Almost 3 years later and bin Laden still on the run...now a new push to get him??

[conjur]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/politics/09home.html?hp

WASHINGTON, July 8 - Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenants, operating from hideouts suspected to be along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, are directing a Qaeda effort to launch an attack in the United States sometime this year, senior Bush administration officials said on Thursday.

"What we know about this most recent information is that it is being directed from the seniormost levels of the Al Qaeda organization," said a senior official at a briefing for reporters. He added, "We know that this leadership continues to operate along the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Counterterrorism officials have said for weeks that they are increasingly worried by a continuing stream of intelligence suggesting that Al Qaeda wanted to carry out a significant terror attack on United States soil this year. But until the comments of the senior administration officials on Thursday, it was not clear that Mr. bin Laden and top deputies like Ayman Zawahiri were responsible for the concern.

Hmm...those tens of thousands of troops in Iraq...hmmm...

Wonder how they'd have done in surrounding that small area along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border had they NOT been sent to Iraq? Wonder how they'd have done if they were put in-country as soon as possible, instead of sending less than 10,000 troops five months after 9/11?

I wonder why there's such a strong push now against Pakistan to do something when, for the last 2 1/2 years, the efforts were not seen?

Abu Ghraib is plastered all over the news and Ashcroft comes out with a terror warning (and gets b!tch-slapped by Ridge who says there's no new evidence.)

Kerry picks Edwards and, WHAM!, a new terror warning with absolutely no specifics comes out again.


Hmmmmm...

Rove and Racicot must think they're geniuses.

 

[MadRat]

Kind of genius like the other two threads on this topic?

 

[Mockery]

Last I checked we have had a significant presence of troops roaming that boarder the entire time. This is one of those instances where I don't think more necessarily constitutes as better. We were all over Afghanistan prior to the Iraq war and on a couple occasions we supposedly had OBL cornered, yet he was still able to sneak past us. In that situation more troops may have been better severed. In more recent scenarios we have special op units roaming this thousand mile stretch between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Who's to say that a larger troop presence wouldn't scare OBL further into Pakistan, which most reports show him currently being at?

We do not have jurisdiction to go into Pakistan to conduct our searches. The troops we have over now are working in a combination effort with Pakistani soldiers. Several thousand more troops were sent off to this region a couple of months ago, but the Iraq War overshadowed that effort in the news (for the most part.)

 

[RyanM]

Mach's 4 month predictions:

1. More terror warnings that are vague and useless.
2. Several attempted terror attacks on high-profile targets that get the nation in a frenzy.
3. OBL popping out like a jack in the box in our custody weeks, days, or minutes before the election.

Call me paranoid.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mockery
Last I checked we have had a significant presence of troops roaming that boarder the entire time.

Then you haven't checked very well. We didn't have a division of troops in Afghanistan until around Feb/Mar 2002 - a full five months after the first attacks started. We relied solely upon the Northern Alliance and a few special ops forces for the first few months.

This is one of those instances where I don't think more necessarily constitutes as better. We were all over Afghanistan prior to the Iraq war and on a couple occasions we supposedly had OBL cornered, yet he was still able to sneak past us. In that situation more troops may have been better severed. In more recent scenarios we have special op units roaming this thousand mile stretch between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Who's to say that a larger troop presence wouldn't scare OBL further into Pakistan, which most reports show him currently being at?

Links to these reports? From what I've read, the CIA believes bin Laden escaped thru Pakistan and reached the sea. No telling where he is now.

We do not have jurisdiction to go into Pakistan to conduct our searches. The troops we have over now are working in a combination effort with Pakistani soldiers. Several thousand more troops were sent off to this region a couple of months ago, but the Iraq War overshadowed that effort in the news (for the most part.)

Sounds like Bush should have used diplomacy to get Pakistan to either allow us into that region or to put more of its own troops in that area from the outset. But, we all know where Bush stands on using diplomacy.

 

[DeMeo]

re: the title: Almost 3 years later and bin Laden still on the run


Can you correct this title? He's been on the run for more than 3 years.
It's been over 11 years since he attacked the world trade center.

