Good going Bush---CIA now believes Usama has fled the entire region by sea

honestly, bin laden did some bad stuff, but he's smart...i don't america will ever find him...

 

MadMax:

The thing is, I don't think many are suggesting Clinton or Gore would have done differently. I think the disaffection is with politicians in general, rather than a specific person.

Of course, I suppose it's striking that primarily liberals are saying this .

 

I'm not going to point fingers, because pointing fingers is what got us into this mess. I don't know where bin Laden is, I still suspect he is dead somewhere and we're being led around by the U.S., but if he is alive I suspect he's held up in a cave somewhere in Iraq. Hussein keeps egging the U.S. on and he might get his wish and the United State might just blow away he and his boy toy Osama bin Laden. But if you put a gun to my head and made me blame somebody it would be the politicians of the early 90s who handcuffed Bush senior when he could finished the job against Iraq and cut off some of bin Laden's support, and then when they handcuffed Clinton when he tried dropping some missiles on Al-Qaeda's porch and they stopped him from doing that. As for the people blaming Clinton, we know you don't like Clinton, but geez stop stretching things. You think Clinton would have turned down bin Laden? The guy fired missiles at Al-Qaeda camps and trashed some of them and just missed bin Laden, that doesn't sound like someone who would turn down a chance to get him. It's as crazy as people think Bush actually let the guy get away. I don't blame any of the presidents to tell you the truth, they've never been in office long enough to stop this nut since the U.S. never had a way to declare war on terrorism before.

 

haven:

Is it? I seem to remember quite a few people here (you among them, if memory serves) who were opposed to sending troops into Afghan, much less "tons of troops".

I have been saying from the beginning that we needed a larger presence, more bombing, etc. I do not like relying on the indigies to do the dirty work for us, as they have their own interests and are not nearly as capable as our forces. That said, however, I am not sure that putting 20,000 to 50,000 troops would have made much more of a difference in hunting Osama. Unless we put in a half million or so, it probably would not have made a significant difference.

I don't think that some people here understand quite how difficult it is to find one man (or one small group of people) who have money and contacts, and who don't want to be found. The good part is that the number of places that he can find sanctuary is limited - Somalia, Yemen, and Iraq offer the only long-term possibilities, though he may temporarily stay in or pass through Saudi, UAE, Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, or the Phillippines. The bad news is that we can't be everywhere at once. A process of elimination will be required unless intelligence points in a specific direction.

Personally, I hope he decides to go to Iraq, for obvious reasons. But that's just my hope...

We will catch him eventually - if he's not already dead, but he's probably still alive. It might happen tomorrow, or it might happen six months from now, but it will happen.

RM:

He passed up three different opportunities to get him. He classified the first WTC attack as a criminal matter only because it didn't kill 50,000 people (no one would have gotten out had it worked as planned, unlike 9/11). When he attacked Osama's camp in 1998 in retaliation for the Cole, he didn't follow it up with another attack, even though he knew it had failed.

Clinton should have gotten him. But that is in the past...

RM95:

You've been against the whole shabang from the beginning. I'm addressing the pattern, not a specific post. You appear to hold everyone except for Osama responsible for 9/11, and that mystifies me.

 

Seriously, I have? News to me.

I've said, if not on this board (I do have a life), that I very much applaud George W. Bush for his actions since the horrible day. I've also said that no one is to blame except Bin Laden. I may have agreed to some extent with those who believe that U.S. policy may have fueled Bin Laden's hatred towards us, and that we should maybe look into that, but I've never, ever blamed anyone but that psychopath for the evil he did.

You either can't read, or you've got me confused with somebody else.

Here's one where I clearly blame Bin Laden:

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23407&highlight=Laden

Another one for your viewing pleasure where I state I'd love Bush if he took out Bin Laden:

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22172&highlight=Laden

I've tried looking for posts that say I've been against the war...the closest I could find was when I posted that using nuclear weapons would be a mistake.

 

Dammit, Jimmy Carter fails again on catching UBL

 

Well, I guess I just can't read...

Since memorizing every one of your (or anyone else's) posts does not interest me, I tend to operate off of memory, which is of course not 100% reliable. I apologize for any mistakes I make ahead of time, O Perfect One.

But I do remember your recent suggestion that our foreign policy might be to blame, and that notion really flames me. It's a popular theory put forth by leftist groups and college professors, but it doesn't hold any merit upon critical analysis - which I don't expect from a college student, so I can understand your position... And suggesting that our foreign policy is to blame doesn't jibe too well with "I've also said that no one is to blame except Bin Laden". Only one can be correct, so make up your mind.

So you don't blame Bush? Fine. Just don't be surprised when someone jumps on you about "but I can see how someone would think that since he is the commander in chief" - type comments.

You support the war? Fine. I'll believe it when I see some consistency along that vein in your posting.

 

Point's moot anyway...

Statement by CIA Spokesman Bill Harlow on ABC News Report:

ABC News reported on the evening of January 14 that the CIA believes that Usama bin Laden has "escaped from Afghanistan and has gone beyond Pakistan," most likely by sea. This is incorrect. We have reached no such conclusion. ABC did not contact the Agency about this allegation before airing it.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/pr01152002.html

 

I, again, have never said that U.S policy is to blame. I think that Bin Laden's view of our policy has possibly fueled his hatred, and that the U.S. might want to take a look at that. However, I disagree with things our government does all the time, and they do many things I wish they wouldn't, or they don't do things I wish they would, probably a lot like Bin Laden. The difference is, I'm not a psychopath who is so pissed off at the U.S. that I would even dream about hitting someone over it, much less coordinating hijacked planes into our some of our most significant buildings.

