PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues "Round up the usual suspects."


orange
05-09-2011, 02:10 PM
Osama bin Laden mission agreed in secret 10 years ago by US and Pakistan

US forces were given permission to conduct unilateral raid inside Pakistan if they knew where Bin Laden was hiding, officials say

Declan Walsh in Islamabad guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 May 2011 19.06 BST



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".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/09/osama-bin-laden-us-pakistan-deal

blaise
05-09-2011, 02:22 PM
Huff Post story.

Go Chiefs.

ClevelandBronco
05-09-2011, 02:23 PM
This would make me rethink my criticism, assuming that despite the turnover in both governments the deal was still in place. I would, however, appreciate hearing from a source that is willing to be named.

fbal4lif32
05-09-2011, 02:29 PM
Ah, the ol "fake like yer mad" routine, a classic of international diplomacy. Or something like that.

fbal4lif32
05-09-2011, 02:30 PM
Huff Post story.

Go Chiefs.

Huh?

ClevelandBronco
05-09-2011, 02:33 PM
Huff Post story.

Go Chiefs.

It appears that Huff 'n' Puff is linking to the Guardian's story, not the other way around. Or am I missing your point?

blaise
05-09-2011, 02:37 PM
It appears that Huff 'n' Puff is linking to the Guardian's story, not the other way around. Or am I missing your point?

I don't know, I thought this was how it worked. That's what Direckshun does every time pete starts a thread with a story also found on Drudge. According to him, it means the story is worthless or something.

Amnorix
05-09-2011, 02:40 PM
Thsi is actually consistent with what is going on with the drone strikes, so it makes sense.

Espeically since the "rational" Pakistani leadership knew that we couldn't tell them in advance of our coming to get Osama (not Obama) because word would almost certainly leak back to bin Laden.

fbal4lif32
05-09-2011, 02:40 PM
I don't know, I thought this was how it worked. That's what Direckshun does every time pete starts a thread with a story also found on Drudge. According to him, it means the story is worthless or something.

So in order to criticize Direckshun, you imitate him on an orange thread? If you mapped out this logic for us, would it appear in the Draft Forum?

Huffmeister
05-09-2011, 02:45 PM
So in order to criticize Direckshun, you imitate him on an orange thread? If you mapped out this logic for us, would it appear in the Draft Forum?

Swing and a miss.

blaise
05-09-2011, 02:48 PM
So in order to criticize Direckshun, you imitate him on an orange thread? If you mapped out this logic for us, would it appear in the Draft Forum?

No, because then I wouldn't be able to effectively mirror the absurdity of Direckshun doing it to pete by doing it to pete's Huff Post based mirror image, orange.

fbal4lif32
05-09-2011, 02:51 PM
Swing and a miss.

Hey, sounds like you know the catchphrases around here. Cool, man.

Coyote
05-09-2011, 02:52 PM
Thsi is actually consistent with what is going on with the drone strikes, so it makes sense.

Espeically since the "rational" Pakistani leadership knew that we couldn't tell them in advance of our coming to get Osama (not Obama) because word would almost certainly leak back to bin Laden.

Estimated Total Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004 - 2011
Deaths (low) Deaths (high)

2011* 130 192
2010 607 993
2009 368 724
2008 273 313
2004-2007 89 112
Total 1,467 2,334

*Through May 6, 2011

http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones

fbal4lif32
05-09-2011, 02:52 PM
No, because then I wouldn't be able to effectively mirror the absurdity of Direckshun doing it to pete by doing it to pete's Huff Post based mirror image, orange.

One or two posts, it's satire. Anything more than that, it becomes a tired tune.

blaise
05-09-2011, 02:52 PM
Hey, sounds like you know the catchphrases around here. Cool, man.

Just so we're clear, you think what I did was stupid and ridiculous? I just want to make sure in case we see another poster here do something similar.

blaise
05-09-2011, 02:53 PM
One or two posts, it's satire. Anything more than that, it becomes a tired tune.

Oh I agree, it was a tired tune. That's why I started to mimic it. Thanks for your support.

fbal4lif32
05-09-2011, 02:57 PM
Oh I agree, it was a tired tune. That's why I started to mimic it. Thanks for your support.

So we all got it: you are pointing out what Direckshun is doing in a very (I can't stress that enough) humorous way, even though we can all plainly tell that Direckshun was doing the exact same responses to pete. Thanks for the insight and the humor.

blaise
05-09-2011, 03:06 PM
So we all got it: you are pointing out what Direckshun is doing in a very (I can't stress that enough) humorous way, even though we can all plainly tell that Direckshun was doing the exact same responses to pete. Thanks for the insight and the humor.