 

[DeeKnow]

someone's hoping the lame terror warnings will prompt people into voting for GWB who's leading the global 'jihad' against terrorism

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DeMeo
re: the title: Almost 3 years later and bin Laden still on the run


Can you correct this title? He's been on the run for more than 3 years.
It's been over 11 years since he attacked the world trade center.

bin Laden hasn't been wanted by the U.S. for "over 11 years". I recommend you view the PBS Frontline video "The Man Who Knew":
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

Also, the title is perfectly accurate.

The war on terror began right after 9/11, remember?

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: conjur
Then you haven't checked very well. We didn't have a division of troops in Afghanistan until around Feb/Mar 2002 - a full five months after the first attacks started. We relied solely upon the Northern Alliance and a few special ops forces for the first few months. .

And?? I better not see any commentary from you about rushing to war with Iraq, or unjust invasions, especially if you are for us jumping into that nation before Congress was able to approve of funding for that conflict.

My point was since our initial invasion of Afghanistan, in response to 9/11, we haven?t removed our troops from that region. We have been looking for OBL the entire time.

Links to these reports? From what I've read, the CIA believes bin Laden escaped thru Pakistan and reached the sea. No telling where he is now

.

There are dozens of them out there. Heck, even discovery had an hour long special on this a few weeks ago. Most records indicate that OBL is seeking refuge in the primarily warlord controlled region along the Pakistani border. How truthful are these allegations? Good question?considering we haven?t caught him yet nobody knows. For all the world really know OBL is as alive as Tupac and Elvis.

Sounds like Bush should have used diplomacy to get Pakistan to either allow us into that region or to put more of its own troops in that area from the outset.

But, we all know where Bush stands on using diplomacy.

Actually, Bush has used about as much diplomacy as anyone could expect with this country. It is against Pakistani law for even their own military to go into certain regions. A good portion of this includes the regions that OBL may currently be residing at. The main leader of Pakistan is claimed to be in Bush?s back pocket. IMO this is a good thing, especially considering America hasn?t been receiving a lot of praise from this region of the world lately. His unaltered support of America has contributed to him receiving numerous death threats and massive public resentment (much like Tony Blair). To say we haven?t tried to use diplomatic resolve with Pakistan is unmerited.

 

[DeMeo]

re: not wanted by the U.S. prior to 9/11

... Then someone was derelict in their duty as president....

I think most of us knew who he was and wanted him captured or better yet killed, long before 9/11
As a matter of fact, I would dare say that the first name that popped into most Americans head on 9/11 was "Bin Laden!" (Hussein popped into a lot of our heads too) Bin Laden made it no secret after the failed attempt in 93, that he would be back to finish the job.

Bin Laden was behind the world trade center bombing in 1993, he was involved in Somalia (has stated he was fighting the U.S. military there), he was behind the bombing of the USS Cole, the us embassy in Africa.

I'm not sure exactly when it was determined that he was behind the bombing in the towers from 93. It may have been a little while later, but still it was back in the early 90s.

If he wasn't wanted before 9/11, then why did the U.S. send missiles into Afghanistan in 1998?

I think most of us knew who he was and wanted him captured or better yet killed, long before 9/11

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: conjur
Then you haven't checked very well. We didn't have a division of troops in Afghanistan until around Feb/Mar 2002 - a full five months after the first attacks started. We relied solely upon the Northern Alliance and a few special ops forces for the first few months. .

And?? I better not see any commentary from you about rushing to war with Iraq, or unjust invasions, especially if you are for us jumping into that nation before Congress was able to approve of funding for that conflict.

My point was since our initial invasion of Afghanistan, in response to 9/11, we haven?t removed our troops from that region. We have been looking for OBL the entire time.

Uh, the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban was most certainly justified. Al Qaeda, if you don't recall, attacked us on 9/11 and killed approximately 3,000 innocent people. The Taliban, ruling Afghanistan, was harboring Al Qaeda and so we went to war with them. Iraq, otoh, was completely an unjustified war. The invasion of Iraq served two purposes: 1) enact the vision of the PNAC; 2) prove the vision of the PNAC is a failed one.

As for your comment about not removing troops from that region, what do you call the special ops forces and other intelligence members that were pulled out and put into Iraq? The key ones being translators who were gathering intelligence in Afghanistan.

