CIA Commander: We Let bin Laden Slip Away

Status
Not open for further replies.
+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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Me thinks it's prepositioning for the second phase...Iran.

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
 
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.
 
"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. ;)
 
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."

nyquis3-774570.jpg


April25_BushSaudiCrownPrinceAbdullahCrawTx.jpg
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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....
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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$hit?

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? 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. And read this.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top