Oh, you could plainly see that Direckshun was doing that? Maybe I should go back and look and see when you let him know how stupid and juvenile it was.
My mistake. I didn't know you agreed with me so strongly

Of course, the funny thing is that the repeated opportunities to do this to orange really prove my point that he does this just as much as pete ever did.

ClevelandBronco
05-09-2011, 03:15 PM
I don't know what you thought you were coming back to, old timer, but it should be pretty obvious by now that no one has been eagerly awaiting your return and approval.

Brock
05-09-2011, 03:16 PM
One or two posts, it's satire. Anything more than that, it becomes a tired tune.

Swing and a miss.

Go Chiefs.

DJ's left nut
05-09-2011, 03:27 PM
That actually makes quite a bit of sense.

The F-16s sent to 'intercept' a couple of helo's would've been there in plenty of time if they really wanted them to be. I'd imagine they were similar to the guy in a fight with a much bigger dude having his buddies "hold him back" knowing full well he'd bug the !@#$ out if they actually let him go.

I never could figure out how Pakistan could've scrambled jets and not managed to get there before the end of a 45 minute incursion. An intentionally delayed response and feigned outrage thereafter makes the most sense.

HonestChieffan
05-09-2011, 03:33 PM
So Bush gets the credit for the kill? Super.

orange
05-09-2011, 04:27 PM
Someone tell blaise it's safe to read the story, now.

blaise
05-09-2011, 05:40 PM
Someone tell blaise it's safe to read the story, now.

Swing and a miss.

mlyonsd
05-09-2011, 05:46 PM
Until the usual suspect 'Bush had no balls' posters come out to debunk this I'll hold up the :BS: flag.

patteeu
05-10-2011, 07:26 AM
So Bush gets the credit for the kill? Super.

Obama's greatest achievements, as rare as they are, come from clinging to Bush coattails.

patteeu
05-10-2011, 07:40 AM
Obama's greatest achievements, as rare as they are, come from clinging to Bush coattails.

Obama is Barry Switzer to Bush's Jimmy Johnson when it comes to the GWoT. I hope we never have to find out what Barack Switzer can do with his own players.

Coyote
05-10-2011, 09:54 AM
Related to thread, for your consideration:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kill-capture/?utm_campaign=killcaptu

Behind the strike that killed Osama bin Laden on May 1st was one of the U.S. military's best kept secrets: an extraordinary campaign by elite U.S. soldiers to take out thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. A six-month investigation by FRONTLINE has gone inside the "kill/capture" program to discover new evidence of the program's impact -- and its costs.

Gen. David Petraeus, since he took command of troops last year, has ordered a major expansion of these "manhunt" missions that rely on highly classified intelligence, cutting-edge technology and Special Operations forces.

In Kill/Capture, airing Tuesday, May 10, 2011, at 9 p.m. ET on PBS (check local listings), FRONTLINE producers Dan Edge (The Wounded Platoon) and Stephen Grey (Extraordinary Rendition) explore the logic behind the kill/capture policy, and ask if this unremitting pursuit of the enemy will help end the war in Afghanistan. "If you are trying to take down an industrial strength insurgency, you take away its safe havens, you take away its leaders, by detaining them or in some cases killing them," Gen. Petraeus tells FRONTLINE of his decision to step up kill/capture missions after he took command in Afghanistan last summer. The military say these operations have led to the death or detention of more than 12,000 Taliban insurgents over the last 12 months.

Petraeus and his advisers argue that a ruthless, accurate and relentless campaign against enemy leaders will paralyse the insurgency and force them to the negotiating table. "The intent is to do so much damage to the network that it becomes more viable for the enemy to negotiate than to continue to fight," says David Kilcullen, an influential military advisor and counterinsurgency expert.

On the ground in the Afghan's Baghlan Province, U.S. raids have put the Taliban on the run. But FRONTLINE makes contact with a young Taliban commander who says that, after the targeted killings of two of his seniors, he was simply promoted up the ranks to take their place. Khalid Amin speaks to FRONTLINE at the grave of his dead predecessor: "These night raids cannot annihilate us," he says. "We want to die anyway. So those destined for martyrdom will die in the raids. And the rest will continue to fight without fear.""We're killing a lot of mid-level commanders, but they get replaced by other mid-level commanders," claims Matthew Hoh, who resigned from the Foreign Service in 2009 because he felt that U.S. tactics were fuelling the insurgency. FRONTLINE finds more evidence of the complexity of kill/capture raids as it joins soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division on an air assault targeting a suspected Taliban insurgent in the dangerous province of Khost. Owing to faulty intelligence, the soldiers end up raiding the home of a wealthy pro-government elder instead: "This is why people are so upset," the man tells the troops, as they lead him away in restraints. "So now I'll join the Taliban and fight against you!"

