PDA

View Full Version : Bush Admin Passed On Chance To Raid Meeting Of Al Qaida Leaders


Taco John
07-07-2007, 05:36 PM
U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ’05

By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: July 8, 2007
WASHINGTON, July 7 — A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

The target was a meeting of Al Qaeda’s leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group’s operations.

But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected the 11th-hour appeal of Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.

Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.

The decision to halt the planned “snatch and grab” operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military’s secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda.

Their frustration has only grown over the past two years, they said, as Al Qaeda has improved its abilities to plan global attacks and build new training compounds in Pakistan’s tribal areas, which have become virtual havens for the terrorist network.

In recent months, the White House has become increasingly irritated with Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, for his inaction on the growing threat of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

About a dozen current and former military and intelligence officials were interviewed for this article, all of whom requested anonymity because the planned 2005 mission remained classified.

Spokesmen for the Pentagon, C.I.A. and White House declined to comment. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed about the planned operation.

The officials acknowledge that they are not certain that Mr. Zawahri attended the 2005 meeting in North Waziristan, a mountainous province just miles from the Afghan border. But they said that the United States had communications intercepts that tipped them off to the meeting, and that intelligence officials had unusually high confidence that Mr. Zawahri was there.

Months later, in early May 2005, the C.I.A. launched a missile from a remotely piloted Predator drone, killing Haitham al-Yemeni, a senior Qaeda figure whom the C.I.A. had tracked since the meeting.

It has long been known that C.I.A. operatives conduct counterterrorism missions in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Details of the aborted 2005 operation provide a glimpse into the Bush administration’s internal negotiations over whether to take unilateral military action in Pakistan, where General Musharraf’s fragile government is under pressure from dissidents who object to any cooperation with the United States.

Pentagon officials familiar with covert operations said that planners had to consider the political and human risks of launching a military campaign in a sovereign country, even in an area like Pakistan’s tribal lands where the government has only tenuous control. Even with its shortcomings, Pakistan has been a vital American ally since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the militaries of the two countries have close ties.

The Pentagon officials noted that tension was inherent in any decision to approve such a mission: a smaller military footprint allows a better chance of a mission going undetected, but it also exposes the units to greater risk of being killed or captured.

Officials said that one reason Mr. Rumsfeld called off the 2005 operation was the number of troops involved in the mission had grown to several hundred, including Army Rangers, members of the Navy Seals and C.I.A. operatives, and he determined that the United States could no longer carry out the mission without General Musharraf’s permission. It is unlikely that the Pakistani president would have approved an operation of that size, officials said.

Some outside experts said American counterterrorism operations had been hamstrung because of concerns about General Musharraf’s shaky government.

“The reluctance to take risk or jeopardize our political relationship with Musharraf may well account for the fact that five and half years after 9/11 we are still trying to run bin Laden and Zawahri to ground,” said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University.

These political considerations have created resentment among some members of the military’s Special Operations forces.

“The Special Operations guys are tearing their hair out at the highest levels,” said a former Bush administration official with close ties to those troops. While they have not received good intelligence on the whereabouts of top Qaeda members recently, he said, they say they believe they have sometimes had useful information on lower-level figures.

“There is a degree of frustration that is off the charts, because they are looking at targets on a daily basis and can’t move against them,” he said.

In early 2005, after learning about the Qaeda meeting, the military developed a plan for a small Navy Seals unit to parachute into Pakistan to carry out a quick operation, former officials said.

But as the operation moved up the military chain of command, officials said, various planners bulked up the force’s size to provide security for the Special Operations forces.

“The whole thing turned into the invasion of Pakistan,” said the former senior intelligence official involved in the planning. Still, he said he thought the mission was worth the risk. “We were frustrated because we wanted to take a shot,” he said.

Several former officials interviewed said the operation was not the only occasion since the Sept. 11 attacks that plans were developed to use a large American military force in Pakistan. It is unclear whether any of those missions have been executed.

Some of the military and intelligence officials familiar with the 2005 events say it showed a rift between operators in the field and a military bureaucracy that has still not effectively adapted to hunt for global terrorists, moving too cautiously to use Special Operations troops against terrorist targets.

That criticism has echoes of the risk aversion that the officials said pervaded efforts against Al Qaeda during the Clinton administration, when missions to use American troops to capture or kill Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan were never executed because they were considered too perilous, risked killing civilians or were based on inadequate intelligence. Rather than sending in ground troops, the Clinton White House instead chose to fire cruise missiles in what became failed attempts to kill Mr. bin Laden and his deputies — a tactic Mr. Bush criticized shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Since then, the C.I.A. has launched missiles from Predator aircraft in the tribal areas several times, with varying degrees of success. Intelligence officials say they believe that in January 2006, an airstrike narrowly missed killing Mr. Zawahri, who hours earlier had attended a dinner in Damadola, a Pakistani village.

General Musharraf cast his lot with the Bush administration in the hunt for Al Qaeda after the 2001 attacks, and he has periodically ordered Pakistan’s military to conduct counterterrorism missions in the tribal areas, provoking fierce resistance there. But in recent months he has pulled back, prompting Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to issue stern warnings in private that he risked losing American aid if he did not step up efforts against Al Qaeda, senior administration officials have said.

Officials said that mid-2005 was a period when they were gathering good intelligence about Al Qaeda’s leaders in Pakistan’s tribal areas. By the next year, however, the White House had become frustrated by the lack of progress in the hunt for Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri.

In early 2006, President Bush ordered a “surge” of dozens of C.I.A. agents to Pakistan, hoping that an influx of intelligence operatives would lead to better information, officials said. But that has brought the United States no closer to locating Al Qaeda’s top two leaders. The latest message from them came this week, in a new tape in which Mr. Zawahri urged Iraqis and Muslims around the world to show more support for Islamist insurgents in Iraq.

In his recently published memoir, George J. Tenet, the former C.I.A. director, said the intelligence about Mr. bin Laden’s whereabouts during the Clinton years was similarly sparse. The information was usually only at the “50-60% confidence level,” he wrote, not sufficient to justify American military action.

“As much as we all wanted Bin Ladin dead, the use of force by a superpower requires information, discipline, and time,” Mr. Tenet wrote. “We rarely had the information in sufficient quantities or the time to evaluate and act on it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/washington/08intel.html?hp

Taco John
07-07-2007, 05:38 PM
"Clinton did it too..." -recxjake

"This is reasonable..." -patteau

Taco John
07-07-2007, 05:41 PM
Just think... If we weren't bogged down in Iraq, we might be able to actually making progress in the war on terror. How great would that be?

Taco John
07-08-2007, 03:37 PM
bump

Bowser
07-08-2007, 06:46 PM
Just think... If we weren't bogged down in Iraq, we might be able to actually making progress in the war on terror. How great would that be?

:eek:

Donger
07-08-2007, 07:23 PM
Just think... If we weren't bogged down in Iraq, we might be able to actually making progress in the war on terror. How great would that be?

I fail to see your reasoning. This sounds like the Bush administration choosing to not piss off an "ally" by launching an attack within said ally's country.

What does this have to do with Iraq?

Taco John
07-08-2007, 07:45 PM
What does this have to do with Iraq?


If we weren't bogged down in Iraq, we might be able to actually making progress in the war on terror.

Donger
07-08-2007, 07:56 PM
If we weren't bogged down in Iraq, we might be able to actually making progress in the war on terror.

Okay. But what does that have to do with us not violating Pakistani territory to chase AQ inside their territory?

That is what this article was about, yes?

Again, I fail to see how us being in Iraq has anything to do with this event.

How does it?

wazu
07-08-2007, 08:49 PM
This sounds like the Bush administration choosing to not piss off an "ally" by launching an attack within said ally's country.

So countries that harbor terrorists are now considered our "allies"?

Ugly Duck
07-08-2007, 09:52 PM
If we weren't bogged down in Iraq, we might be able to actually making progress in the war on terror.

You already said that....

Donger
07-08-2007, 10:17 PM
So countries that harbor terrorists are now considered our "allies"?

I take it you didn't note my use of quotation marks? Pakistan is an ally is the vein of the Soviet Union during WWII: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend.

Regardless, that still does not explain how this has anything to do with us being in Iraq.

Silock
07-08-2007, 10:27 PM
This sounds like the Bush administration choosing to not piss off an "ally" by launching an attack within said ally's country.


Yup. I'm all for going after Al Qaeda, but this could have potentially started another war. You don't just go invade someone's country looking for terrorists like that.

HolmeZz
07-08-2007, 10:37 PM
If they're really an ally, why couldn't we just let them know first?

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 10:49 PM
If they're really an ally, why couldn't we just let them know first?

If Great Britain launched a military action inside our shores you'd be okay with it as long as they let us know first?

I'm hoping you'd have a problem with that. I'm hoping we'd all have a problem with that.

Donger
07-08-2007, 10:55 PM
If they're really an ally, why couldn't we just let them know first?

Are you serious?

HolmeZz
07-08-2007, 10:56 PM
If Great Britain launched a military action inside our shores you'd be okay with it as long as they let us know first?

Or they could just pass along the information and we could take care of it ourselves. If we consider Pakistan to be an ally of that nature, we should trust they would've helped us with this. If not, they aren't the ally you're now making them out to be.

Are you serious?

To flip CB's analogy, if we knew this was going on in Britain, how would we have handled it?

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 11:15 PM
Or they could just pass along the information and we could take care of it ourselves. If we consider Pakistan to be an ally of that nature, we should trust they would've helped us with this. If not, they aren't the ally you're now making them out to be.

You didn't answer my question. I'll answer your follow-up question as soon as you've answered mine first.

HolmeZz
07-08-2007, 11:18 PM
You didn't answer my question. I'll answer your follow-up question as soon as you've answered mine first.

Considering you didn't specify what type of military action, I answered it fine. Britain would trust us to handle it.

We wouldn't trust Pakistan with something like that because we aren't allies.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 11:19 PM
If they're really an ally, why couldn't we just let them know first?

Turns out you asked the first question. Here's my answer:

No. That would be an unacceptable violation of the sovereignty of a friendly nation.

Your turn to answer my question.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 11:20 PM
Britain would trust us to handle it.

That didn't answer my question. Would you like to try again?

HolmeZz
07-08-2007, 11:23 PM
That didn't answer my question. Would you like to try again?

What the hell is your question? Whether I'd care? I couldn't care less as long as the job got done the way it was supposed to.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 11:26 PM
If they're really an ally (Pakistan), why couldn't we just let them know first (before we launched an attack against AQ inside Pakistan's borders)?

That would be an unacceptable violation of the sovereignty of a friendly nation.

If Great Britain launched a military action inside our shores you'd be okay with it as long as they let us know first?

Your turn, HolmeZz. Just answer the questionZz.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 11:29 PM
What the hell is your question? Whether I'd care? I couldn't care less as long as the job got done the way it was supposed to.

So, you'd be okay with a foreign nation conducting a military operation on our soil as long as they let us know first and as long as it got done the way it was supposed to?

**** you, dude. Get out of my country now.

HolmeZz
07-08-2007, 11:29 PM
Your turn, HolmeZz. Just answer the questionZz.

I've answered the god damn question 20 times in this topic.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 11:33 PM
I've answered the god damn question 20 times in this topic.

You have? I missed it. Tell me one more time, just so I'm clear on it.

Would you be okay with Great Britain conducting a military operation inside the United States as long as they told us they were going to do it?

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 11:37 PM
The Silence of the HolmeZz.

HolmeZz
07-08-2007, 11:38 PM
So, you'd be okay with a foreign nation conducting a military operation on our soil as long as they let us know first and as long as it got done the way it was supposed to?

**** you, dude. Get out of my country now.

Heh. Britain wouldn't have to conduct shit because we'd handle it ourselves. You've clearly missed my whole point, which is that we wouldn't have told Pakistan because we wouldn't trust them. Hence, why we aren't ****ing allies. If they are, like you're saying, why couldn't we have gotten them in on this?

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 11:40 PM
Heh. Britain wouldn't have to conduct shit because we'd handle it ourselves. You've clearly missed my whole point, which is that we wouldn't have told Pakistan because we wouldn't trust them. Hence, why we aren't ****ing allies. If they are, like you're saying, why couldn't we have gotten them in on this?

Answer the question or shut the **** up, you lightweight piece of shit.

HolmeZz
07-08-2007, 11:41 PM
You have? I missed it. Tell me one more time, just so I'm clear on it.

Would you be okay with Great Britain conducting a military operation inside the United States as long as they told us they were going to do it?

No, I'm not in favor of Great Britain having the run of things on our land in the form of some military operation..

I am in favor, if Britain has the intelligence, of them sharing whatever they have with us and us acting on it. We could do that because we have that kind of relationship with Britain. We don't with Pakistan, which has been my point.

Now please explain to me why we couldn't if we're apparently that kind of ally with Pakistan.

HolmeZz
07-08-2007, 11:49 PM
And what's funny is that if we did go into Pakistan like the original plans, you'd be hailing this as an example of how Bush is keeping us safe. He's playing offense in the war on terror!

This backing out of a raid because we were afraid of stepping on some other country's feet sounds very much like something the Democrats would do. Cowardly bastards.

ClevelandBronco
07-09-2007, 12:04 AM
No, I'm not in favor of Great Britain having the run of things on our land in the form of some military operation.

Jeez, thank you. Was that really so hard?

...please explain to me why we couldn't if we're apparently that kind of ally with Pakistan.

We can share that kind of intelligence with Pakistan. The government of Pakistan then decides whether it's in their interest to act on the intelligence. They may decide to act independently, they may invite us to participate in their operation, or they may invite us to undertake our own operation. In any case, we're going to cooperate with the wishes of a friendly nation. We would no sooner undertake an operation in Pakistan than Britain would undertake a mision in the U.S.

Bottom line: It's Pakistan's call, and we can't violate the sovereignty of a friendly nation. If they say no, or if we independently decide that military operation would undermine our position or a friendly government's position, then the answer is no. The alternative is to violate their sovereignty, which necessarily leads to overthrowing their government, which leads to another Iraq.

We have one already, and I don't think we're in the market for any more.

We cooperate with Pakistan simply because the alternative is war with Pakistan. War with Pakistan is unacceptable now.

------

If Great Britain conducted a military exercise within our borders, we'd have no choice but to go to war against the U.K.

If the U.S. conducts a military exercise within Pakistan, Pakistan would have no other choice than to go to war against us.

