Sept. 11, 2001
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, May 13, 2023 22:40
VIEWED: 8201
PAGE 1 of 2
"I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people."- President Bush, Sept. 20, 2001.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The noble false statement of a traitor.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The noble false statement of a traitor.
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"- Joseph Welch, June 9, 1954.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"A Hero Ain't Nothin But a Sandwich" - Alice Childress, 1973.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
My sense of decency is what makes it impossible to sit silently while opportunistic scoundrels betray their country. Where's yours?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I seem to recall a quote from a movie about "heroes" getting other people killed. Our Prez definitly qualifies by that definition (though none of the other definitions I can think of).
Here we are, 6 years later. And we've stopped looking for the man responsible. Our "leader" (I can't even type that without sneering) doesn't think he's important.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Now watch this drive...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Where's yours?
In Ohio.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The noble false statement of a traitor.
To paraphrase a line from the movie Billy Madison...
"What you have written, is the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever read. At no point, in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this board is now dumber for having read to it. I award you no respect and may God have mercy on your soul."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Funny. I thought the same thing about Hero's initial post.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Funny. I thought the same thing about Hero's initial post.
I think our brains work differently (I read that around here somewhere)...or in your case, not at all.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Funny. I thought the same thing about Hero's initial post.
I think our brains work differently (I read that around here somewhere)...or in your case, not at all.
H
Project away, Zero.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You know, as much as I disagree with AURaptor and Hero, at least they have a point of view, you're just here to be a jerk.
Originally posted by Skywalken:
To paraphrase a line from the movie Billy Madison...
No offence.
ChrisisallNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You know, as much as I disagree with AURaptor and Hero, at least they have a point of view, you're just here to be a jerk.
Unbiased and even handed as always Mr. Isall.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Really BDN? I thought the crazy attacking rabbit thing may have been too over-the-top.....
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Unbiased and even handed as always Mr. Isall.
ChrisisallNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people."- President Bush, Sept. 20, 2001.
"I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned." -President Bush, March 13, 2002
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:HELLO! He was talking about Captain America regarding the issue where he died...
Originally posted by rue:
"I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned." -President Bush, March 13, 2002
you took that TOTALLY out of context, Rue!
He's as determined to get that son-of-a-Saudi-friend-of-his as he ever was!!!
Uh-huh Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I stopped caring what the idiots who don't get the significance of what happened on 9/11/01 think or listening to what they say. They are utterly and completely irrelevent. When I watched the Naudet brother's documentary on 9/11, that's all I need to see. Ignorant, asinine claims of conspiracy and compliancy are meaningless to the reality of what happened to real people in the real world that day.
I feel sorry for folks who don't GET IT, and instead wrap themselves up in petty partisan bickering, as if that will ever amount to anything at all.
I will never forget 9/11 and never forgive those who attacked us. Never.
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
"I feel sorry for folks who don't GET IT, and instead wrap themselves up in petty partisan bickering, as if that will ever amount to anything at all."
Does that include Bush ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's one thing we agree on. Unfortunately attacking Iraq and losing track of bin Laden falls into the "irrelevant/ counterproductive" category.
I stopped caring what the idiots who don't get the significance of what happened on 9/11/01 think or listening to what they say. They are utterly and completely irrelevent.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I feel sorry for folks who don't GET IT, and instead wrap themselves up in petty partisan bickering, as if that will ever amount to anything at all."
Does that include Bush ?
Show where Bush is 'bickering', if ya can.
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
Skipped right past the "petty and partisan" di'ja ? 
Oh yeah, and just outa sheer nosiness - why aren't you in the WMD thread telling us about the piles and piles of ...
***************************************************************
stuff you're really familiar with
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Skipped right past the "petty and partisan" di'ja ?
Trying to change the subject ? Didn't expect you to have an answer. Not surprised in the least.
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
No, not trying to change the topic. You decided you wanted to talk about one single word out of an entire quote - of your own words, no less. I felt compelled to bring at least some of the rest back in.
Oh, and why aren't you in the MWD thread telling us how they really are there in Iraq, in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. We could all use a good laugh. At your expense, of course.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ummm.. Auraptor, as I recall YOU were the one who brought up "petty and partisan". Rue is merely responding to YOUR topic.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No, not trying to change the topic. You decided you wanted to talk about one single word out of an entire quote - of your own words, no less. I felt compelled to bring at least some of the rest back in.
