Jump to content

Is Osama Bin Ladden's Capture at hand?


Recommended Posts

quote:

Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden.

Of course, and I think that's what I have been talking about. If Bush had followed that plan would 9/11 been prevented? Dunno. Will never know. But there is enough to make ya wonder.

Do you think it was some final political maneuvering from the Clinton team? If Clinton had started action and Bush had continued would Bush blame Clinton if things didn't go well? If it went well do you think Bush would have Finished what Clinton started? Probably both ways. Politicians are good at that.

quote:

There was not one peep from anyone. That alone would have put the Democratic party back on the map and would have redeemed Clinton to the golden boy.

Too busy stealing the China.

quote:

(any evidence of corruption or just plain stupidness)

There goes Bush. (sorry, low blow)

quote:

then and only then if you pass with a 90% or higher you become eligible as a candidate for president.

I'm liking it but it would never fly.

quote:

Wolferz:

Could this topic have been steered over a cliff any better, boys and girls?

Well 9/11 is connected to Al quaeda so it's not that terrible is it?

quote:

Whether you want to see it or not, 1984 has come to pass in a more horrific way than even Orwell could imagine. And it began long before 1984.

They can pretend to rule the world all they like. So long as I have my little piece I'll be happy. I could do with a slightly bigger piece but I don't need the whole pie.

Ok to go back on topic a story dated March 20 says they are still fighting. They are well seasoned fighters who are good and the Pakistani's firmly beleive they have a high value target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe the Pakistanis are actually doing this. I think it's great.

At this point they believe that they may have the 2nd in command, zomowi or some such name.

With the amount of time it has taken to fight these guys, he may already have flown the coop, but I am hoping not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All we can do is watch and wait to see who is captured or has their blasted body brought out.

Hopefully it will be identifiable. Better yet alive and willing to talk.

"gimme the gator clips and flip that switch over there after I get them attached."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

I can't believe the Pakistanis are actually doing this. I think it's great.

At this point they believe that they may have the 2nd in command, zomowi or some such name.

With the amount of time it has taken to fight these guys, he may already have flown the coop, but I am hoping not.

Yup, they want to be a world player and in doing so want to show the world that they are tough on terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush did not concentrate on terrorism.

quote:

The Associated Press first reported in June 2002 that Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik:

quote:

The Associated Press first reported in June 2002 that Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions.


Ah yes, hindsight is 20/20, but what other things did they have to concentrate on? The chinese, the North Koreans, Iraq, Iran, Syria? Israel? I mean good grief. Terrorism was probably low man on the totem pole for quite a while, and then 911 came along,and now everyones "why didn't they concentrate on terrorism?"

Well, the man of the house got layed off, but spent all kinds fo money before then, Why didn't he think of saving money for a rainy day?

I mean come on, you concentrate on what's important at the time, and terrorism jumped to the front because of 911.

The intelligence apparatus had been stripped, human intelligence was nonexistent. The Democrats layed us wide open with their gutting of the the CIA and FBI. We were totally unprepared.

Bush was clueless because he didn't have the intelligence, and personnel on the ground to see what was coming, and who caused that? Give you 3 guesses, and the last 2 don't count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are absolutely correct of course. Hindsight is 20/20. HOwever the discussion LostInSpace and I were having was that Clinton Admin shelved a plan And thus it's his fault.

I'm willing to wait for more facts.

quote:

I mean come on, you concentrate on what's important at the time, and terrorism jumped to the front because of 911.

True, true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe the amount of sheep in this country who believe whatever the Bush administration tells them. The right-wingers are all squirming now because Clarke is no pushover and is speaking under oath, unlike his replacement, Condoleeza Rice, who refuses to testify. Very interesting how all this is turning out, huh? I wonder what her and the current administration have to hide...hmmmmm????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you have never been in a situation where you are resigning from a position and while you might have issues with your boss etc., you are still cordial and polite. I don't think that Clarke in any way makes a point in his resignation letter of saying anything OTHER THAN, you acted well on September 11th. This is ofcourse a point I would take issue with since one, the President was reading a book about a goat and two the government seemed much more concerned about protecting Dick Cheney than they did G.W. Bush.

In any case I think that Clarke did a great job during his testimony. Whoever watched that with a critical eye or with a favorable slant saw one thing... THE MAN IS GENUINE. Our government was informed by the former administration of the threat. Our government began talks with the Taliban post Clinton that included giving them $43 million in aid when Clinton and most of the rest of the world had cut them off and were freezing them out. Meanwhile Ashcroft is taking private planes prior to 9/11... (all of them were but he was called out because he is basically the first Atty. General ever to really do this),when asked why they say because of a "perceived threat", so who knew what when and if it was "overseas" where they thought attacks would be why was Johnny flying on the govt. dime in the states?

I don't know I could sit here and praddle on forever about why I think the ball was dropped, it isn't going to change entrenched minds. I suppose I can just be happy that mine was changed. Regardless, whatever you want to do to spin the Clarke book, letters, etc., there is a feeling people get in their gut when they see a man speak. This guy stole the show yesterday, was the first man to step up and say "we failed" (meaning the govt. and even HIMSELF) and apologized for it and no matter what you do to paint him into a corner the fact remains he scored and scored big. Is it because he's a great liar? I don't think so and I don't think the majority of people that watched him and the families of victims that EMBRACED him thought so.

Later

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it isn't just a resignation letter - he said totally different things in a point-by-point interview with Fox...

That and considering there is too much coincidence in publisher/timing/etc. for this to be coincidence - dumbasses who are doing the hearing hold up copies of Clarke's book as nothing more than a photo-op. This is something else that the left-wingers are trying to throw at the president, hoping something sticks. Just like the flung the AWOL crap until Bush gave them enough rope to hang themselves before releasing his records.

Then they start on the economy, which they can't harp on too much considering it isn't exactly doing that bad. Then they start on 9/11 trying to make it look like a weakness instead of a strength for Bush.

As Rush says - it's a good play, but don't count on anyone to buy it except for the choir of True Believers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the real motive behind Dick Clarke's American Bandstanding to help the Kerry Campaign for the Democrats to insure that a Democrat gets voted as president? Makes ya wonder.

The timing is all important to this question. If I gather from my searches, he started a year ago just as the democratic party was getting into swing for it's push for presidents. And that the book would be just in time to help whomever would be chosen. Just in his timing he is suspect. Why didn't he start writing this book right after 9/11? Again makes ya wonder.

Love him or hate him Limbaugh makes sense:

History Does Not Bear Out Clarke

quote:

You know, this is just the amazing thing. How many times had Al-Qaeda via bin Laden acted when Richard Clarke meant something in the counterterrorism force, and we never once went after bin Laden. In fact, bin Laden was offered to us at least twice from Sudan, recall? When Richard Clarke was there. And we said no, the Clinton administration said no because there are lawyers in the justice department, i.e., Janet Reno advised against it, "we don't have enough evidence to hold him" or some other concoction. All this talk, you should have done this, you should have done that - he was in the White House for nine months when all this happened, you guys were in there eight years, Mr. Clarke, with event after event after event, terrorist attack after terrorist attack after terrorist attack, and you are the ones that strengthened bin Laden by not pursuing him, by not retaliating and in fact by caving to him in Somalia.

[ 03-25-2004, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

I suppose you have never been in a situation where you are resigning from a position and while you might have issues with your boss etc., you are still cordial and polite. I don't think that Clarke in any way makes a point in his resignation letter of saying anything OTHER THAN, you acted well on September 11th. This is ofcourse a point I would take issue with since one, the President was reading a book about a goat and two the government seemed much more concerned about protecting Dick Cheney than they did G.W. Bush.

