CIA Commander: We Let bin Laden Slip Away

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
More incompetence by the global socialist George W. Bush and his administration.
 
Hide what? I gave you the answer you asked for, if not the one you wanted.
 
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
 
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.........!!
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top