Oh, and why aren't you in the MWD thread telling us how they really are there in Iraq, in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. We could all use a good laugh. At your expense, of course.
Why don't you stop this fucking bullshit and just answer the question? Oh, that's right, because you CAN'T answer the question. Bush doesn't engage in any bickering, petty , partisan or OTHERWISE.
See, this is EXACTLY what I mean. Lefties are cowards and pussies for trying to dodge and squirm out of the issue, and then when you call them on it , they hyper analyze the god damn sentence, and won't answer because I didn't add PARTISAN or PETTY. As if leaving those 2 words out in any way keeps you from answering a damn thing. It doesn't, but you'll look for any damn way out.
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:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ummm.. Auraptor, as I recall YOU were the one who brought up "petty and partisan". Rue is merely responding to YOUR topic.
Do you rub rue's shoulders when you're mounted on his back ?
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
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, heh heh heh, just so long as I'm the dictator, heh heh heh."
—George DWI Bush
www.piratenews.org/911con.html
www.september911surprise.com
"Two words I never want to hear again in a sentence are Flash and Drive!"
-Nathan Fillion, Drive
DRIVE VS POLICE STATE: FREE TV EPISODES ONLINE
OOPS! CANCELLED!!! FINAL EPPS ON JULY 4 8PM EST
WTF?! FINAL EPPS FRIDAY 13 JULY 8PM EST!!! FOX SUX!
NOW FOX KILLED FINAL EPPS - ONLINE ONLY!!!
www.myspace.com/driveonfox
FOX, MYSPACE & FIREFLY OWNED BY COMMUNIST CHINA!
www.piratenews.org/pntv-schedule.html
FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv
www.cafepress.com/piratenews
Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Lefties are cowards and pussies for trying to dodge and squirm
I thought it was cowards and pisspots.....but either way your words have a sweet ring of truth to them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
That's one thing we agree on. Unfortunately attacking Iraq and losing track of bin Laden falls into the "irrelevant/ counterproductive" category.
I note for the record you just described the high points of Bill Clinton's 1998 foriegn policy.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
See, this is EXACTLY what I mean. Lefties are cowards and pussies for trying to dodge and squirm out of the issue, and then when you call them on it , they hyper analyze the god damn sentence,
Wow. That's fuckin rich coming from a guy who dodges and plays semantics like a pro.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor's response? "You got boggers in your nose!" And then there's Hero's old saw.. "But HE did it too!"
When do we get to: "YOU started it!"
Sounds like kindergarten.
Tell you what- if either of you actually post something rational, I'll respond. Otherwise, I'll just treat you like I treat trolls.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bless the fallen and their families.
OK, let’s take it where “Aur” wants to. Is someone really in here complaining about bickering?
The president:
To answer your question... NO, he doesn’t.
How can a president be involved in bickering in the public eye? He is protected by the screening of questions. The bickering goes on in cabinet/staff meetings or by the appointed Press Secretary. So, don't ask for answers you already know. Or most should anyway. ...and I expect with all the posted links and research done here, that would be an easy answer. More importantly… So, say we prove one way or the other about presidential bickering. What’s your point? He does/doesn’t bicker. OK what? Are you saying that by not participating in “petty” bickering allows time for strong leadership? Present your case. Or is it the “appearance” of a focused, stern leader that “tickles your fancy”. The “decider” has no time for bickering, only to decide.
You speak of fantasy in conspiracy. At this point, it IS fantasy to think if we pull out, they will follow us. Works on both sides. Neither has happened. My guess, (let me know if any of you have better than a guess) the bad guys are planning NOW and will plan after we are out of the region (militarily).
Bickering on the site: (on my assumption that “and instead wrap themselves up in petty partisan bickering” includes this site)
This is a public discussion forum. 80% of everything in here is a perpetual, sometimes elitist, circle jerk of grandstanding. …more to prove YOUR worth and morals than anything.
Quote:
I feel sorry for folks who don't GET IT, …, as if that will ever amount to anything at all.
Is “folks” us/you? Or are u writing/contacting our representatives now to “make a difference”. You are SO in the top ten of bickerers on this site. But, maybe u are just always right
Quote:
“They are utterly and completely irrelevant.”
Wrong, they vote. …more relevant than wind-bagged comments on any pundit show or here (including mine).
On semantics… hmmm, without nonverbal comm. Writing is all we have. Anyone interpreting your words differently does not make them a coward, even if it is clear they are manipulating them just to piss you off.
Why the rant? Occasionally an asshole, but I am neither a coward nor a pussy. Or even a pisspot.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
See, this is EXACTLY what I mean. Lefties are cowards and pussies for trying to dodge and squirm out of the issue, and then when you call them on it , they hyper analyze the god damn sentence,
Wow. That's fuckin rich coming from a guy who
Sorry dickhead, but I've never dodged one god damn fucking thing. Funny how the Left pansies accuse me of dodging stuff while they are doing EXACTLY what they accuse me of doing.
Word - Hypocrites
And I rest my case. After this juvenile back and forth w/ the Lefty pukes, they've presented ZERO in their claim that Bush " bickers " to any extent on the issue of 9/11 one iota.
I win,
They lose.
Case closed.
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
Where does 9/11 come in ? Are you now adding words after taking them away ?
The original contention was "I feel sorry for folks who don't GET IT, and instead wrap themselves up in petty partisan bickering, as if that will ever amount to anything at all."
Nope, no 9/11 there at all, no matter how many times I read it.
Anyway, keep this up on top. I'll be back in town Monday or Tuesday and get back to you then.
***************************************************************
"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:
Where does 9/11 come in ? Are you now adding words after taking them away ?
The original contention was "I feel sorry for folks who don't GET IT, and instead wrap themselves up in petty partisan bickering, as if that will ever amount to anything at all."
Nope, no 9/11 there at all, no matter how many times I read it.
Anyway, keep this up on top. I'll be back in town Monday or Tuesday and get back to you then.
Son, I never credited you with an overabundance of brains, and I have only you to thank for reminding everyone why.
My entire post, as it was written
Quote:
I stopped caring what the idiots who don't get the significance of what happened on 9/11/01 think or listening to what they say. They are utterly and completely irrelevent. When I watched the Naudet brother's documentary on 9/11, that's all I need to see. Ignorant, asinine claims of conspiracy and compliancy are meaningless to the reality of what happened to real people in the real world that day.
I feel sorry for folks who don't GET IT, and instead wrap themselves up in petty partisan bickering, as if that will ever amount to anything at all.
I will never forget 9/11 and never forgive those who attacked us. Never.
You see, idiot, this entire THREAD was about 9/11. My comment included.
Now go pray to your dear and fluffy lord for some brains. You be needin' it something powerful.
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
"You see idiot,this entire thread was about 9/11"
AURaptor---Really? Don't see anything in your words about stepping away from politics and lava-like spewing of hatred to remember the dead. Or to think of the living, walking around wounded inside and out.
My brother has sarcoidosis. The government recently admitted this has something to do with breathing in death and vile shit month after month. He also has stopped having a normal life. Does pretty much nothing---rides his bike, washes his car, takes care of our parents because he lives with them. No job, no relationship, no interests. He got his ass on the ferry back to New Jersey that morning, wound up in Hoboken and doesn't remember how he got home to Jersey City. If you want to throw stones at him, you know, he's not the only one--broken, forever changed.
I had recently moved from New York and after falling to my knees, finding out that my brother was alive and being glued to the TV for hours, drove downtown and found a church to sit in. There's a beautiful stained glass window in the worship hall with this line from an old hymn--
"And with the dawn those angel faces smile
That I have loved long since, and lost awhile."
Could you just stop and cry if you need to? I remember thinking, during another time I needed solace, walking through a rose garden "they're all gone, we have to LIVE for them". Let's do something really worthwhile, hmm? Make it meaningful---serve humanity or something easy like that. Just don't say this thread is about 9/11.
Quisqueya
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, seeing as I'm still here at work -
One can't BE partisan about 9/11 no matter how one tries. It's like saying people are partisan about the sun coming up.
Now, one can be partisan about the CAUSE of 9/11, the RESPONSE to 9/11, all the ways 9/11 was USED - but one can't be partisan about 9/11 itself.
