View Full Version : How Bush let Osama slip away
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-13-2005, 11:58 PM
Osama bin Laden sat with a group of top aides in mountainous Tora Bora in eastern Afghanistan. Outside, it was blustery and bitterly cold but inside the cave complex, where bin Laden had sought his final refuge from the American war bin Laden munched on olives and sipped sugary mint tea. Osama appeared to be supremely confident.
As the last major battle of the war in Afghanistan began, hidden from view inside the caves were an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 well-trained, well-armed men. A mile below, at the base of the caves, some three dozen U.S. Special Forces troops fanned out. They were the only ground forces that senior American military leaders had committed to the Tora Bora campaign.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/magazine/11TORABORA.html?ex=1284091200&en=32be68ba558e0b37&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Three dozen men? Bush wanted Osama real bad, didn't he?
http://www.bartcop.com/bullhorn-liar.jpg
"I might commit as many as 36 men to avenging these terrible attacks. Meanwhile, 100,000 troops will guard my new Iraq pipeline."
Shall we list the occassions in which Clinton let Osama "slip away"?
Heck, in what danger was OBL in at any time during Clinton's watch? What moves against al-Qaeda did Clinton make at any time? How did Clinton impact their financing operations? What military actions did Clinton undertake against al-Qaeda? What sorts of collaboration with European intelligence agencies was emplaced to monitor and track (for example) Atta's Hamburg cell?
Hmmm?
GonzoLays
09-14-2005, 08:19 AM
It is simple how Osama slipped away -- Bush let him. They are on the same team. If Osama never attacked the World Trade Towers, Bush could have never attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. They are probably high fiving each other to this day.
It is simple how Osama slipped away -- Bush let him. They are on the same team. If Osama never attacked the World Trade Towers, Bush could have never attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. They are probably high fiving each other to this day.
I realize you're a whacko, but please elucidate.
Bronco_Beerslug
09-14-2005, 08:55 AM
Should be a moot point before too long if Bush is lucky. Rumors he's in failing health coming out now.
epicSocialism4tw
09-14-2005, 10:02 AM
Should be a moot point before too long if Bush is lucky. Rumors he's in failing health coming out now.
I wouldnt be surprised if he is dead and has been for awhile.
The real question is over whether or not his assets are frozen. That is what matters. I know that he had some serious assets in Saudi Arabia
GonzoLays
09-14-2005, 12:40 PM
http://www.savethemales.ca/osama.gif
GonzoLays
09-14-2005, 12:44 PM
Shall we list the occassions in which Clinton let Osama "slip away"?
Heck, in what danger was OBL in at any time during Clinton's watch? What moves against al-Qaeda did Clinton make at any time? How did Clinton impact their financing operations? What military actions did Clinton undertake against al-Qaeda? What sorts of collaboration with European intelligence agencies was emplaced to monitor and track (for example) Atta's Hamburg cell?
Hmmm?
Have you ever wrote a post in which you did not ask atleast five questions? Have you ever answered a post before?
Have you ever wrote a post in which you did not ask atleast five questions? Have you ever answered a post before?
It's something akin to the Socratic method.
When someone tosses out a (perhaps ill-conceived) comment, all of us have the opportunity to ask questions of the poster. I'm sorry you don't feel up to the task of defending your viewpoint.
GonzoLays
09-14-2005, 01:21 PM
It's something akin to the Socratic method.
When someone tosses out a (perhaps ill-conceived) comment, all of us have the opportunity to ask questions of the poster. I'm sorry you don't feel up to the task of defending your viewpoint.
Akin to the Socractic method? That is all you use in your posts, Wigs. Why in the world should somebody respond to your repeated questions is beyond me. If someone would take the time to respond to your questions you would only reply with more questions about the reply. Kind of senseless isn't Wigs?
Bronco_Beerslug
09-14-2005, 01:28 PM
Should be a moot point before too long if Bush is lucky. Rumors he's in failing health coming out now.
