Sept. 11, 2001
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, May 13, 2023 22:40
VIEWED: 8201
PAGE 10 of 11
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yanno Rue. come to think of it, I DO remember the Taliban offering to turn ObL over to the IC because they were afraid that ObL would be mistreated or something in USA hands.
Gee, I can only think of about 3,000 reasons why we'd mistreat OBL. What about you ?
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:ok; but only because you ask nicely. In this particular instance, I didn't terribly want to discuss the other points.
Originally posted by rue:
LeadB
I have time for just a short reply and won't be back for a few days - so -
Drag your eyes away from Tora Bora for a second.
Quote:Yes, I bet Bush was feeling pretty embarrassed at this point. One interpretation: Bush, trying to save face, acknowledges what I knew from the beginning, OSB isn't that important in the greater scheme of things; the primary concern is and must be to disrupt the terrorist organization. Yes, it would be great PR and something of a blow to the terrorists if OSB is removed; but in reality, someone is just going to fill the role if OSB is toast. Replacement might be better (ie: worse for us) than OSB; replacement might be worse (ie: better for us), but the organization isn't going to just keel over and die at this point.
In September 2001 Bush was saying "dead or alive". By March 2002 Bush was saying "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."
Quote:Ok, I will concede that I did not recognize you were trying to completely characterize the Afghan situation as a simple prelude to the Iraq action, setting the stage sos to speak. Interesting, and while I 'see' the logic, I'm not convinced; but I do promise to ponder it.
That's a mere 6 months later.
Bush was simply not that interested in bin Laden or justice for 9/11.
"Now is it possible that in Bush's heart of hearts, he pulled the entire Afghan invasion to get an oil pipe line deal?" No. it was an opportunistic tidbit, nothing more. Bush went to Afghanistan b/c the logic of the situation forced him there. He was REALLY interested in Hussein and so spent as short a time as possible in Afghanistan, leaving without finishing the job.
Quote:Yes, but it's politics. And panic. And just because you and I don't see it, there's the possibility the Afghans would have self destructed as one faction attempted to turn OSB over, while another accepts bribes from OSB to help him... I have no references to back this up; it is an observation of human nature. I actually agree with you, the only one who would have looked bad was the Taliban -had- Bush called the bluff and they had not followed through. But look what -did- happen; Bush declined, thus -they didn't have to follow through-, thus -their- tactic 'worked' in making Bush look slightly bad (but not as well as they had hoped as it didn't buy them the delay the had hoped for in their panic). If Bush had accepted, then they would have demanded proof (they were asking for it, right);they can say it is not sufficient; then they can quibble over the details; claim it was not sufficient; delay, delay....oh... where did that naughty OSB go? Sorry, he slipped away. So, you better not invade here, since he's gone. End of alternative reality sequence.
"I do not believe the Taliban would have turned OBL over to anyone; I believe they were stalling for time and hoping to make Bush look bad." If the Taliban had stalled egregiously no force in the world could have kept the US allies away (and there were many). The only ones who would have looked bad would have been the Taliban and bin Laden and they would have invited the rage of a united world.
Again, what do I have to support this? Not much more than human nature, a very vague feel for how the Taliban operates, and a gut feel. In any event, short of 'proof' they were going to hand him over, it's unlikely that even if you convince me the Afghan operation was nothing more than 'prep' for Iraq, it's unlikely you will convince me the Taliban would actually have turned over OSB.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yanno Rue. come to think of it, I DO remember the Taliban offering to turn ObL over to the IC because they were afraid that ObL would be mistreated or something in USA hands.
Funny how in this day of information overload you can't site a single source aside from 'come to think of it'.
Come to think of it, name a single OTHER Islamic terrorist captured in ICC signatory countries (like Britain, Italy, Spain, Germany, Afhganistan, etc.) who have been turned over to the ICC for prosecution. I can't seem to find any.
I'm fairly sure a couple went to the ICTY from the Bosnian conflict, but none since then.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LeadB
Sorry for the non-continuous postings - my schedule is not always mine to make.
Overall, there were many details that lead me to my conclusions - too many to account for here.
But I'd say that from everything I've read Bush was focused on Hussein from the start. At one point he did give orders that IF bin Laden was killed he wanted the head sent to him on dry ice (what - not a pike ?), but his motivation wasn't either strong or long-lasting. He went to Afghanistan in 2001 because his own rhetoric demanded it, and Cheney's pipeline interests made it opportune. But by early 2002 Bush was already trying to distract attention from bin Laden and onto Hussein and had started to redeploy troops. And then the US aggressively worked to get NATO to take over, which happened in August 2003.
The "issue" of Iraq came up out of the blue. Sure it'd been a festering sore, but it'd been that way for years and there was no actual new event. The focus was manufactured.
That’s why I think Bush was sold a story by the neocons (we put the con in conservative !) about Iraq. And the story went like this - there are no large amounts of WMD in Iraq, but for sure he's going to have something in reserve, after all, wouldn't you ? And when you get Hussein and some token WMDs and we're welcomed as liberators with rose petals no one will remember bin Laden. And that's what he wanted to hear b/c that's who he was really interested in in the first place.
So within months (literally) after 9/11 Bush was minimizing bin Laden and maximizing Hussein.
I could do a word search of the Whitehouse website to count the bin Laden and Hussein references and you'd see the number of bin Laden references go down and the Hussein references go up inversely. But just ask yourself - during the run-up and the first few years of the Iraq war how many times did you hear about bin Laden ?
There were actual discussions about how to 'sell' Iraq to the US and WMDs were the final choice. The administration conflated Iraq with 9/11 and global jihadism and meetings in Belgrade, trotted about mushroom clouds and yellowcake, and all the CBW north south east west of Baghdad, somewhat. Bush continually escalated the demands on Hussein, finally saying that the ONLY way to avoid war was for he and his senior government and family to leave Iraq. (A demand obviously FAR beyond anything the UN needed.) When people say that Bush attacked in support of the UN they're forgetting that that WAS the final demand that lead to war.
Bin Laden effectively re-appeared on the radar in 2004 when he released a pre-election video. Since, it's been the horrid nasty liberals who've been asking about him and keeping him in the spotlight (as much as possible), not the Bush administration.
With everything - but most especially with Bush opportunistically dropping bin Laden for Hussein - it looks like justice wasn't a serious commitment - one that couldn't be dropped for other (mostly) political reasons.
But why I call Iraq 'The Perfect Storm of Mendacity' is a story for another day.
Anyway, I have to get going, again. I don't expect you to credit my POV, but I am convinced in a few years when the Bush administration is subject to scrutiny and the facts come out, it will look pretty much like this.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No apology needed on the time lag; you had warned timing might be a tad long, couldn't ask for anything more; I know how life can be.
Originally posted by rue:
LeadB
Sorry for the non-continuous postings - my schedule is not always mine to make.
[...]
Anyway, I have to get going, again. I don't expect you to credit my POV, but I am convinced in a few years when the Bush administration is subject to scrutiny and the facts come out, it will look pretty much like this.
While I'm pretty much on board that Bush was determined to go into Iraq at least a year before we did, after which it was merely a matter of pretext to him on the 'why'; I'm still not convinced the invasion of Afghanistan was for purposes other than to disrupt the terrorists there; the pipeline deal being somewhat incidental to the other factors. But perhaps when (if?) the facts come to the light of day, you POV might win out; I can believe stranger things.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Merci beaucoups for the discussion.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rap -
I wasn't ignoring your posts. I used that quote "... I don't really think about him very much ...") to illustrate the change of Bush's approach. Let me ask you this (warning - extended logic ahead - should not be attempted by people unfamiliar with its use !) :
While it's possible for both statements to be false ("dead or alive !" and "I don't really think about him very much") it's impossible for both statements to be true. So, which one, in your opinion, fits into the 'pandering political statement' category, or do they both fit that category ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rap -
I wasn't ignoring your posts. I used that quote "... I don't really think about him very much ...") to illustrate the change of Bush's approach. Let me ask you this (warning - extended logic ahead - should not be attempted by people unfamiliar with its use !) :
While it's possible for both statements to be false ("dead or alive !" and "I don't really think about him very much") it's impossible for both statements to be true. So, which one, in your opinion, fits into the 'pandering political statement' category, or do they both fit that category ?
I think the former is more true, while the 2nd statement is crafted ( though imo rather poorly ) more for the idea of posturing. We're not dealing w/ statements made to a court, under oath, but messages sent out which often have duel or multi recepient groups. I'm not saying I agree, but I do see the purpose they serve.
I really think you're taking things way out of context here.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dang! Sorry about that!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The only "context" that glues together "Dead or alive" and "not that important" is a lot of generous assumptions about what Bush was trying to do spackled together with guesses about who he was trying to influence. In that "context" it's possible to accept and forgive that he spun the truth at least once- maybe twice- but the underlying assumption is that he sacrificed the truth for some "greater cause".
I really think you're taking things way out of context here.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME