resuming cultivation.
Can we say that the drug war had no relationship to this decision?
Absolutely not. Powell acknowledged in his statement the
administration's desire to help farmers hurt by the ban on poppy
cultivation and its support for the ban. But it is unfair to omit
details of the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, in which more than
one million people are estimated to be at risk, and to dismiss any
humanitarian motivation. Remember, Afghanistan is under UN sanctions
imposed at the request of the US under President Clinton that are
supported by Bush. Sheer is just being blatantly deceptive.
In addition to his factual distortions, Scheer uses a practiced and
rephrensible technique - comparing American conservatives with
extremists in other countries. Early this year, in fact, NAACP
Chairman Julian Bond said the Bush admnistration "selected nominees
from the Taliban wing of American politics". Scheer follows Bond's
lead, implying that proponents of the drug war and the Taliban are
comparably extreme. First, he writes: "[t]he war on drugs has become
our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns."
Then: "[t]he Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own drug-
war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly
failure."
All in all, Scheer should be ashamed of himself.
_______________________________
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_02_23_archive.html#90385881
The myth that won't die (2/27)
By Brendan Nyhan
Since it was first created by syndicated columnist Robert Scheer, the
myth that the Bush administration "gave" $43 million to Afghanistan's
Taliban regime in 2001 has circled the globe and circulated throughout
the mainstream media in the US. Even after myriad attempts to correct
the record, this pervasive bit of disinformation refuses to die.
As we have noted many times, President Bush granted $43 million in
food aid and food security programs to relieve an impending famine in
Afghanistan in May 2001, continuing an aid program initiated by
President Clinton. The programs were administered directly by the
United Nations and NGOs, bypassing the regime.
Scheer's June 2001 column, however, claimed that this constituted a
"gift of $43 million" to the Taliban while never once mentioning the
famine in the country or that the "gift" was food aid that bypassed
the regime. Scheer's distortion has set off a series of echoes that
shows no signs of fading.
As Dan Kennedy points out, the most recent issue of The New Republic
contains an article by Samantha Powers repeating the error (link
requires subscription). "We can go to war against the Taliban," she
writes, "never acknowledging our previous aid to the regime--we
offered a grant of $43 million as late as May 2001--for its help
quashing opium production." In fact, while Secretary of State Colin
Powell did link the granting of the aid to the Taliban's previous
crackdown on opium production in part, saying that the US was
concerned about farmers hurt by the ban and that the US "welcome[d]"
the decision, it was simply not a "grant" to the regime.
Similarly, Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes, co-host of "Hannity and
Colmes," said this on February 11: "By the way, in terms of
Afghanistan, we supported the Mujahadeen. George Bush gave $ 43
million to the Taliban in April of 200[1]. And if it were the other
way around and a Democratic president had done that, you would go
crazy." (Colmes also repeated the myth on May 16 and June 3 of last
year.)
And finally, in early January 2003, Cathy Young claimed in the Boston
Globe that "[t]he Taliban also profited from our war on drugs,
receiving $ 43 million from the US government in 2001 for the purpose
of eradicating Afghanistan's heroin-producing poppy fields." This is
obviously untrue; the aid came after the crackdown, and was not "for
the purpose" of eradication.
Whatever one's opinion of President Bush's policy toward Afghanistan
before the September 11 attacks, pundits owe their readers some
context. These allegations, as written, are simple misinformation.
___________________________________
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011008.html
Scheer Deception: The Lies and Jargon of Robert Scheer
By Ben Fritz (October 8, 2001)
Many pundits sling jargon or make blithely irrational arguments. Some,
however, seem to specialize in twisting the facts to fit their
ideology, continually making assertions that are at best unsupported
and at worst blatantly false until they--and presumably their readers--
come to accept these false tropes as truth. Robert Scheer, a
nationally syndicated columnist for the Los Angeles Times, has
established himself as the leader of this breed, with some of his
worst spin coming since the September 11 attack. Sadly, this is only
the latest iteration of a trend that can be seen in Scheer's columns
throughout the year.