In any case I think that Clarke did a great job during his testimony. Whoever watched that with a critical eye or with a favorable slant saw one thing... THE MAN IS GENUINE. Our government was informed by the former administration of the threat. Our government began talks with the Taliban post Clinton that included giving them $43 million in aid when Clinton and most of the rest of the world had cut them off and were freezing them out. Meanwhile Ashcroft is taking private planes prior to 9/11... (all of them were but he was called out because he is basically the first Atty. General ever to really do this),when asked why they say because of a "perceived threat", so who knew what when and if it was "overseas" where they thought attacks would be why was Johnny flying on the govt. dime in the states?

I don't know I could sit here and praddle on forever about why I think the ball was dropped, it isn't going to change entrenched minds. I suppose I can just be happy that mine was changed. Regardless, whatever you want to do to spin the Clarke book, letters, etc., there is a feeling people get in their gut when they see a man speak. This guy stole the show yesterday, was the first man to step up and say "we failed" (meaning the govt. and even HIMSELF) and apologized for it and no matter what you do to paint him into a corner the fact remains he scored and scored big. Is it because he's a great liar? I don't think so and I don't think the majority of people that watched him and the families of victims that EMBRACED him thought so.

Later

Clark is a showboat and a LIAR!!!

He was either lying then, or he is lying now...

Clinton lied under oath and got away with it without going to Jail, I think Clark thinks he can to.

The man was saying at the beginning of the Bush administration that Clinton HAD NO plan of action to pass on to the new president, and that the new president told him to quit swatting flies and go after the organization, Al Queda itslef. So, is Clark lying now, or was he LYING then.

He better have been lying then, because if he is lying now, he will be in contempt of congress, lying under oath, and WILL go to jail... He is NOT Bill Clinton.

I guarantee that he is lying now, because you do not fund the CIA 5 times more then they were if you don't have a plan and a reason.

Clark, if pursued, is going to go to jail for his GREAT actions in the halls of congress, because he LIED under oath.

He's trying to sell his book, NOTHING more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that he's just trying to sell his book Jag - but you know as well as I do that these people don't go to jail. They can wipe their rear-ends with the Constitution, take a leak on the flag, and light their cigars with the Declaration of Independance and still be given a pass by the powers that be.

Until popular support of the people who are starting to wake up to the realities of the internal threat facing America and those who daydream away how this threat is somehow good for some unknown, unnamed "non-priveleged" person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one could have watched Clarkes testimony and come away feeling he was anything but concise, truthful and entirely believable.

Interesting to note that he also stated on Larry King last night that he felt Bush Sr. was the president with the best ability/record in dealing with international terrorism. I believe him.

Nevertheless, he'll still be demonized and marginalized by the right wingers because he dares to bare the fact that our current administration is not infallible.

Anyone capable of raising themselves above partisanship should be praising him for his forthrightness in exposing the weaknesses in our government.

Regardless of your take on him personally, his words and accusations can only serve to improve the way our government operates in all areas of intelligence and security. This is a good thing, no matter which side of the fence you reside on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

No one could have watched Clarkes testimony and come away feeling he was anything but concise, truthful and entirely believable.


Correction: No one who invariably votes for the Democratic candidate no matter how insipid the reason (let's all get rid of Bush at any cost yay!) could have watched Clarkes testimony and come away feeling he was anything but concise, truthful and entirely believable.

Clarke was speaking off the record and confidentially with reporters back in 2002 about how much better he thought the Bush administration was at handling international terrorism than the Clinton administration. He even made specific statements about things that the aministration was doing/had done to combat terror. Things that were backed up on tape by the white house staff - including several important facts that totally prove several things in Clarke's book as infactual and nothing more than pandering to sell his book.

quote:

Interesting to note that he also stated on Larry King last night that he felt Bush Sr. was the president with the best ability/record in dealing with international terrorism. I believe him.


Bush Sr. had the Reagan experience behind him as well - though G.W.'s policy is controversial, it is my feeling that in the end it is a better policy. Terrorists are only emboldened by the fact that we have been treating terror as a law enforcement matter...