As for your comment about looking for bin Laden the entire time:
"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

Links to these reports? From what I've read, the CIA believes bin Laden escaped thru Pakistan and reached the sea. No telling where he is now

.There are dozens of them out there. Heck, even discovery had an hour long special on this a few weeks ago. Most records indicate that OBL is seeking refuge in the primarily warlord controlled region along the Pakistani border. How truthful are these allegations? Good question?considering we haven?t caught him yet nobody knows. For all the world really know OBL is as alive as Tupac and Elvis.

Links to these reports?

Sounds like Bush should have used diplomacy to get Pakistan to either allow us into that region or to put more of its own troops in that area from the outset.

But, we all know where Bush stands on using diplomacy.

Actually, Bush has used about as much diplomacy as anyone could expect with this country. It is against Pakistani law for even their own military to go into certain regions of that country. A good portion of this includes the regions that OBL may currently be residing at. The main leader of Pakistan is claimed to be in Bush?s back pocket. IMO this is a good thing, especially considering America hasn?t been receiving a lot of praise from this region of the world lately. His unaltered support of America has contributed to him receiving numerous death threats and massive public resentment (much like Tony Blair). To say we haven?t tried to use diplomatic resolve with Pakistan is unmerited.

Against the law for them to enter areas of their own coutry? Those same areas they are in now?

And, yeah, Pakistan is moving more and more toward being an ally of the U.S. I mean, Wolfowitz's best bud, Shaukat Aziz, will be the new Prime Minister of Pakistan.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DeMeo
re: not wanted by the U.S. prior to 9/11

... Then someone was derelict in their duty as president....

I think most of us knew who he was and wanted him captured or better yet killed, long before 9/11
As a matter of fact, I would dare say that the first name that popped into most Americans head on 9/11 was "Bin Laden!" (Hussein popped into a lot of our heads too) Bin Laden made it no secret after the failed attempt in 93, that he would be back to finish the job.

Bin Laden was behind the world trade center bombing in 1993, he was involved in Somalia (has stated he was fighting the U.S. military there), he was behind the bombing of the USS Cole, the us embassy in Africa.

I'm not sure exactly when it was determined that he was behind the bombing in the towers from 93. It may have been a little while later, but still it was back in the early 90s.

If he wasn't wanted before 9/11, then why did the U.S. send missiles into Afghanistan in 1998?

I think most of us knew who he was and wanted him captured or better yet killed, long before 9/11

Watch that PBS Frontline video. Educate yourself.

No one knew how broad and complex Al Qaeda was until 1998 or so, after the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. That's when Clinton issued orders to have bin Laden rendered, killed if necessary and launched the cruise missile attacks in 1998.

Go do some reading and save yourself further embarrassment.

 

[DeMeo]

re:
No one knew how broad and complex Al Qaeda was until 1998 or so, after the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. That's when Clinton issued orders to have bin Laden rendered, killed if necessary and launched the cruise missile attacks in 1998.



So, now you're saying he was wanted in 98? That's 6 years ago, not 3.
Bin Laden attempted to destroy the world trade towers and murder thousands of Americans in the process in 1993. That being known, he became a wanted man (at least in the eye of most Americans). Perhaps no officially wnated by the U.S. at that early date, but he certainly should have been wanted.

btw, I am not embarrased.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DeMeo
re:
No one knew how broad and complex Al Qaeda was until 1998 or so, after the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. That's when Clinton issued orders to have bin Laden rendered, killed if necessary and launched the cruise missile attacks in 1998.



So, now you're saying he was wanted in 98? That's 6 years ago, not 3.
Bin Laden attempted to destroy the world trade towers and murder thousands of Americans in the process in 1993. That being known, he became a wanted man (at least in the eye of most Americans). Perhaps no officially wnated by the U.S. at that early date, but he certainly should have been wanted.

btw, I am not embarrased.

1) Learn how to quote. It makes following a conversation (esp. for others) much easier.
2) We didn't declare war on another country 6 years ago.
3) You shoud be embarrassed.

 

[DeMeo]

I first posted saying you should correct the title.
It says he's been on the run for 3 years.

You, yourself have admitted he's been wanted since 98. That's six years. Not 3.

Now youre' talking about 3 years since we declared war. That's not what the title states (nor do I think it implies).
I think you're really just trying to pin the Bin Laden problem on Bush and ignoring anything prior to that.