A brief history
Scheer has had an interesting career in journalism. He started at the
radical left publication Ramparts in the 60s, then become a national
correspondent for the L.A. Times for 17 years. For the past eight, he
has been a columnist whose work appears weekly in the Times and papers
across the country. He also co-hosts a radio show on an affiliate of
National Public Radio in Los Angeles and writes for publications like
The Nation. Throughout his career, Scheer has been one of America's
leading liberal pundits, reliably bashing Republicans and many
conservative Democrats.
Dissemble, spin, repeat
An overview of Scheer's writing reveals that one of his favorite
tactics is to create a politically potent trope and repeat it over and
over until it seems true. When faced with criticism, Scheer simply
dismisses his critics without addressing their arguments and continues
to repeat his idea, as if the more he says it, the truer it becomes.
An excellent example of this tactic can be found in what my co-editor
Brendan Nyhan has labeled the "Taliban aid trope."
Scheer created this trope in May, when he attacked a "gift of $43
million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan," saying it "makes the
U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that 'rogue regime'
for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God."
Drawing on work by Bryan Carnell of Leftwatch, Brendan pointed out
that the $43 million was not aid to the Taliban government. Instead,
the money was a gift of wheat, food commodities, and food security
programs distributed to the Afghan people by agencies of the United
Nations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Secretary of State
Colin Powell specifically stated, in fact, that the aid "bypasses the
Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan
people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."
Since the US began focusing on the Taliban for harboring Osama Bin
Laden, whose Al-Qaeda network is the primary suspect in the September
11 attacks, Scheer has repeated this false assertion about U.S. aid to
Afghanistan, and in fact twisted it even further. In a September 17
column, he says that the aid was a tacit endorsement of Bin Laden:
"This is typical of the mixed signals we've been sending. Call it what
you will, even humanitarian aid, and funnel it through the United
Nations, but the effect is the same: to send to the Taliban a signal
that its support of Bin Laden has been somehow acceptable."
Note how Scheer takes note of his critics' points by prefacing them
with "Call it what you will," as if these points were arbitrary labels
and not facts. They are facts, however, and Scheer is simply trying to
avoid them.
Scheer wasn't done spreading this trope, or with his irrational
dismissal of critics, however. Two weeks later, on October 1, he spun
humanitarian aid for the Afghan people as some sort of a fairy tale:
"Believe that [the Taliban convinced farmers to stop growing opium
through religious appeals rather than by force], and you can believe
that the $43 million in aid that Secretary of State Colin Powell
announced that same week--to help the Afghans, "including those
farmers who have felt the impact of the ban on poppy cultivation, a
decision by the Taliban that we welcome"--was simply humanitarian aid
and not really a reward to the Taliban for helping the U.S. in its
drug war."
Again, Scheer does not explain to readers how humanitarian aid
funneled through the U.N and NGOs can be considered a gift to a
government that never receives funds or controls any food aid.
Notice also how he selectively quotes Powell, avoiding the statement
mentioned earlier in which Powell explicitly notes that the aid will
bypass the Taliban. Even more disturbing, however, is a fact brought
to our attention by Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix in an email:
Powell's statement was made in response to a question about future aid
and had nothing to do with the $43 million aid already provided. Once
again, Scheer is twisting the truth to fit his argument.
Although Scheer's use of the Taliban aid trope has been the most
disturbing this year, it is not the only falsity he has repeated. In
another instance, Scheer has twice tried to frame the current economic
slump as a recession caused by President Bush and Congressional
Republicans. This started in July, when Scheer argued that Al Gore
should criticize the Bush Administration and Republicans for economic
policy:
"The job market was never better than under Bill Clinton and it's not
too much to expect Gore to hold the Republicans, who have controlled
both houses of Congress and the White House, responsible for the loss
of 300,000 jobs in the last three months alone."
The truth that Scheer is avoiding here, however, is that the current
downturn began while Bill Clinton was still President. Furthermore, in
the three months prior to July, Bush's economic policy had barely
begun to take effect. There is no logical reason to hold the economic
policy of Bush and Republicans in Congress responsible for a downturn
that began before Bush's inauguration.
