Bush administration CUTS AND RUN from bin Laden!

[palehorse]

your OP also says this: "CIA officials said that tracking bin Laden and his deputies remains a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit is not a sign that the effort has slackened."

do you simply pick and choose what to believe based on what does or does not fit your agenda? even within the same damn article!?

ya, i thought so.

I laugh in your general direction conjie... and your little puppy BBond too!

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
your OP also says this: "CIA officials said that tracking bin Laden and his deputies remains a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit is not a sign that the effort has slackened."

do you simply pick and choose what to believe based on what does or does not fit your agenda? even within the same damn article!?

ya, i thought so.

I laugh in your general direction conjie... and your little puppy BBond too!

I have your little puppy swinging. No use wasting anymore time with you here. You remind me of a former member who refused to admit what was right under his nose. He'd repeat himself, arguing points that were clearly proven. I don't know if it's ignorance or some misguided idea that you can actually change what has already transpired but listen up, the CIA disbanded their unit that had the sole job of finding bin Laden. There are several quotes from your little puppy bush that you and the other blind followers of the liar refuse to address. Why don't you just admit that bush has failed and given up?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn
No one is denying that Bush disbanded the OBL unit and I think that the core claim of the supposed story lies in author's question: " Is it no longer important to track him down?" I think Bush answered that question directly.

Bowfinger, answer this: Do you believe that Bush ordered the CIA to stop looking for bin Laden?

Let me give you a nuanced answer: no, not entirely. If we accept this story at face value, it strongly suggests the Bush administration has once again diverted assets that should be used to find bin Laden. That doesn't mean we've stopped looking, but that our effort has been reduced. I say "again" since Bush diverted assets from Afghanistan 3.5 years ago to launch his folly in Iraq. This allowd bin Laden to escape according to many reports, including a very credible article posted here recently. Given the way the Bush administration has publically ignored OBL for the last couple of years, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were other, unpublicized cutbacks as well, a gradual attrition of the assets focused on tracking down OBL.

A fly in the ointment is that one can make a plausible case that it is in the Bush administration's self-interest to keep bin Laden at large. He is quite useful as a boogeyman to keep the public and cowardly Congress-critters in line. After all, as we see here all the time, any questioning of BushCo actions is met with cries of "soft on terror" and "hating America". I haven't decided if I believe this or not -- I certainly have nothing to prove it -- but I recognize it is a possibility and it is, in my opinion, quite consistent with the Rovian, politics-first focus of the Bush administration.

 

[palehorse]

one...last...try.

please think long and hard before you respond!

"CIA officials said that tracking bin Laden and his deputies remains a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit is not a sign that the effort has slackened."

That is a direct quote from the same article that you conveniently refer to over and over again in your valliant efforts to make yourself look like an arse. (on that, congrats! you're doing exceptionally well...)

However, it is quite clear, to anyone with a shred of common sense, that the CIA is meerly restructuring based upon the current threats and the need to streamline their processes. The group in question was around for over 10 years, and their sole mission was to find OBL. Dont you think, just for one little teensy tiny second, that the folks on that assignment have broadened their scope a bit? perhaps they've been re-assigned to a new team,with a new name, whose responsibilities now include other top terrorists? or perhaps the new structure is regional, as the article suggests, and there was no need to maintain a team that searches for just one dude...? maybe? could be?

ya... "cut and run" my fvcking a$$.

annnnnd respond!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BBond
[ ... ]
You remind me of a former member who refused to admit what was right under his nose. He'd repeat himself, arguing points that were clearly proven. ...

Which one? Do share. My own guess is TLC, who disappeared shortly before Paleo joined. Not sure by any means, but many similarities. He also reminds me a lot of heartsurgeon, though I was never wholly sure TLC wasn't HS. Once again, the former appeared shortly after the latter made a big show of leaving.

Anyway, off topic. Sorry. Carry on.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Corn
No one is denying that Bush disbanded the OBL unit and I think that the core claim of the supposed story lies in author's question: " Is it no longer important to track him down?" I think Bush answered that question directly.

Bowfinger, answer this: Do you believe that Bush ordered the CIA to stop looking for bin Laden?

Let me give you a nuanced answer: no, not entirely. If we accept this story at face value, it strongly suggests the Bush administration has once again diverted assets that should be used to find bin Laden. That doesn't mean we've stopped looking, but that our effort has been reduced. I say "again" since Bush diverted assets from Afghanistan 3.5 years ago to launch his folly in Iraq. This allowd bin Laden to escape according to many reports, including a very credible article posted here recently. Given the way the Bush administration has publically ignored OBL for the last couple of years, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were other, unpublicized cutbacks as well, a gradual attrition of the assets focused on tracking down OBL.

A fly in the ointment is that one can make a plausible case that it is in the Bush administration's self-interest to keep bin Laden at large. He is quite useful as a boogeyman to keep the public and cowardly Congress-critters in line. After all, as we see here all the time, any questioning of BushCo actions is met with cries of "soft on terror" and "hating America". I haven't decided if I believe this or not -- I certainly have nothing to prove it -- but I recognize it is a possibility and it is, in my opinion, quite consistent with the Rovian, politics-first focus of the Bush administration.

Good grief. This was presented as opinion rather than fact. Wow, there's rationality on the left. I for one hope you are wrong, but if you are not it would not surprise me. LunarRay says to look for Osama turning up full of bullet holes about Oct before the 2008 election. If so they should check the corpse for freezer burns.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Corn
No one is denying that Bush disbanded the OBL unit and I think that the core claim of the supposed story lies in author's question: " Is it no longer important to track him down?" I think Bush answered that question directly.

Bowfinger, answer this: Do you believe that Bush ordered the CIA to stop looking for bin Laden?

Let me give you a nuanced answer: no, not entirely. If we accept this story at face value, it strongly suggests the Bush administration has once again diverted assets that should be used to find bin Laden. That doesn't mean we've stopped looking, but that our effort has been reduced. I say "again" since Bush diverted assets from Afghanistan 3.5 years ago to launch his folly in Iraq. This allowd bin Laden to escape according to many reports, including a very credible article posted here recently. Given the way the Bush administration has publically ignored OBL for the last couple of years, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were other, unpublicized cutbacks as well, a gradual attrition of the assets focused on tracking down OBL.

A fly in the ointment is that one can make a plausible case that it is in the Bush administration's self-interest to keep bin Laden at large. He is quite useful as a boogeyman to keep the public and cowardly Congress-critters in line. After all, as we see here all the time, any questioning of BushCo actions is met with cries of "soft on terror" and "hating America". I haven't decided if I believe this or not -- I certainly have nothing to prove it -- but I recognize it is a possibility and it is, in my opinion, quite consistent with the Rovian, politics-first focus of the Bush administration.

I appreciate your thoughtful answer to my query and I do understand your perspective on this question. We may not agree on some points, but there is no doubt Bush diverted some resources from Afghinstan to focus on Iraq. While I supported the decision to invade Iraq (and still do), I've been more than disappointed with the outcome thus far. Although I'm not sure that Iraq really diverted much in the way of resources that would have been used to capture a fugitive like bin Laden. The military are not sleuths....hell, Saddam is the anti-bin Ladin, used to living large and luxurious, and after his removal from power had to worry about several million people who wanted to drag his head behind their cars. Bin Laden is used to living stealthily and had a significant network of support aiding him. Yet it took the military over a year to find Saddam.......

And at this moment, what does Bush really have to gain with bin Laden being on the loose? He's a lame duck and its not like he has any real love for the Republican party as evidenced by some of his decisions..... As I stated earlier in this thread:

Originally posted by: Corn
Bush does not have to worry about re-election. He would be heralded a hero for delivering OBL's head on a stick. At this stage of his presidency I would think he would be concerned about his "legacy" and OBL's capture would be a significant benefit toward this end. Besides, it's not like OBL wouldn't have a successor we could name as a boogeyman to keep the masses scared......

I dunno, if I were Bush, I'd be desperate for some positive press and capturing bin Laden would do nicely.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Let me give you a nuanced answer: no, not entirely. If we accept this story at face value, it strongly suggests the Bush administration has once again diverted assets that should be used to find bin Laden. That doesn't mean we've stopped looking, but that our effort has been reduced. I say "again" since Bush diverted assets from Afghanistan 3.5 years ago to launch his folly in Iraq. This allowd bin Laden to escape according to many reports, including a very credible article posted here recently. Given the way the Bush administration has publically ignored OBL for the last couple of years, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were other, unpublicized cutbacks as well, a gradual attrition of the assets focused on tracking down OBL.

A fly in the ointment is that one can make a plausible case that it is in the Bush administration's self-interest to keep bin Laden at large. He is quite useful as a boogeyman to keep the public and cowardly Congress-critters in line. After all, as we see here all the time, any questioning of BushCo actions is met with cries of "soft on terror" and "hating America". I haven't decided if I believe this or not -- I certainly have nothing to prove it -- but I recognize it is a possibility and it is, in my opinion, quite consistent with the Rovian, politics-first focus of the Bush administration.

Good grief. This was presented as opinion rather than fact. Wow, there's rationality on the left. I for one hope you are wrong, but if you are not it would not surprise me. LunarRay says to look for Osama turning up full of bullet holes about Oct before the 2008 election. If so they should check the corpse for freezer burns.

:laugh:

Maybe that's because I consider myself more of a moderate rather than a leftist. There are many people who insist I'm a leftist simply because I so frequently find myself appalled at the dishonesty and malfeasance of GWB and his administration, and of course I have been vocally opposed to his assault on Iraq from the very beginning. I suspect there are many others who will insist I'm a rightie whenever we next get Democrats in power. In my own, perhaps deluded mind, I am an American who is horrified by the ways both parties sell out America for their own selfish interests.

By the way, I hope I'm wrong too. It would be devastating for America to find that our government had betrayed us so badly.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Corn
No one is denying that Bush disbanded the OBL unit and I think that the core claim of the supposed story lies in author's question: " Is it no longer important to track him down?" I think Bush answered that question directly.

Bowfinger, answer this: Do you believe that Bush ordered the CIA to stop looking for bin Laden?

Let me give you a nuanced answer: no, not entirely. If we accept this story at face value, it strongly suggests the Bush administration has once again diverted assets that should be used to find bin Laden. That doesn't mean we've stopped looking, but that our effort has been reduced. I say "again" since Bush diverted assets from Afghanistan 3.5 years ago to launch his folly in Iraq. This allowd bin Laden to escape according to many reports, including a very credible article posted here recently. Given the way the Bush administration has publically ignored OBL for the last couple of years, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were other, unpublicized cutbacks as well, a gradual attrition of the assets focused on tracking down OBL.

A fly in the ointment is that one can make a plausible case that it is in the Bush administration's self-interest to keep bin Laden at large. He is quite useful as a boogeyman to keep the public and cowardly Congress-critters in line. After all, as we see here all the time, any questioning of BushCo actions is met with cries of "soft on terror" and "hating America". I haven't decided if I believe this or not -- I certainly have nothing to prove it -- but I recognize it is a possibility and it is, in my opinion, quite consistent with the Rovian, politics-first focus of the Bush administration.

I appreciate your thoughtful answer to my query and I do understand your perspective on this question. We may not agree on some points, but there is no doubt Bush diverted some resources from Afghinstan to focus on Iraq. While I supported the decision to invade Iraq (and still do), I've been more than disappointed with the outcome thus far. Although I'm not sure that Iraq really diverted much in the way of resources that would have been used to capture a fugitive like bin Laden. The military are not sleuths....hell, Saddam is the anti-bin Ladin, used to living large and luxurious, and after his removal from power had to worry about several million people who wanted to drag his head behind their cars. Bin Laden is used to living stealthily and had a significant network of support aiding him. Yet it took the military over a year to find Saddam.......

