« | »

US Negotiated With Phony Taliban Leader

From an amused New York Times:

Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

November 22, 2010

KABUL, Afghanistan — For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement.

But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.

“It’s not him,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul intimately involved in the discussions. “And we gave him a lot of money.”

American officials confirmed Monday that they had given up hope that the Afghan was Mr. Mansour, or even a member of the Taliban leadership.

Talk about the ‘gang that couldn’t shoot straight.’ Our leaders can’t even manage to surrender to the enemy properly.

Of course, you have to wonder which is worse. Giving money to an imposter or giving money to the real Taliban?

NATO and Afghan officials said they held three meetings with the man, who traveled from in Pakistan, where Taliban leaders have taken refuge.

The fake Taliban leader even met with President Hamid Karzai, having been flown to Kabul on a NATO aircraft and ushered into the presidential palace, officials said.

The episode underscores the uncertain and even bizarre nature of the atmosphere in which Afghan and American leaders search for ways to bring the nine-year-old American-led war to an end

The episode underscores how frantic Mr. Obama is to get out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. And that people on the ground there aren’t any too concerned about how that is accomplished as long as it happens soon.

Many in the Taliban leadership, which is largely made up of barely literate clerics from the countryside, had not been seen in person by American, NATO or Afghan officials.

Notice how the New York Times tries to explain away this slight error.

But do you remember how Mr. Obama and his spokesmen at The Times used to mock President Bush for not finding Osama Bin Laden?

American officials say they were skeptical from the start about the identity of the man who claimed to be Mullah Mansour — who by some accounts is the second-ranking official in the Taliban, behind only the founder, Mullah Mohammed Omar. Serious doubts arose after the third meeting with Afghan officials, held in the southern city of Kandahar. A man who had known Mr. Mansour years ago told Afghan officials that the man at the table did not resemble him. “He said he didn’t recognize him,” said an Afghan leader, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The Western diplomat said the Afghan man was initially given a sizable sum of money to take part in the talks — and to help persuade him to return.

While the Afghan official said he still harbored hopes that the man would return for another round of talks, American and other Western officials said they had concluded that the man in question was not Mr. Mansour…

Last month, White House officials asked The New York Times to withhold Mr. Mansour’s name from an article about the peace talks, expressing concern that the talks would be jeopardized — and Mr. Mansour’s life put at risk — if his involvement were publicized. The Times agreed to withhold Mr. Mansour’s name, along with the names of two other Taliban leaders said to be involved in the discussions

Of course The Times was only too happy to cooperate with Mr. Obama. Especially, if it would facilitate an earlier retreat. But try to imagine them cooperating with Mr. Bush this way.

Some officials say the man may simply have been a freelance fraud, posing as a Taliban leader in order to enrich himself.

Others say the man may have been a Taliban agent. “The Taliban are cleverer than the Americans and our own intelligence service,” said a senior Afghan official who is familiar with the case. “They are playing games.”

Apparently, it doesn’t to take too much cleverness to outwit our side.

Others suspect that the fake Taliban leader, whose identity is not known, may have been dispatched by the Pakistani intelligence service, known by its initials, the ISI. Elements within the ISI have long played a “double-game” in Afghanistan, reassuring United States officials that they are pursuing the Taliban while at the same time providing support for the insurgents…

Clearly, we need to send Pakistan still more billions.  

Publicly, the Taliban leadership is sticking to the line that there are no talks at all. In a recent message to his followers, Mullah Omar denied that there were any talks unfolding at any level.

“The cunning enemy which has occupied our country, is trying, on the one hand, to expand its military operations on the basis of its double-standard policy and, on the other hand, wants to throw dust into the eyes of the people by spreading the rumors of negotiation,” his message said

Mr. Omar could have also mentioned how these phony stories would help Mr. Obama with his (America-hating) base in the last elections. 

But these negotiations should have been suspicious from the git go. Why should the Taliban give up? Thanks to Mr. Obama’s deadline for withdraw, they know that all they have to do is wait.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, November 23rd, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

13 Responses to “US Negotiated With Phony Taliban Leader”

  1. wardmama4 says:

    I think it is so fitting (and shows how completely unworthy this Administration is to lead America) that the greatest shyster to ever rise to power in the US should be taken by an even bigger shyster.

    The Big O however, will blame it on some lackey who will be fired posthaste but given a ‘job’ somewhere else – to help buy his/her silence. Or else Rahm (who isn’t working right now) will come pay you a ‘visit’.

  2. canary says:

    Well at least this Imposter didn’t blow up 35 years of central intelligence agents work. They need to bring these bozo’s to the WH so Obama can check them out better.