The military points to hundreds of Taliban fighters who have switched sides since the ramping up of the kill/capture campaign, and they concede that, in the short run, the campaign may lead to a rising level of Taliban violence: This is what happened with the "Surge" in Iraq in the months before the tide turned, they say. But among a group of some 40 Taliban in Kunduz Province who changed sides earlier this year, FRONTLINE tracks down a former Taliban Commander named Abdul Aziz, who now says he's reluctant to take up arms against his former comrades on behalf of an Afghan government that has yet to pay him or his men.

"I joined the government side about a month ago," Abdul Aziz explains to a villager he meets while FRONTLINE's cameras were rolling. "But the Taliban are still my brothers. Look, we don't like the Americans. We've had bad experiences with them. They're infidels. They are the enemies of our religion, our nation, and our honor."As one part of a broader counterinsurgency campaign, the military says kill/capture raids win time and space to allow regular troops to seize territory from the Taliban. "By maintaining the initiative against the enemy, that enables the majority of the force to focus on securing the population," said Maj. Gen. John Nicholson, a senior U.S. commander.

In Ghazni Province, FRONTLINE witnesses how, after more than 40 such raids by Special Operations forces, soldiers of the 101st Airborne have managed to secure the town of Miri from the Taliban, and re-opened the school and market. The biggest challenge ahead, though: to transfer power to the Afghan government and allow U.S. soldiers to start coming home. "Honestly, I think if we left I think the Taliban would take it over again," warns Sgt. Gavin Erickson.

Bewbies
05-10-2011, 11:43 AM
Obama's greatest achievements, as rare as they are, come from clinging to Bush coattails.

It's funny that his greatest success has come from doing exactly what he campaigned against.

If he promised to do the opposite of what he said he would, and what he wanted to do, I'd probably vote for the guy. :LOL:

FD
05-10-2011, 11:47 AM
It's funny that his greatest success has come from doing exactly what he campaigned against.

If he promised to do the opposite of what he said he would, and what he wanted to do, I'd probably vote for the guy. :LOL:

I don't understand this. He did exactly what he campaigned on, which was to strike al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan. He got a lot of heat for it in the campaign, both from Hillary and McCain, so it seems like he should get some credit for it now.

ClevelandBronco
05-10-2011, 11:58 AM
I don't understand this. He did exactly what he campaigned on, which was to strike al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan. He got a lot of heat for it in the campaign, both from Hillary and McCain, so it seems like he should get some credit for it now.

He took a lot of heat for it in the campaign, and if people weren't totally fucking starved for any reason at all to dance in the streets, he'd be taking heat for it now.

patteeu
05-10-2011, 12:20 PM
I don't understand this. He did exactly what he campaigned on, which was to strike al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan. He got a lot of heat for it in the campaign, both from Hillary and McCain, so it seems like he should get some credit for it now.

What did Hillary and McCain say?

Here's a typical quote from McCain (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/02/972424/-Obama-promised-to-get-bin-Laden-McCain-disagreed-Obama-won-And%C2%A0bin%C2%A0Ladens%C2%A0dead) (see this video from DailyKos that focuses primarily on Obama) that summarizes what his criticism was:

You don't say that out loud.

He took heat, at least from McCain, because of the (politically positive but) diplomatically negative impact of announcing the policy in public not because McCain disagreed with the policy.

Given that reality, Obama doesn't deserve any special credit for what he's done now because of the criticism he received from McCain. On the contrary, he's still subject to that criticism and that criticism may well have contributed to the worsening relations we've experienced with Pakistan since Obama's election (although I don't personally think that that is the primary factor).

FD
05-10-2011, 12:33 PM
What did Hillary and McCain say?

Here's a typical quote from McCain (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/02/972424/-Obama-promised-to-get-bin-Laden-McCain-disagreed-Obama-won-And%C2%A0bin%C2%A0Ladens%C2%A0dead) (see this video from DailyKos that focuses primarily on Obama) that summarizes what his criticism was:



He took heat, at least from McCain, because of the (politically positive but) diplomatically negative impact of announcing the policy in public not because McCain disagreed with the policy.

