Does this mean the Dems want him to be comfy in some little cave?  At least Bush's political interests parallel the country as a whole.  The Democrats benefit only if we don't win the war, don't capture Bin Laden, etc...  That being said, GO BUSH!

Your points are sophistry of the first order.

If George W.'s interest were indeed aligned with that of the U.S., we would never have removed the Special Ops that were operating at the Afghanistan/Pakistan border to capture Bin Ladin. These Special Ops team were pulled out and deployed to Iraq months before the "formal" invasion in 2003.

My point is this. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. George W.'s job should have been to do everything possible to seize Bin Ladin and neutralize Al Qaida - the responsible parties for 9/11. Instead, George W. made the decision to abandon this vital operation, and instead go after Hussein, the man who attempted to assassinate his daddy.

Now we're stuck in a quagmire that rivals Vietnam, losing troops on a daily basis, sinking 100's billions of dollars into a blackhole with no end in sight, and tying up 1/2 the army in a thankless police action. A majority of Americans now believe that the invasion of Iraq was not worthwhile.

The Spanish have withdrawn their troops, and the Phillipines are following suit. The war in Iraq is hugely unpopular in the U.K., and it is debateable whether Tony Blair can survive until next year when general elections are scheduled. What happens if the Labor party decides to dump Blair, and moves to withdraw their troops from Iraq? Where do we find 20,000 troops to take their place?

So here's my response to your question. If Osama Bin Ladin is comfy in some little cave, it's because George W. wanted him there. You can't lay this fuck-up on the democrats.

-- Modified on 7/13/2004 8:35:20 PM

-- Modified on 7/13/2004 8:41:15 PM

Your response is wrong. Starting with the first paragraph about spec ops in Afghanistan, then it gets worse with the "quagmire" comparison to Vietnam. SOCOM has had Special Operations forces in Afghanistan since October 2001. They have never been "pulled out". Combinations of Rangers, Special Forces, Marine Recon, Seals, and Airborne units have been rotating duty tours between Afghanistan and Iraq since the build up to the Iraq War, it's called troop rotation. And here's a news flash for you, when SOCOM deploys units on missions, they don't send out a press release announcing the party.

Osama is not sitting "comfy" in some little cave. He is very busy running and hiding from well trained, heavily armed men who will stop at nothing for a chance to get him, and he is not resting very often. When he is caught or preferably killed, it will be a great boost to EvilBush(tm).

RLTW

Hmm! I didn't see you dispute that extensive special ops were also being conducted in Iraq before our "formal" invasion of Iraq in 2003.

It seems to me that diverting those special ops tied up in Iraq to assist those already hunting Bin Ladin in Afghanistan/ Pakistan might well have precipitated his capture that much earlier. Especially if, as you say, the ones we now have there have Bin Ladin on the run.

It also seems to me that the DumbBush(tm)- I've never subscribed to the EvilBush(tm) concept - has made one tactical error after another. First, not putting in enough troops to successfully capture Bin Ladin, and then not having enough troops to secure Iraq. Wasn't it DumbBush(tm) and DumbRumsfeld(tm) who overruled Centcom Commander Shinseki, who argued (correctly) that over 200,000 troops would be need to pacify Iraq. Wasn't that right before he was booted out unceremoniously?

All in all, the screw-ups by DumbBush(tm) and DumbRumsfeld(tm) remind we a lot of Adolf Hitler interfering with the German High Command.

Oh, on Iraq not turning into a quagmire. I'm glad to finally meet the one person who still doesn't believe that.

-- Modified on 7/13/2004 9:45:02 PM

First of all, why would I dispute a fact. It's a good thing that SOCOM was conducting operations prior to the start of the war. Makes things a little easier for the ground pounders who follow. Kind of a "no shit, Sherlock" thing, you know? And again you're wrong, no SOCOM troops were "diverted" from Afghanistan to Iraq. Units from all four service branches fall under the Special Operations Command. Rangers, SF, Marine Recon, SEALs, Air Force FO's, and Army Airborne units are constantly rotated between Iraq and Afghanistan based on operational requirements.

It's obvious you don't know jack about military operations, and the idiotic Hitler statement shows that you're just spewing out worthless bullshit.

RLTW

-- Modified on 7/14/2004 7:15:18 AM

Oh, I understand now, the fewer troops we have, the better.