It's one thing to jump down my throat with what I said in this thread, I expected it. I guess I unfairly expected what I said to be understood, not misread as agreement with the topic title, or even support of such an idea.

My memory's not perfect either, I used the search option. However, I wouldn't put words in your mouth like you did to me, with nothing to back it up. I'm a liberal poster, but I'm pro-war in this case. Even though I may have questioned some of our actions (not really questioned, but criticize...the food drops being the only one I can think of off the top of my head), that does not equal any less support of Bush in this situation...I'll say it again, he's done a bang up job. I don't know what else you want me to do to convince you of this. I don't post much in the military threads because I don't have much military knowledge (other than knowing it's more complicated than a video game ), I tend to read what other, much smarter people like yourself, have to say about it.

 

ABC probably got the report from Debka (where I saw it). They're usually accurate...

RM95:

Fine. I'll just be sure and chronicle any anti-war statements you might make in the future so I don't have to rely on my faulty memory.

BTW, Osama's only real beef with us is the fact that we have troops deployed in Saudi. He sees infidel troops in the Holiest Land as the ultimate insult to Islam - doesn't matter that they're there by invitation. Personally, I want to solve that little problem too. I'd pull our troops out of there ASAP - move them a few hundred miles to the N/NE or so...

 

RM95, do you remember when you said...

I do! It was only a couple of posts ago.

Now, I know that you meant something different when you posted that. We are all very, very familiar with your habit of saying "A = B!", then clarifying it by saying "OF COURSE A DOESN'T EQUAL B! I KNOW I SAID THAT, BUT I WAS MAKING A POINT!!!"

You are absolutely the worst poster on this particular portion of the BBS when it comes to making absurd statements, then claiming you didn't mean them, or meant them in a sarcastic way that the rest of us just weren't smart enough to pick up on.

I think you would be well served to take a deep breath and remember that you are here as a guest. Nothing was said in this thread that justified the extremely rude remarks you've made. If you are unable to handle moderate ribbing from other posters, then I'm sure you know exactly what your options are.

 

Nevermind, not even worth it.

 

The military and the intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA, and DIA in particular) have wanted the speculation on Osama's whereabouts to cease from day one. There are obviously leaks, but on they whole these agencies realize that speculation is counterproductive in that it can give away details of ongoing intelligence operations...

We can speculate all we want, of course.

But I doubt that Bush had to tell anyone that 'they'd get canned if they didn't shut up'. These people have wanted the public speculation down from the beginning. Now, he might have told them "anyone who leaks gets canned", but I doubt he'd have to. The leakers are already well aware that they'd get fired if they were caught... No presidential order necessary.

 

It burns me inside to Know that Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and others are still free, yet I do not blame Bush for this. Many of the fighters during the Soviet-Afghan war made many hiding spots, contacts and learned the art of blending in. These people know how to disappear and have done so. I truly feel that Osama originally escaped when there was a temporary cease fire when we should have stomped the life out of them.

I don't feel though that American blood would be better served fighting a land battle in Afghanistan. The scenario of us Carpet bombing tanks and troops and then the Northern Alliance simply walking over the scarred land and claiming victory makes it look like we are simply helping one faction instead of a direct US vs. Afghanistan scenario that could lead to more animosity and further violence from the region.

What I truly wish to see though is that we not only have destroyed Al-Queda, but the extremism sentiment is calmed in Islamic countries nationally. I feel this extremism is very dangerous and it is fed by economic, political and social depravity in many of these nations. Al-Queda is simply one organization, but the underlying sentiments that created groups like it needs to be squashed to truly solve the problem. I see Islam today in the crossroads of its own history in a time period reminiscient of the Protestant Reformation in which we are seeing different views on the religion and just as this sprouted groups like the Puritans, the Taliban and extremist Muslim groups mimic the many forms of Islam being tried in this volatile time of Islam.

I feel much of the frustration is due to economics. The fact that young, educated people cannot get good jobs to support their families after studying and Palestinians seeing their houses bulldozed at an alarming rate, a sense of frustration sets in, and extremist Islam is like morphine to quench that pain and thirst.

 

F.D. Khan, careful you seem to be implying that foreign policy issues toward Israel and the Middle East have some role in the terrorism and extremism of Bin Laden and others in the Middle East. You seem to imply that with rising living standards and a resolution of the Paestinian problem, Arab muslims might be less extreme. This could lead one to the heresy that there is no easy military solution to the problem of terrorism from that region.

By now you should know the drill. (1) The Arabs/Muslims hate us because the bad guys always hate the good guys; alternatively they hate us due to our freedom and modernity. (2) Our foreign policy has nothing to do with 9/11. (3) 9/11 Has nothing to do with the Palestinians.

These errors can be forgiven and your patriotism unquestioned provided that you don't make the additional error of not insisting on an immediate invasion of Iraq as Generals Powell and Schartkopf have at times.