Given that reality, Obama doesn't deserve any special credit for what he's done now because of the criticism he received from McCain. On the contrary, he's still subject to that criticism and that criticism may well have contributed to the worsening relations we've experienced with Pakistan since Obama's election (although I don't personally think that that is the primary factor).

That was a good clip. McCain repeatedly criticized Obama for his position on attacking targets in Pakistan, and made it clear he did not just disagree with the public relations aspect of the policy, but with the policy itself.

McCain's team also played this up a lot on the talkshows and in the media, trying to make it look like Obama was naive and in over his head. I don't think this was necessarily wrong at the time, but since he got so much criticism for it then I think he should get some credit now.

Pitt Gorilla
05-10-2011, 12:36 PM
No, because then I wouldn't be able to effectively mirror the absurdity of Direckshun doing it to pete by doing it to pete's Huff Post based mirror image, orange.What exactly does that do for you?

patteeu
05-10-2011, 12:47 PM
That was a good clip. McCain repeatedly criticized Obama for his position on attacking targets in Pakistan, and made it clear he did not just disagree with the public relations aspect of the policy, but with the policy itself.

McCain's team also played this up a lot on the talkshows and in the media, trying to make it look like Obama was naive and in over his head. I don't think this was necessarily wrong at the time, but since he got so much criticism for it then I think he should get some credit now.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't really listen to the clip because you can't have possibly gotten it so wrong if you did. Here are all the statements made by John McCain in that clip. None of them are criticisms of the policy.

He said that he would launch attacks into Pakistan. Now, you don't do that... you don't say that out loud.

Senator Obama likes to talk loudly. In fact, he said that he wants to announce that he wants to attack Pakistan. Remarkable.

I'll get Osama bin Laden, my friends. I'll get him. I know how to get him. No matter what. And I know how to do it, but I'm not going to telegraph my punches.

Osama bin Laden and General Petraeus have one thing in common that I know of. They both said that Iraq is the central battleground.

You want to take a mulligan and reassess your position?

And BTW, Obama *was* naive and in over his head. I think he still is, but at least now he's got a boatload of personal failures to learn from and he's tasted a bit of success. And in fairness to him, he hasn't followed through on most of his worst campaign promises in the foreign policy arena, so he's out-performing my expectations.

blaise
05-10-2011, 12:47 PM
What exactly does that do for you?

What does anything here do for anyone? It makes me laugh. Why, are you upset that someone would poke fun at Direckshun or something?

FD
05-10-2011, 12:50 PM
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't really listen to the clip because you can't have possibly gotten it so wrong if you did. Here are all the statements made by John McCain in that clip. None of them are criticisms of the policy.

You want to take a mulligan and reassess your position?

And BTW, Obama *was* naive and in over his head. I think he still is, but at least now he's got a boatload of personal failures to learn from and he's tasted a bit of success. And in fairness to him, he hasn't followed through on most of his worst campaign promises in the foreign policy arena, so he's out-performing my expectations.

McCain said on Larry King he wouldn't go into Pakistan:

In July 2008, Larry King asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), "If you were president and knew that bin Laden was in Pakistan, you know where, would you have U.S. forces go in after him?"

McCain said he would not.

"Larry, I'm not going to go there and here's why: because Pakistan is a sovereign nation."


Now, its possible he would have changed his policy if elected president, but without that alternative history we can only go by his words.

Coyote
05-10-2011, 12:52 PM
I don't understand this. He did exactly what he campaigned on, which was to strike al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan. He got a lot of heat for it in the campaign, both from Hillary and McCain, so it seems like he should get some credit for it now.

This "spiking the football" search for political credit and the corresponding media strategy is a problem for our military and regional political strategies, policies and objectives. It is the aggressive publicity of the mission connected to the policy that the administration was/is critiqued on.
Ironically the sensitivity to not being viewed as the administration you want to get the 3 AM call is what drove the emphasis on seeking the political credit.
An alternative approach could have been to delay the announcement for 1 week (still get the political credit) and actually develop the gathered intelligence, act on it before our enemies got to ground and simultaneously facilitate the Pakis response. More effective militarily and regionally with the Pakis as they could have developed a byline and not be so publically dishonored-thereby strenghten our allies in their government. The political/policy calculus was such that running the risk of someone else leaking the info and therefore not giving the administration full "credit" outweighed any other aspects of the policy.