I mean get real - how would we have tried the 9/11 hijackers in a court of law? And how would we have prevented more willing hijackers without destroying them where they are?

quote:

Nevertheless, he'll still be demonized and marginalized by the right wingers because he dares to bare the fact that our current administration is not infallible.

I think it's more accurate to note that he will be demonized because he is politicizing innaccuracy for his own gain. Half the crap in his book is prefaced by the disclaimer "In my view" so that he can hardly be relied upon if pinned down... he can always say "well I saw it that way".

quote:

Anyone capable of raising themselves above partisanship should be praising him for his forthrightness in exposing the weaknesses in our government.

"If we had only listened to Dick Clarke..."

How about his forthrightness in forcing his own ego into the political fray in an attempt to curry favor with the people who published his book - who do have an agenda to defeat Bush.

quote:

Regardless of your take on him personally, his words and accusations can only serve to improve the way our government operates in all areas of intelligence and security. This is a good thing, no matter which side of the fence you reside on.

His selective attacks, critisism serves to weaken his credibility. He lauds Bill Clinton as the greatest thing since sliced bread - and take a look at what happened after the USS Cole was bombed... and our military wasn't even allowed to hold rifles because it was politically incorrect to appear 'hostile'. It is a war ship - and it has the capability to flatten a city in Yemen, so I doubt that people holding some M16's would have made it much more threatening.

Bill Clinton made it nearly impossible to get Bin Laden (who was on the FBI most wanted list for some time before 9/11 at least as far back as 1998 that I remember) by treating it as a law enforcement problem - and making it so that we couldn't get him unless we asked his permission first to handcuff him almost.

It's a joke, Clarke I would treat with much more credibility had he not sought only to gain from the publicity to sell his damn book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He does NOT laud Clinton. His book (if you are brave enough to read it) points fingers at both Clinton and Bush. More importantly he's uncovering general weaknesses in our intelligence community. Something that benefits everyone regardless of your affiliation.

Yeah he's trying to sell a book, but so are Rush, Hannity, Coulter and any other republican pundit that can string two words together ( as long as those words involve 'evil', 'criminal', 'treason' and or 'traitor'. You'll swallow their diatribe hook line and sinker, but from a man who clearly has nothing to gain politically and who voted for Bush, you'll assume he's a liar because he doesn't lavish Bush with praise.

As for his contradictions, he stated he was being loyal to Bush and party as they asked him to "accentuate the positive". That's sounds entirely reasonable coming from a man with a 30 year career in government. The fact that the government colors the truth in favor of itself should be news to no one.

It's a shame the current National Security Advisor refuses to testify before the 9/11 commission. She seems comfortable enough to comment in public so I guess it's just the "under oath" part she fears.

Cheney says Clarke was out of the loop yet Rice says he was in all of the meetings..who's telling the truth? Even if he WAS out of the loop, why the hell is the National Coordinator on Terrorism NOT IN THE LOOP on matters regarding terrorism?

I already know nothing will change the minds of those that see this as a partisan attack. And to accuse someone who sees Clarke as credible only doing so because they're democrats is pure BS. Of course from that I can infer that anyone who dismisses his assertions is doing so because they're republican.

You see the important point here is NOT partisanship, it's that our government needs to improve their internal processes when it comes to security and intelligence gathering so that future 9/11's can be prevented. I'm not comfortable sitting behind a partisan shield with information like this at hand.

[ 03-25-2004, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Grizzle ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

This may have been posted somewhere already, but I think this is a good spot to post it again.

quote:

Subject: Re: Fw: Gen. Hawley's pol. incorrect MUST READ!