US colonel says bin Laden ill
Wed Sep 14, 5:27 AM ET
CAIRO (Reuters) - Al Qaeda leader
Osama bin Laden is in poor health and is seeking medical attention, the London-based Arabic newspaper al-Hayat said on Wednesday, quoting a U.S. officer in Afghanistan.
"Osama bin Laden is trying to obtain medical attention," Colonel Don McGraw, director of operations at the Combined Forces Command in Kabul, told a group of British reporters, including one from al-Hayat, it said.
"He (McGraw) refused to say what the Qaeda leader is suffering from or whether it is the same kidney disease which Pakistani officials said in the past he was suffering from," the newspaper added.
Al-Hayat said it was not clear how the U.S. military had obtained its information or where it thought bin Laden might be.
The Saudi-born militant is believed to have taken refuge somewhere on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan after escaping from U.S. troops and their Afghan allies who toppled the Taliban government that had hosted him in 2001.
The United States holds al Qaeda responsible for many attacks, including the suicide hijack assaults on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.
http://tinyurl.com/94sja
U.S. military denies "bin Laden ill" report
Wed Sep 14,10:55 AM ET
KABUL (Reuters) - The U.S. military in
Afghanistan denied on Wednesday that one of its officers had told reporters
Osama bin Laden was seeking medical attention.
The London-based Arabic newspaper al-Hayat, citing U.S. Colonel Don McGraw in a briefing with reporters in Kabul, said on Wednesday that the al Qaeda leader was in poor health and was trying to obtain medical attention.
But a U.S. military spokeswoman in Kabul said McGraw had not said that.
"Colonel McGraw did not say Osama bin Laden was trying to get medical attention," said the spokeswoman, Lieutenant Cindy Moore.
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/a9naz
bronco_diesel
09-14-2005, 01:56 PM
Have you ever wrote a post in which you did not ask atleast five questions? Have you ever answered a post before?
you are suggesting a rather big accusation, yet you side step when asked to provide more insight. why?
Akin to the Socractic method? That is all you use in your posts, Wigs. Why in the world should somebody respond to your repeated questions is beyond me. If someone would take the time to respond to your questions you would only reply with more questions about the reply. Kind of senseless isn't Wigs?
If anything's "senseless", it's your inability to defend your statements.
'Tis a pity, but I expected nothing more, really.
SimonFletcherRules!
09-14-2005, 03:21 PM
It is simple how Osama slipped away -- Bush let him. They are on the same team. If Osama never attacked the World Trade Towers, Bush could have never attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. They are probably high fiving each other to this day.
You are a ****ing disgrace to all humans.
Rigs11
09-14-2005, 03:54 PM
You are a ****ing disgrace to all humans.
A personal attack instead of a rebuttal. Bravo. :nono:
Rigs11
09-14-2005, 03:56 PM
If anything's "senseless", it's your inability to defend your statements.
'Tis a pity, but I expected nothing more, really.
You never do either. All you do is come to the republicans rescue everytime someone posts something bad about them. All you do is ask questions instead of answering them.
Bronco_Beerslug
09-14-2005, 03:56 PM
You are a ****ing disgrace to all humans.
Coming from an individual that considers pervert O'Reilly a hero. Is that high praise or low praise?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-14-2005, 04:06 PM
If Osama never attacked the World Trade Towers, Bush could have never attacked Afghanistan and Iraq.
Had Bin Forgotten never attacked the WTC, the disaster monkey would have never acquired the "political capital" to do all of the things he has done, e.g., his invasion/occupation of Iraq, the Patriot Act, GOP control of both houses, his phony "war president" image, etc., etc.
Rohirrim
09-14-2005, 04:08 PM
"We're going to find those evildoers, those barbaric people who attacked our country, and we're going to hold them accountable," Bush said. "We're going to hold the people who house them accountable. The people who think they can provide them safe havens will be held accountable. The people who feed them will be held accountable."