Radar Chief
05-10-2011, 12:57 PM
What does anything here do for anyone? It makes me laugh. Why, are you upset that someone would poke fun at Direckshun or something?

You must be hitting on his girlfriend and no it doesn’t matter if she’s an ex or not. /Guardian

patteeu
05-10-2011, 01:08 PM
McCain said on Larry King he wouldn't go into Pakistan:



Now, its possible he would have changed his policy if elected president, but without that alternative history we can only go by his words.

He already told us he wouldn't announce it even if he planned to do it so we've been warned that we can't rely on any statement he might make about his own policy. Besides, it's not clear to me whether he's saying he wouldn't attack bin Laden in Pakistan or whether he's saying he won't "go there" as in talking about whether he'd attack bin Laden in Pakistan.

Most importantly though, in terms of relevance to our debate, is that he's not criticizing Obama there. He's discussing his own positions.

Do you acknowledge that his statements on the DailyKos video don't amount to criticism of Obama's policy?

scott free
05-10-2011, 01:58 PM
In hindsight, this doesnt really surprise me.

To conduct a 30-40 minute raid on a compound directly across from pakistans West Point, without any of their troops scrambled into action to see whats going on, strains credulity. Someone near the top of that government had to have given an order to stand down, that seems to be the only way this could've been pulled off so smoothly, no offense to our awesome SEALS.

Earthling
05-10-2011, 03:18 PM
I don't understand this. He did exactly what he campaigned on, which was to strike al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan. He got a lot of heat for it in the campaign, both from Hillary and McCain, so it seems like he should get some credit for it now.

Agreed. :thumb:

Pitt Gorilla
05-10-2011, 03:40 PM
What does anything here do for anyone? It makes me laugh. Why, are you upset that someone would poke fun at Direckshun or something?I'm trying to understand your fight.

BucEyedPea
05-10-2011, 03:58 PM
In hindsight, this doesnt really surprise me.

To conduct a 30-40 minute raid on a compound directly across from pakistans West Point, without any of their troops scrambled into action to see whats going on, strains credulity. Someone near the top of that government had to have given an order to stand down, that seems to be the only way this could've been pulled off so smoothly, no offense to our awesome SEALS.

That's what I think too. :thumb:

Bewbies
05-10-2011, 04:39 PM
I don't understand this. He did exactly what he campaigned on, which was to strike al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan. He got a lot of heat for it in the campaign, both from Hillary and McCain, so it seems like he should get some credit for it now.

Where/how did he get the info that led to the raid? LMAO

orange
05-10-2011, 06:15 PM
Where/how did he get the info that led to the raid? LMAO

Why don't you tell us? Exactly what information did he have and how did they get it, oh wise one?

ForeverChiefs58
05-10-2011, 06:28 PM
Musharraf, a Chiefs fan who reads CP, disputes the OP

Musharraf: No deal made to let US get bin Laden


ISLAMABAD – Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf denied Tuesday that his administration struck an agreement with the United States years ago to let American special forces kill or capture Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan.

The denial follows a report in a British newspaper that Washington and Islamabad reached a secret deal nearly a decade ago allowing the U.S. to conduct operations against bin Laden and two other top al-Qaida leaders on Pakistani soil.

"Pervez Musharraf has seen a media report, and let me make it clear that no such agreement had been signed during his tenure," said Musharraf's spokesman, Fawad Chaudhry. He said there was no oral agreement either.

U.S. Navy SEALs conducted a unilateral operation May 2 inside Pakistan that killed bin Laden, the world's most wanted terrorist. The pre-dawn raid was viewed by many Pakistanis as a national humiliation delivered by a deeply unpopular America.

In a report published Thursday, The Guardian newspaper, quoting U.S. officials and retired Pakistani officials, said Musharraf and former President George W. Bush struck the agreement after bin Laden escaped U.S. forces in the mountains of Tora Bora in late 2001. If such a raid were conducted, the agreement was that Pakistani officials would publicly denounce the U.S. unilateral action.

"The Guardian report is baseless," Chaudhry said.

In an Associated Press interview in January 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks, who headed the U.S. Central Command at the time, disclosed a deal with Pakistan allowing U.S. troops in Afghanistan to cross the border in pursuit of fugitive extremist leaders, including bin Laden. Pakistan denied such a deal existed.

"If there is any such agreement, the Pakistan government should place it in the parliament, and if there was any agreement, the American government should make it public," Chaudhry told the AP from Dubai, where the country's former military ruler is staying.

