ISI official told to find UBL during 1st 3 days of Dem Convention

[zimv20]

from the New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=aaj071904)

This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan. A succession of high-level American officials--from outgoing CIA Director George Tenet to Secretary of State Colin Powell to Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca to State Department counterterrorism chief Cofer Black to a top CIA South Asia official--have visited Pakistan in recent months to urge General Pervez Musharraf's government to do more in the war on terrorism.


This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) beforeAmericans go to the polls in November. The Bush administration denies it has geared the war on terrorism to the electoral calendar. "Our attitude and actions have been the same since September 11 in terms of getting high-value targets off the street, and that doesn't change because of an election," says National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack. But The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs by the election. According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), "The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections." Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, "no timetable[s]" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, "The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections." (These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.)

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Something like this is to come as a surprise to us?

Strange that after Reagan gained office the Iranian hostages were released. Some say it was due to Reagan's "hawkish" stance. Given the Iran-Contra Affair how far fetched that there were pressures to release the hostages after Reagan got in to office? It was the hostage crisis that hurt Carter (among other things of course), and the release that buoyed Reagan during his "honeymoon".

I am also sure that after 3-11 in Spain, that there was renewed pressure from the Bush administration to do what ever to "appease" the American voter. Capture of bin Laden and others would accomplish that.

[Neserk]

As a 10 year I can very clearly remember Reagan giving Carter complete credit for the release of the hostages.

[Chip NoVaMac]

As a 10 year I can very clearly remember Reagan giving Carter complete credit for the release of the hostages.

You are right. But it doesn't change the feelings that people had with Carter on the issue. Or the "crowing" at the time, and the "revisionist" history that Reagan was the true reason for their release.

At the time Reagan's credit was an "olive branch" to unite the nation during troubled times with the hostages and a poor economy during the Carter years.

[Neserk]

You are right. But it doesn't change the feelings that people had with Carter on the issue. Or the "crowing" at the time, and the "revisionist" history that Reagan was the true reason for their release.

At the time Reagan's credit was an "olive branch" to unite the nation during troubled times with the hostages and a poor economy during the Carter years.


As a child it was obvious to me that it was Carter's doing, not Reagans. I never blamed Carter and never saw CArter blamed for the taking of hostages. As for the crowing I wasn't aware of any, but my family isn't particularly apolitical. Apparently my parents also gave Carter credit ;)

[G5orbust]

Somehow this doesnt seem strange to me. While I find that the timeframe named is despicable I also believe that if the administration can finally get its act together and catch the man we started 2 wars over then by all means get it done.

[Neserk]

That would have been nice if he'd done that 3 years ago!

[themadchemist]

To be honest, I'd rather see UBL caught under a Kerry administration or in a manner that doesn't score Bush the political points to put him back in office. This country doesn't need four more years of George on top of a threat from terrorists.

Additionally, I find unsettling the kinds of deals (especially on arms sales) that Pakistan could receive in succeeding at this. By all means, I think that they should help to catch Bin Laden and if they can do it, they should go for it. I don't think we should be rewarding them by selling them F-16's that they will use to threaten India. Of course, India could still whomp Pakistan in a conventional war, but I don't think the US should be stoking the fire, especially not when relations between the two nations are beginning to heal, if ever so slightly.

Now, if a unique window of opportunity opens and we've got a short-term chance of catching bin Laden, of course we should. But I have a feeling that he's sitting pretty in the Northwest Frontier and has been for a relatively long period of time. It's when the Pakistanis actually make a close move that he'll start moving.

If we can actually avert terrorist attacks by nabbing him and can nab him with ease, then we should.

I'm disappointed and angered, though, that Bush didn't show the same vim and vigor in the past couple of years, if the story's allegations are true.

[Sayhey]

The question becomes that if the Bush administration has the ability to order the capture of bin Laden or any other al Qaeda official with this kind of specificity, why haven't they done it by now? I think the answer is that they can't, but what they can do is order the Pakistanis to put more heat on the tribal areas of Pakistan. Why haven't they done this already? They felt they had more important business in Iraq. More than anything this shows that the administration is running scared of the possibility of Kerry victory in November.

[themadchemist]

The question becomes that if the Bush administration has the ability to order the capture of bin Laden or any other al Qaeda official with this kind of specificity, why haven't they done it by now? I think the answer is that they can't, but what they can do is order the Pakistanis to put more heat on the tribal areas of Pakistan. Why haven't they done this already? They felt they had more important business in Iraq. More than anything this shows that the administration is running scared of the possibility of Kerry victory in November.

Very true. If the administration had the means, this should have been done earlier, not as some sort of political ploy.