Bronco_Beerslug
09-14-2005, 04:16 PM
"We're going to find those evildoers, those barbaric people who attacked our country, and we're going to hold them accountable," Bush said. "We're going to hold the people who house them accountable. The people who think they can provide them safe havens will be held accountable. The people who feed them will be held accountable."
That would be the Pakistanis right now.
epicSocialism4tw
09-14-2005, 04:27 PM
That would be the Pakistanis right now.
So you want to invade Pakistan?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-14-2005, 04:31 PM
How would the same rationalizations Dim Son used for invading Iraq not apply?
http://www.izzyguaal.com/ws/pol/bin/2faces/2faces_thmb.jpg
epicSocialism4tw
09-14-2005, 04:36 PM
How would the same rationalizations Dim Son used for invading Iraq not apply?
http://www.izzyguaal.com/ws/pol/bin/2faces/2faces_thmb.jpg
So you are saying that with our troops already spread fairly thin, that you want to invade Pakistan, probably Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Palestinian Israel, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia, and Indonesia?
Talk about imperialist. That wouldnt leave too much else to conquer.
Bronco_Beerslug
09-14-2005, 04:38 PM
So you want to invade Pakistan?
We can't do it now if we wanted to, or any other country (if we had a legitimate reason). What do you think, hold the course and let him die of old age?
So you are saying that with our troops already spread fairly thin, that you want to invade Pakistan, probably Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Palestinian Israel, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia, and Indonesia?
Talk about imperialist. That wouldnt leave too much else to conquer.
I wasn't aware bin laden was hiding in any of those countries?
epicSocialism4tw
09-14-2005, 04:41 PM
We can't do it now if we wanted to, or any other country (if we had a legitimate reason). What do you think, hold the course and let him die of old age?
If he's not dead, then he is probably close. He's been sick for years and is rumored to have cancer.
Like I said in a previous post, I think that freezing his assets is all that needs to be done.
Bronco_Beerslug
09-14-2005, 04:49 PM
If he's not dead, then he is probably close. He's been sick for years and is rumored to have cancer.
Like I said in a previous post, I think that freezing his assets is all that needs to be done.
So you're saying let the guy that attacked NY and killed 3000 people die of old age. OK, that's you opinion but I guess I'm more of vengeful orientated individual because I think we ought to find him dead or alive.
epicSocialism4tw
09-14-2005, 05:00 PM
So you're saying let the guy that attacked NY and killed 3000 people die of old age. OK, that's you opinion but I guess I'm more of vengeful orientated individual because I think we ought to find him dead or alive.
His network is scattered and is being watched more intensly than ever before. If he cant pay suicide bombers' families or prop up those camps with his billions, then his influence is minimal. He is a ghost who gives motivational speeches to a struggling faction of die-hards who are unwilling to blow themselves up, but hire poor people with promises of virgins and money for their families.
GonzoLays
09-14-2005, 06:02 PM
You never do either. All you do is come to the republicans rescue everytime someone posts something bad about them. All you do is ask questions instead of answering them.
Wigs, you are slowly being EXPOSED. You ask nothing but questions to cover you inadequate knowledge of politics and history.
gunns
09-14-2005, 10:15 PM
So you are saying that with our troops already spread fairly thin, that you want to invade Pakistan, probably Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Palestinian Israel, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia, and Indonesia?
Talk about imperialist. That wouldnt leave too much else to conquer.
Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and staying in Afghanistan would have been more logical IF we were actually going after terrorists. But Bush hasn't had to be logical in convincing some people that Iraq was the hot spot and the sad thing is some still don't see that.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-15-2005, 05:33 AM
2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat
Click here for the video (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv)
This clip from John Pilger's documentary, Breaking the Silence, contains 2001 footage of Powell and Rice declaring that Iraq is not a threat.
During the run-up to the 2003 attack on Iraq, we were repeatedly told by US leaders that Iraq absolutely, positively had weapons of mass destruction [read more]. The country was an immediate threat not only to its neighbors but to the entire world. It had the capability of launching WMDs within 45 minutes.