And at this moment, what does Bush really have to gain with bin Laden being on the loose? He's a lame duck and its not like he has any real love for the Republican party as evidenced by some of his decisions..... As I stated earlier in this thread:

Originally posted by: Corn
Bush does not have to worry about re-election. He would be heralded a hero for delivering OBL's head on a stick. At this stage of his presidency I would think he would be concerned about his "legacy" and OBL's capture would be a significant benefit toward this end. Besides, it's not like OBL wouldn't have a successor we could name as a boogeyman to keep the masses scared......

I dunno, if I were Bush, I'd be desperate for some positive press and capturing bin Laden would do nicely.

I agree it is probably in Bush's personal interests to produce bin Laden. I don't think it is necessarily in the strategic interests of others in and around the administration, however. It is also easy to see how Bush personally MIGHT not be fully in the loop on bin Laden, if only to maintain plausible deniability. Again, this is merely speculation about what could be, not an assertion of what is.

Re. pulling resources from Afghanistan, the recent article I'm thinking of had an insider on the ground at the time, a general or something, stating he believed we would have captured bin Laden at Tora Bora if the resources needed to seal off escape routes hadn't been already diverted to Iraq. In particular, as I remember it, he said we needed the special forces units that had been pulled from Afghanistan. If AT had a working search capability, perhaps I could find the article for your consideration.

 

[DealMonkey]

There's no way the CIA, the FBI or any other intel org would ever bring the effort to find Bin Ladin down to zero. His capture would be just too valuable as a symbolic victory against AQ to simply stop looking. Short of a mass invasion of U.S. troops into Pakistan's tribal areas though, I doubt the likelihood of nabbing him. Perhaps the CIA realized that this is the likely scenario. Couple that with the fact that there are other targets out there that are more valuable operationally. Stopping them means stopping the individual attacks in the works. Furthermore, as someone earlier mentioned, this could be a disinformation campaign by the CIA. They haven't done jackshit right in the last five years, but perhaps they're actually starting to learn from their mistakes?

 

[BucsMAN3K]

Have you ever heard of the Special Forces?

Now, have you ever heard of what SF does on a daily basis?

You don't. You only hear very select and filtered news about what SF does. You know why? Because these are the guys who are leading the field in tracking the terrorist leaders.

You wanna blame the government? Well congress and the White House isn't out there looking for them, its the specialized troops we have overseas.

So if your going to claim that what has happened since war was declared to be in vein, then, I'm sorry, whether you will accept or not, you are saying that why my brothers and friends have done is in vein.

I think people tend to forget that joining the military is a voluntery basis, and people do so because they are accomplishing something in service. So why, when they are working so hard to make a difference, do people constantly cloud their efforts by focusing on every negative thing under the sun. I know for a fact it annoys them.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BucsMAN3K
Have you ever heard of the Special Forces?

Now, have you ever heard of what SF does on a daily basis?

You don't. You only hear very select and filtered news about what SF does. You know why? Because these are the guys who are leading the field in tracking the terrorist leaders.

You wanna blame the government? Well congress and the White House isn't out there looking for them, its the specialized troops we have overseas.

So if your going to claim that what has happened since war was declared to be in vein, then, I'm sorry, whether you will accept or not, you are saying that why my brothers and friends have done is in vein.

I think people tend to forget that joining the military is a voluntery basis, and people do so because they are accomplishing something in service. So why, when they are working so hard to make a difference, do people constantly cloud their efforts by focusing on every negative thing under the sun. I know for a fact it annoys them.

Unfortunately it seems they are charged with trying to unfsck Bushes fsck up. Your brothers and friends are gallant, their C&C is a colossal idiot

 

[alejandroAT]

Maybe a point of view from a non-american would be of value here.

America has been waging war for piece since 1776. Makes you think doesnt it?