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 12:06 AM
Why didn't we share the intelligence with Pakistan? That's ultimately my point about why we're not allies. We would've had no problem sharing it with Britain and GB would've bent over backwards to help us.

ClevelandBronco
07-09-2007, 12:16 AM
Why didn't we share the intelligence with Pakistan? That's ultimately my point about why we're not allies. We would've had no problem sharing it with Britain and GB would've bent over backwards to help us.

We are not allied with Pakistan. We are friendly with them. That's as far as it goes.

The U.S. has no permanent allies, only permanent interests.

Ask yourself whether you want to go to war with Pakistan. That's the beginning and the end of the answer.

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 12:18 AM
I assumed this whole discussion was about Pakistan being called an ally. That was more or less the point of my argument.

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 12:20 AM
And what's funny is that if we did go into Pakistan like the original plans, you'd be hailing this as an example of how Bush is keeping us safe. He's playing offense in the war on terror!

This backing out of a raid because we were afraid of stepping on some other country's feet sounds very much like something the Democrats would do. Cowardly bastards.

I don't know what's funnier. CB's rep-comment to this post, which was:

"You are a child, young sir. Sit down, shut up and learn something here. You have nothing to teach yet. Some day you will."

(which is code for "I don't know how to counter that point, but I'm older than you")

OR

The fact that it was actually a positive rep.

ClevelandBronco
07-09-2007, 12:27 AM
I assumed this whole discussion was about Pakistan being called an ally. That was more or less the point of my argument.

That's because you didn't stop to think about the implications of your premise and how it might be applied beyond your narrow perspective. When you had to deal with it from an opposite viewpoint, you had to admit that your premise was weak and insupportable.

ClevelandBronco
07-09-2007, 12:28 AM
I don't know what's funnier. CB's rep-comment to this post, which was:

"You are a child, young sir. Sit down, shut up and learn something here. You have nothing to teach yet. Some day you will."

(which is code for "I don't know how to counter that point, but I'm older than you")

OR

The fact that it was actually a positive rep.

I mean every word of it.

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 12:28 AM
That's because you didn't stop to think about the implications of your premise and how it might be applied beyond your narrow perspective. When you had to deal with it from an opposite viewpoint, you had to admit that your premise was weak and insupportable.

My premise had no implications because I didn't advocate invading their friggin' country. My premise was letting them know we have intelligence about something going on in their country(if we are supposed to be allies, which you're saying isn't the case now, ultimately rendering this whole discussion moot).

ClevelandBronco
07-09-2007, 12:30 AM
I assumed this whole discussion was about Pakistan being called an ally. That was more or less the point of my argument.


My bad. I thought you were conceding with this post. Should we continue?

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 12:31 AM
My bad. I thought you were conceding with this post. Should we continue?

There's no discussion to be had if you aren't making the case that Pakistan are our allies. That's been my point all along.

But thanks for the rep.

Saggysack
07-09-2007, 12:38 AM
You have? I missed it. Tell me one more time, just so I'm clear on it.

Would you be okay with Great Britain conducting a military operation inside the United States as long as they told us they were going to do it?

Heh.

Which do you trust more?

The British Intelligence Services, namely MI5 and MI6, or the Pakistan ISI?

Simple fact of the matter, Pakistan cannot be trusted. The Pakistan ISI supported and funded the Taliban rise to power in Afghanistan. And they allow them, which one could consider a free pass in the tribal areas of Pakistan. How many times do we have to hear about Pakistan border guards knowingly allow Taliban and Al-Qaida unfettered access into Afghanistan to perform combat attacks and back into the safe haven of Paki's tribal areas before we take a hint?

I'm sorry bub, you've been bitten by a cliche. The enemy of my enemy is my friend... my ass.

ClevelandBronco
07-09-2007, 12:42 AM
There's no discussion to be had if you aren't making the case that Pakistan are our allies. That's been my point all along.

They are a friendly nation, you painful piece of fluff. It was you who introduced the word "ally" as it pertains to Pakistan. It wasn't me.

You say they are an ally, then argue why they are not one. Who the hell are you arguing with?

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 12:43 AM
They are a friendly nation, you painful piece of fluff. It was you who introduced the word "ally" as it pertains to Pakistan. It wasn't me.

It was used earlier in the topic, I responded to that, and then you responded to me.

You say they are an ally, then argue why they are not one. Who the hell are you arguing with?

They aren't an ally. I was making the case why they weren't by saying we would've shared this intelligence with them if we were.

If you couldn't even understand that, it's no wonder you've been lost for the last 3 pages.

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 12:44 AM
Thanks for getting in the middle of something that's none of your damned business.

It's a ****ing message board.

ClevelandBronco
07-09-2007, 12:46 AM
It's a ****ing message board.

No shit. Find a message and defend it..

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 12:47 AM
No shit. Find a message and defend it..

The hell? Are you gonna pretend like you didn't make that post responding to Saggy? ROFL

ClevelandBronco
07-09-2007, 12:55 AM
It was used earlier in the topic, I responded to that, and then you responded to me.



They aren't an ally. I was making the case why they weren't by saying we would've shared this intelligence with them if we were.

If you couldn't even understand that, it's no wonder you've been lost for the last 3 pages.

If that's your defense then let's try it all over again.

China (not an ally) tells us that they are going to conduct a military operation on our shores.

Germany (an ally) tells us that they are going to conduct a military operation on our shores.

France (sometimes an ally) tells us that they are going to conduct a military operation on our shores.

Argentina (really hard to say) tells us that they are going to conduct a military operation on our shores.

Russia (maybe even harder to say )tells us that they are going to conduct a military operation on our shores.

HolmeZz, you're just another coward who thinks these events are relative. Guess what, kid: They're all intolerable.

Every one.

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 12:58 AM
If that's your defense then let's try it all over again.

China (not an ally) tells us that they are going to conduct a military operation on our shores.

Germany (an ally) tells us that they are going to conduct a military operation on our shores.

France (sometimes an ally) tells us that they are going to conduct a military operation on our shores.

Argentina (really hard to say) tells us that they are going to conduct a military operation on our shores.

Russia (maybe even harder to say )tells us that they are going to conduct a military operation on our shores.

HolmeZz, you're just another coward who thinks these events are relative. Guess what, kid: They're all intolerable.

Every one.

Is there a question for me to answer there or was that response intended to be completely meaningless?

ClevelandBronco
07-09-2007, 12:58 AM
The hell? Are you gonna pretend like you didn't make that post responding to Saggy? ROFL

Saggy's been okay in the past. I thought twice about going after him, and tried to delete it.

You're a piece of shit, on the other hand. This post will stay.

ClevelandBronco
07-09-2007, 01:02 AM
Is there a question for me to answer there or was that response intended to be completely meaningless?

HolmeZz, I've already heard everything I need to know.

Consider the question to be meaningless.

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 01:04 AM
Saggy's been okay in the past. I thought twice about going after him, and tried to delete it.

But you couldn't control your temper. I'm sure you wouldn't have jumped the gun about something that was "none of his business" if he was agreeing with you.

You're a piece of shit, on the other hand. This post will stay.

I don't understand the obsession with all the name calling. Can you not have a civil conversation? You go on and on about my age, but you've shown a severe lack of maturity.

Logical
07-09-2007, 01:07 AM
That would be an unacceptable violation of the sovereignty of a friendly nation.


....You know this is just silly, we use special forces to violate the sovereignty of friendly nations with covert operations fairly frequently so I do not really see your point.

ClevelandBronco
07-09-2007, 01:10 AM
You know this is just silly, we use special forces to violate the sovereignty of friendly nations with covert operations fairly frequently so I do not really see your point.

I have no doubt.

Logical
07-09-2007, 01:15 AM
This thread is hilarious because apparently their is a mistaken impression that we do not conduct covert operations in "friendly" nations. That is just so silly as to be absurd. By the way Israel conducts covert ops in almost every nation in the world including the good ole USofA, they are just good enough not to get caught. Imaging the same is true of MI5.

Taco John
07-09-2007, 06:01 PM
So if Pakistan is such a great ally, why didn't we conduct a joint operation with them, or why didn't they take out the meeting of Al Queda leaders themselves?

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 06:27 PM
So if Pakistan is such a great ally, why didn't we conduct a joint operation with them, or why didn't they take out the meeting of Al Queda leaders themselves?

I made that point on page one. :p

Nobody seemed to want to address it.

Taco John
07-09-2007, 10:50 PM
I made that point on page one. :p

Nobody seemed to want to address it.



Of course they didn't. They'd rather get high and mighty over some nonsense about how we'd react if Britain launched an offensive against terrorists on our own soil.

You know how I'd react? With outrage that our nation didn't take part in the operation jointly, or even LEAD the friggen thing! Especially if it was the actual LEADERS of the worlds foremost terror network!

Get out of my country, indeed!

BucEyedPea
07-09-2007, 11:04 PM
This thread is hilarious because apparently their is a mistaken impression that we do not conduct covert operations in "friendly" nations. That is just so silly as to be absurd. By the way Israel conducts covert ops in almost every nation in the world including the good ole USofA, they are just good enough not to get caught. Imaging the same is true of MI5.

Yep! FBI busted open another spy case on us by Israel ( USA vs Franklin) going on in the courts for past year and a half but media has been quiet about it.

patteeu
07-10-2007, 05:59 AM
I assumed this whole discussion was about Pakistan being called an ally. That was more or less the point of my argument.

Is the point of your argument that you are limited to a black and white analysis of this issue and that Pakistan is either exactly the same kind of ally as Great Britain or it is not an ally at all?

The real story is that Pakistan has proven to be a valuable but somewhat frustrating ally in the GWoT. At times they've been very helpful with intelligence, arrests of key al Qaeda, and occasional forays into their tribal region on the border with Afghanistan. At other times they've done things that aren't as helpful like when they negotiated some sort of cease fire with the warlords of the tribal region. The US is balancing the good we get out of the relationship with the bad and the limitations it puts on our actions in that region. So far, at least, they've come to the conclusion that we are best served by continuing to cultivate that relationship.

It's impossible for us to know if the benefits we get out of our current relationship with Pakistan are enough to justify this decision not to attack the suspected meeting of al Qaeda leaders in the thread OP. I don't really see much of a comparison between this decision and Bill Clinton's decision to shy away from snatching or killing OBL from his camp in Afghanistan in the 90's. Clinton didn't have to worry about alienating an important ally during a time of war.

patteeu
07-10-2007, 06:01 AM
My premise had no implications because I didn't advocate invading their friggin' country. My premise was letting them know we have intelligence about something going on in their country(if we are supposed to be allies, which you're saying isn't the case now, ultimately rendering this whole discussion moot).

Pakistan doesn't have the means for launching the kind of assault that would have been able to capture those al Qaeda leaders.

patteeu
07-10-2007, 06:01 AM
Heh.

Which do you trust more?

The British Intelligence Services, namely MI5 and MI6, or the Pakistan ISI?

Simple fact of the matter, Pakistan cannot be trusted. The Pakistan ISI supported and funded the Taliban rise to power in Afghanistan. And they allow them, which one could consider a free pass in the tribal areas of Pakistan. How many times do we have to hear about Pakistan border guards knowingly allow Taliban and Al-Qaida unfettered access into Afghanistan to perform combat attacks and back into the safe haven of Paki's tribal areas before we take a hint?

I'm sorry bub, you've been bitten by a cliche. The enemy of my enemy is my friend... my ass.

What border guards?

patteeu
07-10-2007, 06:05 AM
This thread is hilarious because apparently their is a mistaken impression that we do not conduct covert operations in "friendly" nations. That is just so silly as to be absurd. By the way Israel conducts covert ops in almost every nation in the world including the good ole USofA, they are just good enough not to get caught. Imaging the same is true of MI5.

The reason the mission was called off was precisely because it had morphed from a covert operation into a substantial incursion.

Sam Hall
07-10-2007, 10:35 PM
I need to put this somewhere

Logical
07-10-2007, 10:57 PM
I need to put this somewherehttp://67.18.68.69/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=70955&stc=1Pretty cool

Saggysack
07-10-2007, 11:34 PM
What border guards?

Don't play stupid.

Even Musharraf admits as much.

Taco John
07-10-2007, 11:56 PM
Is the point of your argument that you are limited to a black and white analysis of this issue and that Pakistan is either exactly the same kind of ally as Great Britain or it is not an ally at all?


They're either with us or against us, right?

Well, the freaking leaders of the terrorist network WERE MEETING ON THEIR SOIL and we had a chance to wipe them out!

You make me sick with your rationalizations...

You're willing to throw thousands of men into a ****ing meat grinder in Iraq, but ***ING FLOUNDER AROUND like some pandering asshole when we have a shot to take out the leaders of the terrorist organization. It's ****ing "stay in Iraq at all costs" but rationalize when we tippy toe around Pakistan when they host Al Queda planning pow-wows.

You have absolutely no ****ing credibility on the war on terror. You've ceased to be a worthy debate opponent. You're nothing more than masturbation material.

Taco John
07-11-2007, 12:11 AM
It's impossible for us to know if the benefits we get out of our current relationship with Pakistan are enough to justify this decision not to attack the suspected meeting of al Qaeda leaders in the thread OP.



How many American civilians or soldiers are you willing to let die with this kind of bullshit rationalization?

We had a chance to CUT OFF THEIR HEAD and you're sitting here with your thumb up your ass trying to explain away just how many hurt feelings there would be in Pakistan if we took action.

Do you realize how irrelevant you've let yourself become constantly carrying Bush's water, no matter how badly he ****s it up?

Masterbation material. That's all you are.

trndobrd
07-11-2007, 12:24 AM
How many American civilians or soldiers are you willing to let die with this kind of bullshit rationalization?

We had a chance to CUT OFF THEIR HEAD and you're sitting here with your thumb up your ass trying to explain away just how many hurt feelings there would be in Pakistan if we took action.




It's more than a question of "hurt feelings", it's a question of the collapse of the Musharaf government and replacement with an Talibanesque Islamic dictatorship.

Taco John
07-11-2007, 12:44 AM
So not only did we tippy toe around a weak ally, but we tippy toed around a weak government that would apparently collapse in on itself if we cut off the head of Al Queda.

What in the hell is our interest of keeping them around as an ally if we're not going to take opportunities like this to cripple our enemy?

Shouldn't they be rejoicing if we cripple Al Queda?

Taco John
07-11-2007, 12:50 AM
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HUTjMW14aPY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

trndobrd
07-11-2007, 01:18 AM
So not only did we tippy toe around a weak ally, but we tippy toed around a weak government that would apparently collapse in on itself if we cut off the head of Al Queda.

What in the hell is our interest of keeping them around as an ally if we're not going to take opportunities like this to cripple our enemy?

Shouldn't they be rejoicing if we cripple Al Queda?


If all went according to plan, nobody would have heard a thing about it until he U.S. would announced that they were killed or captured in Eastern Afghanistan.

If the mission was comprimised, ended up in a much bigger fight then expected, or ended up with a downed aircraft or something it would cause problems. At best it would dry up all support from the Musharaf government. At worst it would create Afghanistan II.

ClevelandBronco
07-11-2007, 02:08 AM
If all went according to plan, nobody would have heard a thing about it until he U.S. would announced that they were killed or captured in Eastern Afghanistan.

If the mission was comprimised, ended up in a much bigger fight then expected, or ended up with a downed aircraft or something it would cause problems. At best it would dry up all support from the Musharaf government. At worst it would create Afghanistan II.

Absolutely correct, except for the worst case scenario. Pakistan is a nuclear power. An overthrow of Musharaf by a Taliban-like force would be disastrous. A far tougher problem than just Afghanistan II.

patteeu
07-11-2007, 06:09 AM
Don't play stupid.

Even Musharraf admits as much.

Pakistan doesn't have any control over that border. Whatever border guards they have there are either loyal to the semi-autonomous tribes of the region or they are window dressing. So don't pretend that Musharraf's government is waving the Taliban through the checkpoints. I realize that there are elements within the Musharraf regime that are probably still allies of the Taliban, but this isn't a case of a monolithic government double dealing with our enemies.

patteeu
07-11-2007, 06:18 AM
They're either with us or against us, right?

Well, the freaking leaders of the terrorist network WERE MEETING ON THEIR SOIL and we had a chance to wipe them out!

You make me sick with your rationalizations...

You're willing to throw thousands of men into a ****ing meat grinder in Iraq, but ***ING FLOUNDER AROUND like some pandering asshole when we have a shot to take out the leaders of the terrorist organization. It's ****ing "stay in Iraq at all costs" but rationalize when we tippy toe around Pakistan when they host Al Queda planning pow-wows.

You have absolutely no ****ing credibility on the war on terror. You've ceased to be a worthy debate opponent. You're nothing more than masturbation material.

ROFL The guy who thinks that 9/11 was an inside job and the guy who ridicules Bush's "with us or against us" while simultaneously using it as a defense for a stupid black and white analysis of Pakistan is criticizing my credibility? You're a barrel of laughs.

The difference between us is that I'm not arrogant enough to think that I know whether what we gain from our current approach with Pakistan outweighs what we would gain from invading them to take out a group of al Qaeda leaders. I know that neither of us has the baseline knowledge to make an informed judgement about it. I'm just pointing out that there is a balancing test that has to be applied before we invade a nuclear power who has been cooperating with us.

You should try to set your emotions aside and view this with a level head for a change.

patteeu
07-11-2007, 06:19 AM
How many American civilians or soldiers are you willing to let die with this kind of bullshit rationalization?

We had a chance to CUT OFF THEIR HEAD and you're sitting here with your thumb up your ass trying to explain away just how many hurt feelings there would be in Pakistan if we took action.

Do you realize how irrelevant you've let yourself become constantly carrying Bush's water, no matter how badly he ****s it up?

Masterbation material. That's all you are.

I have to say that it disturbs me to hear that. LMAO

patteeu
07-11-2007, 06:20 AM
So not only did we tippy toe around a weak ally, but we tippy toed around a weak government that would apparently collapse in on itself if we cut off the head of Al Queda.

What in the hell is our interest of keeping them around as an ally if we're not going to take opportunities like this to cripple our enemy?

Shouldn't they be rejoicing if we cripple Al Queda?

It wouldn't cripple the enemy. It would be a temporary setback.

Did killing Zarqawi in Iraq make an appreciable difference in the level of the al Qaeda insurgency there?

Don't tell me that you're one of the dopes who thinks that the GWoT is limited to finding and killing/capturing OBL and his right hand man. I hate to tell you that we are fighting against a widespread movement, not a couple of bad guys and their cult of personality.

CHIEF4EVER
07-11-2007, 06:21 AM
Cleveland Bronco: Not to get off topic here and not to be insulting but the Donkey on the side of your Browns helmet in your avatar appears to be constipated and is trying to poop a world record Raider out.

That is all. Please resume the original topic.

Radar Chief
07-11-2007, 06:52 AM
Masterbation material. That's all you are.

Wow. :eek: Pat, if you happen to drop your wallet, you’d better kick it over to the wall before picking it up around Teejay. ;)

Saggysack
07-11-2007, 07:43 AM
Pakistan doesn't have any control over that border. Whatever border guards they have there are either loyal to the semi-autonomous tribes of the region or they are window dressing. So don't pretend that Musharraf's government is waving the Taliban through the checkpoints. I realize that there are elements within the Musharraf regime that are probably still allies of the Taliban, but this isn't a case of a monolithic government double dealing with our enemies.

Let's see, you went from "What border guards?" to "Whatever border guards they have there..." with a straight face. Absolutely amazing.

Oh, so that's it. They don't have control over the border. Well, excuse us for thinking armed border guards who shoot at our soldiers with the intention to kill and allow Taliban and al-Qaida through without even a glance, aren't our allies. What were we thinking?

What happened to the rhetoric of?... "We're talking about those who fed them, those who house them, those who harbor terrorists will be held accountable for this action." Or one of my favorites. "Whatever it takes". Unfortunately, in this case, it took alittle too much for what it takes, huh?.

Duck Dog
07-11-2007, 08:09 AM
There's a Front Line documentary called The Al Qaeda Files. It is a two disk set that goes into great detail about Pakistan.

trndobrd
07-11-2007, 08:30 AM
Absolutely correct, except for the worst case scenario. Pakistan is a nuclear power. An overthrow of Musharaf by a Taliban-like force would be disastrous. A far tougher problem than just Afghanistan II.


Oh Jeebuz, I forgot about that. Taliban with nukes.

trndobrd
07-11-2007, 08:32 AM
I have to say that it disturbs me to hear that. LMAO


http://www.patteeunude.com :shrug:

patteeu
07-11-2007, 10:52 AM
Let's see, you went from "What border guards?" to "Whatever border guards they have there..." with a straight face. Absolutely amazing.

What's amazing about that? I'm still wondering what border guards you are talking about.

Oh, so that's it. They don't have control over the border. Well, excuse us for thinking armed border guards who shoot at our soldiers with the intention to kill and allow Taliban and al-Qaida through without even a glance, aren't our allies. What were we thinking?

If the border guards are Taliban or members of the tribes that rule the border area and tolerate/support the Taliban, why would that surprise you?

What happened to the rhetoric of?... "We're talking about those who fed them, those who house them, those who harbor terrorists will be held accountable for this action." Or one of my favorites. "Whatever it takes". Unfortunately, in this case, it took alittle too much for what it takes, huh?.[/QUOTE]

If you insist upon seeing only the black and white, no amount of effort on my part will help you understand the gray of Pakistan.

Adept Havelock
07-11-2007, 11:09 AM
Pakistan doesn't have the means for launching the kind of assault that would have been able to capture those al Qaeda leaders.


Really? Please share your knowledge of the Pakistani Military, and it's shortcomings in Special Operations troops, transport and gunship helos for support, etc.

Or, to put it another way...Link?

C'mon patteeu. We're not talking about the Thai military. They are a nuclear power after all.

Pakistan doesn't have the will for launching the kind of assault that would have been able to capture those al Qaeda leaders.

FYP. Some ally. Almost as helpful as the French. Musharref is just another in a long line of useful dictators.

I do understand what you are getting at. That an incursion of that size might destabilize his government and open the door for a govt. more openly friendly with the radical Islamists, but IMO the excuse you picked above is just weak.

Taco John
07-11-2007, 11:23 AM
It wouldn't cripple the enemy. It would be a temporary setback.

Did killing Zarqawi in Iraq make an appreciable difference in the level of the al Qaeda insurgency there?

Don't tell me that you're one of the dopes who thinks that the GWoT is limited to finding and killing/capturing OBL and his right hand man. I hate to tell you that we are fighting against a widespread movement, not a couple of bad guys and their cult of personality.



It would have definitely crippled the enemy. Maybe not for good, but the setback would have been significant.

The only dope here is you and anyone trying to justify the Iraq war while playing down an opportunity to cut the head off of Al Queda when we had the chance.

patteeu
07-11-2007, 11:32 AM
Really? Please share your knowledge of the Pakistani Military, and it's shortcomings in Special Operations troops, transport and gunship helos for support, etc.

Or, to put it another way...Link?

C'mon patteeu. We're not talking about the Thai military. They are a nuclear power after all.



FYP. Some ally. Almost as helpful as the French. Musharref is just another in a long line of useful dictators.

I do understand what you are getting at. That an incursion of that size might destabilize his government and open the door for a govt. more openly friendly with the radical Islamists, but IMO the excuse you picked above is just weak.

Link?

I'm not convinced that Pakistan could have pulled it off but I guess I can't prove it any more than you can prove they could have. Neither of us know exactly what kind of operation was scrubbed. But a couple of things we do know are that (a) Musharraf doesn't have complete loyalty from his armed forces and, especially, his intelligence service, and (b) the last time Pakistan decided to operate in the tribal region they spent forever trying to fight their way in and weren't very effective when all was said and done. Being a nuclear power doesn't mean that you can carry out a complicated abduction of high value targets in a heavily armed, hard-to-reach area.

Their past performance may be because Musharraf's heart isn't in it, or because his underlings are undermining his orders, or because they just don't have the right tools and training. I suspect it is mostly the middle of those three options, but I can't prove that either.

patteeu
07-11-2007, 11:36 AM
It would have definitely crippled the enemy. Maybe not for good, but the setback would have been significant.

The only dope here is you and anyone trying to justify the Iraq war while playing down an opportunity to cut the head off of Al Queda when we had the chance.

You've got a cartoon view of the world. Regardless of whether our reason for invading Iraq in the first place was good or bad, and regardless of whether our execution of the war there has been good or bad, at this point in time (and at the point in time in 2005 when this operation was cancelled), succeeding in Iraq is far more important than killing/capturing Zawahiri and a few other al Qaeda bigs. And that's even before you add in the potential cost of losing Pakistan.

Duck Dog
07-11-2007, 03:57 PM
If we knew exactly where they were why not cruise missile or smart bomb the mfer's into oblivion?

trndobrd
07-11-2007, 04:26 PM
Really? Please share your knowledge of the Pakistani Military, and it's shortcomings in Special Operations troops, transport and gunship helos for support, etc.

Or, to put it another way...Link?

C'mon patteeu. We're not talking about the Thai military. They are a nuclear power after all.



FYP. Some ally. Almost as helpful as the French. Musharref is just another in a long line of useful dictators.

I do understand what you are getting at. That an incursion of that size might destabilize his government and open the door for a govt. more openly friendly with the radical Islamists, but IMO the excuse you picked above is just weak.

The flipside of Patt's argument is that we may not have trusted the Pakistani government/military with the information regardless of their capability to execute a raid. Maybe the terrorist get tipped off and scatter or worse, figure out how we are getting our intelligence information. (We used "X" method to communicate with each other to set up this meeting. My second cousin at the Ministry of Defense told me that the Infidels know about the meeting. We should call off the meeting and never use "X" method again.)

penchief
07-11-2007, 04:49 PM
I fail to see your reasoning. This sounds like the Bush administration choosing to not piss off an "ally" by launching an attack within said ally's country.

What does this have to do with Iraq?

Because Bush said:

"They can run but they can't hide"

"Wanted, dead or alive"

"We're going after terrorists wherever they are. And those who harbor terrorists"

We can leave all the hypocricy out of this because I think there is something even more ironic than the fact that we invaded and occupied a country in which al-Qaeda did not exist while we're completely unwilling to go after bin-Laden or a reconstituting al-Qaeda where they do exist. It's so stupid it has to be intentional.

This entire country is getting raped right now. Our nation's resources are being embezzled and pissed away, our military defense is being eroded, our infrastructure is being neglected and in some cases being sold to other countries, our international prestige is being undermined, and our founding fathers ideals of democracy and liberty are being stolen from us.

Yet we still have to argue over whether or not the intentions of this administration are pure when they don't even believe the slogans or the lip service they feed the people of this country on a daily basis.

If they succeed in bringing this nation to its knees in order to fulfill their own global eco-political purposes, one of the major reasons will be those who refused to recognize this administration's dishonesty simply because they were too partisan to get it.

mlyonsd
07-12-2007, 11:06 AM
First, the chances to get him were only chances. Nothing definite. I understand you can't win if you don't play though so I'm torn on the issue.

I can understand both sides of the issue. The fact Bush decided not to risk destabilizing an already precarious government which has acted on our behalf many times is something he'll need to live with. But I can understand the logic.

If the current Pakistan government crumbles you can forget about Afghanistan. If the current Pakistan government falls it is possible nukes will be in the hands of radicals.

If I had to choose between Bin Laden hiding in a cave and Bin Laden or his minions holding nukes I know which one I'd pick.

penchief
07-12-2007, 03:21 PM
First, the chances to get him were only chances. Nothing definite. I understand you can't win if you don't play though so I'm torn on the issue.

I can understand both sides of the issue. The fact Bush decided not to risk destabilizing an already precarious government which has acted on our behalf many times is something he'll need to live with. But I can understand the logic.

If the current Pakistan government crumbles you can forget about Afghanistan. If the current Pakistan government falls it is possible nukes will be in the hands of radicals.

If I had to choose between Bin Laden hiding in a cave and Bin Laden or his minions holding nukes I know which one I'd pick.

What if a country that harbored bin-Laden asked Bush to personally come to their country and they will give him bin Laden? Would he do it?

What if Bush had the opportunity to blow up a tent full of Saudi royalty at a wedding if it meant he could get bin Laden? Would he do it?

If you take his current action as a guide, could it be argued that Bush is doing exactly what Clinton did and exactly what this president said he wouldn't do?

stevieray
07-12-2007, 03:33 PM
Because Bush said:

"They can run but they can't hide"

"Wanted, dead or alive"

"We're going after terrorists wherever they are. And those who harbor terrorists"

We can leave all the hypocricy out of this because I think there is something even more ironic than the fact that we invaded and occupied a country in which al-Qaeda did not exist while we're completely unwilling to go after bin-Laden or a reconstituting al-Qaeda where they do exist. It's so stupid it has to be intentional.

This entire country is getting raped right now. Our nation's resources are being embezzled and pissed away, our military defense is being eroded, our infrastructure is being neglected and in some cases being sold to other countries, our international prestige is being undermined, and our founding fathers ideals of democracy and liberty are being stolen from us.

Yet we still have to argue over whether or not the intentions of this administration are pure when they don't even believe the slogans or the lip service they feed the people of this country on a daily basis.

If they succeed in bringing this nation to its knees in order to fulfill their own global eco-political purposes, one of the major reasons will be those who refused to recognize this administration's dishonesty simply because they were too partisan to get it.


We as citizens are bring ourselves to our knees...have been for quite some time...and would you please stop with all the forefather rhetoric...blacks finally achieved what this country stood for less than 50 years ago...


Your melodrama only serves one purpose, make bush look as bad as possible in hopes that it will make the Dem candidate more palatable....exactly why Gore is following BCINCs "rock star" path, and Billary has already hired Celine Dion to record a campaign song about how she can hear America calling out to her to save us form Bush.

:rolleyes:

penchief
07-12-2007, 03:55 PM
We as citizens are bring ourselves to our knees...have been for quite some time...and would you please stop with all the forefather rhetoric...blacks finally achieved what this country stood for less than 50 years ago...


Your melodrama only serves one purpose, make bush look as bad as possible in hopes that it will make the Dem candidate more palatable....exactly why Gore is following BCINCs "rock star" path, and Billary has already hired Celine Dion to record a campaign song about how she can hear America calling out to her to save us form Bush.

:rolleyes:

Stop, stevieray. Even I can tell you are smarter than that.

You criticize me even though the only thing I'm doing is pleading for common sense. Yet, you defend the indefensible. Why shouldn't this administration be held to the same standards that every other administration before it has been held?

I don't know what you're trying to say about "rock n roll" and Celine Dion. The only thing I can do to respond to that is say that this administration has no interest in connecting with us, the common man, in a universal way other than fear.

If Gore or anybody else wants to communicate politically to the masses in a way that can be heard (no thanks to the CORPORATE ****ING MEDIA), then more power to him and others who want to get around corporate censorship in the media.

IMO, you are a very decent guy and someone that I would get along with as a neighbor. But you are so politically and ideologically rigid that you give me no choice but to accuse you of contributing to the problem. You are enabling this administration to steal our country from us. Thank you very much.

penchief
07-12-2007, 04:44 PM
We as citizens are bring ourselves to our knees...have been for quite some time...and would you please stop with all the forefather rhetoric...blacks finally achieved what this country stood for less than 50 years ago...:rolleyes:

Let me rephrase my argument.

What if everything I believe is happening was REALLY happening. Would you be concerned then?

dirk digler
05-07-2011, 12:51 PM
This sounds like the Bush administration choosing to not piss off an "ally" by launching an attack within said ally's country.


I am glad we finally have POTUS with the balls big enough to pull off a raid in our ally Pakistan land and not even tell them.

Unlike Bush who chickened out because he didn't want to offend them

Don't you agree Donger?

dirk digler
05-07-2011, 12:58 PM
We can share that kind of intelligence with Pakistan. The government of Pakistan then decides whether it's in their interest to act on the intelligence. They may decide to act independently, they may invite us to participate in their operation, or they may invite us to undertake our own operation. In any case, we're going to cooperate with the wishes of a friendly nation. We would no sooner undertake an operation in Pakistan than Britain would undertake a mision in the U.S.

Bottom line: It's Pakistan's call, and we can't violate the sovereignty of a friendly nation. If they say no, or if we independently decide that military operation would undermine our position or a friendly government's position, then the answer is no. The alternative is to violate their sovereignty, which necessarily leads to overthrowing their government, which leads to another Iraq.

We have one already, and I don't think we're in the market for any more.

We cooperate with Pakistan simply because the alternative is war with Pakistan. War with Pakistan is unacceptable now.

------

If Great Britain conducted a military exercise within our borders, we'd have no choice but to go to war against the U.K.

If the U.S. conducts a military exercise within Pakistan, Pakistan would have no other choice than to go to war against us.

I am glad you and Bush aren't POTUS. :p

dirk digler
05-07-2011, 01:01 PM
It wouldn't cripple the enemy. It would be a temporary setback.

Did killing Zarqawi in Iraq make an appreciable difference in the level of the al Qaeda insurgency there?

Don't tell me that you're one of the dopes who thinks that the GWoT is limited to finding and killing/capturing OBL and his right hand man. I hate to tell you that we are fighting against a widespread movement, not a couple of bad guys and their cult of personality.

It seems you are wrong. Bin Laden was still in charge and leading and planning attacks against the west. I am glad we didn't rely on you and Bush to get Bin Laden.

ClevelandBronco
05-07-2011, 02:16 PM
I've reservedly expressed some satisfaction in seeing OBL/UBL dead, but I will continue to give no credit to the current fuckhead in chief for the operation that made him that way.

ClevelandBronco
05-07-2011, 02:40 PM
In fact, just so I'm on the record four years later, I still think it was a colossally bad idea. IMO, it was driven by Obama's political self-interest and nothing more.

BucEyedPea
05-07-2011, 03:36 PM
It seems you are wrong. Bin Laden was still in charge and leading and planning attacks against the west. I am glad we didn't rely on you and Bush to get Bin Laden.

An interesting bit of information I found out a few days ago:

The FBI's website does not state that OBL was behind the 9/11 incident... but only a suspect in terrorists bombings around the world. He is found to be behind bombings in Africa per the FBI's website.


Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

Bin Laden is the leader of a terrorist organization known as Al-Qaeda, "The Base". He is left-handed and walks with a cane.

Click on his pic to see above text I posted. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten
See it repeated on govt poster: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden/view

BucEyedPea
05-07-2011, 03:46 PM
It seems you are wrong. Bin Laden was still in charge and leading and planning attacks against the west. I am glad we didn't rely on you and Bush to get Bin Laden.

“When I said no negotiations I meant no negotiations,” Mr Bush said. “We know he’s guilty. Turn him over. There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt.”
Yeah, so why doesn't the FBI website make this claim?

Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-631436.html) as reported in the UK's Independent on 15 October 2001.


Also:

The Washington Post reported using this headline:
Diplomats Met With Taliban on Bin Laden Some Contend U.S. Missed Its Chance
Monday, October 29, 2001

It's still in their archive but you have to register and login to read it.



Over three years and on as many continents, U.S. officials met in public and secret at least 20 times with Taliban representatives to discuss ways the regime could bring suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden to justice.

Talks continued until just days before the Sept. 11 attacks, and Taliban representatives repeatedly suggested they would hand over bin Laden if their conditions were met, sources close to the discussions said.

...

Some Afghan experts argue that throughout the negotiations, the United States never recognized the Taliban need for aabroh, the Pashtu word for "face-saving formula." Officials never found a way to ease the Taliban's fear of embarrassment if it turned over a fellow Muslim to an "infidel" Western power.

"We were not serious about the whole thing, not only this administration but the previous one," said Richard Hrair Dekmejian, an expert in Islamic fundamentalism and author at the University of Southern California. "We did not engage these people creatively. There were missed opportunities."

U.S. officials struggled to communicate with Muslim clerics unfamiliar with modern diplomacy and distrustful of the Western world, and they failed to take advantage of fractures in the Taliban leadership.


And of course, Bush flat-out refused to negotiate. He'd rather waste more American lives first instead. But then another one of his cronies wanted to nation-build so they could have their natural gas pipeline. Instead, Foxies with Bushie tails scream how torture lead to his whereabouts over ten years later.

patteeu
05-07-2011, 05:02 PM
"This is reasonable..." -patteeu

FYP

patteeu
05-07-2011, 05:14 PM
I don't know what's funnier. CB's rep-comment to this post, which was:

"You are a child, young sir. Sit down, shut up and learn something here. You have nothing to teach yet. Some day you will."

(which is code for "I don't know how to counter that point, but I'm older than you")

OR

The fact that it was actually a positive rep.

Is either of those funnier than the fact that you think the latter was an oversight?

Edit: I see the posting date now. I thought something was fishy with HolmeZz posting so much. The Logical post woke me up.

patteeu
05-07-2011, 05:21 PM
It seems you are wrong. Bin Laden was still in charge and leading and planning attacks against the west. I am glad we didn't rely on you and Bush to get Bin Laden.

None of what you just said refutes any part of the post you quoted. On the contrary, my statement is as true today as it was then. I'm not sure how you could have concluded otherwise. This kill, no matter how involved bin Laden was in ongoing operations, doesn't end the GWoT. I'll repeat:

It [won't] cripple the enemy. It [will only] be a temporary setback.

...

Don't tell me that you're one of the dopes who thinks that the GWoT is limited to finding and killing/capturing OBL and his right hand man. I hate to tell you that we are fighting against a widespread movement, not a couple of bad guys and their cult of personality.

mlyonsd
05-07-2011, 10:11 PM
I am glad we finally have POTUS with the balls big enough to pull off a raid in our ally Pakistan land and not even tell them.

Unlike Bush who chickened out because he didn't want to offend them

Don't you agree Donger?

Are you just provoking a reaction by Donger or are you always this stupid?

go bowe
05-07-2011, 10:19 PM
Are you just provoking a reaction by Donger or are you always this stupid?stupid?

dirk?

hey, take it easy on dirk...

you gotta have somebody to talk to around here to keep it interesting... :p :p :p

mlyonsd
05-07-2011, 10:25 PM
stupid?

dirk?

hey, take it easy on dirk...

you gotta have somebody to talk to around here to keep it interesting... :p :p :p

Yeah but come on, that was just plain stupid. If you don't think so feel free to prove me wrong.....I trust your insight. :p:p:p

dirk digler
05-07-2011, 10:38 PM
None of what you just said refutes any part of the post you quoted. On the contrary, my statement is as true today as it was then. I'm not sure how you could have concluded otherwise. This kill, no matter how involved bin Laden was in ongoing operations, doesn't end the GWoT. I'll repeat:

It was a crippling blow. All along we thought he was on the run and others were in charge then we come to find out he is sitting comfortably and running things and planning more attacks.

Are you just provoking a reaction by Donger or are you always this stupid?

What are you disagreeing about?

go bowe
05-07-2011, 10:50 PM
Yeah but come on, that was just plain stupid. If you don't think so feel free to prove me wrong.....I trust your insight. :p:p:p
I am glad we finally have POTUS with the balls big enough to pull off a raid in our ally Pakistan land and not even tell them.

Unlike Bush who chickened out because he didn't want to offend them

Don't you agree Donger?

i don't know about my insight late on a saturday night...

but in looking at dirk's post, it seems like the first part is basically correct, obama had the balls to take the risks and go for it...

bush didn't "chicken out", he had a bad plan to work with, and i'm sure he was genuinely concerned about the effect the raid might have had on pakistan...

i don't know that comparing a poor decision to a lack of balls is a fair comparison, and i don't think "offending" the paks was the main concern at the time...

but you really can't argue with the balls of obama part... :D :D :D

dirk digler
05-07-2011, 10:54 PM
i don't know about my insight late on a saturday night...

but in looking at dirk's post, it seems like the first part is basically correct, obama had the balls to take the risks and go for it...

bush didn't "chicken out", he had a bad plan to work with, and i'm sure he was genuinely concerned about the effect the raid might have had on pakistan...

i don't know that comparing a poor decision to a lack of balls is a fair comparison, and i don't think "offending" the paks was the main concern at the time...

but you really can't argue with the balls of obama part... :D :D :D

My whole post was right, Obama didn't care about Pakistan while Bush wanted to play footsie with them. :D

orange
05-07-2011, 11:00 PM
An interesting bit of information I found out a few days ago:

The FBI's website does not state that OBL was behind the 9/11 incident... but only a suspect in terrorists bombings around the world. He is found to be behind bombings in Africa per the FBI's website.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=244778 :titus:


"The alleged terrorists on this list have been indicted by sitting Federal Grand Juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for the crimes reflected on their wanted posters. Evidence was gathered and presented to the Grand Juries, which led to their being charged. The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."

Has OBL been indicted for 911?

patteeu
05-08-2011, 03:22 AM
It was a crippling blow. All along we thought he was on the run and others were in charge then we come to find out he is sitting comfortably and running things and planning more attacks.

You can call it a crippling blow if you want, but I doubt that this is the end of al Qaeda. We've dealt AQ "crippling blows" before and they reconstitute. Maybe this time it will be different. Hopefully the intel we gathered will lead us to a whole slew of bigwigs and make it harder for AQ to recover.

However, getting rid of AQ doesn't end this. AQ is just one of many anti-western jihadist organizations. So far, it's the one that made the biggest splash, but as long as Iran and other militant islamists are stirring up trouble throughout the Islamic world the GWoT will continue. This was my point in that original post and it's still true today.

BigMeatballDave
05-08-2011, 04:13 AM
Wow. Dirk seems to be a level-headed guy in the other forums. Politics turns him into a petty bitch. :)

I suppose he's not alone...

dirk digler
05-08-2011, 07:48 AM
You can call it a crippling blow if you want, but I doubt that this is the end of al Qaeda. We've dealt AQ "crippling blows" before and they reconstitute. Maybe this time it will be different. Hopefully the intel we gathered will lead us to a whole slew of bigwigs and make it harder for AQ to recover.

However, getting rid of AQ doesn't end this. AQ is just one of many anti-western jihadist organizations. So far, it's the one that made the biggest splash, but as long as Iran and other militant islamists are stirring up trouble throughout the Islamic world the GWoT will continue. This was my point in that original post and it's still true today.

While I don't necessarily disagree with anything that you have stated when you look at the GWoT when the US strikes, whether it be in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, or any other shit hole country it is because they are after AQ, not Hamas, or Hezbollah (though they probably should), or any other terrorist group.

And you are right to say this won't be the end of AQ, they will still exist but they are more like a gnat now and without Bin Laden I don't believe they will have the money, planning, or the capacity to strike here in the US again. I could be wrong on that though...

dirk digler
05-08-2011, 07:51 AM
Wow. Dirk seems to be a level-headed guy in the other forums. Politics turns him into a petty bitch. :)

I suppose he's not alone...

LMAO Actually I was going to start a thread on this but I found this one so I decided to bump it.

My main reason for doing so is because I have heard from people on this board that Obama did what any POTUS would do and I believe this thread is proof that is not true.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-08-2011, 08:48 AM
LMAO Actually I was going to start a thread on this but I found this one so I decided to bump it.

My main reason for doing so is because I have heard from people on this board that Obama did what any POTUS would do and I believe this thread is proof that is not true.

He did what any president being accused of not being American enough(born here, citizen) would do, create a distraction something Bush didn't feel he needed to do.

BucEyedPea
05-08-2011, 10:06 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=244778 :titus:

You do know your quote says " alleged terrorists on this list" which still means a suspect?

As for this being a "crippling blow" I am not so sure about that. It's definately a blow but "crippling" is hyperbole.
Bin Laden probably has a protege he's been grooming. In fact I read he has one in Yemen. Not saying he'd be capable of being the same figurehead though. Then there's the real "operational" mastermind of AQ still at large. If Obama gets him too, then I think you can claim you beginning to cripple AQ.

patteeu
05-08-2011, 11:59 AM
While I don't necessarily disagree with anything that you have stated when you look at the GWoT when the US strikes, whether it be in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, or any other shit hole country it is because they are after AQ, not Hamas, or Hezbollah (though they probably should), or any other terrorist group.

And you are right to say this won't be the end of AQ, they will still exist but they are more like a gnat now and without Bin Laden I don't believe they will have the money, planning, or the capacity to strike here in the US again. I could be wrong on that though...

Iraq? Philipines? AQ isn't a cohesive, top-down organization. It involves a lot of different organizations affiliated at a variety of levels. As for Hamas and Hezbollah, we haven't attacked them militarily that I'm aware of, but we've taken action against their finances and logistics at times and our ally Israel has used military force against both during the pas decade. And if we're serious about the radical islamism problem, organizations like those and their sponsors in Iran and Syria will have to eventually be dealt with one way or another.

But it's good to hear that you agree with me. :)

patteeu
05-08-2011, 12:02 PM
LMAO Actually I was going to start a thread on this but I found this one so I decided to bump it.

My main reason for doing so is because I have heard from people on this board that Obama did what any POTUS would do and I believe this thread is proof that is not true.

I don't think he did what any president would do necessarily, but he did do what Bush would have done.

mlyonsd
05-08-2011, 01:11 PM
i don't know that comparing a poor decision to a lack of balls is a fair comparison, and i don't think "offending" the paks was the main concern at the time...

Thank you Mr. go bowe, no further questions. You may step down. :p

|Zach|
05-09-2011, 06:19 AM
I don't think he did what any president would do necessarily, but he did do what Bush would have done.

Bush blinked.

Obama had the courage the finish the deal.

|Zach|
05-09-2011, 06:20 AM
Wow. Dirk seems to be a level-headed guy in the other forums. Politics turns him into a petty bitch. :)

I suppose he's not alone...

Passive aggressive BCD. Never fails.

ROYC75
05-09-2011, 07:24 AM
Me thinks there are so many people here qualified to be POTUS, they would have made both Bush and / or Obama look bad.


Fact is none of us really know all the details of the intelligence, just bits and pieces that gets to be reported by the writers. One could even question rather they get all the intelligences to start with?

patteeu
05-09-2011, 09:32 AM
Bush blinked.

Obama had the courage the finish the deal.

Yeah, I disagree. Bush dealt with the situation he faced (lower value target, more uncertainty, more reason to avoid offending Pakistanis) and Obama dealt with the considerably different situation he faced (highest value target, less uncertainty, little reason to avoid offending Pakistanis).

ROYC75
05-09-2011, 10:55 AM
Yeah, I disagree. Bush dealt with the situation he faced (lower value target, more uncertainty, more reason to avoid offending Pakistanis) and Obama dealt with the considerably different situation he faced (highest value target, less uncertainty, little reason to avoid offending Pakistanis).

Don't put facts with liberal reason, it never works.

Ugly Duck
05-09-2011, 02:19 PM
Bush dealt with the situation he faced (lower value target, more uncertainty, more reason to avoid offending Pakistanis)

Dude... that rationalization is so weak its beneath you - I know you can do better. Ayman al-Zawahri is Osama bin Laden’s #1 guy, the jerk who actually runs the AQ's operations. Target don't get any higher than that ('cept for OBL himself). OBL is the CEO, al-Zawahri is the operations manager. That is EXACTLY the guy you want to take out... no way he is a low value target, just as important to kill him as kill as OBL - he's the #2 guy in the freakin world! Republicans let 'em live so they don't offend Pakistan, Obama kills 'em when he finds 'em - just like he warned us he would.

|Zach|
05-09-2011, 02:31 PM
Yeah, I disagree. Bush dealt with the situation he faced (lower value target, more uncertainty, more reason to avoid offending Pakistanis) and Obama dealt with the considerably different situation he faced (highest value target, less uncertainty, little reason to avoid offending Pakistanis).

Yes, I understand the hero worship rationalization story from you and I also understand how people see the situations as they played out in reality.

I think it is better to have a POTUS that acts instead of just talks trying to convince people he is some sort of Cowboy.

Bush blinked and Obama acted. Thank god.

go bowe
05-09-2011, 02:43 PM
Yes, I understand the hero worship rationalization story from you and I also understand how people see the situations as they played out in reality.

I think it is better to have a POTUS that acts instead of just talks trying to convince people he is some sort of Cowboy.

Bush blinked and Obama acted. Thank god.hero worship rationalization story?

sounds like dave lane talking about the origins of the bible's stories... LMAO LMAO LMAO

Jerm
05-09-2011, 02:55 PM
Of Course Bush passed this up...why would he take his cronies out? :D

patteeu
05-09-2011, 05:00 PM
Dude... that rationalization is so weak its beneath you - I know you can do better. Ayman al-Zawahri is Osama bin Laden’s #1 guy [lol, that's an inventive way to use the "#1" when you're really saying he's #2], the jerk who actually runs the AQ's operations. Target don't get any higher than that ('cept for OBL himself). [right, as I said, Bush's potential target was lower value and Obama's was higher value] OBL is the CEO, al-Zawahri is the operations manager. That is EXACTLY the guy you want to take out... no way he is a low value target, just as important to kill him as kill as OBL - he's the #2 guy in the freakin world! Republicans let 'em live so they don't offend Pakistan, Obama kills 'em when he finds 'em - just like he warned us he would.

So yes, despite calling my post a weak rationalization, it looks like you pretty much agree with my assessment. :thumb:

patteeu
05-09-2011, 05:07 PM
Yes, I understand the hero worship rationalization story from you and I also understand how people see the situations as they played out in reality.

I think it is better to have a POTUS that acts instead of just talks trying to convince people he is some sort of Cowboy.

Bush blinked and Obama acted. Thank god.

We can agree to disagree on that because you seem committed to that revisionist narrative (probably more for message board grins than because you actually believe it), but I will say that it's refreshing to see all the Bush critics coming out now in favor of unilateral, cowboy interventionism that runs roughshod over another country's sovereignty in the aggressive defense of American interests. It wasn't long ago that most of the people trying to discredit Bush here were accusing him of that same sort of thing as if it were bad.

Ugly Duck
05-09-2011, 06:29 PM
it looks like you pretty much agree with my assessment. :thumb:

Huh? Not at all. Just because it is in the realm of possibility to find one terrorist on the entire planet more important than your target - you don't just pass on the chance to kill the #2 terrorist. That is an entirely freakin' LAME attempt to justify yet another horrendous Republican mistake.

mlyonsd
05-09-2011, 06:46 PM
Huh? Not at all. Just because it is in the realm of possibility to find one terrorist on the entire planet more important than your target - you don't just pass on the chance to kill the #2 terrorist. That is an entirely freakin' LAME attempt to justify yet another horrendous Republican mistake.Says the arm chair president.

go bowe
05-09-2011, 06:47 PM
Says the arm chair president.

you say that like it's a bad thing...

mlyonsd
05-09-2011, 06:57 PM
you say that like it's a bad thing...I've given Obama his dues on this mission. I'm on record as not coming down on Clinton for passing on OBL. I just wish everyone was a realist like me and could bypass their immature partisanship and give credit to the president that really laid the groundwork and sacrificed the political chips for OBL's skull cap bullet hole.

Jerm
05-09-2011, 07:36 PM
I've given Obama his dues on this mission. I'm on record as not coming down on Clinton for passing on OBL. I just wish everyone was a realist like me and could bypass their immature partisanship and give credit to the president that really laid the groundwork and sacrificed the political chips for OBL's skull cap bullet hole.

Yeah the President who's family was super tight with the bin Laden's for YEARS...oh he really laid the groundwork alright.

Realist.....:facepalm::LOL:

But then again I guess it's just funny coincidences that we've had all these chances to take ole Osama out and for some reason we never did until now....allegedly....

This is entertaining. :thumb:

dirk digler
05-09-2011, 07:39 PM
I've given Obama his dues on this mission. I'm on record as not coming down on Clinton for passing on OBL. I just wish everyone was a realist like me and could bypass their immature partisanship and give credit to the president that really laid the groundwork and sacrificed the political chips for OBL's skull cap bullet hole.

I gave Bush plenty of credit for diverting our attention away from AQ, abandoning Afghanistan, and disbanding the unit hunting for OBL.

What the hell else do you want?

mlyonsd
05-09-2011, 07:40 PM
Yeah the President who's family was super tight with the bin Laden's for YEARS...oh he really laid the groundwork alright.

Realist.....:facepalm::LOL:

But then again I guess it's just funny coincidences that we've had all these chances to take ole Osama out and for some reason we never did until now....allegedly....

This is entertaining. :thumb:Welcome to this forum. Evidently you don't follow current events but welcome anyway.

mlyonsd
05-09-2011, 07:49 PM
I gave Bush plenty of credit for diverting our attention away from AQ, abandoning Afghanistan, and disbanding the unit hunting for OBL.

What the hell else do you want?I know. OBL was in a large sector called Tora Bora (maybe), we lost him, and the intelligience gathered through the Bush years led us to him in a one acre plot.

Outside of that you've been mostly bipartisan.

dirk digler
05-09-2011, 07:59 PM
I know. OBL was in a large sector called Tora Bora (maybe), we lost him, and the intelligience gathered through the Bush years led us to him in a one acre plot.

Outside of that you've been mostly bipartisan.

LMAO Lost him..he let him get away so he could be the boogey man for the next election. Geez where have you been

Ugly Duck
05-09-2011, 08:01 PM
I just wish everyone was a realist like me and could bypass their immature partisanship and give credit to the president that really laid the groundwork and sacrificed the political chips for OBL's skull cap bullet hole.

And all that would have been very effective save the Republican policy of not hitting terrorists in Pakistan without asking permission from the Pakistanis first. I just wish everyone was a realist like me and could bypass their immature partisanship and give credit to the president that changed the Republican policy into one that actually kills AQ leaders in Pakistan. Its a policy thing. Bush missed al-Zaweenie cuz he didn't want to offend Pakistan, Obama just said fuggit & killed bin Laden dead.

I know. OBL was in a large sector called Tora Bora (maybe), we lost him
Our military asked for 1,000 troops cuz they had OBL cornered in Tora Bora. The Bush White House refused the troop request & said just use the muslim warlords on our payroll instead. The muslim warlords let OBL escape.

notorious
05-09-2011, 08:37 PM
Props to Obama for saying,"**** You" to Pakistan and getting that bastard. Pakistan has been protecting guys like Osama for years, and we finally got someone with the balls to order his death.


I am far from an Obama supporter, but I give the man credit for getting the job done.

mlyonsd
05-10-2011, 06:42 AM
And all that would have been very effective save the Republican policy of not hitting terrorists in Pakistan without asking permission from the Pakistanis first. I just wish everyone was a realist like me and could bypass their immature partisanship and give credit to the president that changed the Republican policy into one that actually kills AQ leaders in Pakistan. Its a policy thing. Bush missed al-Zaweenie cuz he didn't want to offend Pakistan, Obama just said fuggit & killed bin Laden dead.

I have given Obama credit you thick headed raider fugtard.

BucEyedPea
05-10-2011, 06:55 AM
I know. OBL was in a large sector called Tora Bora (maybe), we lost him, and the intelligience gathered through the Bush years led us to him in a one acre plot.

Outside of that you've been mostly bipartisan.

I wouldn't say we just "lost" him. The western side was the only side allowed to remain open. That smacks of Bush enabling his escape. This way he could justify a permanent occupation and nation building in Afghanistan.

patteeu
05-10-2011, 07:04 AM
I wouldn't say we just "lost" him. The western side was the only side allowed to remain open. That smacks of Bush enabling his escape. This way he could justify a permanent occupation and nation building in Afghanistan.

LOL

penchief
05-10-2011, 07:17 AM
Don't put facts with liberal reason, it never works.

Then why, as a rightie (so called conservative) do you ignore the facts?. Such as the fact that Bush had bin Laden trapped in Tora Bora and allowed him to escape into Pakistan. Those who pointed out that Bush denied the troops requested to block bin Laden's entry into Pakistan are citing a fact.

Too bad some of you can't argue the facts but instead resort to diversionary tactics such as belittling the reasoning of others.

patteeu
05-10-2011, 07:53 AM
Then why, as a rightie (so called conservative) do you ignore the facts?. Such as the fact that Bush had bin Laden trapped in Tora Bora and allowed him to escape into Pakistan. Those who pointed out that Bush denied the troops requested to block bin Laden's entry into Pakistan are citing a fact.

Too bad some of you can't argue the facts but instead resort to diversionary tactics such as belittling the reasoning of others.

Maybe he ignores it because it's not a fact.

penchief
05-10-2011, 07:56 AM
Maybe he ignores it because it's not a fact.

Better tell the History Channel then. Just saw a documentary about a CIA operation in Tora Bora that was tracking bin Laden. Those troops were requested and the request was denied. Came right out of the mouth of the CIA operative on the ground who headed up the manhunt.