  3. Reality Bytes says:

    “One of the things I’m good at is getting people in a room with a bunch of different ideas who sometimes violently disagree with each other and finding common ground, and a sense of common direction.” – Barack Obama 10/26/10.

    Finally! We have something in common with the Taliban that Barry can build on. They got phoney leaders too!

    • canary says:

      yes, Obama was so disappointed when he first started organizing whenever he was told, he was too radical. Then he found others like himself. Thugs. Obama’s Army he called his followers. So modest.

  4. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Another face-palm moment, brought to you by the ever-so-savvy socialists in power.

    If one had the opportunity to have all our previous leadership still alive, to include even Johnson and Kennedy, I would love to hear their reactions to this current band of morons/socialists.

  5. Meg10 says:

    Is it just me or is anyone else here horrified that our President is bribing the Taliban? Why does this article not discuss how much money was given to our enemies, what portion came from our tax dollars and what exactly it used for once in this “imposter’s” hands? How is Obama ensuring that this bribe money won’t be used to kill more innocent American lives? President Bush refused to negotiate with terrorists, setting a president that aimed to protect American lives. Not only is Obama negotiating with them, he’s funding them too! Am I the only one who sees this as extremely dangerous and wrong? For being stupid enough to enter negotiations and give bribes to an imposter he should be impeached, for actually giving money to our enemies he should be impeached and then tried for treason!!!

    • proreason says:

      Meg, meg, meg.

      Save the outrage. This is all in a day’s work for the boy king. How much has he gifted Hamas with so far? Billions.

      You can’t look at Obamy as an American. He is on the planet to destroy America.

      Outrageous? sure

      Out of the ordinary? hardly

    • untrainable says:

      Yes. Obie should be tried for treason. But money to our enemies is WAY down the list of reasons to put this joker in prison.

    • Georgfelis says:

      About the cash, I see two immediate possibilities:
      1) The US actually did give large sums of money to a complete fraud, thinking they were really bribing a terrorist. This would indicate the US representatives were gullible idiots loose with a checkbook.
      2) The US didn’t really give this imposter any money, but is willing to *say* they gave him a whole boatload of cash. Imagine the discussion this schlub will have when he get a face-to-gun barrel meeting with the real terrorists. (Picture the scene in The Big Lebowski) This would be quite clever of the US.

      My money would be on the first option.

  6. NoNeoCommies says:

    Dang it!
    I missed another sweet gig.
    I could’ve walked with a suitcase full of cash after giving empty promises to the idiots.

  7. Papa Louie says:

    “Last month, White House officials asked The New York Times to withhold Mr. Mansour’s name from an article about the peace talks, expressing concern that the talks would be jeopardized…”

    Last Month? Wasn’t that just before the elections? Of course the Times complied. They have to balance the people’s right to know against the democrats’ right to get elected.

    Giving money to the enemy, whether it be Mansour or one of his agents, makes perfect sense to Obama if you pay attention to what he said when he was in Berlin and Cairo:

    “This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably…”

    “Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. …progress must be shared.”

    “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. … And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power…”

    So, given what Obama has said, why should it surprise anyone for him to actually take steps to redistribute “the wealth that open markets have created” and share with those who have chosen not to have open markets, like the Taliban? Besides, how can Iran exercise its “right to access peaceful nuclear power” if it can’t get the money by selling weapons to the Taliban and Iraq? And how can the Taliban purchase these weapons from Iran if we don’t give them the money? So bribing the enemy is just a backdoor way for Obama to accomplish his world vision without having to suffer the political fallout.

  8. bobdog says:

    You just can’t make this sh*t up.

  9. Mae says:

    Vet not, lest ye be vetted? No one had a picture of the second in command? Why not? Do we only pay impostors and not undercover operatives who might provide us with reliable photos?

    How did they get in touch with the fake Mr. Mansour in the first place? Did he just call the local NATO office and say, “I’m coming in from the cold from my Pakistani cave. Give me a warm spot at the negotiating table,” or some such convincing verbiage? How about I walk in with the requisite chadri and get some cash if I say I’m #1 wife of Bin Laden and want to negotiate better treatment for the other wives in exchange for the old boy’s whereabouts? What asses! And some of them were suspicious from the get-go? Ha ha ha ha ha ha, CYA.

    All, except those of the Kool-Aid drinking set, have to know what a loser #44 is. He can’t even set up a proper surrender. It would be funny if it weren’t so danged tragic. Please, God, please, can’t he pull some 500 times worse shipsy and be forced to resign? How could we possibly be worse off with Biden? Oh, scratch that idea.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »