CIA Commander: We Let bin Laden Slip Away


PDA






rick_reno
August 7, 2005, 10:58 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/

Aug. 15, 2005 issue - During the 2004 presidential campaign, George W. Bush and John Kerry battled about whether Osama bin Laden had escaped from Tora Bora in the final days of the war in Afghanistan. Bush, Kerry charged, "didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down and kill" the leader of Al Qaeda. The president called his opponent's allegation "the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking." Bush asserted that U.S. commanders on the ground did not know if bin Laden was at the mountain hideaway along the Afghan border.

But in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught. "He was there," Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK. Asked to comment on Berntsen's remarks, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones passed on 2004 statements from former CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks. "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001," Franks wrote in an Oct. 19 New York Times op-ed. "Bin Laden was never within our grasp." Berntsen says Franks is "a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was."

In his book—titled "Jawbreaker"—the decorated career CIA officer criticizes Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department for not providing enough support to the CIA and the Pentagon's own Special Forces teams in the final hours of Tora Bora, says Berntsen's lawyer, Roy Krieger. (Berntsen would not divulge the book's specifics, saying he's awaiting CIA clearance.) That backs up other recent accounts, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a "strategic disaster" because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members. Maj. Todd Vician, a Defense Department spokesman, says the problem at Tora Bora "was not necessarily just the number of troops."

Berntsen's book gives, by contrast, a heroic portrayal of CIA activities at Tora Bora and in the war on terror. Ironically, he has sued the agency over what he calls unacceptable delays in approving his book—a standard process for ex-agency employees describing classified matters. "They're just holding the book," which is scheduled for October release, he says. "CIA officers, Special Forces and U.S. air power drove the Taliban out in 70 days. The CIA has taken roughly 80 days to clear my book." Jennifer Millerwise, a CIA spokeswoman, says Berntsen's "timeline is not accurate," adding that he submitted his book as an ex-employee only in mid-June. "We take seriously our goal of responding quickly."

—Michael Hirsh

If you enjoyed reading about "CIA Commander: We Let bin Laden Slip Away" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fourays2
August 7, 2005, 11:29 AM
has anyone else noticed how the left now supports the CIA? how did this happen, I always thought the left viewed the CIA as responsible for all the worlds problem?

DelayedReaction
August 7, 2005, 11:51 AM
I think it's more appropriate to say the left supports anything that can be used to hurt the right, and vice versa. Being in the middle sure makes it fun to watch the fireworks.

If this man's allegations are true, that's pretty nasty. There is nothing Americans want more than the removal of Osama bin Laden from the world stage, and any percieved failure in reaching that goal isn't going to be taken lightly.

GunGoBoom
August 7, 2005, 01:07 PM
, Kerry charged, "didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down and kill" the leader of Al Qaeda.

Kerry is right. This is not rocket science. We KNOW that 4 years ago, Osama's group killed a bunch of people in NY, Penn, and DC. The Prez vowed to get him. But instead of getting him, 4 years later, he has utterly failed to do so, because of his diversion of massive military resources AWAY FROM hunting Osama to another military action, which as it happens has/had very little to no US interest at stake. A bigger failure as a president I cannot recall. :neener:

Rebar
August 7, 2005, 01:20 PM
More liberal/left propaganda, and old propaganda at that. I guess the current crop of lies like "Rovegate" have fallen flat, now they're reduced to recycling nonsense from before the last election. Pretty pathetic, what's next, resurrecting Bush's ANG service again?
because of his diversion of massive military resources AWAY FROM hunting Osama to another military action
We HAD no "massive military resources" in Afganistan to BE diverted. The whole war was based on Northern alliance troops backed by US airpower. The Northern alliance troops dropped the ball, but they were the only team in town.

TallPine
August 7, 2005, 01:54 PM
Well, if they would have only sent Jack Ryan over there, OBL would be history or else in Gitmo right now... ;)

OTOH, maybe they did, and he got 'im, and they are keeping it all a secret :p

GunGoBoom
August 7, 2005, 02:05 PM
Yeah, I was kinda playin devils advocate, knowing I'd get flamed :) - fact is, he may be dead; if so, then the goal has been accomplished.

CAnnoneer
August 7, 2005, 02:07 PM
+1 GunGoBoom for pres as failure.

Rebar, I find myself at a loss as to what kind of evidence/testimony/observation/etc, if any, it would take to change your views of B2 and his administration. :)

Rebar
August 7, 2005, 02:16 PM
Rebar, I find myself at a loss as to what kind of evidence/testimony/observation/etc, if any, it would take to change your views of B2 and his administration.
Bring some facts and logic to the table, for a change.

For example, detail the so-called "massive military resources" that were in Afganistan at the start of the Tora Bora operation, that were "diverted" because of Iraq. As far as I know, there wasn't a single US division in Afganistan at the time, feel free to correct me, if you can.

gc70
August 7, 2005, 02:38 PM
Do a search for "Tora Bora" at www.globalsecurity.org

New York Post 12/15/2001 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011215-attack01.htm) reported 2,000 Afghan fighters and 200 US and British Special Forces at Tora Bora.

Wall Street Journal 12/24/2001 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011224-attack01.htm) reported "as many as" 3,000 US troops in Afghanistan.

3rdpig
August 7, 2005, 02:52 PM
Being in the middle sure makes it fun to watch the fireworks.

I just don't understand how anyone can be in the "middle" on these issues. I'm not attacking you personally, but I speak to a lot of different people in my job, and everyone I've spoke to that claims to be in the "middle" either comes across as someone who doesn't have a clue, doesn't care, is too wishy washy to make up their minds, or as someone who has no strong opinions on anything.

seansean
August 7, 2005, 03:10 PM
Bush is a huge failure, a liar, a con artist,a chickenhawk, and a coward. Not taking time to meet with cindy sheehan yesterday, someone who lost a son in bush's war, is shameful, but doesn't surprise me. He must have been too busy clearing brush. I hope patrick fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, puts him and every lying, thieving, scumbag, democrat or republican, that lied us into this war in prison for life, no parole. Bring on the flame :fire:

1911 guy
August 7, 2005, 03:15 PM
First off, we did have UBL within reach at T.B.. I'm not going to try to remember names right now, if requested, I'll post them later. Anyway, we had him cornered, the CIA Agent in Charge wired Wa. D.C. asking for dry ice (he was told to send UBL's head to the oval office) and was immediately informed that indigenous forces were taking over and they would handle the actual capture/kill. Yet another political decision that has cost lives and money and time with nobody stepping up to say they were responsible for the decision.

tulsamal
August 7, 2005, 03:20 PM
I just don't think it is worthwhile to use field intelligence in hindsight. Whether you are talking about the attack on Pearly Harbor or 9/11, you can always go back and sort through the stacks on raw intel and "prove" that the people in charge either "knew about it" or were incompetent for not seeing it.

The intelligence we get today is like standing in the middle of the Mississippi River and trying to ID every fish that goes by. I'm sure there was intel that suggested OBL was at that spot. But there was probably intel that said he was in Syria and others that said he was on the other side of Iraq. You can't send out a strike team in each case. This is the challenge of the intel community today. Get intel in hand and _correctly_ interpreted before events move on and the intel is no longer of any use.

This type of story fails the "common sense" test. I remember vast numbers of people telling me that Bush would either kill or capture OBL right before the last election. We "knew where he was all along" but we were delaying things to give Bush a last minute boost in the polls. Now these guys are claiming Bush had a chance to kill OBL but decided not to do so. Why in the world would he do that? Bush has several dozen things he would like to accomplish in his Presidency but I would say getting credit for killing or capturing OBL would be in the top five. If the intell people really had come forward and said they were "90% sure" OBL was in our reach, Bush would have been scrambling everything up to B-2 bombers to take him out!

Gregg

Justin
August 7, 2005, 03:23 PM
Last I heard, Bin Laden was kickin' it with Emmanuel Goldstein.

toivo
August 7, 2005, 03:26 PM
For example, detail the so-called "massive military resources" that were in Afganistan at the start of the Tora Bora operation, that were "diverted" because of Iraq.
Consider the possibility that Bush intended to go to Iraq all along, and therefore never committed to Afghanistan the resources that would've been necessary to finally defeat the Taliban and capture OBL, choosing instead to entrust the primary mission of the War on Terror to the Northern Alliance warlords. Once the Iraq war started, no one was watching Afghanistan anymore, and it is now slipping back into anarchy.

rock jock
August 7, 2005, 03:33 PM
Bush is a huge failure, a liar, a con artist,a chickenhawk, and a coward. Still smarting over the Florida loss? Get over it.

Rebar
August 7, 2005, 03:45 PM
Consider the possibility that Bush intended to go to Iraq all along, and therefore never committed to Afghanistan the resources that would've been necessary to finally defeat the Taliban and capture OBL
Consider the possibility that maybe the Northern Alliance didn't want massive US troops in the country, that supplying large numbers of US troops would be nearly impossible, that getting the troops into the country would have been exceedingly difficult, and would have taken a very long time, that it would have taken more divisions than is in the US military to seal off all the escape routs over those mountains, so on and so forth.

It's childish, magical thinking that all Rumsfeld had to do was wave a magic wand, and presto - 20 divisions of US mountain troops would have appeared to capture OBL, and he didn't because, well, because he's an evil old man! This kind of thinking is what makes me dispise and mock the liberal/left.

It's easy to consider just the "possibilities" that make Bush look bad. When you look at all the factors, then it starts to look a lot like what could be done, was done. But that doesn't serve the real purpose, which is to bash Bush.

Bush is a huge failure, a liar, a con artist,a chickenhawk, and a coward.
Take that nonsense back to DU please, it has no place on THR.

seansean
August 7, 2005, 04:17 PM
actually, I'm not a member of du, and, this being the legal and political forum, it does have a place here. You don't have to agree with my pov for it to be a valid pov.

Rebar
August 7, 2005, 04:29 PM
You don't have to agree with my pov for it to be a valid pov.
A pov? All I see is a steaming pile of slanders that have been refuted time and time again here, a pile that could have been cut-and-pasted from any DU or moveon.org talking points.

seansean
August 7, 2005, 04:48 PM
your pov has also been refuted time and time again, not necessarily here, but in the"reality-based" community. you know, the one where iraq didn't have WMD, wasn't an imminent threat, but bush said they did and they were. it's funny, rafael palmeiro may face charges for lying to congress( a felony under U.S. Code title 18) about steroids, No wonder bush defended him. If I were GWB, I'd be getting mighty nervous about now. :)

Rebar
August 7, 2005, 04:53 PM
your pov has also been refuted time and time again
Uh, no. Just use the search function for your favorite Bush-bashing topics, and you'll learn why all your DU buddies are wrong.

buzz_knox
August 7, 2005, 04:53 PM
Nervous for what? Advocating a position taken by the American gov't for better than a decade before he took office? For stating what Iraq's own allies had stated?

Liberals tend to forget that no one really disputed Iraq having WMD (even Clinton, Kerry and Gore were on record concerning this issue). The question was what to do about it. And the liberals voted to support a military option.

The real liars are the ones claiming that Bush was making it up out whole cloth when he was talking of the threat.

longhorngunman
August 7, 2005, 04:55 PM
.

Justin
August 7, 2005, 05:24 PM
seansean- If you want to criticize the current administration, perhaps you'd get further with legitimate examples backed up with logical thinking.

rebar- take a chill pill.

:rolleyes:

HighVelocity
August 7, 2005, 05:38 PM
Well, if they would have only sent Jack Ryan over there

I think Jack Bauer would catch OBL faster. :neener:

I am confident that will will get him eventually. This is a big planet but OBL will not die of old age.

Warbow
August 7, 2005, 06:01 PM
First off, we did have UBL within reach at T.B.. I'm not going to try to remember names right now, if requested, I'll post them later. Anyway, we had him cornered, the CIA Agent in Charge wired Wa. D.C. asking for dry ice (he was told to send UBL's head to the oval office) and was immediately informed that indigenous forces were taking over and they would handle the actual capture/kill.

Oh jeez, dude. Just because someone wrote sensational things in their book to enhance their sales doesn't make them true.

Really, use some common sense.

seansean
August 7, 2005, 06:14 PM
fair enough...
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WMDlies

as far as logical thought, what my pov here is, this war was not fought because of wmd, but for neoconservative political ideology. We were lied to, bush lied to us and to congress, which is against the law. it didn't have the effect he claimed, making us safer, but just the opposite. This admin killed 1800+ of our soldiers and god knows how many innocent civilians. I'm just not OK with that. I know most here disagree, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Rebar
August 7, 2005, 06:25 PM
seansean:

We've all seen this tiresome left-wing Bush-bashing a million times, especially before the last election. Just so you're aware: a lot, likely the majority, here voted for Bush twice. Some because they like him, others because he was the least-bad choice. So you can't come here and mindlessly bash like on DU, you got to bring something real to the table.

Besides which, it's completely off topic, if you want, start a new topic, and maybe someone will link back to some of the huge posts debunking all the moonbat propaganda you linked to. Otherwise, just stick with the topic on hand.

seansean
August 7, 2005, 06:41 PM
so, that link I just posted to all the lies this admin. told isn't real? Those things were never said? again,I'm not a du member, and you can call it bush-bashing if you want,(I suppose it is) but lying is lying. He's a liar. I respect those that hold a different opinion, but this is mine. Nuff said, we are off-topic.

MarkDido
August 7, 2005, 07:17 PM
Bush is a huge failure, a liar, a con artist,a chickenhawk, and a coward. Not taking time to meet with cindy sheehan yesterday, someone who lost a son in bush's war, is shameful, but doesn't surprise me. He must have been too busy clearing brush. I hope patrick fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, puts him and every lying, thieving, scumbag, democrat or republican, that lied us into this war in prison for life, no parole. Bring on the flame

No flame required because we here all understand you don't have a clue.

Do a google search on Cindy Sheehan. I'm sorry that she lost her adult son in Iraq, but joining the military was his decision to make, not hers. Since then she has been a shrill, left-wing flack for the anti-war movement. What do you think meeting with President Bush would have accomplished, other than her repeating her anti-war mantra over and over again?

Rebar
August 7, 2005, 07:21 PM
Bring on the flame
ok, he got what he wanted, he's been flamed enough. Lets get back on topic please.

seansean
August 7, 2005, 07:33 PM
Mark:
what's interesting is that those of you on the right tend to use the same tired debate tactics, attack the person, not the facts. You'll notice, not once in this thread did I insult anyone personally,(except GWB) I just stated my opinion. It's unfortunate that you can't debate on a civil level, but hey, we all have different skill sets. all good.

CAnnoneer
August 7, 2005, 07:44 PM
Quote from Rebar: Bring some facts and logic to the table, for a change.

I guess I pushed somebody's buttons :) Sorry, dude, but I cannot take you seriously until you have answered my original question, which was:

What kind of evidence/testimony/observation/etc, if any, it would take to change your views of B2 and his administration?

The more vitriolic you respond, the more you prove my suspicions. :evil:


Seansean,

Don't take it personally. Anyone who attacks Dubya and co here gets the double barrel from Rebar. Because it is clear as day that anyone who even partly agrees with B2's critics must be a dem mole subverter sent on a secret mission to confuse the gun nut reps here. As a young member, I had to pass through the same initiation. :)

Catch you later at the super secret dem hideout. We'll be planning our next assault on America's commonsense :evil:

Rebar
August 7, 2005, 07:53 PM
What kind of evidence/testimony/observation/etc, if any, it would take to change your views of B2 and his administration?
I did answer your question. Bring some real facts and logic to the table, then we can discuss them. This "Bush sucks because I say so" nonsense just won't fly with me, I suspect it doesn't fly with most of the members here either. It does fly over at DU, which is why I directed you there, since you seem to prefer personal attacks over proper debating etiquette.

And I note you didn't answer my question:
For example, detail the so-called "massive military resources" that were in Afganistan at the start of the Tora Bora operation, that were "diverted" because of Iraq.
in case you've forgotten, and to lurch this back onto the topic.

hifi
August 7, 2005, 07:59 PM
More incompetence by the global socialist George W. Bush and his administration.

CAnnoneer
August 7, 2005, 08:02 PM
Rebar,

You can run, but you can't hide :)

Rebar
August 7, 2005, 08:04 PM
Hide what? I gave you the answer you asked for, if not the one you wanted.

gc70
August 7, 2005, 08:23 PM
Last I heard, Bin Laden was kickin' it with Emmanuel Goldstein.Justin, when I read that, I spewed fried rice all over the monitor - what a mess to clean up. :)

Art Eatman
August 7, 2005, 11:25 PM
In posts #5 and #9, Rebar brought up a question pertinent to the thread.

Even if the Bush bashing is absolutely correct, it has nothing to do with the thread, nor with Rebar's question.

Answer the question or see the thread closed because of off-thread BS.

Art

grampster
August 8, 2005, 12:30 AM
I'm with Art. Just once I'd like to see a scholarly, detailed examination of the reality we face with some solid, well thought out alternatives from the Left.

So far all we ever get is emotional drivel, dreck, name calling and peripheral nonsense.

I've been waiting for almost 4 years. Isn't that time enough to formulate an alternative?...we're waiting.........!!

MechAg94
August 8, 2005, 12:45 AM
Posting comments that read like DNC talking points will get you strong reactions. There are plenty of RNC talking points also, but the point is still valid.

As for real alternatives, there are some things I don't like about Bush, but did anyone honestly expect me to vote for John Kerry? The Dems should stop bashing Bush and concentrate on putting up a candidate someone who is not a lib could vote for.

On topic: I remember all the concerns right after 9/11 when we were heading into Afganistan that this was a country that hated foreign invaders and if we went in there trying to take over all the Afganis would fight us. I was thinking it was seen as successful since we got the Taliban overthrown with minimal ground troops and had some organized groups in charge who wanted to set up a new govt. I don't think things would have improved with 10's of thousands of more troops in there.

Lone_Gunman
August 8, 2005, 12:53 AM
Allow me to preface my comments by saying I voted for Bush twice. I donated money to his 2000 campaign, because I thought he would be a good president. I didnt in 2004, by that time he was strictly the lesser of two evils. I have been a member of the RNC since sometime in the 80's.

So please don't get confused and think I am an escapee from DU, because I most certainly am not.

Anyway... it appears that members of the so-called right are asking for well thought discussion on the WOT/Iraq War from the left, and to be honest I think well-thought out discussion does not exist on either side of the political fence when it comes to our purpose for fighting this war. I think it is hypocritical of the right to ask this of the left, when the right isn't sure what the purpose of all this is. First, we were there to rid weapons of mass destruction, then to free the Iraqis from Saddam, then to build a mid-east democracy, and now to eradicate an insurgency. Our mission has changed several times under Bush's presidency.

Grampster, you have been waiting a long time for an alternative, but I would ask, an alternative to what exactly?

RevDisk
August 8, 2005, 01:38 AM
In posts #5 and #9, Rebar brought up a question pertinent to the thread.

Even if the Bush bashing is absolutely correct, it has nothing to do with the thread, nor with Rebar's question.

Answer the question or see the thread closed because of off-thread BS.

Is this the question?


For example, detail the so-called "massive military resources" that were in Afganistan at the start of the Tora Bora operation, that were "diverted" because of Iraq. As far as I know, there wasn't a single US division in Afganistan at the time, feel free to correct me, if you can.

The seige of Tora Bora happened in Dec 2001, as meantioned in the original article. The Iraqi invasion started March 20, 2003. Well over a year later.

The number of troops on the ground in Afghanistan during that time was not reported. No official troop strength reports on Afghanistan released during that period of time.

The official MILPERS deployment numbers

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/miltop.htm


Official Timeline of Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)

http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/1092004a.html

Again, no troop numbers given. Pentagon refused to give any info.

The troops on the ground consisted primarily of 101st Airborne (Air Assault), 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit and various Special Operations units.

Any other questions?

DRZinn
August 8, 2005, 01:53 AM
Not taking time to meet with cindy sheehan yesterday, someone who lost a son in bush's war, is shameful, but doesn't surprise me.To what end?

First, we were there to rid weapons of mass destruction, then to free the Iraqis from Saddam, then to build a mid-east democracy, and now to eradicate an insurgency. Our mission has changed several times under Bush's presidency.ACtually, we went in to rid the place of weapons of mass destruction, AND to free the Iraqis from Saddam, AND to build a mid-east democracy, along with several other reasons I can think of, and probably some I have no clue about. What has changed has been the political emphasis, which has shifted with the political winds.

No_Brakes23
August 8, 2005, 01:55 AM
The whole war was based on Northern alliance troops backed by US airpower. That's funny, cause I had friends who were on the ground over there.

Must have all been a fabrication. The Commies must have brainwashed my fellow Marines or something. Perhaps they were chillin' in Key West the whole time.

On topic, there is simply no way to prove or disprove these claims, short of someone actually producing OBL. And anyone "coming out" to the press is suspect anyway.

Sergeant Bob
August 8, 2005, 02:01 AM
I don't know why so many get their panties in a bunch over us not getting Bin Laden (other than to bash Bush). It's not like we get him and all sudden the Towers will magically resurrect themselves and all the dead will come back to life.

He'll be gotten sooner or later.

Rebar
August 8, 2005, 02:25 AM
The seige of Tora Bora happened in Dec 2001, as meantioned in the original article. The Iraqi invasion started March 20, 2003. Well over a year later.

The troops on the ground consisted primarily of 101st Airborne (Air Assault), 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit and various Special Operations units.


My research shows that at the time, a 1000 man Marine unit was in country, special ops teams were operating with the Northern alliance, but that the first elements of the 101st didn't arrive until January 2002.
http://www.a101avn.org/a4101avn.htm

So in other words, the idea that OBL escaped because of the upcoming Iraq mission is, like so many of the left-wing "facts" bashing Bush, a complete myth. There were hardly any US forces on the ground at the time, and the operation was over well before Iraq became a factor.

It'd be nice if those perpetuating this myth will stand up and admit they were wrong.

Derby FALs
August 8, 2005, 10:34 AM
The seige of Tora Bora happened in Dec 2001, as meantioned in the original article. The Iraqi invasion started March 20, 2003. Well over a year later.

It just took Vicky "Incubator Babies (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2004-03%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=victoria+clark+incubator+babies)" Clark, that long to put enough spin on it to sell the war.

Augustwest
August 8, 2005, 12:35 PM
I don't know why so many get their panties in a bunch over us not getting Bin Laden (other than to bash Bush). It's not like we get him and all sudden the Towers will magically resurrect themselves and all the dead will come back to life.

Unbelievable. :scrutiny:

How 'bout since we're fighting the "War on Terror," we eliminate terrorism's primary symbol, architect and motivator? Nah, that would make too much sense.

Capturing/killing OBL and the rest of the Al Qaida leadership should continue to be our primary focus. Not nation building. Not trying to fight every muslim extremist footsoldier on the planet. Kill the bosses, and maybe, just maybe, we'll have a respite from terrorism. It'll never go away (particularly if we keep taking actions that create more anger angainst us), but maybe we can hold it in check. For a little while.

CAnnoneer
August 8, 2005, 01:32 PM
+1 Augustwest

Terrorism is an ideology. To crush it, you must crush its spirit. This means you must inflict massive psychological defeats to it. The death of any of its leaders, especially if accomplished in a particularly unheroic or comical way would have a much bigger effect than killing 10,000 insurgents.

By sending all these GI's in harm's way, the only thing Dubya did is to bend over before OBL and the other mid-eastern buggers. Every captured, dead, mutilated, or psyched out GI is a big victory to the jihadists, because it legitimizes their efforts and gives them self-respect.

And that is all this is all about, self-respect. They live in crappy oppressive backward hopeless societies, where they are being taught and shown from early age that they are nothing but *****. They develop huge inferiority complex which is fed lavishly by the media and their portrayal of the decadent materially-satisfied West. If the jihadists had put any value on themselves as individuals, they would not be commiting suicide for any cause. It is the cause that gives them self-respect they need. With every killed GI, they feel pride in being able to successfully tackle mighty America. The feeling is probably almost sexual, as they pull the triggers.

The way to attack this is not by feeding fresh bodies to their orgasmic self-immolation, but to crush them psychologically.

Why is it that nobody gives a damn about Saddam anymore? Because they found him ragged, dirty, and pathetic, hiding like an animal in a ditch. Those pictures of him were far more damaging to the jihadists than any cruise missile bombardments or Faluja assaults.

This is war, and war is in the will. Crush the will, and the war is over.

Marshall
August 8, 2005, 01:55 PM
I guess I pushed somebody's buttons Sorry, dude, but I cannot take you seriously until you have answered my original question, which was:

What kind of evidence/testimony/observation/etc, if any, it would take to change your views of B2 and his administration?

The more vitriolic you respond, the more you prove my suspicions.

Strange question, rather wide ranging too. Change opinion? Change it to what opinion?


As for the book, it's a book. Actually, an Ex CIA officer that writes this kind of stuff tells me something about the Ex CIA officer. It also sounds like sour grapes. The CIA has screwed up quite a bit, sounds like revenge grabbing to me.

He seems to be more upset about his book being released timely than he does anything else.

Rebar
August 8, 2005, 02:13 PM
Strange question, rather wide ranging too. Change opinion? Change it to what opinion?
To his opinion of course.

Note how I present facts and logic to demolish this myth about OBL and Tora Bora, yet none of them in no way even acknowledges it, or changes there opinion about it.

Seems like typical leftists, they expect you to change your opinion to match theirs because they say so, yet there's no way they're going to give up their cherished myths despite it being completely destroyed by the facts.

"A mind is a terrible thing to waste" indeed, how many fine minds have been ruined by the rot of leftism, too many to count.

Sergeant Bob
August 8, 2005, 02:22 PM
Unbelievable.

How 'bout since we're fighting the "War on Terror," we eliminate terrorism's primary symbol, architect and motivator? Nah, that would make too much sense.

Wow! Bunched panties must be mighty uncomfortable. :neener:

I don't recall anyone saying we should we should just stop looking for him, just that you shouldn't let it ruin your day.

As for the book (which is the topic of the post), the guy who wrote it is after all trying to increase sales. Lately, the way that is done is by creating controversy with a "tell all" book.

I seriously doubt that we "let" OBL go. Even if we stopped "nation building", what would you suggest we do. Invade Pakistan?

Geno
August 8, 2005, 02:42 PM
An axis of evil. North Korea already has nukes, we have intention of hitting them, our "policticos" will pay them off...again. That will hold them until they run out of mon ey and need/want more.

But two of the axis of evil do NOT have nukes...Iraq and Iran...not yet! Iraq is in effect down-and-out. I truly do WONDER if all of this has not been merely the planning, and prepositioning of a significant amount of troops and weapons to preassure Iran on the nuke issue. We're talking right next door. Is THAT the reason we are still in Iraq? Buying a little time? Doubt we'll ever know, but it is something I have pondered for some time now.

I admire President Bush, I respect President Bush; but I DO NOT ENVY him. What a thank-less job to hold! Both sides will forever criticise everything he ever does. My little girl keeps asking me, "Dad Dee (my nickname), are we still at war? I'm so sick of it...all we see and hear is war, war, war!" :barf:

Doc2005

itgoesboom
August 8, 2005, 02:59 PM
Amazes me how people seem to lose their critical thinking skills when it comes to politics.

1. Iraq agreed to the terms of their surrender to us, and violated those terms.
2. Iraq was, on an almost weekly basis shooting at our planes, who were enforcing the terms of their surrender.
3. Iraq had agreed to destroy and account for all WMD, including actual weapons, plans, and equipment to manufacture said WMD. They violated this on many levels.
a. Iraq had a top scientist who had equipment and plans cached under the garden in his front yard.
b. Iraq had failed to account for much of the actual weapons, and wouldn't allow inspectors to verify the location of said WMDs or if they had been destroyed.
c. Iraq hadn't destroyed all the WMDs, since a WMD artillery shell was set as an IED, and discovered by our soldiers.
4. Part of the agreement that Iraq had made said that they wouldn't have missles that could go farther than a certain distance. We found those missles that could, in violation of their agreement.
5. Here is the part that those who think this wasn't part of the War on Terror should pay attention to: Iraq had supported Terrorism, in multiple ways.
a. Saddam Hussein paid money to the families of Suicide bombers in Israel, encouraging them to continue their jihad. .
b. Saddam Hussein had paid to have President H.W. Bush assisinated.
c. One of the more famous terrorists of the 80's was living in Iraq. That would be Abu Nidal. While some believe that Hussein had him killed (others think it was the Isrealis), they also acknowledge that it was because Hussein was at that moment trying to not be included in the WOT. Too little, too late.
d. While their is no evidence that Iraq or Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, it is clear that their was terror training camps within Iraq, including one with an decomissioned airliner. So while he didn't help the 9/11 hijackers, he has provided training aid to others to be able to do other hijackings.

Lots of people on the left bring up that the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with Iraq, you are right.

But Bush said we were going to go after all terrorists, and those that assist them.

For those that brought up the Mother of a soldier who died in Iraq, and wanted to meet with Bush, SHE DID MEET WITH BUSH!!! Last year she even complimented the President after meeting with him.

Here are some quotes for you.

'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.'

"'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said."

One more important thing about the war in Iraq. One big benefit of the war is that we now have better access to bases in the middle east to strike out towards those that want to harm us.

I.G.B.

And for those of you who think I am a Bush apologist, you are far off. I voted for him once, and only once, because I felt he was the lesser of two evils. And that will likely be the last time I vote for a Republican ever, unless there are some changes made.

I think the man is a failure, but for many other reasons.

JohnBT
August 8, 2005, 03:19 PM
"But in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught."

Haven't we been reading about this for a couple of years? I have anyway.

"Knowing" someone is in a cave in a remote region - let's say West Virginia for instance - is not the same as finding him.

John

P.S. - BTW, his name is President Bush. If you want to be taken seriously show a little respect for the office and quit acting like 13-year-olds on a hormone rush. And others need to get a shift key to make your musings easier to read. Just trying to be helpful. ;)

hifi
August 8, 2005, 03:51 PM
ACtually, we went in to rid the place of weapons of mass destruction, AND to free the Iraqis from Saddam, AND to build a mid-east democracy, along with several other reasons I can think of, and probably some I have no clue about. What has changed has been the political emphasis, which has shifted with the political winds.

So what's the reason this week? Where are the WMD's? George W. Bush has come to embody politics that are antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies are based on the naive belief that foreigners are eager to be liberated by American armies. This is a notion more grounded in the Trotskyte concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative ideology. His immigration policies are just as extreme.

So in other words, the idea that OBL escaped because of the upcoming Iraq mission

I have never heard this theory before, but I would expect nothing else from the braindead establishment left. The failure was in the failure to commit our soldiers to the battle when his location was established.

Here's an article from the Washington Post:

U.S. Concludes Bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight
Failure to Send Troops in Pursuit Termed Major Error

By Barton Gellman and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 17, 2002; Page A01

The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.

Intelligence officials have assembled what they believe to be decisive evidence, from contemporary and subsequent interrogations and intercepted communications, that bin Laden began the battle of Tora Bora inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border. Though there remains a remote chance that he died there, the intelligence community is persuaded that bin Laden slipped away in the first 10 days of December.

After-action reviews, conducted privately inside and outside the military chain of command, describe the episode as a significant defeat for the United States. A common view among those interviewed outside the U.S. Central Command is that Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the war's operational commander, misjudged the interests of putative Afghan allies and let pass the best chance to capture or kill al Qaeda's leader. Without professing second thoughts about Tora Bora, Franks has changed his approach fundamentally in subsequent battles, using Americans on the ground as first-line combat units.

In the fight for Tora Bora, corrupt local militias did not live up to promises to seal off the mountain redoubt, and some colluded in the escape of fleeing al Qaeda fighters. Franks did not perceive the setbacks soon enough, some officials said, because he ran the war from Tampa with no commander on the scene above the rank of lieutenant colonel. The first Americans did not arrive until three days into the fighting. "No one had the big picture," one defense official said.

The Bush administration has never acknowledged that bin Laden slipped through the cordon ostensibly placed around Tora Bora as U.S. aircraft began bombing on Nov. 30. Until now it was not known publicly whether the al Qaeda leader was present on the battlefield.

But inside the government there is little controversy on the subject. Captured al Qaeda fighters, interviewed separately, gave consistent accounts describing an address by bin Laden around Dec. 3 to mujaheddin, or holy warriors, dug into the warren of caves and tunnels built as a redoubt against Soviet invaders in the 1980s. One official said "we had a good piece of sigint," or signals intelligence, confirming those reports.

"I don't think you can ever say with certainty, but we did conclude he was there, and that conclusion has strengthened with time," said another official, giving an authoritative account of the intelligence consensus. "We have high confidence that he was there, and also high confidence, but not as high, that he got out. We have several accounts of that from people who are in detention, al Qaeda people who were free at the time and are not free now."

Franks continues to dissent from that analysis. Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, his chief spokesman, acknowledged the dominant view outside Tampa but said the general is unpersuaded.

"We have never seen anything that was convincing to us at all that Osama bin Laden was present at any stage of Tora Bora -- before, during or after," Quigley said. "I know you've got voices in the intelligence community that are taking a different view, but I just wanted you to know our view as well."

"Truth is hard to come by in Afghanistan," Quigley said, and for confidence on bin Laden's whereabouts "you need to see some sort of physical concrete proof."

Franks has told subordinates that it was vital at the Tora Bora battle, among the first to include allies from Afghanistan's Pashtun majority, to take a supporting role and "not just push them aside and take over because we were America," according to Quigley.

"Our relationship with the Afghans in the south and east was entirely different at that point in the war," he said. "It's no secret that we had a much more mature relationship with the Northern Alliance fighters." Franks, he added, "still thinks that the process he followed of helping the anti-Taliban forces around Tora Bora, to make sure it was crystal clear to them that we were not there to conquer their country . . . was absolutely the right thing to do."

With the collapse of the Afghan cordon around Tora Bora, and the decision to hold back U.S. troops from the Army's 10th Mountain Division, Pakistan stepped in. The government of President Pervez Musharraf moved thousands of troops to his border with Afghanistan and intercepted about 300 of the estimated 1,000 al Qaeda fighters who escaped Tora Bora. U.S. officials said close to half of the detainees now held at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were turned over by the Pakistani government.

Those successes included none of the top al Qaeda leaders at Tora Bora, officials acknowledged. Of the dozen senior leaders identified by the U.S. government, two are now accounted for -- Muhammad Atef, believed dead in a Hellfire missile attack, and Abu Zubaida, taken into custody late last month. But "most of the people we have been authorized to kill are still breathing," said an official directly involved in the pursuit, and several of them were at Tora Bora.

The predominant view among the analysts is that bin Laden is alive, but knowledgeable officials said they cannot rule out the possibility that he died at Tora Bora or afterward. Some analysts believe bin Laden is seriously ill and under the medical care of his second-in-command, Ayman Zawahiri, an Egyptian-trained physician. One of the theories, none supported by firm evidence, is that he has Marfan syndrome, a congenital disorder of some people with bin Laden's tall, slender body type that puts them at increased risk of heart attack or stroke.

The minority of U.S. officials who argue that bin Laden is probably dead note that four months have passed since any credible trace of him has surfaced in intelligence collection. Those who argue that he is probably alive note that monitoring of a proven network of bin Laden contacts has turned up no evidence of reaction to his death. If he had died, surely there would have been some detectable echo within this network, these officials argue.

In public, the Bush administration acknowledges no regret about its prosecution of Tora Bora. One official spokesman, declining to be named, described questions about the battle as "navel-gazing" and said the national security team is "too busy for that." He added, "We leave that to you guys in the press."

But some policymakers and operational officers spoke in frustrated and even profane terms of what they called an opportunity missed.

"We [messed] up by not getting into Tora Bora sooner and letting the Afghans do all the work," said a senior official with direct responsibilities in counterterrorism. "Clearly a decision point came when we started bombing Tora Bora and we decided just to bomb, because that's when he escaped. . . . We didn't put U.S. forces on the ground, despite all the brave talk, and that is what we have had to change since then."

When al Qaeda forces began concentrating again in February, south of the town of Gardez, Franks moved in thousands of U.S. troops from the 101st Airborne Division and the 10th Mountain Division. In the battle of Shahikot in early March -- also known as Operation Anaconda -- the United States let Afghan allies attack first. But when that offensive stalled, American infantry units took it up.

Another change since Tora Bora, with no immediate prospect of finding bin Laden, is that President Bush has stopped proclaiming the goal of taking him "dead or alive" and now avoids previous references to the al Qaeda founder as public enemy number one.

In an interview with The Washington Post in late December, Bush displayed a scorecard of al Qaeda leaders on which he had drawn the letter X through the faces of those thought dead. By last month, Bush began saying that continued public focus on individual terrorists, including bin Laden, meant that "people don't understand the scope of the mission."

"Terror is bigger than one person," Bush said March 14. "He's a person that's now been marginalized." The president said bin Laden had "met his match" and "may even be dead," and added: "I truly am not that concerned about him."

Top advisers now assert that the al Qaeda leader's fate should be no measure of U.S. success in the war.

"The goal there was never after specific individuals," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week. "It was to disrupt the terrorists."

Said Quigley at the Central Command: "There's no question that Osama bin Laden is the head of al Qaeda, and it's always a good thing to get rid of the head of an organization if your goal is to do it harm. So would we like to get bin Laden? You bet, but al Qaeda would still exist as an organization if we got him tomorrow."

At least since the 1980s, the U.S. military has made a point of avoiding open declaration of intent to capture or kill individual enemies. Such assignments cannot be carried out with confidence, and if acknowledged they increase the stature of an enemy leader who survives. After-action disclosures have made clear, nonetheless, that finding Manuel Noriega during the Panama invasion of 1989 and Saddam Hussein in the 1991 Persian Gulf War were among the top priorities of the armed forces.

The same holds true now, high-ranking officials said in interviews on condition that they not be named. "Of course bin Laden is crucial," one said.

In Britain, Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram told BBC radio yesterday that bin Laden's capture "remains one of the prime objectives" of the war.

On a side note:

Wow, and I thought OBL was not a concern anymore..

he's setting up bombing attacks in the U.K., planning possible nuke attacks inside the U.S. sure seems like we should be concerned. But oh yeah, since Clinton wasn't concerned, it's ok for Bush to do the same.

George W. Bush - "I am deeply concerned about Iraq. And so should the American people be concerned about Iraq. And so should people who love freedom be concerned about Iraq."

From the same press conference:

Q : But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

George W. Bush - "Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore."

http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/parks/uploaded_images/nyquis3-774570.jpg

http://www.september11news.com/April25_BushSaudiCrownPrinceAbdullahCrawTx.jpg

Rebar
August 8, 2005, 09:58 PM
The failure was in the failure to commit our soldiers to the battle when his location was established.
If you had bothered to look at my last post, you would understand that we had no soldiers to commit. How can it be a failure then?

Oh I forgot, everything Bush does is a failure. And everything Bush doesn't do is a failure. I get the left's argument now. Right.

Marshall
August 8, 2005, 10:19 PM
Additionally, the argument also assumes we would have got him and it assumes that there was absolutely no doubt he was there and no possibility he was somewhere else.

We have had Zarqawi in our site, almost in our hands a couple of times, in Iraq, where "all the ground troops are", he slipped through. You can't assume we would have got Bin Laden anyway. Quarterbacking is easier on Monday morning.

hifi
August 8, 2005, 10:41 PM
If you had bothered to look at my last post, you would understand that we had no soldiers to commit. How can it be a failure then?

Oh I forgot, everything Bush does is a failure. And everything Bush doesn't do is a failure. I get the left's argument now. Right.

I read your last post before I posted originally and it was just as idiotic as this one. The left, the left, the left, everyone who thinks Bush is capable of screwing up is the left... Grow up.

We had plenty of soldiers that could have joined the fight in Tora Bora, but they didn't. There were ground forces in Afghanistan long before then. The administration even publically acknowleges that it fouled up, but the Bush worshippers will always come up with some cunning excuse as to why nothing is ever Bush's fault. Perhaps we should blame Clinton for Tora Bora? Maybe even Perot? :rolleyes:

Additionally, the argument also assumes we would have got him and it assumes that there was absolutely no doubt he was there and no possibility he was somewhere else.

We have had Zarqawi in our site, almost in our hands a couple of times, in Iraq, where "all the ground troops are", he slipped through. You can't assume we would have got Bin Laden anyway. Quarterbacking is easier on Monday morning.

Right, but the point was they didn't do all they could, which they admit. So now the Bushbots should admit it as well.

Rebar
August 8, 2005, 11:27 PM
We had plenty of soldiers that could have joined the fight in Tora Bora, but they didn't. There were ground forces in Afghanistan long before then.
Like who? My research showed there there were very few US troops there, where is your evidence that there were "plenty"?
I read your last post before I posted originally and it was just as idiotic as this one.
Ok, point out where it's so "idiotic". Can you show evidence to prove your points, or are you content to let your ad hominem attack stand?

Bruce H
August 8, 2005, 11:37 PM
I wouldn't trust anything said by anybody in the employ of the CIA. How many things have they been found wrong on? Finding Osama is like looking for a rat in a sewer. There are lots of them there. Finding the right one takes a while. We are sort of fighting the war on terror the wrong way. We need to be killing those that preach the hatred. Going after the "insurgents" is going after the wrong end. If the CIA would have been doing its job we would have a better picture of who the leaders and money men are. Thanks to Jimmy Carter and Stansfield Turner our intelegence apparatus was well and thoroughly wrecked.

hifi
August 9, 2005, 12:13 AM
Like who? My research showed there there were very few US troops there, where is your evidence that there were "plenty"?
Ok, point out where it's so "idiotic". Can you show evidence to prove your points, or are you content to let your ad hominem attack stand?

What is this research that you've done. You keep referring to all this research and 'facts' like you're some kind of professor. More like a wiseguy. I saw your post and I've seen you refer to it many times as research, but all I see is your comment that their were 1,000 soldiers in country and a link to the 101st Airborn website. Nobody is disputing this. However, if these are all your facts, I'd be embarrassed to call them research. The 10th Mountain was in Afghanistan at the time. Are you saying they were not mobile enough to participate in the attack? Anyways, this all leads back to a few basic assumptions:

1. If there were 1,000 soldiers pre-occupied with other things, perhaps the command should have put them into the fight, after all bin Laden was the reason we were there in the first place. In fact, ground troops had been publicly massing in Tajikistan even prior to 9/11.

2. If there were not enough soldiers in country as you claim, then there should have been more, no? This would also be part of the screw-up. Again, where was the 10th Mountain? Not where it should have been because of the incompetence of the command. And speaking of the command, who's the commander in chief that once said he wanted bin Laden dead or alive? And then changed his mind like the flip-flopper in chief that he is? Perhaps willful incompetence, but I'm not going to get into that.

3. The Bush Administration has publicly admitted that this was a big screw-up, but the dittohead brainwashed Bush appologists will not admit the mistake.

So basically you're free to give them a pass as you already are doing no questions asked as usual. Well, no skin off my back. With the Bushbots, Bush and the neocons can do no wrong. I see it in every one of your posts.

The whole war was based on Northern alliance troops backed by US airpower. The Northern alliance troops dropped the ball, but they were the only team in town.

I went back and looked, this is another mis-statement of yours. There were soldiers on the ground directing fire and bombing raids. That's what helped the campaign to be as effective as it was. Perhaps you didn't have CNN back then? There were also commandos on the ground helping the Northern Alliance finish the Taliban off after being hit with precision weapons. Again, perhaps you didn't have cable?

I don't know if anyone remembers the story about bin Laden's caravan being in the sights of a CIA Predator drone very early in the war, but I do. They dropped the ball on that one as well....

javafiend
August 9, 2005, 12:17 AM
But in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught.

I can't wait to read his book. I wonder how much will get past the CIA's censors. Also need to read Al Qaeda's Great Escape: The Military and The Media on Terror's Trail (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=1574886282).

I just don't think it is worthwhile to use field intelligence in hindsight.

In order to learn from our mistakes? A friend of mine served in CIA in Vietnam. He told me that the communists would routinely hold after-action meetings aimed at self-criticism in order to be better prepared for the next battle. The spooks even have a name for this: "Walking the cat backwards." My friend told me that US and especially ARVN were too steeped in denial.

Liberals tend to forget that no one really disputed Iraq having WMD

Demonstrably false. Bush administration lies about WMD were being quickly and easily debunked just about as fast as the Buishies could shovel it, not to mention the people inside the government who were telling Bush and his neocons that their beliefs about Iraqi WMD were not substantiated.

Joseph Wilson told them that the African uranium story was BS.

Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter published a book in 2002 exposing the truth behind the rhetoric of the Bush administration. Ritter--ex-Marine, intelligence specialist, expert on Iraqi military strategy, and Gulf War veteran--dismantled the myths surrounding Saddam Hussein's biological, chemical and nuclear weapons capabilities. During the seven years the inspections took place, Ritter and other inspectors were able to confirm that Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs were effectively destroyed, counter to current White House claims.

Mohamed El Baradei, Chairman of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, was also blowing White house lies out of the water.

How many other examples do you need?

Now these guys are claiming Bush had a chance to kill OBL but decided not to do so

"These guys"? Are you claiming that Berntsen had earlier claimed that Bush "would either kill or capture OBL right before the last election"?

Consider the possibility that Bush intended to go to Iraq all along,

Indeed, the record shows that the Bush Administration came into office determined to launch a war against Saddam. The policy came first; the intel was fixed around the policy, and the Bush media spinmeisters peddled propaganda to the media to manipulate the American people into supporting the war. As more and more people realize that they were conned, that American soldiers are being killed and maimed for a lie, that Bush intends to keep soldiers there for years on end, sentiment is turning against the war.

If it looks like a mire and quags like a mire, it's a quagmire.

Our mission has changed several times under Bush's presidency.

Better stated, White House rationales continue to shift in the face of rising opposition to the war.

As for the book, it's a book.

meaning......?

Eyewitness accounts written by people on the ground are excellent sources of information.

2. Iraq was, on an almost weekly basis shooting at our planes, who were enforcing the terms of their surrender.

Wrong. Iraq never agreed to the "no-fly" zones. Those were unilaterally imposed by the US, UK and France.

3. Iraq had agreed to destroy and account for all WMD, including actual weapons, plans, and equipment to manufacture said WMD. They violated this on many levels.

Actually, it turns out that they had essentially destroyed their WMD. Read Scott Ritter's books.

c. Iraq hadn't destroyed all the WMDs, since a WMD artillery shell was set as an IED, and discovered by our soldiers.

A shell. A single shell? That's quote a stockpile there, soldier.

a. Saddam Hussein paid money to the families of Suicide bombers in Israel, encouraging them to continue their jihad.

Not my problem.

b. Saddam Hussein had paid to have President H.W. Bush assisinated.

The Iraqi intelligence service indeed tried to "assisinate" Bush, but they failed. Did you know that Iraq's intel services were generally regarded as keystone cops? BTW, did you know that the US retaliated against Saddam back in the 90s for the botched attempt? We bombed the Iraqi intelligence HQ in downtown Baghdad.

d. While their is no evidence that Iraq or Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, it is clear that their was terror training camps within Iraq, including one with an decomissioned airliner. So while he didn't help the 9/11 hijackers, he has provided training aid to others to be able to do other hijackings.

Wrong. This particular claim has been repeatedly debunked. Feed the search terms into Google and you will see.

One more important thing about the war in Iraq. One big benefit of the war is...

I want to know when *you* plan to enlist. Same goes for all you hawks between 18 and 30.

Thanks to Jimmy Carter and Stansfield Turner our intelegence apparatus was well and thoroughly wrecked.

Pardon me, but that was THREE DECADES AGO. And yet you and David Horowitz continue to blame Carter and Turner for our current "intelegence" problems?

The CIA has super-smart professional analysts plugged into massive databases and and worldwide technologically advanced intel system. That's their strength. Their weakness in the 1990s was that they didn't like to send case officers on assignments that involved sleeping outdoors, or diarrhea. Look at what John Lynd did. Young kid grew out his hair, learned Arabic, studied the Koran, and made his way to Pakistan, and then easily joined up with the Taliban/Al Qaeda across the border in Afghanistan. Even managed to get face time with Mr. Bin Laden himself.

This was at a time that the CIA had an entire unit dedicated to getting Bin Laden, but never even tried that approach. Instead, the CIA decided to rely on Pakistani intell services and slippery local Afghans.

hifi
August 9, 2005, 12:21 AM
java, Ritter is an idiot. A pedophile and a paid Saddam appologist who did a 180 when Saddam coughed up a couple hundred grand for him to do a 'documentary'.

He's the last person I would use to try and prove any point.

Yes, most people believed the intelligence at the time. I believed it. In fact there may still be WMD's to be found. But the fact is that the neocons used cherry picked intelligence and the corrupt Iraqi National Congress to get their agenda through. When it was exposed as being false, the neocons reverted to the 'but you believed it too' defense. :banghead:

I come to the conclusion more and more everyday that this was all thought through very well and for a long time by the neocons at the Project for a New American Century.

Bruce H
August 9, 2005, 12:27 AM
Man some people live in a universe that would be fun to visit.

Warbow
August 9, 2005, 12:53 AM
Joseph Wilson told them that the African uranium story was BS.

No, he didn't.

I suggest you read the section about Joseph Wilson in the Senate Intelligence Committee's report about prewar intel. Hint: the BS was in Wilson's newspaper editorial.

Marshall
August 9, 2005, 01:03 AM
Java,

What a bunch of crap.

Saddam being a Terrorist supporter. Not your problem? Just the rest of ours. Uh, OK.

Yes, there were terrorist fleeing to Iraq from Afghanistan. There were training camps in Northern Iraq. Debunk it.

Why did the CIA, who are so damn smart according to you, say Saddam had WMD?

Why did Ex President Intern Banger say there were WMD?

Why did Senate Intell commitees say they had WMD?

Why did Tony Blair and MI5 say there were WMD?

Why did scientist that worked directly for Saddam say they was WMD?

Saddam had forever to get rid of these things too, we waited and waited and warned and warned, we gave him plenty of time to send them to Syria or Jordan. If he had nothing to hide, why not let inspectors back in? Why not comply with UN resolutions?

But no, It's all a conspiracy by the US Government. Tin Foil please. Oh yea, Ridder is a loon.

Bottom line is that Saddam had to go. He was issued about what, a billion warnings, given the same amount of opportunities to comply with UN resolutions? He chose his own path, not Bush. All he had to do was comply, no war in Iraq.

You people that blame Bush are pathetic. He was the only leader in the fricking world that was man enough to make our words have meaning. Clinton made sure our words had no meaning, we were a joke to our enemies and allies as well! How many AQ attacks under Clinton's watch? Uh what? I can't hear you? Do I need to list them all and list what Clinton did about them? The first list is long, the second is extremely short. As I have said before, lob a missile do an intern, etc. What had Clinton done to catch the famed Bin Laden after the WTC bombing? Clinton is the one that was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter and didn't take him, the idiot.

We have had no successful attacks from AQ since 9/11, period. We are taking the war to them. We are fighting and destroying them in countries other than our own. We have put democracy on course in two countries that ruled by terror, sickening terror. We have allies in those countries that we did not have before the war. That will prove to be very important.

You Bush bashers don't see the positive, or maybe you do and it pisses you so much that you just get livid because your dem leaders were so inept. In my opinion they share some blame for how far AQ has been able to get under the dems watch. The do nothing presidency of Clinton for 8 years damn near destroyed us.

Given what this President was dealt, I think he has done an admirable job. I am sure there are things he has made mistakes on, no doubt. But you see, when you take action there will be mistakes. But the largest mistake of all, is no action. Thanks Billary.

Warbow
August 9, 2005, 01:45 AM
We have had no successful attacks from AQ since 9/11, period.

True (on US soil), but that doesn't mean much. It's a case of "post hoc ergo propter hoc."

While a large chunk of AQ has been taken out, don't forget that their operatives aren't all stupid and have the ability to function on their own.

javafiend
August 9, 2005, 02:22 AM
I believed it. In fact there may still be WMD's to be found.

Aliens might land in the backyard of the White House. Prove they wont!

Let's review the claim. The claim was that "liberals tend to forget that no one really disputed Iraq having WMD." I simply listed three people off the top of my head who publicly disagreed with Bush's claims. Each of the three had worked on different parts of the WMD story. I can cite lots more. For example, remember Bush's claims about the aluminum tubes? Remember how that claim, too, turned out to be bull*****? (http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/aluminumtubes.html)

Ritter is "a paid Saddam appologist"? Here's what Ritter has said about Saddam. He called Saddam Hussein "a pathetic old, brutal dictator" who is "clearly repressing the innocent people of Iraq" and who he wishes would "drop dead."

If that's "being a paid Saddam apologist," then it sounds as if Saddam didn't get his money's worth.

I come to the conclusion more and more everyday that this was all thought through very well and for a long time by the neocons at the Project for a New American Century.

You and I agree here.

Saddam being a Terrorist supporter. Not your problem? Just the rest of ours. Uh, OK.

It is not the the function of the US military (or at least it shouldn't be) to fight Israel's wars. Hello, do you remember that Israel deliberately attacked one of our ships? (http://www.ussliberty.org/) The Israeli military perpetrated cold-blooded murder against 34 of our sailors.

I'm sorry that the Israelis and the Palestinians don't work and play well together, but I do not believe that it is our job to go to war with any country that supports Palestinian violence against Israel. Maybe if Israel stopped treating Palestinians as dogs, they wouldn't get bit quite so often. In any event, it's not my problem.

There were training camps in Northern Iraq. Debunk it.

Would that be the part of Iraq that was outside the control of Baghdad?

If he had nothing to hide, why not let inspectors back in?

He did.

I don't care what Blair and some GOP-controlled US Senate Committee claims about supposed massive stockpiles of Iraqi WMD. They simply didn't exist.
See CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/). And read this. (http://tinyurl.com/2qyy)

DRZinn
August 9, 2005, 02:41 AM
So what's the reason this week?All of the above; you're not listening. We had many reasons for invading Iraq. What changed was the emphasis.

Where are the WMD's?Maybe they never existed, maybe they're still well-hidden, maybe they're in Syria. Maybe they'll be discovered eventually, maybe not. But the intelligance pointed to their existence (according to Clinton, Kerry, Germany, France, et al) before the war.

George W. Bush has come to embody politics that are antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. You'll get no argument from me on that one.

His international policies are based on the naive belief that foreigners are eager to be liberated by American armies. I'd bet most who live in places like Iraq are. I know the Iraqis were, or at least very thankful after the fact.

Joseph Wilson told them that the African uranium story was BS.That's what he said he said; it was later proven that what he said was BS.

I want to know when *you* plan to enlist. Same goes for all you hawks between 18 and 30. 1995 to 2003.

JohnBT
August 9, 2005, 09:13 AM
Here's one more set of opinions that doesn't correspond too well with some of the info presented as "facts" in this thread. JT

Tora Bora Baloney
John Kerry tells fish stories about Osama bin Laden.

BY MELANIE KIRKPATRICK
Thursday, October 14, 2004 12:01 a.m.

As John Kerry tells it, Tora Bora is the place where President Bush let Osama bin Laden get away. In the candidate's oft-repeated formulation, the al Qaeda leader was "surrounded" and escaped only because the president "outsourced" the job of capturing him to Afghan warlords.
Well, that's not the way the battle's commanders remember it. The Afghanistan war was led by Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of U.S. Central Command, and his deputy, Lt. Gen. Michael "Rifle" DeLong. As it happens, both men, now retired, have books out that tell a different story. Nor are the ex-soldier and ex-Marine bashful about speaking out to correct the former Navy lieutenant. To them, Mr. Kerry's version of the battle of Tora Bora is revisionist history.

Start with OBL. Gen. Franks, on the campaign trail in Florida for George W. Bush, this week, said it's wrong to assume that bin Laden was hiding out in Tora Bora. Some intelligence reports put him there, he says, but others placed him in Pakistan, Kashmir or Iran--or at a lake 90 miles northwest of the Afghan city of Kandahar. Gen. DeLong concurs. "Was Osama bin Laden there?" he said in an interview. "I don't know."

The battle of Tora Bora took place in the White Mountains of eastern Afghanistan in late November and early December of 2001. Kabul had just fallen and a thousand or more al Qaeda leaders had fled to Tora Bora, where they holed up in the mountains' vast network of caves. The cave complex was built in the 1980s as a sanctuary for the mujahideen fighting the Soviets and equipped with food, water, weapons, electricity and a ventilation system. Bin Laden used it as his headquarters in the mid-1990s. There were hundreds of tunnels, some many miles long, with exits over the border in Pakistan.

Afghanistan is full of rough country, and the jagged peaks of the Tora Bora area are about as rough as it gets--up to 13,000 feet and covered in snow and ice. "Surrounding" the area--in the sense of sealing it off--was impossible. If the U.S. had sent in a massive force, it would have run the risks of clashing with local tribesmen, killing civilians and alerting al Qaeda to the impending attack. Working with Afghan forces was "essential," Gen. Franks has been quoted as saying. If U.S. forces had gone in alone, says Gen. DeLong, "arguably today we'd still be fighting in Afghanistan and there couldn't have been a government."

The U.S. commanders made the decision to embed a team of U.S. special forces and CIA agents into every Afghan unit. Like the Afghans, the Americans rode horses or, in the higher altitudes, walked. The special forces carried communications equipment that allowed them to talk to their commanders and to call in air power. Which they did with stunning effect--demolishing cave-openings and skipping bombs with delayed fuses deep inside. Hundreds of al Qaeda fighters died. No American life was lost.

No one disputes that some al Qaeda men got away, and it's possible that bin Laden was among them. In his book, Gen. Franks says that Pakistan rounded up "hundreds" of al Qaeda fighters as they straggled over the border. But Pakistan's frontier forces were susceptible both to bribes and al Qaeda's ideology and some of the fighters got through.

Getting the Tora Bora story right is important because Mr. Kerry's accusation goes to the heart of his broader charge against Mr. Bush--that he bungled the war in Afghanistan. It's hard to be convincing on this point, when, less than three years later, 10 million Afghans have just gone to the polls in the first free election in their 5,000-year-old history. It's even harder to see how sending in thousands of U.S. troops to secure Tora Bora would have helped win that war faster--even if it had resulted in bin Laden's death or capture. Mr. Kerry's criticism of the Tora Bora campaign also belies his promise to rely more on allies if he were commander-in-chief.
Meanwhile, if the U.S. has the good fortune to find bin Laden before Nov. 2, watch for Democrats to revive Madeleine Albright's half-jest that the Bush administration captured him long ago and has been holding onto him for an October Surprise. President Bush has said we'll get him eventually, dead or alive. As for me, my own hope is that bin Laden is buried somewhere under the rubble of Tora Bora--forever.
Ms. Kirkpatrick is associate editor of the Journal's editorial page.

Rebar
August 9, 2005, 12:31 PM
If there were 1,000 soldiers pre-occupied with other things, perhaps the command should have put them into the fight, after all bin Laden was the reason we were there in the first place.
Destroying the Taliban was the reason, getting OBL was just one part of that goal. At the time, there were conflicting reports as to where he was, but even if we knew 100% that he was there, throwing in the 10th mountain, even if possible, would have been useless, for the reasons in the article JohnBT posted.
Not where it should have been because of the incompetence of the command.
Taking over Afganistan with a handful of special forces troops, a job the Soviet army couldn't do with hundreds of thousands of men in 10 years of fighting, is incompetent? Sure.
The Bush Administration has publicly admitted that this was a big screw-up
In public, the Bush administration acknowledges no regret about its prosecution of Tora Bora.
From your own quoted source, no less. Makes you look pretty foolish actually.
I went back and looked, this is another mis-statement of yours. There were soldiers on the ground directing fire and bombing raids.
My research shows that at the time, a 1000 man Marine unit was in country, special ops teams were operating with the Northern alliance, but that the first elements of the 101st didn't arrive until January 2002.
I know you read this part of my post, because you referenced it in yours. Again, you look pretty foolish here.

I might be a "wiseguy", but you have shown utter and complete ignorance about military tactics, strategy, logistics, and politics.

CAnnoneer
August 9, 2005, 01:19 PM
Rebar,

Enough with the personal attacks, OK? What you are doing is not constructive at all. Insulting generalizations against fellow-posters make you look really really bad, especially when done when they seem to have cornered you or provided counterevidence against your "facts". This is how kindergarteners act when they do not get their way and are running out of real ammo. It is really demeaning to watch. I can't understand how you get away with it at "the HIGH road". Unless you change your attitude, I will simply ignore your posts, and I doubt I am alone in that sentiment.

Marshall,

I respect your positive attitude and obvious patriotism. But, please see that only by analysis and criticism of former mistakes can we help prevent them from happening again. A misdeed on the left does not justify the same on the right. We should hold both sides to higher standards. The vitriolic hate of the dems is only present because of this admin's consistent denial to take ANY responsibility for even what looks like serious mistakes. Since nobody is infallible, such a stance is clearly disingenuous.

Yes, Clinton was a draft-dodger who hurt the military and did nothing to nip OBL in the bud. But, does this mean that overreaction is justified? If the only thing we do is oscillate between the two extremes of the spectrum, we'll be in trouble at any given time.


To everyone,

The real tragedy is that both sides produce some important arguments and evidence, but each side cherry-picks only the segments that best fit their already established views of the world. There can be no compromise or agreement in such an environment, until proper leadership is shown. An example of such leadership is for those in a leadership position to step forth and start a process of defrosting by openly admitting at least some mistakes and showing they are willing to consider ideas from the other side. But, the problem is that it is easier and safer in the short term to stick to one's guns, for fear of losing things like the midterm election or the next presidential one.

Rebar
August 9, 2005, 02:01 PM
Enough with the personal attacks, OK? What you are doing is not constructive at all. Insulting generalizations against fellow-posters make you look really really bad, especially when done when they seem to have cornered you or provided counterevidence against your "facts". This is how kindergarteners act when they do not get their way and are running out of real ammo. It is really demeaning to watch. I can't understand how you get away with it at "the HIGH road". Unless you change your attitude, I will simply ignore your posts, and I doubt I am alone in that sentiment.
What nonsense.

The only personal attacks in this thread have been directed at me and the others who confronted this myth that Bush let OBL get away.

I provided real facts and evidence, you provided, what? Nothing but simple-minded cut-and-paste DU talking points. And now you're throwing a temper-tantrum because it's your position that hasn't just ran out of ammo, but didn't have any in the first place. I also note that you never did get around to answering my question.

Feel free to put me on your "ignore" list. Obviously you cannot compete in an open forum with honest debate.

Marshall
August 9, 2005, 02:43 PM
Marshall,

I respect your positive attitude and obvious patriotism. But, please see that only by analysis and criticism of former mistakes can we help prevent them from happening again. A misdeed on the left does not justify the same on the right. We should hold both sides to higher standards. The vitriolic hate of the dems is only present because of this admin's consistent denial to take ANY responsibility for even what looks like serious mistakes. Since nobody is infallible, such a stance is clearly disingenuous.

Yes, Clinton was a draft-dodger who hurt the military and did nothing to nip OBL in the bud. But, does this mean that overreaction is justified? If the only thing we do is oscillate between the two extremes of the spectrum, we'll be in trouble at any given time.
CAnnoneer, I respect the post you just made, I do.

My point is that, I can sit at home, watch the news, read the headlines and say to myself, "we did what?" "We're not doing what?" And I do this daily.

I have no doubt that there are mistakes made, there are going to be mistakes made in war. In war you have enemies, they're not predictable, especially these. They prove to be hard to catch and or kill without doing the same to civilians becasue they blend with them. When I see what I think is a mistake or a foobar, I try to understand that the military and their leaders are trying to fight this war within it's bounds, it's no easy task. I can't come up with "the perfect plan", the plan that has no way of failure. Being President during this war has to be the most thankless job around, damned if you do and damned if you don't. Someone's going to try to crucify you regardless. If we brought in Bin Laden tonight, there would be someone on TV within an hour pointing how it was done improperly or saying we had him all along.

Now, let me ask this. Where have we ever said or admitted to screwing up during times of war? No one wants to give the enemy and more ammo than possible. Besides, it can make you predictable to your enemy. Also, why would anyone take responsibility for "what looks like serious mistakes?"

You speak of overreaction, I can't help but ask what that means? When? Where? A moment ago we didn't have enough reaction, I'm a tad confused.

If I were presented intell by all of the sources Bush was and, if I had former administrations agreeing, allies agreeing, senate intell agreeing, combined with the dictators past and, his present ill regard for UN resolutions and, I didn't take military action, I would be jeopardizing the security of this country and should be impeached.

So, Bush goes to war based on all the info he has, knowing we may not even find these WMD, for fear of being moved or, finding them right away because they are being used on our troops. Either way, your screwed, you have given someone ammo to blame you with. But, it's a tough decision, times call for tough decisions. I am glad we err on the side of action and protection than the other.

Make no mistake, if Clinton had taken the same action and exact same steps Bush has, I would be in his corner as well. I just can't and will not hop on the Bush is bad bandwagon the left wants us to jump on. I see him as much more of an asset than I do a liability, mistakes included.

Forgive me in advance for not proofing, I'm at the office and out of time.

JohnBT
August 9, 2005, 05:07 PM
"In war you have enemies,"

Heck, some of them live here among us. :fire:

JBT

Dmack_901
August 9, 2005, 05:47 PM
(I didn't read all the posts)
I can't believe that I haven't heard many people mention what, to me is the most likely situation, "we know exactly where he is, but don't want to get him." If we get him, he's dead. And what do we have? hundreds of stranded cells. If we just monitor his activities we can pevent attacks, and track down cells. :neener:

I could be wrong, but with our satalite technology we probably spotted him while escaping through Tora, and have followed him ever since. And when you really think about it, what are the benifits of catching/killing him? They're arn't any. We'd look kinda good for a week, and we'd be back where we were.

Marshall
August 9, 2005, 05:57 PM
DMack, you're not alone, I have often thought/wondered the same.

If you enjoyed reading about "CIA Commander: We Let bin Laden Slip Away" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!