In August 2002, Cheney insisted: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
In a March 2003 address to the nation, Bush said: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
In April 2003, Fleischer claimed: "But make no mistake--as I said earlier--we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about."
In February 2003, Powell said: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...
bronco_diesel
09-15-2005, 06:11 AM
Wigs, you are slowly being EXPOSED. You ask nothing but questions to cover you inadequate knowledge of politics and history.
still deflecting there o enlightened one?
You never do either. All you do is come to the republicans rescue everytime someone posts something bad about them.
What I do is relate facts and evidence, which sometimes exonerates the targets of the liberals' anger. If you've read my stuff carefully, you'll understand that I lay blame where blame belongs - none of this "It's all Bush's fault" nonsense.
All you do is ask questions instead of answering them.
If your views are so weak that a few simple questions are just too onerous, well, that's a problem with your opinions, isn't it?
Why should anyone take anything anyone says as a given, not to be questioned?
Wigs, you are slowly being EXPOSED. You ask nothing but questions to cover you inadequate knowledge of politics and history.
Thanks for the morning guffaw.
Rigs11
09-15-2005, 10:19 AM
What I do is relate facts and evidence, which sometimes exonerates the targets of the liberals' anger. If you've read my stuff carefully, you'll understand that I lay blame where blame belongs - none of this "It's all Bush's fault" nonsense.
If your views are so weak that a few simple questions are just too onerous, well, that's a problem with your opinions, isn't it?
Why should anyone take anything anyone says as a given, not to be questioned?
Another weak post from you where you avoid replying by asking yet another 2 questions. I'v read your stuff, it's silly, everytime we question the current admin or their cronies, you come in here and stick up for them by trying to say it's ok because others have done it.You call yourself a libertarian and yet you fail to hold the admin accountable for anything.You're more like a closet republican.
Another weak post from you where you avoid replying by asking yet another 2 questions.
What two questions?
I'v read your stuff, it's silly, everytime we question the current admin or their cronies, you come in here and stick up for them by trying to say it's ok because others have done it.
Ahhhh, no.
I'm trying to get folks to apply their sense of outrage consistently. Most fail, primarily due to ideological contradictions. I've supplied numerous examples of prior presidents doing analogous things to what Bush has been doing, and about the only response is "Well, that's the past, this is now", which has some validity, but tends to overlook history.
You call yourself a libertarian and yet you fail to hold the admin accountable for anything.You're more like a closet republican.
You've not read my posts very carefully, then.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-15-2005, 04:07 PM
Another weak post from you where you avoid replying by asking yet another 2 questions. I'v read your stuff, it's silly, everytime we question the current admin or their cronies, you come in here and stick up for them by trying to say it's ok because others have done it.You call yourself a libertarian and yet you fail to hold the admin accountable for anything.You're more like a closet republican.
A closet repub who lives in a houseboat on a certain river in Egypt...
Why won't W*GS come all the way out for his man GeeDubya and his GOP?
Commitment phobia?
:laugh:
Why won't W*GS come all the way out for his man GeeDubya and his GOP?
I've explained that numerous times.
You (of all people) should have some "issues" with the prior Republican (lite version) President we had, i.e., Clinton.
Honestly, commit yourself to the CPUSA. You'll feel better, LABF.
Rigs11
09-16-2005, 12:01 AM
I've explained that numerous times.
You (of all people) should have some "issues" with the prior Republican (lite version) President we had, i.e., Clinton.
Honestly, commit yourself to the CPUSA. You'll feel better, LABF.
Bringing up Clinton again? Your Libert...Republican colors are eally showing now. :loopy:
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-16-2005, 04:46 AM
Bringing up Clinton again? Your Libert...Republican colors are eally showing now. :loopy:
^5
:laugh:
:thumbsup:
Bringing up Clinton again? Your Libert...Republican colors are eally showing now.
I'm just repeating what many true progressives and leftists believed about Clinton - he was a Republican with charisma. If you don't care for that characterization, take it up with LABF and the left wing of your party.