Possibly we should just send in James Bond.

But, I would return to a key point. If everything is going so well, why has Bin Ladin evaded us for so long? Does it really take 3 years to hunt down a middle-aged man with kidney disease. Possibly it's because things really aren't going so swimingly in our hunt for Bin Ladin. All I'm hearing from you are excuses. Namely, no matter how many additional resources we put into capturing Bin Ladin, it wouldn't help. Now that's "real" nonsense.

I also recall you stating on several occassions how well things are going in Iraq, all evidence to the contrary.

On any objective level, I would repeat that things are "not" going well, either in Iraq or the hunt for Bin Ladin.

Or do you still subscribe to the delusional "Mission Accomplished" banner of DumbBush(tm) dressed up as a pretend soldier? Maybe you could use a real ex-soldier like John Kerry to set things right?

-- Modified on 7/13/2004 10:35:11 PM

   Its a fact that bin laden was surrounded in Tora Bora where we could have gone in and captured him.  Instead, W decided not to put in the extra 15 thousand troops necessary to secure the Tora Bora area because he already had plans to invade Iraq and wanted the troops for Iraq!!  He allowed the incompetent rag tag northern alliance troops to go after bin laden.  Lo and behold osama and many other top figures escape because the rag tag alliance didn't have the manpower to go after al-qaida.  
   The fact that W allowed a bunch of street thugs to go after the most wanted terrorist and murderer of 3000 American citizens all because he wanted more troops for Iraq clearly shows how incompotent and phony he is.  If he gave such a damn then why not go after al-quada in Tora Bora??  Oh because saddam tried to kill pappy so he is a bigger priority!!  What an incompotent phony!!

By the ?Sudanese government, but he said no.  Maybe 9/11 would never have happened if Clinton had accepted this offer, or if he had responded appropriately to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

It sure seems like a quagmire to me.

Big mis-statement in your post , dude.  Nothern Alliance are country thugs, not street thugs.

Sully

Success in special operations comes from having a unit totally dedicated to a key task.  I think that 2sense was making the point that a unit that had tracked Bin Laden and gained a large amount of local knowledge about how to most effectively do that task was pulled out in favor of a different unit.  Yes there is troop rotation, but for the purpose of capturing Bin Laden it is better to have one single unit, with enough troops, technology, fire power, AND time to get the job done.

While it is difficult to hear of troops being hurt or killed in small numbers daily, I do not think that we have any choice but to stay in Iraq and do the best job possible of stabalizing that country, now that we are there - the alternative is that we let it tumble into a state of complete anarchy, similar to Afganistan after we pulled our support in the 80s.
    I have long said that we should have finished the job in Afganistan before taking on Iraq.  There was and still is no justification for invading Iraq when we did, especially given the great need to capture Bin Laden and his captains.

From the 9-11 Commission Report:


Since 1979 the Secretary of State has had the authority to name State Sponsors of Terrorism, subjecting such countries to significant economic sanctions. Sudan was so designated in 1993. In February 1996, for security reasons, U.S. diplomats left Khartoum. International pressure further increased as the regime failed to hand over three individuals involved in a 1995 attempt to assassinate Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. The United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on the regime.

Diplomacy had an effect. In exchanges beginning in February 1996, Sudanese officials began approaching U.S. officials, asking what they could do to ease the pressure. During the winter and spring of 1996, Sudan’s defense minister visited Washington and had a
series of meetings with representatives of the U.S. government. To test Sudan’s willingness to cooperate on terrorism the United States presented eight demands to their Sudanese contact. The one that concerned Bin Ladin was a request for intelligence information about Bin Ladin’s contacts in Sudan.


These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We
have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.


Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but
would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all.


U.S. officials also wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan. They knew the Sudanese were considering it. The U.S. government did not ask Sudan to render him into U.S. custody.


According to Samuel Berger, who was then the deputy national security adviser, the interagency Counterterrorism and Security Group (CSG) chaired by Richard Clarke had a hypothetical discussion about bringing Bin Ladin to the United States. In that discussion a Justice Department representative reportedly said there was no basis for bringing him to the United States since there was no way to hold him here, absent an indictment. Berger
adds that in 1996 he was not aware of any intelligence that said Bin Ladin was responsible for any act against an American citizen. No rendition plan targeting Bin Ladin, who was still perceived as a terrorist financier, was requested by or presented to senior policymakers during 1996.