I appologize if my quoting is confusing to anyone, I paraphrase to point to the noteI'm replying to.

still not embarrassed though.

 

[dnuggett]

It always cracks me up when someone posts their little news articles just to argue when someone doesn't agree with their slanted point of view. But then again how else do you get to 30,000 posts?

Watch that PBS Frontline video. Educate yourself.

OMG a PBS Frontline video!!!???? Now there's the gospel. Get a friggin clue and realize that about 95% of what you are ever gonna read or watch is a best guess. The film makers don't know and the reporters are just as clueless. Well let me take that back- they have a clue, what side they want to slant the story, thats about it.

Keep in watchin PBS and reading the newspaper and you'll be so well versed on whats actually happening....


You should be embarrassed and ashamed that in all your infinite wisdom you never realized that what you read and watch is sh!t.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DeMeo
I first posted saying you should correct the title.
It says he's been on the run for 3 years.

You, yourself have admitted he's been wanted since 98. That's six years. Not 3.

He wasn't "on the run" until we invaded Afghanistan.

bin Laden wasn't running from anyone prior to that. He was living in Afghanistan.

Now youre' talking about 3 years since we declared war. That's not what the title states (nor do I think it implies).
I think you're really just trying to pin the Bin Laden problem on Bush and ignoring anything prior to that.

I appologize if my quoting is confusing to anyone, I paraphrase to point to the noteI'm replying to.

still not embarrassed though.

Don't worry, the rest of us are embarrassed for you.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: dnuggett
It always cracks me up when someone posts their little news articles just to argue when someone doesn't agree with their slanted point of view. But then again how else do you get to 30,000 posts?

What's with peoples' fascination of postcounts?

I don't give a rat's ass about mine. They could reset it to 0 and I wouldn't care.

Watch that PBS Frontline video. Educate yourself.

OMG a PBS Frontline video!!!???? Now there's the gospel. Get a friggin clue and realize that about 95% of what you are ever gonna read or watch is a best guess. The film makers don't know and the reporters are just as clueless. Well let me take that back- they have a clue, what side they want to slant the story, thats about it.

Keep in watchin PBS and reading the newspaper and you'll be so well versed on whats actually happening....


You should be embarrassed and ashamed that in all your infinite wisdom you never realized that what you read and watch is sh!t.

Watch the video and you'll see.

Also, there's an excellent timeline:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/etc/cron.html (1st of 2 pages)

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: conjur
Uh, the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban was most certainly justified. Al Qaeda, if you don't recall, attacked us on 9/11 and killed approximately 3,000 innocent people. The Taliban, ruling Afghanistan, was harboring Al Qaeda and so we went to war with them. Iraq, otoh, was completely an unjustified war. The invasion of Iraq served two purposes: 1) enact the vision of the PNAC; 2) prove the vision of the PNAC is a failed one.

Here?.In regards to Iraq I?ll let you refute DeMeo?s claims. There were many American?s against the Afghanistan invasion also, just like you are against Iraq. The crowd only seemed to grow when we doubled our activities by going into Iraq. These reasons for going into Iraq below have been talked about many times before. Perhaps you can take the time to debunk them for us.

Originally posted by: DeMeo
I think most of us knew who he was and wanted him captured or better yet killed, long before 9/11
As a matter of fact, I would dare say that the first name that popped into most Americans head on 9/11 was "Bin Laden!" (Hussein popped into a lot of our heads too) Bin Laden made it no secret after the failed attempt in 93, that he would be back to finish the job.

Bin Laden was behind the world trade center bombing in 1993, he was involved in Somalia (has stated he was fighting the U.S. military there), he was behind the bombing of the USS Cole, the us embassy in Africa.

I'm not sure exactly when it was determined that he was behind the bombing in the towers from 93. It may have been a little while later, but still it was back in the early 90s.

If he wasn't wanted before 9/11, then why did the U.S. send missiles into Afghanistan in 1998?

I think most of us knew who he was and wanted him captured or better yet killed, long before 9/11

As for your comment about not removing troops from that region, what do you call the special ops forces and other intelligence members that were pulled out and put into Iraq? The key ones being translators who were gathering intelligence in Afghanistan.

We have many translators working over there in Afghanistan. In many ways the group we have over their in Afghanistan are far more elite than that of the National Guard and other military units who would be stumbling around those hills searching for OBL. Some of the devision leaders such as Lt. Colonel Asad Khan for example, speaks the language fluently. In many cases keeping the numbers more refined has enabled us to form a tighter alliance with the Pakistani soldiers who are doing this joint operation with us.

Originally posted by: conjur
As for your comment about looking for bin Laden the entire time:
"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

When are you going to start taking Bush?s word as gospel? Regardless of what that stool pigeon has to say, our military has been after him this entire time. Whether or not Bush, who couldn?t find Afghanistan on a map, made OBL his top priority is irrelevant in my eyes. The military tri-mission persuades the President, more so, than it being the other way around. It?s been like that since before Eisenhower and hasn?t changed. Since our initial invasion of Afghanistan our military has not stopped their pursuit after OBL. Much like prior to 9/11 our government was after him.

Links to these reports?

http://dsc.discovery.com/anthology/spotlight/osama/slideshow/slideshow.html

Check out the slideshow they have too?.interesting stuff
?Al Qaeda's leader's apparent sanctuary is a wild, mountainous region in northwest Pakistan, whose harsh weather, vehicle-unfriendly terrain and thin air ? altitudes range to 12,000 feet ? make it torturous for heavily armed searchers laden with electronic equipment. The border with nearby Afghanistan, a line drawn by the British in 1893 to separate two colonial possessions, is mostly an empty formality, since the fiercely autonomous, heavily armed tribes who live in the area traditionally have been allowed to cross back and forth with impunity.

The area's fundamentalist religious schools, or madrasas, were the breeding ground for the Taliban movement. Much of the population reportedly remains sympathetic to bin Laden, and hostile to the military-imposed regime of Pakistani President Pervez-Musharraf, a U.S. ally.
About 70,000 Pakistani troops are deployed in the region, including a special commando unit known as the Quick Reaction Force, in an attempt to root out Taliban and al Qaeda fighters and assist in the manhunt for bin Laden. U.S. forces must tread carefully, since Islamic fundamentalists in the region have warned that tribesmen may attack U.S. troops if they cross over from Afghanistan in pursuit of bin Laden.?

And, yeah, Pakistan is moving more and more toward being an ally of the U.S. I mean, Wolfowitz's best bud, Shaukat Aziz, will be the new Prime Minister of Pakistan.

Oh well, worse things have happened.

Edit: Yes, I'm struggling with the source code.

 

[DeMeo]

RE: He wasn't "on the run" until we invaded Afghanistan.
bin Laden was running from anyone prior to that. He was living in Afghanistan.




He's probably still living in afghanistan. he could be sitting in a cave, thus not "on the run".
If he wasn't "on the run" in 1998, and Clinton had issued orders to get him, then why didn't we get him? Surely a stationary target is easier to catch than one "on the run".

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: conjur
As for your comment about not removing troops from that region, what do you call the special ops forces and other intelligence members that were pulled out and put into Iraq? The key ones being translators who were gathering intelligence in Afghanistan.

We have many translators working over there in Afghanistan. In many ways the group we have over their in Afghanistan are far more elite than that of the National Guard and other military units who would be stumbling around those hills searching for OBL. Some of the devision leaders such as Lt. Colonel Asad Khan for example, speaks the language fluently. In many cases keeping the numbers more refined has enabled us to form a tighter alliance with the Pakistani soldiers who are doing this joint operation with us.

And that article doesn't state when Lt. Col. Khan was deployed in Afghanistan. It also mentions he's about to be redeployed and will leave Afghanistan. Usually, a rebuttal reinforces one's position instead of countering it.

Originally posted by: conjur
As for your comment about looking for bin Laden the entire time:
"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

When are you going to start taking Bush?s word as gospel? Regardless of what that stool pigeon has to say, our military has been after him this entire time. Whether or not Bush, who couldn?t find Afghanistan on a map, made OBL his top priority is irrelevant in my eyes. The military tri-mission persuades the President, more so, than it being the other way around. It?s been like that since before Eisenhower and hasn?t changed. Since our initial invasion of Afghanistan our military has not stopped their pursuit after OBL. Much like prior to 9/11 our government was after him.