It's doubtful that the Pakistanis will go into the NW Frontier, though, because it could incite a revolution. Even when Pakistan was part of India, the NW Frontier was left to its own devices.

[blackfox]

I seriously wonder about the loyalties of Pakistan, considering their interests and pressures.

It is true that Pakistan has much to benefit from a decent relationship to the US, from aid in weapons and cash, logistic and intelligence sharing on the "common" goal of the WOT, and oil interests in the region. The US also, subsequently, has a certain amount of leverage against them. Whether we have been applying it behind the scenes either w/ regards to either UBL/Al Qa'ida/Taliban and/or Afghanistan. Since, as mentioned, Pakistan is poorer, less populous and less advanced militarily vis-a-vis India, this aid is especially helpful and imo gives the Government more stability by having an obvious benefit from US aid. Although there is a strong Islamic strain in Pakistan (more later), I would think that the benefits of increased strength against India would quell anti-US sentiment, by appealing to Cultural or Nationalistic sentiments w/in the population...

On the other hand, Pakistan is under strong pressure from Islamic groups to further Islamicize and reject the West. The Islamic network of madrassas and the underground financing and recruitment network, give these groups, as a whole, a lot of power against the government ( as well as the grass-roots public services)...and the government is in no place to stand up to them, or to police them...nor do I feel they necessarily desire to as a matter of pragmatism...

So, imo this leads to a deliberate policy of duplicity on the part of the Pakistani government. This is a government who supported the Taliban before the US forcibly removed them (back to Pakistan). More than that, imo I beleive the government has limited powers in many rural areas, or the government intself has Islamic leadership in many areas. I seriously doubt their ability to capture UBL, or their will to do so. As attractive as the aid from the West is, ultimately I would assume the government has a bigger interest in national cohesion and staying in power...

As for the timing of this announcement (or it's existence), I chalk it up to just political rhetoric...much like the Tom Ridge announcement. I do not believe this is about substance, only perception...which this Administration is keen on managing...

Just an Opinion...FWIW

edit..many typos..sorry

[Sayhey]

Very true. If the administration had the means, this should have been done earlier, not as some sort of political ploy.

It's doubtful that the Pakistanis will go into the NW Frontier, though, because it could incite a revolution. Even when Pakistan was part of India, the NW Frontier was left to its own devices.

If your surmise that a revolution, of the fundamentalist kind, would occur if the Pakistanis move in force into these areas, that means that we are putting Pakistan at risk in order to win some points in the political polls for Bush. Any way you slice this, it doesn't look good for explaining the administration's motives.

[zimv20]

If your surmise that a revolution, of the fundamentalist kind, would occur if the Pakistanis move in force into these areas, that means that we are putting Pakistan at risk in order to win some points in the political polls for Bush.
which should be serious cause for alarm. personally, i feel pakistan is this->| |<-close to falling to islamic fundamentalists, giving them direct access to nukes.

how carefully are they guarded, i wonder?

[themadchemist]

If your surmise that a revolution, of the fundamentalist kind, would occur if the Pakistanis move in force into these areas, that means that we are putting Pakistan at risk in order to win some points in the political polls for Bush. Any way you slice this, it doesn't look good for explaining the administration's motives.

I totally agree. The other question, though, is whether Pakistan would even bother to listen. Sure, it wants the F-16's. Sure, it wants the 3 billion dollar aid packages to keep coming in. But Musharraf has been walking a fine line both to please the Americans and not to piss off the Pakistanis too much. Busting into the NW Frontier could mean a lot of trouble for him and for his government.

Bush might have to deal with the negative press from this story without the positive press of grabbing an HVT. Somehow, I don't feel bad for him.

[zimv20]

i'm having a hard time believing the timing of this is just a coincidence, w/ kerry making his acceptance speech tonight...

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=2&u=/ap/20040729/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_arrest)


By PAUL HAVEN, Associated Press Writer

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistan has arrested a Tanzanian al-Qaida suspect wanted by the United States in the 1998 bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the interior minister said Friday. He said the suspect was cooperating and had given authorities "very valuable" information.

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani — who is on the FBI (news - web sites)'s list of 22 most wanted terrorists, with a reward of up to $25 million on his head — was arrested Sunday in the eastern city of Gujrat along with at least 15 other people, Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayyat told The Associated Press.


Hayyat announced the arrest after midnight in Pakistan in an interview with Geo television, an unusually late hour considering the arrests were made Sunday and authorities had known but not revealed the man's identity for some days.

