ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Feb. 28, 2007
Pakistan Denies Bin Laden's In Country
Rejects U.S. Claims That Al Qaeda Is Setting Up Camps Near Afghan Border
-
U.S. intelligence officials believe Osama bin Laden, right, and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri – seen together in video broadcast by Al-Jazeera TV in 2002 – are trying to establish an al Qaeda base in Pakistan's northwest. (AP)
-
Interactive Bin Laden & Al Qaeda Where al Qaeda operates, who's been caught, how they're financed and a timeline of attacks on Americans.
-
Fast Facts Pakistan Learn about the people, economy and history.
Interior Minister Aftab Khan Sherpao, told The Associated Press there were no al Qaeda training camps in his country and U.S. officials had not provided any intelligence suggesting there were.
"We will act on any such intelligence, but so far they have not" provided any, he said.
Sherpao's comments came a day after Mike McConnell, the new U.S. intelligence chief, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that al Qaeda was trying to set up operations in largely ungoverned parts of Pakistan's northwest, along Afghanistan's eastern border.
"It's something we're very worried about and very concerned about," McConnell said. U.S. intelligence officials believe that bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, were trying to establish an al Qaeda base in the region, he said. McConnell noted the camps are in an area that has never been governed by any state or outside power.
U.S. officials fear bin Laden no longer has to rely on couriers for his communications, but can meet with his senior leaders face to face and plan attacks on the U.S., CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports.
On a visit to Pakistan on Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney met with President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to seek his aid in foiling an anticipated spring offensive by the Taliban and al Qaeda against coalition forces in Afghanistan.
Cheney was accompanied by Deputy CIA Director Stephen Kappes, suggesting that the U.S. officials were prepared to buttress their allegations about al Qaeda operations with intelligence data.
U.S. officials are concerned about a peace deal Pakistan signed with tribal leaders of the North Waziristan region in September. In that agreement, the tribes promised to respect the authority of the Pakistani government and curtail cross-border attacks by militants.
In return, Musharraf returned some of the tribes' weapons, released some prisoners and withdrew from posts inside North Waziristan.
At Tuesday's hearing, Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said the tribes have not abided by most terms of the agreement. McConnell added U.S. intelligence believes al Qaeda's training and related capabilities increased as a result of the deal.
Musharraf's office confirmed that during the meeting, Cheney expressed concern that al Qaeda was "regrouping" in the tribal areas and that the vice president "called for concerted efforts in countering the threat."
Musharraf, his office said, told Cheney Pakistan was already doing all it could to fight the militants.
Sherpao insisted Pakistan was "fighting the scourge of terrorism in the best interest of Pakistan."
Musharraf is a key ally of the United States in its fight against Islamic militants.
According to Derek Chollet of the Center for Strategic Studies, U.S. options in Pakistan are nearing a dead end, even a disastrous end if Musharraf were to fall.
"We're one bad event away from this going down the tubes," Chollet told CBS News, "which is a dangerous position to be in, given how vital Pakistan is and Pakistan's stability is to U.S. interests, given the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power."
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From World
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 7
- next
See all 130 Comments"i respect those that have given their lives for what they believe in."
"i personally think our armed forces and the other twelve nato nations have done a good job with minimal resources. i agree, we should have not invaded iraq, and should have focused on the job in afghanistan."
Have a good one, kid....
The Taliban is growing in number. Bin Laden is free. Al-Qaeda is growing in number. You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "defeat".
Nor do you understand how to use the CBS "PUBLISH" button. Press once, wait. No need to repeat yourself by posting twice, your lack of understanding comes through crystal clear the first time.
Sorry kid, I hate to mock and run, but I gotta go soon. Any last rants?
What, that you continually refused to prove your arguments while I gave you answers to yours? Yep, got that early on - right about the second time you skirted the issue and I realized you were just blabbing on and weren't really able to answer.
Ooh, I guess that spelling comment did get ya. Sorry about that! And yes, increased attacks, loss of ground - we're still trying to recapture towns to the south, one of the Taleban strongholds) - only marginal security even in the capital, and rising death tolls indicate the situation is getting worse there, as in Iraq. We are losing. We can turn it around, but right now we're losing. And your best wishes for the troops, sincere though they are, don't change the reality of the situation.
"you care to talk more about how much you think ive been hidin is defeating us forces, than about how well we are doing."
It's called not letting a criminal mastermind escape justice to continue attacks, and not stubbornly sticking to "things are going well, things are going well" like you wish it to be.
"you throw out insults to start with then try to act like somekind of elitist english major."
I don't think I stopped the insults - are you missing some of them? Too subtle? At least you respond to them, as opposed to the facts.
Only because you refuse to answer it! Not my fault you can't come up with the answer, that's all you, kid.
Aww, did I hurt your feelings? Such thin skin. BTW, the sentence you quote from me doesn't appear to have any bad grammar. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what part of this sentence:
Surprisingly, words fail me, although "despicable", "heartless", "pitiful" and "Unamerican" all came to mind.
...contains bad grammar?
As for slurs, you wrote that Bin Laden is overhyped by the media. That's an insult to the suvivors and families who went through that time. You're talking about a guy who's killed almost 3,000 people and is left at large - you can't overhype someone who's committed that kind of atrocity. Do you think we've talked about Hitler enough too, now that he's been dead for 60 year or so? Just wondering.
and i am saying your so-called "military perspective" hasn't given me an answer about how you know Bin Laden hasn't been behind the Taleban activities against NATO and the civilian and troop casualties. How many times are you going to say something without giving evidence, kid?