LMAO! "irrelevant in my eyes"

Nice dismissal.

Links to these reports?

http://dsc.discovery.com/anthology/spotlight/osama/slideshow/slideshow.html

Check out the slideshow they have too?.interesting stuff
?Al Qaeda's leader's apparent sanctuary is a wild, mountainous region in northwest Pakistan, whose harsh weather, vehicle-unfriendly terrain and thin air ? altitudes range to 12,000 feet ? make it torturous for heavily armed searchers laden with electronic equipment. The border with nearby Afghanistan, a line drawn by the British in 1893 to separate two colonial possessions, is mostly an empty formality, since the fiercely autonomous, heavily armed tribes who live in the area traditionally have been allowed to cross back and forth with impunity.

The area's fundamentalist religious schools, or madrasas, were the breeding ground for the Taliban movement. Much of the population reportedly remains sympathetic to bin Laden, and hostile to the military-imposed regime of Pakistani President Pervez-Musharraf, a U.S. ally.
About 70,000 Pakistani troops are deployed in the region, including a special commando unit known as the Quick Reaction Force, in an attempt to root out Taliban and al Qaeda fighters and assist in the manhunt for bin Laden. U.S. forces must tread carefully, since Islamic fundamentalists in the region have warned that tribesmen may attack U.S. troops if they cross over from Afghanistan in pursuit of bin Laden.?

And those Pakistani forces were only increased within the last 6-9 months. That large of a force has NOT been there the entire time. And, guess what? We're into election season!

And, yeah, Pakistan is moving more and more toward being an ally of the U.S. I mean, Wolfowitz's best bud, Shaukat Aziz, will be the new Prime Minister of Pakistan.

Oh well, worse things have happened.

Yeah, Bush's business buddy, Karzai, was installed as President of Afghanistan and immediately moved to start that natural gas pipeline across his country.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DeMeo
RE: He wasn't "on the run" until we invaded Afghanistan.
bin Laden wasn't running from anyone prior to that. He was living in Afghanistan.




He's probably still living in afghanistan. he could be sitting in a cave, thus not "on the run".
If he wasn't "on the run" in 1998, and Clinton had issued orders to get him, then why didn't we get him? Surely a stationary target is easier to catch than one "on the run".

Good question.

Perhaps because we didn't have any intelligence on the ground in Afghanistan and did not know bin Laden's location?

Hmmmm....

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: conjur
[And that article doesn't state when Lt. Col. Khan was deployed in Afghanistan. It also mentions he's about to be redeployed and will leave Afghanistan. Usually, a rebuttal reinforces one's position instead of countering it.

OMG?.You?re so right. Khan is surely the only person in that entire region that can speak the language. He was merely an example of the types of men we have over there. Seriously?do you think our military doesn?t have anyone over there that can proficiently communicate that language? Is this what your argument has boiled down to?

LMAO! "irrelevant in my eyes"

Nice dismissal.

Dismissal??? So we should all be taking Bush?s word for gospel? Should I buy into everything he said about WMD too?

When have things change around here?

And those Pakistani forces were only increased within the last 6-9 months. That large of a force has NOT been there the entire time. And, guess what? We're into election season!

Last I checked we didn?t control Pakistan?..Are you going to change your thread title to

?Almost 3 years later and bin Laden still on the run...now Pakistan makes a new push to get him???

 

[DeMeo]

re: Perhaps because we didn't have any intelligence on the ground in Afghanistan and did not know bin Laden's location?




Perhaps.
Anyway, A reasonable person would consider someone whoe is wanted for mass murder and attempted massmurder who is wanted, but is not in custody to be "on the run".

My point being (as previously stated) that Bin Laden has been on the run for more than 3 years.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DeMeo
re: Perhaps because we didn't have any intelligence on the ground in Afghanistan and did not know bin Laden's location?




Perhaps.
Anyway, A reasonable person would consider someone whoe is wanted for mass murder and attempted massmurder who is wanted, but is not in custody to be "on the run".

My point being (as previously stated) that Bin Laden has been on the run for more than 3 years.

bin Laden wasn't actively hiding from us until we invaded Afghanistan. He didn't broadcast his whereabouts but that's not being "on the run".