Earlier in that column, Scheer also dissembles when he refers to a
"recession" that at the time had not been established (although it is
now quite likely that we are in one). Blaming Bush for the weak
economy, regardless of the facts, is a favorite tactic of Scheer's,
however. He did so again just a month later, as my co-editor Brendan
Nyhan pointed out, when he succinctly referred to "a recession [Bush]
helped create." At this point, however, there was still no evidence
that the U.S. was in a recession, nor was there evidence that the slow
economy was caused by President Bush.
Such facts seem to matter little to Scheer as he creates his false
tropes. The truth is merely an obstacle to be illogically dismissed.
Labels and frames
Another favored tactic of Scheer's, and one that can be seen in his
false tropes as well, is to bash President Bush and other Republicans
whenever possible. There is nothing wrong, of course, with criticizing
political opponents. What is troublesome, however, is that Scheer
often does so not with reasoned criticism, but irrational broadsides
and unsupported allegations.
When it comes to President Bush, Scheer seems to have two insights
that he repeats endlessly: the President is rich and he is dumb. From
global warming to economic policy, Scheer seems to always find a way
to return to these two points.
During a discussion of the importance of Social Security and Medicare,
for instance, Scheer sees fit to state that many benefit from these
programs, "[u]nless your family happens to be super rich like the
president's." In a column on global warming, Scheer again takes an
unnecessary swipe at the Bush family's wealth, making ridiculous
generalizations about young people in the process:
"Here's a guy born with credit cards in his cradle, enough to take him
anywhere in the world, first class, who nevertheless pointedly refused
to go. Even kids without any money manage to scrape up a few bucks and
go see the world, but not young George, who satiated his curiosity
about foreign lands with a few beer busts down in Mexico."
Scheer's ostensible point here is that Bush "never seemed to think
that there was a world out there worth visiting, let alone saving," as
if a vacation in Europe would necessarily make him more competent in
foreign policy. Notice also the irrelevant assertion that Bush went on
"beer busts down in Mexico," which is, again, hardly relevant to his
current foreign policy. Also notable here is Scheer revealing his own
class bias, as he absurdly asserts that even the poorest of young
people manage to travel around the world.
The broadsides don't stop there, though. Another one of Scheer's
insights into Bush's foreign policy is that it "can more charitably be
viewed as the confused performance of a struggling C student." In the
same column, Scheer's conclusion about the Bush's administration's
rejection of many foreign treaties is, again, that the President is
dumb: "[I]t is therefore unfair for critics to hold his proposals to
too high a standard of logic and sophistication," he writes. "After
all, this is George W. Bush we're talking about."
Scheer also plays on a common and again unsupported liberal trope:
that Bush is merely a front man and Vice-President Cheney is running
the country. "It's a sad measure of the president's need for adult
supervision," Scheer wrote in July, "that Cheney has become the first
vice president in modern U.S. history to seize control of the White
House and render the president himself a public relations front man
sent around the country to do photo ops." Once again, Scheer presents
no evidence to support his attack, simply asserting that "[e]veryone
knows that Cheney, not Bush, runs the show."
To be fair, however, Scheer doesn't exclusively pick on President
Bush. Vice President Cheney himself came under attack in a column on
environmental policy that labels him "an oil-guzzling, intellectually
irresponsible, anti-environmental oaf."
Best of breed
At a time when all too many pundits engage in their share of lies,
spin, and jargon, Robert Scheer stands out in a class by himself. In
column after column, his favored tactics have been irrational
criticism, distortion, and spin. At his worst, Scheer's false tropes
spread and become part of the commonly accepted discourse. Since
September 11, for instance, as Dan Kennedy noted in the Boston
Phoenix, the Taliban aid trope has been repeated in The Nation, The
New Yorker, The Denver Post and Salon. For those concerned about the
rise of irrational discourse in American politics, Robert Scheer
stands out as one of the worst offenders.
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011008.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
137 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