Pakistani leaders have rejected allegations they time the announcements of major terror arrests for maximum impact, though several other arrests have come on the eve of important Pakistan-U.S. summits. Al-Qaida suspect Ramzi Binalshibh was nabbed in Karachi on Sept. 11, 2002, the one year anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

[Durandal7]

Give me a break. Is the world supposed to grind to a halt during the convention and the weeks leading up to it? So far everything that has happened this week has been called "suspicious timing."

All of these events (Berger, the capture of Ghailani) are fairly minor and provide little if any bounce to the Bush campaign. Any bounce they do provide will evaporate after about 5 days.

If Bush wants to time events to win the election he will capture Bin Laden, smear Kerry, etc. about 10 days before the election.

I'm not sure why so much credit is being placed in the claims of an anonymous ISI agent in the original article. You're more likely to get the truth out of a member of the Mafia than a Pakistani intelligence agent.

[Sayhey]

i'm having a hard time believing the timing of this is just a coincidence, w/ kerry making his acceptance speech tonight...

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=2&u=/ap/20040729/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_arrest)

I just saw this story on the BBC news and thought of this thread. Thanks for reviving it and reminding us of the amazing coincidence this capture represents. I hope someone sends the original story to every news desk in the country.

[IJ Reilly]

Give me a break. Is the world supposed to grind to a halt during the convention and the weeks leading up to it? So far everything that has happened this week has been called "suspicious timing."

All of these events (Berger, the capture of Ghailani) are fairly minor and provide little if any bounce to the Bush campaign. Any bounce they do provide will evaporate after about 5 days.

If Bush wants to time events to win the election he will capture Bin Laden, smear Kerry, etc. about 10 days before the election.

I'm not sure why so much credit is being placed in the claims of an anonymous ISI agent in the original article. You're more likely to get the truth out of a member of the Mafia than a Pakistani intelligence agent.

I frankly didn't give any credit to these claims until one of them came true.

[blackfox]

WashPost OP-ED...
July Surprise?
Thursday, Jul 29, 2004; 7:21 PM


Earlier this month, the New Republic reported that the Bush administration was putting pressure on Pakistan to arrest some major-league terrorists before the November election.



In fact, the magazine quoted one unidentified Pakistani intelligence official as saying that a White House aide told the head of the spy agency last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT [High-Value Target] were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July." Those just happened to be the first three days of the Democratic convention.



Um, guess what?



The AP has reported Thursday afternoon that "Pakistan has arrested a Tanzanian al Qaeda suspect wanted by the United States in the 1998 bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the interior minister said Friday. He said the suspect was cooperating and had given authorities 'very valuable' information."



Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was reportedly to be on the FBI's list of 22 most wanted terrorists, and a reward of up to $25 million was offered for his capture.



And get this: The arrest was actually made Sunday, the AP reported from Islamabad. But the capture was announced Thursday. The bulletins hit the wires soon after 3 p.m., or about seven hours before John Kerry delivers his acceptance speech.



Coincidence?



Obviously, I have no evidence that there's any connection between the timing of the arrest and the allegations made by the New Republic, which White House officials dismissed at the time. But the way the announcement was handled raises questions, to say the least. If you nabbed Ghailani on Sunday, why on earth would you wait until hours before Kerry's speech to tell the world -- and open yourself up to charges of politicizing the war on terror?
So someone in the News Media seems to raise an eyebrow at the timing...FWIW










- By Howard Kurtz

[3rdpath]

update:

keith olbermann had an update on this story yesterday on msnbc. his guest was an assoc. editor of the new republic ( ackerman?) and they discussed the amazing timing of this capture...or actually, the delayed announcement.

what i found amusing was that no one discussed the significance of the person captured...which leads me to believe the whole PR ploy was a failure.

ackerman also implied he had further info about some future "amazingly coincidental" captures that will occur.

so i guess we'll just have to wait for OBL to magically appear in u.s. custody sometime in november. :rolleyes:

[Chip NoVaMac]

update:

keith olbermann had an update on this story yesterday on msnbc. his guest was an assoc. editor of the new republic ( ackerman?) and they discussed the amazing timing of this capture...or actually, the delayed announcement.

what i found amusing was that no one discussed the significance of the person captured...which leads me to believe the whole PR ploy was a failure.

ackerman also implied he had further info about some future "amazingly coincidental" captures that will occur.

so i guess we'll just have to wait for OBL to magically appear in u.s. custody sometime in november. :rolleyes:

It is a shame how voters can be swayed by simple news. Reagan is given the credit for the hostage release, rightly or wrongly.

[themadchemist]

Well, it didn't make the dent they wanted it to, because the major news channels haven't been reporting it as prominently as the White House would probably like.

Hey, Pakistan, "No F-16's for you!"