It is not the fault of Bush or the republicans.
I m old enough to remember the democrats bombing hospitals in Bosnia and killing countless of unarmed civilians and children. Oh they liberated them allright. They took them out of their misery like Clint and his smith&wesson.

Can you tell me why America is so obsessed with liberating the world?
Can you tell me why America is funding military coops all over latin america?
Hell, it even funded a military coop in my country that lasted for 7 years and caused uncalculable pain , death and misery!
Can you tell me why America is training terrorists?
Can you tell me why America is locking people up in Guantanamo for years without even pressing charges?
Can you tell me why the CIA is kidnapping people from all over the world and ships them to Guantanamo?
Can you tell me why America napalmed half of Vietnam? Why it spread chemicals on that poor country that causes serious deformities in children born 40 years later?
Can you tell me why they didnt hesitate attacking Iraq on the SUSPICION of WMDs and they are just being polite with Korea that has declared that they have a missile capable of blowing up California?
Can you tell me why America is spying on everyone?
Can you tell me why america has serious issues with everyone that doesnt share its beliefs?
Can you tell me why America is conveinced that it knows best?

Can you indeed tell me why Americans are SO UNEDUCATED on what happens outside their country? I mean seriously duuuudes....YOU HAVE NO IDEA...YOU ARE BLIND. You just beleive in what the media are telling you and thats about all that matters. I remember watching the news on the feedroom (streaming of news from american channels) while you were waging war "number infinite" (sarcasm) on Iraq. All i could hear was how many US soldiers died . All i could see was coffins with union flags and people saying how these poor kids (cause they were kids) died and how they were going to get their own back. WOW....you start a war, then send your children to fight it for you (ethnic minorities in the most part) and then when they get killed by poeple defending their own homes and families from the "accidental bombings" you lot get cross!!!! have mercy pleeease.


It is not the administrations that cause all this misery. It is all the american people who sit on their couches and eat MCdonalds and drive their SUVs to the store just down the road without caring for whatever happens in the world because of their own slothfull attitude and hunger for oil and resources that the US cannot provide anymore.

DO NOT BE SO NAIF AS TO THINK THAT YOUR COUNTRY SENDS YOU TO WAR TO LIBERATE THE POOR AND ENSLAVED EARTH FROM THE DEVIL....the world is doing just fine without your intervention.

thank you for letting me be heard.,

 

[DealMonkey]

We stumbled once in 'Nam and we're never going to let that happen again. Does that help explain it?

And I'm not some unrealistic pacifist/isolationist either, I just happen to think being the world's supercop is not usually in our best interest.

 

[alejandroAT]

so you mean to say that all the misery, death and pain was caused by a pshycological complex caused by defeat?

I can understand doing it as a desperate measure to save your own country and economy. But to satisfy your psychological need for victory? thats even worst mate.

Is that why american football is only played in america but it is still called the World Series? is it so that you can proclaim yoursleves World Champions and never have a chance to be defeated? like a self proclaimed emperor?

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: alejandroAT
so you mean to say that all the misery, death and pain was caused by a pshycological complex caused by defeat?

I can understand doing it as a desperate measure to save your own country and economy. But to satisfy your psychological need for victory? thats even worst mate.

Is that why american football is only played in america but it is still called the World Series? is it so that you can proclaim yoursleves World Champions and never have a chance to be defeated? like a self proclaimed emperor?

Yeah, Football doesn't have a world series....but it is us Americans who are uneducated......okey then.....

OH, BTW, perhaps its called the world series because the best Baseball players throughout the world play on MLB teams.........no it couldn't be that......but maybe tradition might have something to do with the name of the MLB championship because 100 years ago baseball was only played here........

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: alejandroATI m old enough to remember the democrats bombing hospitals in Bosnia and killing countless of unarmed civilians and children. Oh they liberated them allright. They took them out of their misery like Clint and his smith&wesson.

Maybe if the Serbs weren't so hell bent on GENOCIDE, we wouldn't have had to bomb them back into the period for which they belong......the stoneage.