He added that during his tenure, Musharraf "always rejected the U.S. request about launching raids in Pakistan."

U.S. officials have said the Navy SEALs who killed bin Laden took his body with them when they left his compound, and the al-Qaida chief was buried at sea within the next 24 hours.

A message attributed to one of bin Laden's sons, Omar, was posted on a militant website Monday criticizing the U.S. for killing his father, demanding evidence of his death and lambasting American officials for the way they disposed of his body.

Burying the al-Qaida leader's body at sea "demeans and humiliates his family and his supporters and ... challenges religious provisions and feelings of hundreds of millions of Muslims," said the statement, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, which tracks militant websites.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110510/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_bin_laden
They also denied they help in the drone attacks so their double talk game has no end.

mlyonsd
05-10-2011, 06:49 PM
Musharraf, a Chiefs fan who reads CP, disputes the OP

Musharraf: No deal made to let US get bin Laden


ISLAMABAD – Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf denied Tuesday that his administration struck an agreement with the United States years ago to let American special forces kill or capture Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan.

The denial follows a report in a British newspaper that Washington and Islamabad reached a secret deal nearly a decade ago allowing the U.S. to conduct operations against bin Laden and two other top al-Qaida leaders on Pakistani soil.

"Pervez Musharraf has seen a media report, and let me make it clear that no such agreement had been signed during his tenure," said Musharraf's spokesman, Fawad Chaudhry. He said there was no oral agreement either.

U.S. Navy SEALs conducted a unilateral operation May 2 inside Pakistan that killed bin Laden, the world's most wanted terrorist. The pre-dawn raid was viewed by many Pakistanis as a national humiliation delivered by a deeply unpopular America.

In a report published Thursday, The Guardian newspaper, quoting U.S. officials and retired Pakistani officials, said Musharraf and former President George W. Bush struck the agreement after bin Laden escaped U.S. forces in the mountains of Tora Bora in late 2001. If such a raid were conducted, the agreement was that Pakistani officials would publicly denounce the U.S. unilateral action.

"The Guardian report is baseless," Chaudhry said.

In an Associated Press interview in January 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks, who headed the U.S. Central Command at the time, disclosed a deal with Pakistan allowing U.S. troops in Afghanistan to cross the border in pursuit of fugitive extremist leaders, including bin Laden. Pakistan denied such a deal existed.

"If there is any such agreement, the Pakistan government should place it in the parliament, and if there was any agreement, the American government should make it public," Chaudhry told the AP from Dubai, where the country's former military ruler is staying.

He added that during his tenure, Musharraf "always rejected the U.S. request about launching raids in Pakistan."

U.S. officials have said the Navy SEALs who killed bin Laden took his body with them when they left his compound, and the al-Qaida chief was buried at sea within the next 24 hours.

A message attributed to one of bin Laden's sons, Omar, was posted on a militant website Monday criticizing the U.S. for killing his father, demanding evidence of his death and lambasting American officials for the way they disposed of his body.

Burying the al-Qaida leader's body at sea "demeans and humiliates his family and his supporters and ... challenges religious provisions and feelings of hundreds of millions of Muslims," said the statement, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, which tracks militant websites.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110510/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_bin_laden
They also denied they help in the drone attacks so their double talk game has no end.

Yeah if I lived in Pakistan and made a deal that we could kill OBL I'd deny it too. Wink, wink. (just like the guardian article predicted)

ForeverChiefs58
05-10-2011, 07:06 PM
Yeah if I lived in Pakistan and made a deal that we could kill OBL I'd deny it too. Wink, wink. (just like the guardian article predicted)

esp since so many of their people hate us. I had read an article about some of our senators had traveled to the area and were surprised by the amount of anti us demonstrations across pakistan.

blaise
05-10-2011, 07:48 PM
I'm trying to understand your fight.

I'd tell you to let me know when you figure it out, but I don't value your opinion.
Bust best of luck!

Bewbies
05-10-2011, 09:32 PM
Why don't you tell us? Exactly what information did he have and how did they get it, oh wise one?

His speech in Cairo.

alnorth
05-11-2011, 07:59 AM
Musharraf, a Chiefs fan who reads CP, disputes the OP

Well yeah, of course he would. The point of the story, if its true, is that Pakistan is walking a tightrope. They cant piss off either the Americans or their own insane "we love Osama and the Taliban" people.

If true, we aren't going to acknowledge anything they did for their sake, and they are going to put on their "how dare you" face.