Plus, some of us do remember the sequence of events as they happened. Placing details that come out later with what we already know allows us to reason more effectively than those who choose to put their head in the sand for partisan reasons.

patteeu
05-10-2011, 08:04 AM
Better tell the History Channel then. Just saw a documentary about a CIA operation in Tora Bora that was tracking bin Laden. Those troops were requested and the request was denied. Came right out of the mouth of the CIA operative on the ground who headed up the manhunt.

Plus, some of us do remember the sequence of events as they happened. Placing details that come out later with what we already know allows us to reason more effectively than those who choose to put their head in the sand for partisan reasons.

Now you're changing your story. What "facts" are you going to go with?

FishingRod
05-10-2011, 09:16 AM
It never ceases to Amaze me that Dubya was too stupid to empty the contents of his own boot yet was able to mastermind dauntingly complicated evil plots with sleight of hand skills that would make Houdini look like a cheap street corner hustler.

penchief
05-10-2011, 09:33 AM
Now you're changing your story. What "facts" are you going to go with?

So we are not to believe the multiple reports that have never been denied that troops were requested along the border to prevent bin Laden from escaping into Pakistan?

It was reported in real time that Bush chose to utilize the locals to do that job. So if I understand you correctly you are questioning whether or not the request was ever made?

Radar Chief
05-10-2011, 10:01 AM
So we are not to believe the multiple reports that have never been denied that troops were requested along the border to prevent bin Laden from escaping into Pakistan?

It was reported in real time that Bush chose to utilize the locals to do that job. So if I understand you correctly you are questioning whether or not the request was ever made?

So exactly what unit that was in theater and could get in place in time to cover the escape route would you have taken 1000 soldiers from?

penchief
05-10-2011, 10:16 AM
So exactly what unit that was in theater and could get in place in time to cover the escape route would you have taken 1000 soldiers from?

Why would you change the question? The question is not what I would have done. The question is why the president denied a request from those on the ground for what they believed they needed in order to capture bin Laden. The request was not for thousands of troops but only a couple hundred. Those CIA operatives on the ground knew where he was and where he was likely headed.

In his own words, the CIA operative on the ground that was heading the operation said that he requested those troops and the request was denied. I believe he would have been far more qualified to know what was needed than either of us. Why don't you ask him?

RedNeckRaider
05-10-2011, 10:20 AM
It never ceases to Amaze me that Dubya was too stupid to empty the contents of his own boot yet was able to mastermind dauntingly complicated evil plots with sleight of hand skills that would make Houdini look like a cheap street corner hustler.

No shit LMAO

Radar Chief
05-10-2011, 10:27 AM
Why would you change the question?

I’m attempting to ascertain exactly what it is you know about the situation you so vociferously complain about. If you can’t answer you could just say so.

In his own words, the CIA operative on the ground that was heading the operation said that he requested those troops and the request was denied. I believe he would have been far more qualified to know what was needed than either of us.

Right, I’m trying to get at exactly why he was denied.
You do realize commanders make requests all the time and they are either granted or denied depending on the commander’s requirements and the assets on hand at the time.

Why don't you ask him?

Because he’s not the one here bitching his head off about it, you are.

patteeu
05-10-2011, 10:54 AM
So we are not to believe the multiple reports that have never been denied that troops were requested along the border to prevent bin Laden from escaping into Pakistan?

It was reported in real time that Bush chose to utilize the locals to do that job. So if I understand you correctly you are questioning whether or not the request was ever made?

Real time reports during war are often wrong. Requests for more troops are made all the time so I don't doubt that some kind of request was made by someone and denied by someone. How about showing me an example of a report that says this and maybe we can work out whether you're falling for a line of BS from a disreputable source or whether you're jumping to flawed conclusions yourself?

penchief
05-10-2011, 12:08 PM
I’m attempting to ascertain exactly what it is you know about the situation you so vociferously complain about. If you can’t answer you could just say so.



Right, I’m trying to get at exactly why he was denied.
You do realize commanders make requests all the time and they are either granted or denied depending on the commander’s requirements and the assets on hand at the time.



Because he’s not the one here bitching his head off about it, you are.

First off, I'm not bitching about anything. I merely stepped into the fray because I felt compelled to respond to someone else's post. Second, I'm not claiming that there wasn't a good reason for the denial of those troops.

And finally, the point is that there is a lot of discrediting going on from the right when they have no leg to stand on. I'm asking questions that point out what I believe is a fundamental double standard being applied by some who can't stand to give credit when credit is due.

Radar Chief
05-10-2011, 12:15 PM
First off, I'm not bitching about anything. I merely stepped into the fray because I felt compelled to respond to someone else's post. Second, I'm not claiming that there wasn't a good reason for the denial of those troops.

Ok, that’s all fair enough.

And finally, the point is that there is a lot of discrediting going on from the right when they have no leg to stand on. I'm asking questions that point out what I believe is a fundamental double standard being applied by some who can't stand to give credit when credit is due.

Ironically I’m pretty sure that if you spoke with the people you’re referring to candidly they would probably tell you they’re doing the exact same thing, just from the other side.

patteeu
05-10-2011, 12:22 PM
First off, I'm not bitching about anything. I merely stepped into the fray because I felt compelled to respond to someone else's post. Second, I'm not claiming that there wasn't a good reason for the denial of those troops.

And finally, the point is that there is a lot of discrediting going on from the right when they have no leg to stand on. I'm asking questions that point out what I believe is a fundamental double standard being applied by some who can't stand to give credit when credit is due.

You did say that people should pay attention to facts though, just before you advanced a falsehood as a "fact".

penchief
05-10-2011, 12:28 PM
Real time reports during war are often wrong. Requests for more troops are made all the time so I don't doubt that some kind of request was made by someone and denied by someone. How about showing me an example of a report that says this and maybe we can work out whether you're falling for a line of BS from a disreputable source or whether you're jumping to flawed conclusions yourself?

Maybe I am jumping to flawed conclusions. I could also be falling for a line of BS that's been reported on many different occasions in many different contexts. But I don't think so.

That said, the most recent version I saw was the documentary about the actual CIA operation that was tracking bin Laden in Tora Bora. The CIA operative who was leading the operation was being interviewed and stated that he asked for the troops and the request was denied. I have no reason to believe he is lying. Do you? If you do then give me your reasoning.

In fact, that very same claim has been reported multiple times over the years and it has never been denied by anyone. So when it comes to Bush supporters trying to detract from the accomplishment of killing bin Laden, they really don't have a leg to stand on, IMHO.

penchief
05-10-2011, 12:29 PM
You did say that people should pay attention to facts though, just before you advanced a falsehood as a "fact".

How is it a falsehood?

patteeu
05-10-2011, 12:30 PM
Maybe I am jumping to flawed conclusions. I could also be falling for a line of BS that's been reported on many different occasions in many different contexts. But I don't think so.

That said, the most recent version I saw was the documentary about the actual CIA operation that was tracking bin Laden in Tora Bora. The CIA operative who was leading the operation was being interviewed and stated that he asked for the troops and the request was denied. I have no reason to believe he is lying. Do you? If you do then give me your reasoning.

In fact, that very same claim has been reported multiple times over the years and it has never been denied by anyone. So when it comes to Bush supporters trying to detract from the accomplishment of killing bin Laden, they really don't have a leg to stand on, IMHO.

Where did you see that the request was denied by George W. Bush?

You're attempting to lay this at his feet. It's commonplace for people in the field to make requests for troops and it's also common for those requests to be denied for many reasons, some good and some bad. It would be very uncommon for the request to make it to the POTUS for his decision one way or the other. I don't believe that happened here and I've never seen a credible claim that it did. The problem with the real fact around this particular issue though, is that it won't be tied to the guy you're trying to smear.

FD
05-10-2011, 12:37 PM
And finally, the point is that there is a lot of discrediting going on from the right when they have no leg to stand on. I'm asking questions that point out what I believe is a fundamental double standard being applied by some who can't stand to give credit when credit is due.


Ironically I’m pretty sure that if you spoke with the people you’re referring to candidly they would probably tell you they’re doing the exact same thing, just from the other side.

I think both these points are right, and get to something important. Some people on the right seem almost livid that Obama is getting the credit he is for the success of this operation, and seem like their grasping at straws to try to tear that credit away. At the same time, people on the left are reacting to this news with a glee and boastfulness that would absolutely not exist if the same thing happened in 2007. I think its because their guy Obama finally got a major success and its on what has been traditionally Republican "turf."

penchief
05-10-2011, 12:44 PM
Where did you see that the request was denied by George W. Bush?

You're attempting to lay this at his feet. It's commonplace for people in the field to make requests for troops and it's also common for those requests to be denied for many reasons, some good and some bad. It would be very uncommon for the request to make it to the POTUS for his decision one way or the other. I don't believe that happened here and I've never seen a credible claim that it did. The problem with the real fact around this particular issue though, is that it won't be tied to the guy you're trying to smear.

I'm not trying to smear anyone. In fact, I've already stated that there may have been a legitimate reason for denying the troops. So please stop assigning your own motives to my words.

That said, you appear to be playing dumb for whatever purpose you might have. Before diverting our attention away from al-Qaeda and toward the occupation of Iraq, one of our stated goals was to hunt down bin Laden, "dead or alive." Remember?

For you to believe that we would have bin Laden trapped in the mountains of Tora Bora and that the Commander In Chief would not have the final say on whether we pulled the trigger on a mission to capture or kill him, seems somewhat disingenuous on your part.

The only scenario in which I can envision this to be the case is a scenario that would involve DicK Cheney making the call.

patteeu
05-10-2011, 12:55 PM
I'm not trying to smear anyone. In fact, I've already stated that there may have been a legitimate reason for denying the troops. So please stop assigning your own motives to my words.

That said, you appear to be playing dumb for whatever purpose you might have. Before diverting our attention away from al-Qaeda and toward the occupation of Iraq, one of our stated goals was to hunt down bin Laden, "dead or alive." Remember?

For you to believe that we would have bin Laden trapped in the mountains of Tora Bora and that the Commander In Chief would not have the final say on whether we pulled the trigger on a mission to capture or kill him, seems somewhat disingenuous on your part.

The only scenario in which I can envision this to be the case is a scenario that would involve DicK Cheney making the call.

Then you shouldn't have any trouble finding a credible account of the event that indicates who denied that request.

And when you jumped into this topic criticizing Roy because he was ignoring the "fact" that Bush had denied troops, you were taking the side of people who were specifically trying to smear Bush. If you didn't intend to smear Bush yourself, I'll take your word for it, but the only reason Roy would have to take those earlier criticisms seriously would be if Bush actually was the guy who made the decision. So since that isn't really the case, your admonishment is misplaced.

penchief
05-10-2011, 01:09 PM
Then you shouldn't have any trouble finding a credible account of the event that indicates who denied that request.

And when you jumped into this topic criticizing Roy because he was ignoring the "fact" that Bush had denied troops, you were taking the side of people who were specifically trying to smear Bush. If you didn't intend to smear Bush yourself, I'll take your word for it, but the only reason Roy would have to take those earlier criticisms seriously would be if Bush actually was the guy who made the decision. So since that isn't really the case, your admonishment is misplaced.

I only took exception to his attempt to broadly discredit the reasoning of liberals as a means of discrediting the content of their argument. Rather than addressing what is actually being posted.

I used Tora Bora as an example to point out that those discrediting Obama or suggesting that Bush deserves the credit were on shaky ground (Bush's coattails?). My point being that it was much more reasonable to give credit where credit was due.

patteeu
05-10-2011, 01:11 PM
I only took exception to his attempt to broadly discredit the reasoning of liberals as a means of discrediting the content of their argument. Rather than addressing what is actually being posted.

I used Tora Bora as an example to point out that those discrediting Obama or suggesting that Bush deserves the credit were on shaky ground (Bush's coattails?). My point being that it was much more reasonable to give credit where credit was due.

I guess it's too bad you used such a bad example to make your point then.

penchief
05-10-2011, 01:11 PM
Then you shouldn't have any trouble finding a credible account of the event that indicates who denied that request.

And when you jumped into this topic criticizing Roy because he was ignoring the "fact" that Bush had denied troops, you were taking the side of people who were specifically trying to smear Bush. If you didn't intend to smear Bush yourself, I'll take your word for it, but the only reason Roy would have to take those earlier criticisms seriously would be if Bush actually was the guy who made the decision. So since that isn't really the case, your admonishment is misplaced.

How do you know that isn't the case? Who made the decision? You keep claiming that the claim is false. How do you know?

mlyonsd
05-10-2011, 01:14 PM
My point being that it was much more reasonable to give credit where credit was due.

If both sides would do that we could put this issue to rest.

penchief
05-10-2011, 01:15 PM
I guess it's too bad you used such a bad example to make your point then.

I don't think it's such a bad example. Until someone denies these multiple reports or offers to discredit them, why should we assume they are false?

Why would someone like the CIA operative who led the mission to capture or kill bin Laden in Tora Bora lie about it? I'm not saying it's impossible but I would like to see some evidence suggesting that he's lying before I just assume it. The lack of denials over the years or any attempt to discredit the reports only lend more weight to the claim that it happened.

patteeu
05-10-2011, 01:15 PM
How do you know that isn't the case? Who made the decision? You keep claiming that the claim is false. How do you know?

Because I have a decent idea about how the Bush administration worked for decisions about the war and that is pretty inconsistent with it's SOP. Bush wasn't a micromanager. I'm open to proof to the contrary, but I don't think you'll find it.

patteeu
05-10-2011, 01:17 PM
I don't think it's such a bad example. Until someone denies these multiple reports or offers to discredit them, why should we assume they are false?

Why would someone like the CIA operative who led the mission to capture or kill bin Laden in Tora Bora lie about it? I'm not saying it's impossible but I would like to see some evidence suggesting that he's lying before I just assume it. The lack of denials over the year or any attempt to discredit the reports only lend more weight to the claim that it happened.

The CIA agent didn't even say that Bush made the decision. I think that before you start asking for evidence, you should provide some of it.

RedNeckRaider
05-10-2011, 01:17 PM
If both sides would do that we could put this issue to rest.
Dreamer~

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

penchief
05-10-2011, 01:20 PM
Because I have a decent idea about how the Bush administration worked for decisions about the war and that is pretty inconsistent with it's SOP. Bush wasn't a micromanager. I'm open to proof to the contrary, but I don't think you'll find it.

So you don't know either, huh? Seems odd that you would criticize me for making claims when all you're doing is making matter of fact claims based on you own assumptions. And not what was being reported.

Seems like your ground is even shakier than mine.

mlyonsd
05-10-2011, 01:21 PM
Dreamer~

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Damn hippees.

RedNeckRaider
05-10-2011, 01:25 PM
Damn hippees.

LMAO I think that is the first time in my life I have been called that~

penchief
05-10-2011, 01:39 PM
The CIA agent didn't even say that Bush made the decision. I think that before you start asking for evidence, you should provide some of it.

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/01/07/mccain-blames-bush-for-osama-s-escape.html?mghash=2=4

Here's a couple of accounts from CIA operatives taken from the above story. I'm sure you'll discredit them, but again, we will have to assume that they are also lying. This is first site I clicked on so I'm sure there will be plenty of sites that offer similar claims. One CIA official claims that he made a direct appeal to Bush.

Bernsten's account is corroborated by former CIA official Hank Crumpton, who personally briefed Bush, as well as Vice President Dick Cheney and Franks, about the need to go after bin Laden in Tora Bora at the time.

Crumpton, who led the CIA's Afghan campaign in 2001, was in constant contact with Franks. Just weeks before bin Laden escaped, he strongly urged the general to move Marines to the cave complex in Tora Bora, complaining the "the back door was open" for escape into nearby Pakistan. Franks balked, however.

Crumpton then turned to the commander-in-chief and tried a more direct appeal.

"We're going to lose our prey if we're not careful," he told Bush.

Cheney also attended the meeting, according to Ron Suskind, author of the "One Percent Doctrine."

But Crumpton's pleas fell on deaf ears. No troops were redeployed to the area.

Gary C. Schroen, the CIA field officer in charge of the initial CIA operation in Afghanistan after 9/11, also rejects the administration's official line.

Radar Chief
05-10-2011, 01:48 PM
Damn hippees.

/Eric Cartman

RedNeckRaider
05-10-2011, 01:52 PM
/Eric Cartman

Alright I will fess up I had to google to find out who that is. He is a round cartoon~

Radar Chief
05-10-2011, 02:08 PM
Alright I will fess up I had to google to find out who that is. He is a round cartoon~

Yes, from the cartoon South Park.
He’s a notorious bigot that is not only racist and sexist but hates hippies, gingers and Jews.

Radar Chief
05-10-2011, 02:14 PM
Yes, from the cartoon South Park.
He’s a notorious bigot that is not only racist and sexist but hates hippies, gingers and Jews.

Ginger = people with red hair, pale skin and freckles. Just so you don’t have to look that one up too. ;)

patteeu
05-10-2011, 02:50 PM
So you don't know either, huh? Seems odd that you would criticize me for making claims when all you're doing is making matter of fact claims based on you own assumptions. And not what was being reported.

Seems like your ground is even shakier than mine.

LOL, how am I supposed to know with certainty? It's not like an intrepid reporter is likely to report on all the decisions that Bush didn't make. I'm still waiting for you to present one shred of evidence to support your purported "fact", but I don't expect you to be able to come up with anything because it's not a fact, it's a false smear. You claimed it was a fact, so it's time to put up or shut up. Or I guess we can just call it your belief instead of a fact, which makes it completely irrelevant for the purpose for which you introduced it.

patteeu
05-10-2011, 02:52 PM
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/01/07/mccain-blames-bush-for-osama-s-escape.html?mghash=2=4

Here's a couple of accounts from CIA operatives taken from the above story. I'm sure you'll discredit them, but again, we will have to assume that they are also lying. This is first site I clicked on so I'm sure there will be plenty of sites that offer similar claims. One CIA official claims that he made a direct appeal to Bush.

Bernsten's account is corroborated by former CIA official Hank Crumpton, who personally briefed Bush, as well as Vice President Dick Cheney and Franks, about the need to go after bin Laden in Tora Bora at the time.

Crumpton, who led the CIA's Afghan campaign in 2001, was in constant contact with Franks. Just weeks before bin Laden escaped, he strongly urged the general to move Marines to the cave complex in Tora Bora, complaining the "the back door was open" for escape into nearby Pakistan. Franks balked, however.

Crumpton then turned to the commander-in-chief and tried a more direct appeal.

"We're going to lose our prey if we're not careful," he told Bush.

Cheney also attended the meeting, according to Ron Suskind, author of the "One Percent Doctrine."

But Crumpton's pleas fell on deaf ears. No troops were redeployed to the area.

Gary C. Schroen, the CIA field officer in charge of the initial CIA operation in Afghanistan after 9/11, also rejects the administration's official line.

Still no evidence that Bush made the decision. As was his normal mode of operation, he left the tactical decisions to his military leaders.

|Zach|
05-10-2011, 03:27 PM
It isn't a big deal that Bush's saber rattling about places that harbor terrorists was just talk anymore. It is in the past...we have a President in office that was more interested in American interests then pissing off a shitty ally.

penchief
05-10-2011, 03:46 PM
Still no evidence that Bush made the decision. As was his normal mode of operation, he left the tactical decisions to his military leaders.

Too bad his management style and his decision making didn't match his bravado. After making all those bold proclamations about "rooting out terrorist, going after those who harbor them, wanted, dead or alive, etc.", one would think he'd have been more proactive in the decision-making process when it came to capturing or killing bin Laden. I mean, after all, he was only the COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

The image you paint of Bush is not a flattering one. It's a good thing that we now have a commander in chief who does less talking and more doing. Apparently Bush was all bluster when it came to bin Laden. Meanwhile, Obama took Teddy Roosevelt's advice.

patteeu
05-10-2011, 03:57 PM
It isn't a big deal that Bush's saber rattling about places that harbor terrorists was just talk anymore. It is in the past...we have a President in office that was more interested in American interests then pissing off a shitty ally.

You sound pretty confused.

patteeu
05-10-2011, 03:59 PM
Too bad his management style and his decision making didn't match his bravado. After making all those bold proclamations about "rooting out terrorist, going after those who harbor them, wanted, dead or alive, etc.", one would think he'd have been more proactive in the decision-making process when it came to capturing or killing bin Laden. I mean, after all, he was only the COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

The image you paint of Bush is not a flattering one. It's a good thing that we now have a commander in chief who does less talking and more doing. Apparently Bush was all bluster when it came to bin Laden. Meanwhile, Obama took Teddy Roosevelt's advice.

That's a lot of words but I still haven't seen a shred of evidence to support your "fact". Are you backing away from it or just trying to distract?

And BTW, I don't think Teddy Roosevelt would have felt the need to seek political benefit by unwisely announcing his intention to violate an ally's sovereignty.

penchief
05-10-2011, 04:08 PM
That's a lot of words but I still haven't seen a shred of evidence to support your "fact". Are you backing away from it or just trying to distract?

Nice way of avoiding my last post. We'll agree that neither one of us personally has any proof for our claims. I am basing my reasoning on multiple accounts offered by multiple individuals who were in the loop. You are basing your reasoning on your personal observations of Bush's management style, while disregarding the personal accounts offered by others who were there.

I still contend that your reasoning is shakier.

If you want to claim that it was Bush's chain of command that denied the request for the necessary troops, fine. Still doesn't change the fact that the Bush Administration failed to do what was necessary to capture or kill bin Laden when they had the chance to do so. The buck stops with the president. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration deserves credit for seizing the day when the opportunity presented itself.

patteeu
05-10-2011, 04:51 PM
Nice way of avoiding my last post. We'll agree that neither one of us personally has any proof for our claims. I am basing my reasoning on multiple accounts offered by multiple individuals who were in the loop. You are basing your reasoning on your personal observations of Bush's management style, while disregarding the personal accounts offered by others who were there.

I still contend that your reasoning is shakier.

If you want to claim that it was Bush's chain of command that denied the request for the necessary troops, fine. Still doesn't change the fact that the Bush Administration failed to do what was necessary to capture or kill bin Laden when they had the chance to do so. The buck stops with the president. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration deserves credit for seizing the day when the opportunity presented itself.

Your claim is based on nothing but wild stories told on smear blogs. If it was based on anything more reliable you'd have supplied a link by now. In short, your "fact" was never really a fact at all.

Jerm
05-10-2011, 05:11 PM
Your claim is based on nothing but wild stories told on smear blogs. If it was based on anything more reliable you'd have supplied a link by now. In short, your "fact" was never really a fact at all.

Yeah, ex CIA agents talking on The History Channel is really considered "smear blogs"....ok. :clap:

mlyonsd
05-10-2011, 05:50 PM
Still doesn't change the fact that the Bush Administration failed to do what was necessary to capture or kill bin Laden when they had the chance to do so. I don't have a problem with the first part of this statement. The second part is less clear. Even if Bush had over ruled Franks the chances of capturing/killing Obama can't be measured.

Unlike what happened a week ago, where intelligience gathered during the Bush administration added to intelligience gained under the Obama administration allowed us to make a much smaller surgical strike with less risk.

For sure credit should be given to Obama for using all the intelligience available (some gathered because of Bush) and pulling the trigger. But if anyone wants to make the statement this was all Obama they are just flat our ignoring facts.

|Zach|
05-10-2011, 05:52 PM
I don't have a problem with the first part of this statement. The second part is less clear. Even if Bush had over ruled Franks the chances of capturing/killing Obama can't be measured.

Unlike what happened a week ago, where intelligience gathered during the Bush administration added to intelligience gained under the Obama administration allowed us to make a much smaller surgical strike with less risk.

For sure credit should be given to Obama for using all the intelligience available (some gathered because of Bush) and pulling the trigger. But if anyone wants to make the statement this was all Obama they are just flat our ignoring facts.

With less risk? We went into a country without them knowing about it and even had to prepare to fight them in the process of the mission.

Were they allowed to be more surgical? Yes. Less risk? Come on.

patteeu
05-10-2011, 06:02 PM
Yeah, ex CIA agents talking on The History Channel is really considered "smear blogs"....ok. :clap:

The CIA agent didn't corroborate penchief's story. Try to keep up.

mlyonsd
05-10-2011, 06:44 PM
With less risk? We went into a country without them knowing about it and even had to prepare to fight them in the process of the mission.

Were they allowed to be more surgical? Yes. Less risk? Come on.

Yes, less risk.

Landing 1000-3000 Marines in a mountainous region expecting them to take/hold for an incalcuable amount of time vs 24 Seals being dropped in with the benefit of a calculated thought out plan equals less risk. Especially if Pakistan had planned to stand down.

You have to also calculate into the fact the fight in 11/2001 was fluid. This latest mission we have the benefit of making decisions with a well established force in place.

Again, I give Obama credit for making the right call. He did good. But to compare the two missions to make Bush look bad is disingenuous BS.

dirk digler
05-10-2011, 07:11 PM
Yes, less risk.

Landing 1000-3000 Marines in a mountainous region expecting them to take/hold for an incalcuable amount of time vs 24 Seals being dropped in with the benefit of a calculated thought out plan equals less risk. Especially if Pakistan had planned to stand down.

You have to also calculate into the fact the fight in 11/2001 was fluid. This latest mission we have the benefit of making decisions with a well established force in place.

Again, I give Obama credit for making the right call. He did good. But to compare the two missions to make Bush look bad is disingenuous BS.

http://www.bitlogic.com/images/yes.jpg

mlyonsd
05-10-2011, 07:32 PM
http://www.bitlogic.com/images/yes.jpgOk Tom.

penchief
05-10-2011, 10:50 PM
Your claim is based on nothing but wild stories told on smear blogs. If it was based on anything more reliable you'd have supplied a link by now. In short, your "fact" was never really a fact at all.

At this point you are intentionally focusing on the word, 'fact'. instead of what is really at issue. Which is that you don't have a leg to stand on when you try to discredit Obama's accomplishment in killing bin Laden and securing valuable intelligence.

Bush's coattails, my ass. The bottom line is that Bush showed by his "administration's" actions in Tora Bora that he didn't have the same moxie that Obama displayed.

It is pretty much accepted knowledge that bin Laden was in Tora Bora and that those who were tracking him wanted troops strategically placed on the border to prevent his escape into Pakistan. The question of who made the call to deny those troops is irrelevent to that knowledge. If Bush was left completely out of the loop, that is a sad commentary on his presidency.

Based on that information, it is petty and inane for you to denegrate what Obama's team was able to do considering that Bush's team passed on the opportunity to do it when they had the chance.

penchief
05-10-2011, 11:00 PM
I don't have a problem with the first part of this statement. The second part is less clear. Even if Bush had over ruled Franks the chances of capturing/killing Obama can't be measured.

Unlike what happened a week ago, where intelligience gathered during the Bush administration added to intelligience gained under the Obama administration allowed us to make a much smaller surgical strike with less risk.

For sure credit should be given to Obama for using all the intelligience available (some gathered because of Bush) and pulling the trigger. But if anyone wants to make the statement this was all Obama they are just flat our ignoring facts.

Nobody has made that claim. Patteeu is doing his usual job of cherrypicking his argument. Singling out one small aspect (whether or not Bush personally denied the troops at Tora Bora) while ignoring the bigger picture, that those troops were denied by somebody within his administration. May or may not have been Bush but it's hard to believe he wouldn't have had imput.

But because I used the word 'Bush' instead of the words 'Bush Administration', Patteeu wants to discredit me, thereby, discrediting the gist of my post and that which is generally accepted as common knowledge.

penchief
05-10-2011, 11:06 PM
The CIA agent didn't corroborate penchief's story. Try to keep up.

Says you. No, the CIA operative didn't say that President Bush personally denied the troops. But he did say that the troops were denied. That is what is important here. You want to focus on semantics and not the point being made.

Also, it's not penchief's story. I'm only repeating what has been reported. You just have your panties in a wad because I said it was fact that "Bush" denied the troops. When it would have had the exact same meaning if I had said the "Bush Administration."

patteeu
05-11-2011, 05:45 AM
At this point you are intentionally focusing on the word, 'fact'. instead of what is really at issue. Which is that you don't have a leg to stand on when you try to discredit Obama's accomplishment in killing bin Laden and securing valuable intelligence.

Bush's coattails, my ass. The bottom line is that Bush showed by his "administration's" actions in Tora Bora that he didn't have the same moxie that Obama displayed.

It is pretty much accepted knowledge that bin Laden was in Tora Bora and that those who were tracking him wanted troops strategically placed on the border to prevent his escape into Pakistan. The question of who made the call to deny those troops is irrelevent to that knowledge. If Bush was left completely out of the loop, that is a sad commentary on his presidency.

Based on that information, it is petty and inane for you to denegrate what Obama's team was able to do considering that Bush's team passed on the opportunity to do it when they had the chance.

This whole strand of the conversation was centered around the word "fact". Now you're just running away from it. I'll accept that as a surrender on that point.

As for your ahistorical view of Tora Bora, it's not the case that someone decided not to have troops strategically placed on the border to prevent his escape into Pakistan. What happened was that someone made the decision to continue using the forces of the Afghan warlords to augment US forces (just as we'd used them to successfully take the entire country from the Taliban over the previous few weeks) and the Afghans ended up not getting the job done. The idea behind the decision was to continue to put an Afghan face on the operation to minimize the sense that the Americans were running roughshod over their country. Lots of considerations go into these decisions. They're not generally as simple as the revisionist historians like to make them out to be.

There's no doubt about the FACT (and when I use the word, I'm actually not making things up) Obama stands on the shoulders of Bush in the GWoT. That doesn't discredit Obama's accomplishment, it just accurately reflects the truth. It doesn't discredit your accomplishments in life to give some credit to the mother and father who raised you and made it possible for you to do the things you do, does it?

BigMeatballDave
05-12-2011, 08:03 AM
LMAOPassive aggressive BCD. Never fails.Hey, I put a :) in there.

The Mad Crapper
05-13-2011, 01:33 PM
So Bin Laden's been living there for 5 years... and our intelligence has known this for...?

go bowe
05-13-2011, 04:08 PM
So Bin Laden's been living there for 5 years... and our intelligence has known this for...?5 years, of course...

penchief
05-15-2011, 10:08 PM
This whole strand of the conversation was centered around the word "fact". Now you're just running away from it. I'll accept that as a surrender on that point.

As for your ahistorical view of Tora Bora, it's not the case that someone decided not to have troops strategically placed on the border to prevent his escape into Pakistan. What happened was that someone made the decision to continue using the forces of the Afghan warlords to augment US forces (just as we'd used them to successfully take the entire country from the Taliban over the previous few weeks) and the Afghans ended up not getting the job done. The idea behind the decision was to continue to put an Afghan face on the operation to minimize the sense that the Americans were running roughshod over their country. Lots of considerations go into these decisions. They're not generally as simple as the revisionist historians like to make them out to be.

There's no doubt about the FACT (and when I use the word, I'm actually not making things up) Obama stands on the shoulders of Bush in the GWoT. That doesn't discredit Obama's accomplishment, it just accurately reflects the truth. It doesn't discredit your accomplishments in life to give some credit to the mother and father who raised you and made it possible for you to do the things you do, does it?

The most recent documentary that I watched was informative in that the CIA operative who led the operation stated that the troops were requested once the warlords had made it known that they were not going to assist in the capture of bin Laden. That they had, in fact, turned on the CIA operatives and obstructed their further pursuit of bin Laden.

So I can only assume that when the decision was made to deny the request for those troops that the chain of command was also informed that the warlards had not only balked at assisting in the capture of bin Laden but also obstructed the mission from going further.

patteeu
05-16-2011, 05:51 AM
The most recent documentary that I watched was informative in that the CIA operative who led the operation stated that the troops were requested once the warlords had made it known that they were not going to assist in the capture of bin Laden. That they had, in fact, turned on the CIA operatives and obstructed their further pursuit of bin Laden.

So I can only assume that when the decision was made to deny the request for those troops that the chain of command was also informed that the warlards had not only balked at assisting in the capture of bin Laden but also obstructed the mission from going further.

Not that I accept any of this as true, but even if it is, when you "can only assume", you shouldn't misrepresent your speculation as "fact". You have zero evidence that Bush denied any troops as far as I can tell.

penchief
05-16-2011, 08:08 AM
Not that I accept any of this as true, but even if it is, when you "can only assume", you shouldn't misrepresent your speculation as "fact". You have zero evidence that Bush denied any troops as far as I can tell.

The bottom line is that they had bin Laden in Tora Bora and troops were requested by those who were tracking him and that troop request was denied.

Someone dropped the ball. Where does the buck stop in your estimation?

patteeu
05-16-2011, 08:24 AM
The bottom line is that they had bin Laden in Tora Bora and troops were requested by those who were tracking him and that troop request was denied.

Someone dropped the ball. Where does the buck stop in your estimation?

George W Bush didn't deny the request, which is what you originally claimed was a fact. I'm not interested in any of your chaff.

orange
05-16-2011, 04:02 PM
George W Bush didn't deny the request, which is what you originally claimed was a fact. I'm not interested in any of your chaff.

Franks and Rumsfeld denied the requests. The guy in charge on the CIA end went over their heads and brought it directly to Bush, who didn't act. You can read it in the Senate report.

patteeu
05-16-2011, 04:41 PM
Franks and Rumsfeld denied the requests. The guy in charge on the CIA end went over their heads and brought it directly to Bush, who didn't act. You can read it in the Senate report.

There you go then. I was right and penchief's "fact" was false.

penchief
05-16-2011, 09:36 PM
There you go then. I was right and penchief's "fact" was false.

This is actually getting funny. You are clinging by a thread. No amount of parsing is going to change the bottom line. You may think that you are winning the argument on a technicality but you lost the war a long time ago.

You've planted your flag behind your own goal line. I'll concede that I muddied my claim by using the word "fact" if you concede that the Bush Administration denied a troop request by those who were trying to block bin Laden's escape into Pakistan, and thereby, passed on an opportunity to kill or capture him.

penchief
05-16-2011, 09:41 PM
There you go then. I was right and penchief's "fact" was false.

Plus, I posted a link and quoted part of the story which said exactly what Orange just posted. That the head of CIA operations in Afghanistan appealed directly to Bush for those troops. I guess you either didn't read it or didn't care.

Ugly Duck
05-17-2011, 12:39 AM
The idea behind the (Tora Bora) decision was to continue to put an Afghan face on the operation to minimize the sense that the Americans were running roughshod over their country.

Yeah, bad idea by the Republicans.... just as bad as their idea that we have to ask permission from Pakistan before going in to kill AQ leaders. Obama just said "F@ck that Republican bullshit, let's not rely on them Muslims - lets just kill the fuggers!" Thank Allah that Obama's policy is more successful than his predecessors' was!

patteeu
05-17-2011, 07:22 AM
This is actually getting funny. You are clinging by a thread. No amount of parsing is going to change the bottom line. You may think that you are winning the argument on a technicality but you lost the war a long time ago.

You've planted your flag behind your own goal line. I'll concede that I muddied my claim by using the word "fact" if you concede that the Bush Administration denied a troop request by those who were trying to block bin Laden's escape into Pakistan, and thereby, passed on an opportunity to kill or capture him.

I'm not involved in the war of which you speak. I'm involved only in the specific battle and by your own admission I've emerged victorious.

Remember the post where you were scolding Roy for ignoring "facts"? I think you could use a little more work on that yourself.

Then why, as a rightie (so called conservative) do you ignore the facts?. Such as the fact that Bush had bin Laden trapped in Tora Bora and allowed him to escape into Pakistan. Those who pointed out that Bush denied the troops requested to block bin Laden's entry into Pakistan are citing a fact.

Too bad some of you can't argue the facts but instead resort to diversionary tactics such as belittling the reasoning of others.

Fact fail.

patteeu
05-17-2011, 07:26 AM
Yeah, bad idea by the Republicans.... just as bad as their idea that we have to ask permission from Pakistan before going in to kill AQ leaders. Obama just said "F@ck that Republican bullshit, let's not rely on them Muslims - lets just kill the fuggers!" Thank Allah that Obama's policy is more successful than his predecessors' was!

I remember when you guys were all upset with such things as cowboy diplomacy and going it alone. Now you accuse Bush of being too inclusive and multilateral and you prefer the more my-way-or-the-highway approach. Do you guys ever stick to the same side of an issue?

penchief
05-17-2011, 08:54 AM
I'm not involved in the war of which you speak. I'm involved only in the specific battle and by your own admission I've emerged victorious.

Remember the post where you were scolding Roy for ignoring "facts"? I think you could use a little more work on that yourself.



Fact fail.

Not necessarily. If the appeal was made directly to Bush, which has been reported, and he did not override the decision then he did, in fact, deny the troops.

penchief
05-17-2011, 09:04 AM
I'm not involved in the war of which you speak. I'm involved only in the specific battle and by your own admission I've emerged victorious.

Remember the post where you were scolding Roy for ignoring "facts"? I think you could use a little more work on that yourself.



Fact fail.

It is pretty much accepted fact that the Bush Administration under Bush's command chose not to provide the troops that were requested by those on the ground in order to cut off bin Laden's escape into Pakistan. That alone, validates the point I was attempting to make in spite of your efforts to convolute the gist of my post via semantic gamesmanship.

patteeu
05-17-2011, 09:12 AM
Not necessarily. If the appeal was made directly to Bush, which has been reported, and he did not override the decision then he did, in fact, deny the troops.

No, the decision was already made by the appropriate decision makers. And it's still not clear to me that they made the wrong decision. You blew it. It's time to just admit your error and move on.

Similar to what I said to Ugly Duck, I can remember when you guys used to criticize Bush and Rumsfeld for not listening to their generals enough. Now you criticize them for not overriding their generals' decisions. Do you guys ever stick to the same side of an issue?

penchief
05-17-2011, 09:16 AM
No, the decision was already made by the appropriate decision makers. And it's still not clear to me that they made the wrong decision. You blew it. It's time to just admit your error and move on.

Similar to what I said to Ugly Duck, I can remember when you guys used to criticize Bush and Rumsfeld for not listening to their generals enough. Now you criticize them for not overriding their generals' decisions. Do you guys ever stick to the same side of an issue?

You are trying to make this argument about something that it is not. I already told you, I will yield to your game of semantics if you yield to the gist of my argument. Which is that the Bush Administration, under Bush's guidance, denied the troops that were requested by those on the ground who were tasked with capturing or killing bin Laden. Thereby, enabling his escape into Pakistan.

The Bush Administration blew it. It's time for you to admit that and move on.

patteeu
05-17-2011, 09:27 AM
You are trying to make this argument about something that it is not. I already told you, I will yield to your game of semantics if you yield to the gist of my argument. Which is that the Bush Administration, under Bush's guidance, denied the troops that were requested by those on the ground who were tasked with capturing or killing bin Laden. Thereby, enabling his escape into Pakistan.

The Bush Administration blew it. It's time for you to admit that and move on.

You shouldn't tell other people to get their facts straight when you can't get yours straight. No deal is necessary. Your "fact" was false and that fact doesn't depend on whether I agree or don't agree with something else.

penchief
05-17-2011, 09:33 AM
You shouldn't tell other people to get their facts straight when you can't get yours straight. No deal is necessary. Your "fact" was false and that fact doesn't depend on whether I agree or don't agree with something else.

You win on a technicality. I win on a knock out.

Your technical victory does nothing to detract from the point I was making in my response to that particular poster.

Revel in your hollow victory, Baghdad Bob.

mlyonsd
05-17-2011, 09:37 AM
The Bush Administration blew it. It's time for you to admit that and move on.
And the Obama administration has benefited in every sense of the word from Bush's handling of the WoT. From gathering intelligience at secret prisons and Gitmo to making arrangements with Pakistan to conduct unilateral raids inside their territory for OBL.

I wish some of you would admit it so we can move on.

penchief
05-17-2011, 09:41 AM
And the Obama administration has benefited in every sense of the word from Bush's handling of the WoT. From gathering intelligience at secret prisons and Gitmo to making arrangements with Pakistan to conduct unilateral raids inside their territory for OBL.

I wish some of you would admit it so we can move on.

I've never denied that. I've only taken issue with those who want to detract from Obama's role while acting as though Bush deserved most, if not all, of the credit.

Ugly Duck
05-17-2011, 10:12 AM
And the Obama administration has benefited in every sense of the word from Bush's handling of the WoT. From gathering intelligience at secret prisons and Gitmo to making arrangements with Pakistan to conduct unilateral raids inside their territory for OBL. I wish some of you would admit it so we can move on.

Nobody is contending that there was no CIA & no US military before Obama took office. Everybody knows there was a WOT underway when Obama was sworn in. Most Americans give our intel & military guys the lion's share of the credit for killing bin Laden. Americans also give President Obama more credit than they give Bush cuz Obama broke with Bush's "ask permission" policy. America credits our intel & our military first, then President Obama for breaking with the Bush policy & therefore being successful. Nothing confusing about that.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1978/poll-osama-bin-laden-death-reaction-obama-bush-military-cia-credit-first-heard-news

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1978-2.png

mlyonsd
05-17-2011, 10:16 AM
Nobody is contending that there was no CIA & no US military before Obama took office. Everybody knows there was a WOT underway when Obama was sworn in. Most Americans give our intel & military guys the lion's share of the credit for killing bin Laden. Americans also give President Obama more credit than they give Bush cuz Obama broke with Bush's "ask permission" policy. America credits our intel & our military first, then President Obama for breaking with the Bush policy & therefore being successful. Nothing confusing about that.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1978/poll-osama-bin-laden-death-reaction-obama-bush-military-cia-credit-first-heard-news

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1978-2.png

That's the first I've heard you mention Bush deserving any credit. Congrats on the breakthrough.

go bowe
05-17-2011, 10:38 AM
bah, bushy no deservy credit...

it was cheney all along...

RedNeckRaider
05-17-2011, 10:54 AM
Nobody is contending that there was no CIA & no US military before Obama took office. Everybody knows there was a WOT underway when Obama was sworn in. Most Americans give our intel & military guys the lion's share of the credit for killing bin Laden. Americans also give President Obama more credit than they give Bush cuz Obama broke with Bush's "ask permission" policy. America credits our intel & our military first, then President Obama for breaking with the Bush policy & therefore being successful. Nothing confusing about that.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1978/poll-osama-bin-laden-death-reaction-obama-bush-military-cia-credit-first-heard-news

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1978-2.png

Obama backed off begrudgingly but does his buddy Holder still want to prosecute the men that gathered the intel that led to this mission. As far as the ask policy well Barry might need to remember Pakistan is kinda fucking important to supplying our troops in Afghanistan~

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/09/136144147/u-s-pakistan-flareup-threatens-troops-supply-route