Since you're just cutting and pasting now, I might as well do the same:
*sigh* here we go again. You're equating battle with victory, so there's no proof to give. Heck, I really don't know if we've actually "lost any battles", so you tell me - prove we HAVEN'T lost any battles in Afghanistan. Just saying something is true doesn't make it true. So, go ahead and prove me wrong.
*sigh* here we go again. You're equating battle with victory, so there's no proof to give. Heck, I really don't know if we've actually "lost any battles", so you tell me - prove we HAVEN'T lost any battles in Afghanistan. Just saying something is true doesn't make it true. So, go ahead and prove me wrong.
"whats a matter, are you upset with me?"
Not at all, not at all! I've enjoyed your slurs, meanderings, lies - and bad grammar - immensely.
How old were you in 2001 kid? You don't seem to know that the reason we went to Afghanistan instead of, oh, say, Saudia Arabia where most of the hijackers came from, was because the guy who spearheaded the attacks - Osama Bin Laden - was there.
"hes cowering under a rock in the snow caps some place and the media is over hyping him."
Yeah, the media is overhyping the guy who killed 3,000 Americans. Keep repeating that, you're making my case for me. And you've got no evidence he's cowering ANYWHERE, so you can give up that little talking point as well.
"but as for you comming up with any proof he is beating us forces, you have failed misserably."
You mean other than pointing out we're still there and the situation is getting worse?
"you cant make me shut up,punkbytch."
And it appears you can't come up with the evidence I asked four times for. Don't worry, since you can't find any, I won't ask you again. I know this must be humiliating for ya.
"you still have not named a time, place or battle where he has defeated us forces?"
Defeat is the opposite of victory, yes? Have we been defeated? No. Have we won? And if we have, why are we still there? You're equating some grand ground war with house to house searches and a war of attrition. Not the same thing, as a military expert such as yourself surely knows. No lost battles equals victory and improved peace? I don't think so.
"all you came up with is , a casualty count, that any 12 year old could look up."
then how come you couldn't do it until I posted the link, and had to ask me "when was the last time they shot a US soldier in combat?"
"they have never captured a single us soldier. sounds like we completely kicked the #%^$ out of them to me."
Yeah, so why are we still there, if as you imply, we've done such a spectacular job? And why is the guy behind the 9/11 attacks still free?
...usadvisor101 wrote earlier: "the media has over hyped ive been hidin"
And Bin Laden is... who again? You say the media overhypes Bin Laden. Bin Laden was behind 9/11. C'mon kid, stay focused, I know it's hard to connect those two little dots, but I think even you can do it.
For the second time: You're a liar. Show me anywhere in my posts where I "stick up for" Bin Laden. You can't just throw that *** out and expect not to be called on it. So prove yourself.
You want to support the troops. Great. I support them too. We agree on that. We agree on it being a mistake to invade Iraq. As for the rest:
I ask for the fourth time: show me how you know Bin Laden is marginalized. Still waiting, there, usadvisor101. What's taking so long? Prove it.
As for battles: I repeat, increased attacks, increased casualties, a country that's barely holding the capital city after six years of occupation is not "winning". That's not our military's fault it's our leaders'.
Last but not least, I didn't say you mentioned 9/11 first did I? You didn't have to. You're talking about Osama Bin Laden. Hello? What's he famous for again? Can you tell me that? Is anyone home?
OK your turn. You're a liar. Show me anywhere in my posts where I "stick up for" Bin Laden.
And your comments imply - continually - that Bin Laden has been marginalized. For the third time I ask you to give me evidence to support that. Put up or shut up, kid.
what part of my comment (06:59 pm):
"our military - the finest in the world"
is too complicated for you usadvisor101? I can always dumb it down for you.
Yeah, sorry kid, resorting to insults instead of backing up your points means you really don't know what you're talking about at all. And your casual use of words like "liar" when you can't back that up either, means you don't really care to hear anything but the sound of your own voice. Grow up.
Because I'm having more fun writing down what you are saying and ripping it up, and also because you say Bin Laden isn't "a real threat now" (your words), even though you haven't any evidence to back that up.
...and usadvisor101 wrote earlier: "when was the last time they shot a us soldier in combat?"
duh.
are you sure you know what a "link" is? I've given you the link you need to confirm US troop fatalities in Afghanistan for yourself (over 500 since 2001), take it or leave it.
are we doing well militarily? no. our military - the finest in the world - is overstretched and diverted thanks to our invasion of Iraq. Coalition troops in Afghanistan are seeing increasing attacks (214 in 2004, 267 in 2005, 401 in 2006 and already 26 in 2007). This reflects a growing threat, not "mission accomplished".
And in the end, this discussion was about how you feel about capturing Bin Laden as a primary goal. You don't think he's important, that's fine, but I'm still waiting for all that evidence you're sitting on that this guy's been marginalized.
http://www.icasualties.org/oef/Default.aspx
Considering the fact that Kabul is the only place in Afghanistan that's secure, i'd say you're the one having trouble seeing the picture over there. We left Bin Laden uncaught, and left Afghanistan behind to start a war in Iraq. Conditions in Afghanistan are worsening. Bin Laden's still free.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 7
- next
See all 130 Comments