cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Advisor

Re: Okay, it's over. Vietnam II

What caused the nest in the first place? That is an easy one, it is their imams and mosque. Every terror attack needs to result in the elimination of mosque or mosques and every time they lay one stone on top of another it is re-destroyed until they renounce terror. Every elimination needs to be bigger and more precious than the one before and closer to mecca. I say we start with the dome of the rock.

Senior Contributor

Re: Okay, it's over. Vietnam II

"He (Bush) had the people responsible dead in the sights, and let them slip away at Tora Bora. I believe and so do a lot of people believe it was to use OBL as a political pawn, and it worked to perfection, didn't it?"  

 

I think you got the wrong president GTO.   From all I have read it was believed Bin Laden was at Tora Bora but the CIA and military were never sure he was there and they never had any good Intel stating he was there or any positive sightings of Bin Laden there.  I have also seen it reported that the Bush administration and some in the military worried about sending troops into the remote and rugged Tora Bora area as they feared we would have suffered high casualties advancing on an enemy that knew we were coming and that knew the terrain plus held the high ground which included numerous caves, hideouts and weapons stashes.   I disagreed back then with Bush's decisions to hold back the troops instead choosing to bomb the hell out the area and hoping we got lucky and nailed Bin Laden.  If Bush wanted Bin Laden to get away so he could be used as a political pawn as you say then why did he drop so many bombs in the region? 

 

I always felt sending in special forces to take out Bin Laden would have been a better choice even if it resulted in U.S. Casualties.  I felt that delaying and allowing Bin Laden and his leaders to escape only guaranteed the loss of many more lives in the future.

 

If you want to say a U.S. president allowed Bin Laden to slip away you may want to look at Bill Clinton.  First there was the claim by the Sudanese minister of state for defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa that he met with the CIA and offered to hand over Bin Laden to the U.S. government in 1996 when Bin Laden was living in Sudan as an official guest of the radical Islamic government of Sudan.  For the record Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke all say they aggressively pursued Bin Laden and that there never was any "credible offers" to hand over Bin Laden.  However  Pulitzer Prize-winning author Lawrence Wright flatly states that Sudan did in fact make such an offer.

 

However the most damaging evidence that Clinton allowed Bin Laden to "slip away" as you say comes from the Dem's own network MSNBC.

 

In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps.  The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.


Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.


Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden?  NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. “You see a tall man…. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.”

Bin Laden is 6 foot 5.  The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.

The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11.  But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?


“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.

 

“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.


Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.


A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

 

Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”

Senior Contributor

Re: Not an easy answer

No r3020, the answer is not that easy. You have to dig a little deeper. Any leader in the Arab world encouraging terrorism is just reacting to past injustices. The world is not so simple as your answer would imply.

BTW did you hear the latest news from Afghanistan 

"NATO mistakenly killed five of its Afghan army allies in an airstrike Wednesday while the Afghans were attacking insurgents in the country's east, officials say."



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/07/07/afghanistan-nato-troop-death.html#ixzz0szfgMzaW

 

GTO's 'meat grinder' grinds both ways.

Senior Contributor

Re: Missed 'opportunities'

Dagwud, as long as you are bringing up what could have been, we should mention that the whole Afghanistan war 'could' have been prevented if a little more diplomacy had been used and perhaps a little 'seed money' to help influence people.

The Afghanistan government of the day came within a whisker of turning over Bin Ladin but war could not wait so here we are many years later and many deaths later.

Senior Contributor

Re: Missed 'opportunities'

Agreed Canuck but if Clinton had taken one of the two chances he had to get Bin Laden then Bush would never have felt the need to rush off to war as the WTC and 3000 people would still be here.   I agree with Bob Kerry.  When Bin Laden or any other terrorist declares war on your country and has already helped plan and finance terrorist attacks against you and your allies then you declare war on them and their organization.  Then instead of treating them as a law enforcement problem and trying to arrest them and put them on trial which would help make them a hero to the radical Muslims you simply drop a cruise missile on them or have a navy seal tap them twice in the head.  Then instead of bragging about it to help win re-election you stay quiet and let the bad guys wonder just who it was that took out their leader.

Veteran Advisor

Re: Okay, it's over. Vietnam II

You know just as well as you know you are breathing, that if he had pulled out of Iraq completely, you guys would be screaming "cut and run" till you couldn't scream any more.  He said that Afghanistan is where we needed to be and that is what he is doing.  I wish he had pulled everyone out of both places and let them rot but he didn't and I don't know why any more than you do.  BTW, did you ever say that bush was helping recruitment of terrorists WHEN he was president??

Senior Contributor

Re: Okay, it's over. Vietnam II

Why should you or Obama worry about what Repubs think if he pulls us out of Iraq.  The die hard Repubs never voted for him nor donated to his campaign.  Obama did not worry about what Repubs thought when he passed health care reform or when he choose his Supreme Court nominees.  Obama promised his base he would pull out of Iraq.  It was one of his main campaign points that he said made him different then McSame.   He even used his "I was against the war and will pull out" to help differentiate himself from Hillary to help win the Dem nomination.  

 

Without a doubt Bush helped with the recruitment of many terrorists. 

Senior Contributor

Re: Okay, it's over. Vietnam II

Thank you for at least being honest about Bush creating more terrorists. At least you have ONE thing right, the rest is questionable.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2006/osama_bin_missing_whos_tried_hardest_to.html 

 

I would like to point out these are not bloggers, these are trusted news sites.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200608240013

Senior Contributor

Re: Okay, it's over. Vietnam II

Did you read the FactCheck article about the Clinton administrations position on taking Bin Laden?

 

Previously, killing bin Laden was authorized only in self-defense during a capture operation. In the new document, it was permitted if capture wasn't considered feasible. However, subsequent memorandums reverted to earlier language, though the reasons for that are unclear. This helps explain why, according to the Report, "former White House officials and the CIA officials might disagree as to whether the CIA was ever authorized by the President to kill bin Laden."

 

If Clinton used a cruise missile in 1998 to try and kill Bin Laden then why did he not use a cruise missile or one fired from a predator drone to take out Bin Laden in the fall of 2000 when the CIA after viewing video from a predator drone of a al-Qaida training camp came to the conclusion that Bin Laden was present?  

 

I'm still curious what Bush critics think he should have done after being warned that Bin Laden was contemplating an attack against the U.S.  I've seen where several experts say they felt any attack against us would take place against U.S. interest over sea as most all other previous attacks had been.   In the Media Matters article when they talked about Bush receiving prior warnings of Bin Laden planning an attack in the U.S. they mentioned terrorist and their surveillance of federal buildings.  I don't believe the WTC was considered a federal building.  Should Bush have shut down all air travel for a few weeks until the warnings subsided or closed all federal buildings?  Would that not have been a victory in it's own right for the terrorists?  What should Bush have done with such vague warnings?  

 

I would call Media Matters a trusted news site in the same vein as I would FOX news.  Both have distinct political leanings. 

 

I'm curious GTO if you agree with Senator Kerry's position?

 

Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”

 


Senior Contributor

Re: Okay, it's over. Vietnam II

Why would you declare war on some one who hasn't attacked you? That was Bush's trick, attack a soviegn nation, with out provocation. But then again, who/ were we supposed to attack? I understand where your going with this, and I'm not playin' Bush and the GOP blew 9/11 pure and simple.