 

[aceofskies05]

obl is not are main priority think about the people going after sears towers there not al quedia there just mock ups and many people are creating mock ups and we must eliminate all them, besides osama is a coward hinding in caves hes the cut in run, least bush doesnt hide in caves

 

[aceofskies05]

ok also think about this first liberals are mad for goings to war with the terrorists and trying to get obl now were done with that and the liberals are mad for stoping you ****** liberals didnt want to even go to war why are you complaining now

(data not set to be true my point of view)

o yeah the media doesnt know ****** expecially fox

(i cant type )

 

[alejandroAT]

The turks had my people enslaved for 400 years. They have practiced genocide on greeks, armenians and kurds over the past centuries. Why is america the only ally of Turkey? why didn't you come to save us like the super good and benevolent liberators that you are? is it maybe because you didn't have any financial benefits?

PLEASE do not bring moralism forward as an excuse for your warmongering. I cannot believe you are so naif. It is just impossible to fathom. And how can you sit there and speak about serbians practicing genocide? I know it happened that is a fact but were did you hear about that? how do you know? i 'll tell you. Because your rulers decided this is information they could share with you.

It is really hard , believe me i can imagine, growing up in a country that declares its freedom and democratic beliefs in any chance it has and then having some foreigner tell you that you really don't learn anything in the states. That you lead controled lives and information is not free. It must really make the earth under your feet shake. Coming to that realisation is not easy mainly because there is patriotism involved. Of course i do not expect you to diss your own country. But please make an effort to not live in denial because this denial is causing endless suffering all over the world.

As for the world series, it really doesnt matter if it is was football or baseball. And i can not be called uneducated for not knowing anything about a sport that is played only in the states. I was trying to make a point. OPEN YOUR EYES AND DONT BELEIVE THE TELEVISION!!!!!

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: aceofskies05
ok also think about this first liberals are mad for goings to war with the terrorists and trying to get obl now were done with that and the liberals are mad for stoping you ****** liberals didnt want to even go to war why are you complaining now

(data not set to be true my point of view)

o yeah the media doesnt know ****** expecially fox

(i cant type )

I might be mistaken, but I seem to recall everyone (even us 'liberals') being for going after OBL in AFGHANISTAN. Just not the Iraq fiasco.

 

[alejandroAT]

aceofskies05, have you heard of a think called punctuation? you really are not making much sense!

 

[aceofskies05]

dude i already said i cant type at thr bottom lol an beside i was just saying crap to add more contreversy to the convo. Im just saying things ignore me lol

 

[DickFnTracy]

Well here we are more than a week after the initial lies are posted and still no admittance from the less than manly that he lied and no criticism of his lies from the anti-Bush herd. Instead we get more braying, bleeting and mooing from the herd in the form of duhversions and more lies, my favorite of which was the accusation that I blindly took the Presidents word as proof. If he (the accuser) wasn't so busy with his Pavlovian response to defend his "buddy" conjob (braying from the anti-Bush bandwagon) and he had the intelligence of, say, a pencil eraser, he would have noticed that I asked this question the day after the liar posted his lies. The posting of the Presidents speech was done to invoke a response and the expected one was spewed forth.

Now, can anyone show me where the CIA was told to stop looking for Osama bin Laden?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DickFnTracy
Well here we are more than a week after the initial lies are posted and still no admittance from the less than manly that he lied and no criticism of his lies from the anti-Bush herd. Instead we get more braying, bleeting and mooing from the herd in the form of duhversions and more lies, my favorite of which was the accusation that I blindly took the Presidents word as proof. If he (the accuser) wasn't so busy with his Pavlovian response to defend his "buddy" conjob (braying from the anti-Bush bandwagon) and he had the intelligence of, say, a pencil eraser, he would have noticed that I asked this question the day after the liar posted his lies. The posting of the Presidents speech was done to invoke a response and the expected one was spewed forth.

Now, can anyone show me where the CIA was told to stop looking for Osama bin Laden?

You either lie or don't read. There was criticism from the Bush haters.