Once again, where's the documented proof? Robin Cook's half sentence Guardian claim is unsubstantiated Rubbish and nothing more.

But you want to believe. Go ahead.

I just checked Google, first four pages of English-language-results. You will not like it, but searching for "MAK" (Maktabu Khidamat) showed me the majority of results referring to the CIA having supported the MAK with massive deliveries of arms and weapons. I know it not differently from the literature I know. And the MAK - was Bin Laden. It also is often pointed oput that the CIA never officially denied to have supported MAK with weapons and arms. Leader and co-founder (1979) of MAK - was bin Laden.

It's not different with German search results. Just check it yourself.

the financial support for the Mujaheddin throughout the war is described to have been split roughly by 50:50, both the Saudis (and bin Laden) and the US investing 6, others say: 8 billion dollars in funds for the Mujaheddin. The exact values given vary a bit, but usually stress that 50:50 sharing. With the exception of the MAK-CIA cooperation both players used different ways and structures of distribution, though.

You say i believe something and should go on. Maybe that is so. But my "belief" is founded on many very different sources: books, media reports, and personal contacts with people whom I trust and who made knowing that part of the world their profession. You, on the other hand - referred to a site that by it's origin is a governmental propaganda outlet only. Again: ever saw a government speaker questioning his government?Maybe you want to go on yourself with only believing something, then?

To come to an end with this fruitless intermezzo, again my quote of this short piece:

"Nachdem nun auch die Sowjetunion selbst zum Kriegsziel geworden war, hatte die CIA allen Grund sich bedeckt zu halten. Geld und Material wurden über den pakistanischen Geheimdienst an eine Organisation namens MAK geliefert, die für die Verteilung in Afghanistan zuständig war. 1989 sicherte sich dann Bin Laden als Leiter von MAK Macht und Einfluss. Dennoch funktionierte die Aufgabentrennung so gut, dass später sowohl Bin Laden wie auch die CIA ruhigen Gewissens behaupten konnten, nie etwas miteinander zu tun gehabt zu haben.
http://www.kriegsreisende.de/wieder/alkaida-cia.htm "

Translation: "After the SovietUnion itself had become a target of war, the CIA had good reason to keep itself covered and to maintain a lower profile. Money and material were sent via the Pakistani secret service to an organization named MAK, which was responsible for it's distribution in Afghanistan. 1989, Osama Bin Laden - leader of the MAK - secured himself power and influence. But the separation of duties worked so well that Osama Bin Laden as well as the CIA could claim that they never had something to do with each other."

In other words: the interaction was hidden, as that was in the interest of both parties. Which is nothing unsual in the world of secret sevices, btw.

I don't quote from that site because I value that site so high, I even don't know it. I quote it becasue this text precisely summarizes in brief the same story that I repeatedly read in detail in books (I mentioned some authors earlier), and it is the same story I am told by former colleagues who still work as specialised mediamen in the Middle East and know a little bit about events going on behind the curtain in those parts of the world.

Nothing more from me about this theme. It is all too obvious, if one does not stare in front only, but alos look to the sides occasionally.

Well, that's a tad watered down but I'll grant you it - with the disclaimer that every other president for the past 20 years has also been neglectful to protect its citizens from Islamic terror. Clinton is probably the worst for the attacks that occured during his administration and the weak responses to them, but as he was lambasted for supposedly using the 1998 strikes on OBL as diversions from his, er, personal issues I'm not sure he could have gotten away with much else (there is an excellent paper out there by Hendrickson which explores this further).

But of course when GWB took over, those warnings did not just disappear - certainly not right on the heels of Cole. I find it more comforting to accept the 'institutional/bureaucratic failings' argument rather than believe that these presidents simply didn't care about these threats :doh:

Of course this is true; it's extraordinarily naive to believe otherwise. The Soviets were the bad guys at the time - it was just another of those fun little proxy wars that characterized the Cold War. Being in the shoes of the U.S. leadership at that time - and lacking the foresight we have today - I would probably have done the same. Good idea at the moment (the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?) but not so great in the long run (blowback!)

"During the same years, the CIA, intent on seeing a Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, was also funneling money and arms to the mujahedin. Milton Bearden, who ran the covert program during its peak years—1986 to 1989—says the CIA had no direct dealing s with bin Laden. But U.S. officials acknowledge that some of the aid probably ended up with bin Laden's group anyway."
- Time Magazine, The Most Wanted Man in the World

The situation at that particular time cannot be compared with Pakistan at present. Can you figure out why?

The CIA has undoubtedly had contacts with the Bin Laden family for generations.

Look at their close relationship with the Bush family. Bandar Bush? The Old Boy Network is probably the oldest continuous intelligence network in history.

Also, foreign construction companies have long been used as CIA fronts, so can it be a coincidence that the Bin Laden's own the largest construction company in Saudi Arabia.

They mujahadin thought Osama was a joke in Afghanistan. He liked getting his picture taken with weapons, more than he actually liked fighting.

I doubt this guy could mastermind a ham sandwich, but he makes a good spokesman I suppose.

They've been fighting some foreign occupier or another for 150 years in Afghanistan. It would just make sense that they would be good at it.

Care to substantiate that or most of the rest of your claims in your post?

If you will it, that doesn't make it true.

George Senior was head of the CIA. The Bin Ladden's are one of the most powerful families in Saudi Arabia. Casual dinner conversation becomes valuable intelligence. Like Royal Cousins back before WWI.

In regards to construction company tie-in, pure conjecture but fascinating.

Unsubtantiable but accurate.

Like so many things :)

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about an imminent al-Qaida strike on an American target that was given to the White House two months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15662785.htm

To overrun as if by invading; infest
- American Heritage Dictionary.
But we all know which one he meant.

Aren't you supposed to be providing proof about global warming or lack thereof or something?

Yep. Like I said, even though Clinton screwed up, that doesn't exhonerate the present administration. One might argue it makes them even worse because they failed to respond to the warning signs that were already there.