Yet both Berger and Clarke also said the lack of an indictment made no difference. Instead they said the idea was not worth pursuing because there was no chance that Sudan would ever turn Bin Ladin over to a hostile country. If Sudan had been serious,
Clarke said, the United States would have worked something out.


However, the U.S. government did approach other countries hostile to Sudan and Bin Ladin about whether they would take Bin Ladin. One was apparently interested. No handover took place.


Under pressure to leave, Bin Ladin worked with the Sudanese government to procure safe passage and possibly funding for his departure. In May 1996, Bin Ladin and his associates leased an Ariana Airlines jet and traveled to Afghanistan, stopping to refuel in the United Arab Emirates. Approximately two days after his departure, the Sudanese informed the U.S. government that Bin Ladin had left. It is unclear whether any U.S. officials considered whether or how to intercept Bin Ladin.

Reiasgree with your key point RLTW.

I know a little about special operations units and how they're utilized. I still stand by my point.

RLTW

failed to put the required troops into Tora Bora when Bin Laden and his top people were apparently trapped briefly for the purpose of saving them for Iraq.  I do not know whether letting the Northern Alliance troops try to capture (some news reports said negotiate his surrender) Bin Laden was a political decision or a military blunder, but it stands out as possibly one of the largest mis-calculations that I have seen or read about - this is sort of on the scale of General Mead failing to relentlessly attack the conferderate army after defeating it at Gettysburg, Mead's failure only prolonged the war and caused the loss of much more precious life.  
    Why would anyone allow a poorly trained group of thugs that had questionable alliance to our basic cause, capture a person who some can argue is probaly the most wanted man in our country's history?

-- Modified on 7/14/2004 6:50:56 PM

The statement that you made is not backed by facts.  It is a partisan claim on the level of the one that was mentioned on this board where a CIA operative was aware that Bin Laden was hospitalized in one of the Arab Emirate countries and no attempt was made to capture or kill him.
    The only difference between the two rumours is that the one about the actions of the Sudanese goventment offering and a president not taking the offer was made against Mr. Clinton and the other about Bin Laden being hospitalized under our nose was made against Mr. Bush.  Any non-partisan person should be aware of such rumours and demand independently verifiable proof of their truth (if any, which at this time seems somewhat unlikely).  The truth cannot come from the website of some partisan hatchet person, whether that person be left or right.

Or more pertinent to the topic at hand, how they work best?  Try not to make presumptive statements about what people are, without any basis to back them up.

-- Modified on 7/14/2004 6:52:33 PM

-- Modified on 7/14/2004 6:53:38 PM

I've never made that presumption about you or anyone else who posts here. That would be foolish. Though in 2sense's case, his posts do a fine job of clearing any doubts.

RLTW

I would hardly claim to be an expert in special operations.

But I do know when something isn't working, as in our occupation of Iraq or our operations in Afghanistan/Pakistan to neutralize Bin Ladin and Al Qaida.

I think the major criticism of both George W. and Clinton is that both serious underestimated the dangers posed by Bin Ladin and Al Qaida. Further, I think it was a grave error not to put all of our resources to seize Bin Ladin and counter Al Qaida, and that the U.S. excursion into Iraq has seriously harmed our security.

Although it may be true, as RTLW suggests, that Bin Ladin is a hunted man and (by inference) poses no threat, it seems that in the last three years that Al Qaida and its affiliates have mounted serious attacks on us and our allies. These have included two nearly successful assasination attempts against Musharraf (Pakistani President), the Spanish train bombings, and the explosion that took out the national police building in Saudi Arabia.

The two greatest risks that I see to a resurgent Al Qaida focus on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, where there are large followings for both Bin Ladin and Al Qaida. Pakistan has a strong fundamentalistic Islamic base, and one could easily envision the 20-25 nuclear weapons controlled by Pakistan falling into the hands of Islamic extremists. Given the dictatorial nature of Musharraf's regime, it's easy to see how something as simple as a successful assassination could pave the way to such a dire possibility. Our inability to capture Bin Ladin and pull the teeth of Al Qaida may yet set the stage for such a coup.