Well Here's the actual quote found here:

quote:

The Real Words of General Richard Hawley from TruthOrFiction.com:

1) Goodness, Evil and Relativity:
There are some really good people in this world. They volunteer to help those who need it, and ask nothing in return. There are also some really bad people in this world. They exploit those who need help, or who have less wit or "charisma", and motivate them to join in committing unspeakable acts of cruelty against people they don't even know. Then there are the rest of us. Average people who try each day to do no harm, to provide for their families, to do an occasional act of kindness. The evil that was perpetrated against our land on 9/11 was the product of Mullahs who see our prosperity and power as a threat to their control over the uneducated Muslim masses on whose shoulders they ride through life. And

so they preach hate. They are evil.

2) Violence begets violence:
It's true. Violence does beget violence. But sometimes there is no alternative but to confront those who would perpetrate evil acts against us. This is one of those times. We are blessed to have courageous men and women willing to put their lives on the line to track down and annihilate those who have been so imbued with evil as to be beyond

redemption. But violence is not a strategy. It is a necessary and fully justified reaction to an unimaginable threat. But it is not a strategy. If

we are to win this war, we must defeat the Mullahs. And to defeat the Mullahs, we must find ways to separate them from their uneducated flocks. We cannot kill all those who have been taught to hate us, nor should we wish to. Far better to change their minds than to change their state of being.

3) The intelligence community let us down:
Well, maybe just a little. Lots of senior and not so senior intelligence people became just as enamored of high tech gadgets as their political masters. The protests over our evisceration of the human intelligence component of the agency were not very loud or forceful. Keeping spies on the ground is a high risk and often dirty business, and it wasn't just liberal politicians who didn't have much

stomach for it.

4) Poverty is the breeding ground for terrorists:
No, it isn't; but religious extremism is. The Mullahs fear our wealth and power because it shows that a secular society with democratic institutions and a free market

economy can do a better job of taking care of its peoples' needs, both spiritual and physical, than the oppressive Islamic regimes that they aspire

to lead. The Mullahs are the problem, not poverty, but poverty does make it

easier for the Mullahs to spread their evil - as do governments that tolerate and even reinforce their hateful message.

5) Profiling:
We are at war here! We are not talking about traffic stops. If we were at war with Iceland, I would expect those charged with our defense to pay very close attention to any Icelander who ventured near our shores. In this war I expect them to pay very close attention to Muslims with ties to the places that spew hatred against us. Random checks when there are no such obvious targets available are a good way to keep the evil ones guessing, but let's not make small children and grandmothers take their

shoes off while we watch far more likely candidates walk aboard unchecked.

6) Resolutions:

A. Never forget that what happened on September the 11th of 2001 was an act

of war.

B. Never sit silently by while someone tries to justify what happened on

that day as an understandable reaction to U.S. policies in the Middle East

or elsewhere.

C. Fly our nation's flag proudly - it represents this world's greatest hope

to move beyond the pain and suffering that inflict so many across the globe.

Richard E. Hawley

General, USAF, Retired

Former Commander, Air Combat Command

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm late.

I don't think the timing is all that suspect. It takes a while to write a book. Perhaps closer to the election maybe.

Everything else has already been covered.

The original story that started the thread has fallen off the news. I don't think they got anybody.

One last thing. I think this is a tempest in a teapot. I give it three weeks and it will all be forgotten. Even that commission said everybody (Clinton admin AND Bush admin) was at fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Takvah,

Those I considered personal attacks.

If it happens again, more then just the posts will be deleted.

If you can't play nice, you won't be allowed to play....

As an example, see $iLk's post above.

He quoted each part of the post and made a point about each one, he did NOT attack the poster, he took each of the points and attacked them.

So again, play nice, or you won't be allowed to play. It's getting way out of hand, If it happens again, I will delete the post and or lock the thread.

Thanks for the correct post Darkling, I wasn't in the mood, nor had the time to go find the real one, so I posted the E-mail one. Thank you

[ 03-25-2004, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

He does NOT laud Clinton. His book (if you are brave enough to read it) points fingers at both Clinton and Bush. More importantly he's uncovering general weaknesses in our intelligence community. Something that benefits everyone regardless of your affiliation.


I believe it would have better benefited everyone if he had come forward to either the public or the administration with his claims when they were relevant and most needed. The fact that he doesn't say anything until it's publishing time leads me to suspect his motive - in selling a book - and not reporting fact.

quote:

Yeah he's trying to sell a book, but so are Rush, Hannity, Coulter and any other republican pundit that can string two words together ( as long as those words involve 'evil', 'criminal', 'treason' and or 'traitor'. You'll swallow their diatribe hook line and sinker, but from a man who clearly has nothing to gain politically and who voted for Bush, you'll assume he's a liar because he doesn't lavish Bush with praise.

I'll 'assume' he's a liar because several of his statements have been readily shot down as nothing more than partisan diatribe - or how half his 'facts' in the book do nothing but build up his own view of his importance all the while inflating his ego to the point where you think the U.S. would be lost without turning to his guidance. As I said, from what I understand it reads just like any other memoir - "if only they'd listened to me..."

quote:

As for his contradictions, he stated he was being loyal to Bush and party as they asked him to "accentuate the positive". That's sounds entirely reasonable coming from a man with a 30 year career in government. The fact that the government colors the truth in favor of itself should be news to no one.

Spin I can understand - he's been caught in outright lies.

quote:

It's a shame the current National Security Advisor refuses to testify before the 9/11 commission. She seems comfortable enough to comment in public so I guess it's just the "under oath" part she fears.

Separation of powers I believe is the argument put forth, though I'll admit I'm not a lawyer.

quote:

Cheney says Clarke was out of the loop yet Rice says he was in all of the meetings..who's telling the truth? Even if he WAS out of the loop, why the hell is the National Coordinator on Terrorism NOT IN THE LOOP on matters regarding terrorism?

I think you misinterpret - Dr. Rice says he was at all relevent meetings dealing with the aspect of terrorism that he was a part of. Cheney is talking in the context of everything Clarke claims in his book.

quote:

I already know nothing will change the minds of those that see this as a partisan attack. And to accuse someone who sees Clarke as credible only doing so because they're democrats is pure BS. Of course from that I can infer that anyone who dismisses his assertions is doing so because they're republican.

I'm more than willing to accept accurate accounting of facts. But I'm not willing to hear much from a man who is more worried about selling his book and inflating his own ego by showboating for the 9/11 commission and lauding praise where little is deserved and filing contempt again where little is deserved. The War on Terror does not hinge on this one man, but the DNC supporters look at him as the "tell all" source that they need to latch on to for the beat Bush bandwagon crew.

quote:

You see the important point here is NOT partisanship, it's that our government needs to improve their internal processes when it comes to security and intelligence gathering so that future 9/11's can be prevented. I'm not comfortable sitting behind a partisan shield with information like this at hand.

Once again - any relevant information, ideas, etc. he had should have been passed to the administration - failure to do so just so he could sell a book leads me to believe that his information is probably not all that credible - else the 9/11 commission should look into whether or not withholding his ideas could contribute to a lapse in protection from terrorism. No spin - no partisanship here. Just pointing out that this guy would have done the country a whole lot more good by bringing this information to the forefront of the war on terror as opposed to pandering by selling a book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Jaguar, I am sorry you took it that way. Obviously, politics being a heated area of debate and you being so willing to use emoticons and the word "moron" to describe people adverse to your ideology and to more importantly belittle them, I thought you'd be more thickly skinned. I guess that isn't so.

I don't agree with the delete but I suppose you have the power to do it. So, that being the case I suppose I have to accept it. I would not waste the SC's time with this kind of garbage but it is interesting that ... "Thanks for playing," or asking you to do some reasearch on what you post even if saying it with the "we're not sheeple" addition, nets a delete. You attempted to blast me as not doing research Jaguar... you were rude... go back and look. Politics gets hot it is a taboo subject and I hope that you will indulge us with a less irreverant style of debate if you will sanction others for something far tamer.

Cheers.

[ 03-26-2004, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Takvah ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...