I guess I am still not seeing the "why". Why would you reverse course on Osama? Why would he not be a priority? Getting him might be a long shot now, but it was most certainly NOT a long shot in late 2001 and 2002. Instead we diverted troops to Iraq for no good reason. Both of those quotes, incidentally, came after the infamous "axis of evil" speech in January of 2002 where Bush basically came out with his plan to invade Iraq on erroneous (probably intentionally so) data. Why. Why. Why.
because if he is a longshot then what should you do with your limited resources. Make him a non-factor by taking away what he uses to hurt us? Kill his friends and his money? Make people understand he is not their friend? Or focus all your resource on finding him. Send in invasion forces looking for a ghost. Helicopters around peoples homes all the time shooting missiles. He would be a hero to people who have no idea what he does, because all they care is that we don't like him. I choose option three of just getting the f outta there but thats another thread.
Does it matter whether we killed the SOB or not? We've got soldiers murdered at home by someone they grew up with and is as well enducated as anyone can be. Folks let's get real, we've got bigger problems, far bigger
He was not a long shot. This thread provides evidence of that. Again, you're acting like it was impossible from the beginning to find him and get him. It was not. Agree, kind of. To a certain extent, hunting Osama has played into his hand - recall the "win a war against america by bankrupting them" speech OBL gave in 2003 (?). But hey, at that point, we could have already killed him. I don't think killing OBL would have really been much of a victory. But I do think it would have been wiser to hunt for him and continue demolishing his network instead of stupidly invading Iraq. I guess it is plausible that Bush's lack of decorum produced the two quotes I've railed against here. But that seems a real stretch. Twice he blew it off. All it would have taken is to say "we are looking" or "we are going to get him" but instead he blatantly stated that it was no longer a priority. One could argue, that the priority at that point was support for invading Iraq. And that makes me upset.
All my statements you quoted above are dealing with the current situation. This thread provides not much evidence. If you are really interested you should read the report.
i did not read the senate report and i have never pretended like i have. you read all 50 pages? i commend you sir - you have more free time than i. i did read the article that the thread was started for and it served to confirm what has already been acknowledged for years regarding tora bora. i posted a bunch of stuff in #11 regarding the failures at tora bora. reread this snippet from the article about the senate report: ok. but do you think it was a good idea to rely so heavily on locals, many of whom supported bin laden? was it a good idea to leave it up to the pakistanis to seal off the terrorists escape routes? was it a good idea to leave our troops in kandahar and only have 100 special forces w/ local help? im not answering your question till you answer mine. but i will say that knowing a few people who have served in afghanistan (including a cousin who is an army ranger major), all of them to a man would have jumped at the chance to get in there rather than sit in kandahar - im sure your concern for their safety is appreciated, but i guarantee they would have wanted nothing more than for a chance to kill or capture or at least prevent his escape into pakistan. why did bush/cheney/pentagon/you have more faith in the pakistani army than our own when it came to capturing bin laden? never said i did, but just b/c i havent doesnt mean what im saying is inherently wrong (and im not a democrat). one could say the exact same thing about you.
All of my statements have been directed at circa 2002. I guess we have been talking past each other. As for evidence... at a minimum I hope you and I can agree that invading Iraq was not an effective strategy to capture OBL, and that simply declaring him "not a priority" was at a minimum, shocking, and at worse, a hint that good intentions had been usurped by corporate-backed power mongers.
same here casey. "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." Dwight Eisenhower - Farewell address - Jan. 17, 1961
They were there. The infrastructure they are used to operating under was not. They would have been under fire during a deployment that would have taken days. No hospital or ability for medivac. Under fire the entire time. How many lives would you have been willing to sacrifice? What about the people they killed when they are there? That would be awesome for the outcome of the war. It was the option supported by many. If it worked it would have been the best possible outcome. Few losses, little hostility, locals thinking they were in charge. because you have no answer What they want is unimportant compared to what is the responsible thing to do. If the situation is bad it does not matter if they are willing to do it. Of course they are willing to die, they are in the military. That doesn't mean we gamble with their loves when better options are there. it seems i have the facts you just have the same old tired arguments that bush is bad and evil or your cousin is willing to go die in a desert.
I love it when we pretend we know what the truth is. It's so cute. My guess is, Pakistan will pretend to be helpful all while not helping capture him if at all possible. Helping us angers many of their people, I suspect, but the money is too good to just tell us to 'f' off. Further, I suspect that while it does appear we blew it by not following through, the reasoning lies somewhere in between "We weren't sure enough" to "Capturing him messes up a good thing", 'in between' meaning neither of the extremes.
Its sort of like how I can't understand some people who say we need to give our government more power to monitor us and do away with civil liberties to fight terrrorism and drugs but then cry "Socialism!" when talk about a public health care option comes up.
Yeah it all seems to opposite to me. But I think in this case liberals generally do not say more troops and that an invasion force is a good idea. They are just trying to make the choice look bad here. The opposite is also true. Moore screamed about loss of freedom with Patriot act but biggest honk for government to take medical decisions out of our hands.
Just because you still cannot grasp the idea of a public option, does not mean the rest of us are similarly obtuse.
Seriously Casey, you do understand that if you have healthcare coverage, and like it, you'll be able to keep it after this bill is passed right?
The last time I heard (and gave a crap) it was for a period of 5 years then it will come under the new regulation. Just because you don't think this is simply a money grab by the government to cover their butts on Medicare and Medicaid don't think the rest of us are so trusting. Also I wasted hours arguing with you guys on healthcare. I think I have already said everything. two to three times.
LOL, you think the government is keeping Osama alive in order to continue their war and you call me paranoid?