The second grave threat posed by Bin Ladin and Al Qaida is their possible overthrow of the House of Saud. As a Saudi, Bin Ladin's first concern will always be Saudi Arabia, and it's not reassurring that the terrorist incidents (many Al Qaida) have been escalating of late. Needless to say, the world economy can ill afford to lose the Saudi oil fields, either through terrorist action or revolution.

I simply disagree with RTLW. I think that Bin Ladin and Al Qaida are growing threats. Our ill-advised war in Iraq has further alienated the Muslim world and provided a useful recruiting tool for Al Qaida; then too, I'm really tired of seeing Bin Ladin's recruiting video commercials. These people are creative, smart and tough; I think it's vital that they be effectively neutralized before we see their next innovation.

George W. and his neocon team showed absolutely no interest in Bin Ladin and Al Qaida before 9/11, and not much more afterwards. I think one quote of George W.'s indicated something to the effect "who cares where he is".

If George W. can't do the job to get rid of Bin Ladin and Al Qaida, then he should be fired to make way for someone who can.
 

-- Modified on 7/14/2004 8:49:25 PM

-- Modified on 7/14/2004 9:07:04 PM

In post WWII Germany, we had ex-nazi snipers picking off Allie soldiers.  We had active insurgents like we do in Iraq today, loyal to the old Nazi government.  We (the honorable Allies) would execute 12 German soldiers in retaliation for one allied soldier's death.  We (the honorable Allies) would execute Germans for wearing allied uniforms or simply carrying guns.
 I think our actions in post-war Iraq have been a little more humane than that.

Especially about Clinton and Bush not viewing Al Qaida as the threat it was (and is).  I do think (without being a specialist, only a consumer of media like most of us), that Al Qaida is a multi-headed beast and is probably largely indepedent of Bin Laden at this point.  So capturing him won't end the war the way we would hope.  It would probably largely be a symbolic blow.
 I also would question the assertion that George W. showed "not much more" interest in Al Qaida post 9/11.  The war in Afghanistan, the toppling of its pro-Al Qaida Taliban government, the routing out of training camps and the hundreds of Al Qaida operatives rotting in Cuba is at least A MODEST ACCOMPLISHMENT.
 Just my $.02.

I do see that he's got lots of links to websites.  But I rarely see that the websites are themselves accurate and unbiased sources of information.  For example, he's got lots of links to this incessant claim that Joseph Wilson has been somehow "discredited" because he personally chose to respect her covert CIA status rather than give a completely true answer to an immaterial question about whether she referred him to the CIA for the Niger mission.  1st off, it's an unimportant detail in it's own right, and 2nd, it actually is immaterial to the issue of whether Bush specifically lied and continues to lie with respect to the Iraq war justification.  The fact is, Joseph Wilson isn't running for President.  George Bush is, and it's HIS record that is of interest to voters.

We invaded Iraq, without any invasion BY Iraq against us, or against our allies.

The people we are torturing in Abu Ghraib have never been shown to be members of any insurgency.  Some were, no doubt, but MANY of them were simply Iraqi civilians, the same Iraqi civilians we would like to support the government we installed in their country.

Really?  Iraq DID invade Kuwait, BTW (and we should have dealt with Saddam then).  But my point was that the abuses at Abu Ghraib seem rather mild compared to what happened to post-WWII Germans.  And I thought it appropriate to point out that the Allies performed retaliation executions of German prisoners for sniper killings (i.e. they killed a dozen average soldiers for one allied soldier being killed by an insurgent sniper).
 Don't read too much into my post.  I simply think that posing some prisoners for pictures, while not smart or even kind, is nothing compared to retaliation killings (kind of like the beheading of prisoners to get a country to pull its soldiers out).  We won't even get into how the Japanese or the North Vietnamese treated our POW's.

Perhaps, then, funtime69 is not so paranoid about his Mexican invasion theory.  Maybe they will team up with the Native Americans and descendants of African slaves.   Surely, the US invaded these people.  

Today, Manifest Destiny is alive and well.

It is true that the type of behavior you listed is common in war.  The problem is, when you go around proclaiming to be a righteous ``liberator'' (and somehow God is on your side) as if your so much better than everyone else - Well then, YOU had better act like it !








-- Modified on 7/19/2004 6:48:08 AM