So this:
"I feel sorry for folks who don't GET IT, and instead wrap themselves up in petty partisan bickering, as if that will ever amount to anything at all" can't be about 9/11 per se, it HAS to be about something else, like the cause, the response, or the way it was used.
Then you add in 9/11 AS IF it's a partisan item and not merely a fact. Get it ? Though I expect not. In your mind, facts and opinions are one and the same. That's common with none too bright people, like yourself.
So keep this up top. You made a claim that Bush was NEVER petty, partisan, and never bickered. Just like this: "Bush doesn't engage in any bickering, petty , partisan or OTHERWISE". That's going to be a mighty hard claim to hold on to. Are you sure you don't want to change it just a bit ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quisqueya - Sorry, but while your story is best viewed by all, your comments would be better directed toward others, not me. I wasn't the one who started w/ this political B.S. on this board, but I did respond to it. You want to impress onto others your tale, fine. But don't make me the heavy here.
I ask them to clarify their comments, and as you can plainly see in the thread, they can't. Lava like ? Yeah, pretty much, because that's how much anger I have at folks who insist on making this about politics and not humanity. Don't fuss at me because I chose to respond. But the only hatred is coming from the likes of rue and SignyM.
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
rue - you're a coward. I plainly posted my comments in context. You're simply too spineless to admit that you've got nothing but to fight for the sake of fighting. Sorry, but you've lost this one. Keep beating your head against the wall, I'm done w/ 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
Just keep this near the top on Monday/ Tuesday so I don't forget. I'll get back wit'cha.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, a statement for the record: I haven't forgotten those responsible for 9/11.
Our duly appointed president apparently has.
If he had truly been interested in balancing accounts for 9/11 he would have properly finished the job in Afghanistan when he had the chance.
Instead he chose to attack Iraq. Which made about as much sense as avenging Pearl Harbor by declaring war on Mexico.
But George W. bush had a combination of personal and business reasons for doing so, and decided they were more important than actually honoring our dead. 9/11 was not the reason for attacking Iraq. It was the excuse.
And that is the reason I detest George W. Bush. He reduced the dead in the rubble, the victims and the brave emergency personnel who died trying to rescue them, to nothing but a slogan to support his own agenda.
So now we have a two-front, probably unwinable war, and our dead remain unavenged.
Anyone who invokes 9/11 to support Bush's policies is either a fool, a hypocrite, or willfully blind.
"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quisqueya, I'm sorry for your brother. I know what it's like to have someone close to you chronically ill. To have that occur by a random act of hate is hard to imagine. AFA Auraptor is concerned... apologizing for him seems presumptuous, but I winced when I read his post. I don't know what to say.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
VIDEO: 9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 Explosive Demolition Countdown
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/130907_demolition_countdow
n.htm
NY CITY PAVES POTHOLES WITH DEAD BODIES OF 9/11 VICTIMS
www.wtcfamiliesforproperburial.com
SIGN THE PETITION
www.petitiononline.com/WTCASHES/petition.html
FRESH KILLS LANDFILL HAS 9/11 REMAINS, MEDICAL EXAMINER WROTE
www.voicesofsept11.org/dev/content.php?idtocitems=remainstimes
9/11 REMAINS FILL POTHOLES WORKER CLAIMS
www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/03/24/2007-03-24_911_remains_fill_pothol
es_worker_claims.html 
Mafia drag queen Rudy Giuliani sucks Donald Trumps tits
www.september911surprise.com
GOVT'S FLIGHT 93 MEMORIAL IS A GIANT BOXCUTTER TOMBSTONE
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/piratenewsrss/message/263
http://piratenews.org/flight93.html
VIDEO: Controlled Demolition Inc bombs 7,000 US govt buildings on History Channel
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8500406504731486597&hl=en
River Tam - FOR REAL
CIA MKULTRA Project Monarch female child assassin testifies to Congress
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=4
652513
CIA MKULTRA Project Monarch child sex slave testifies to Congress
Your govt loves you. Go back to sleep. Or else.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
Okay, a statement for the record: I haven't forgotten those responsible for 9/11.
Our duly appointed president apparently has.
If he had truly been interested in balancing accounts for 9/11 he would have properly finished the job in Afghanistan when he had the chance.
Instead he chose to attack Iraq. Which made about as much sense as avenging Pearl Harbor by declaring war on Mexico.
But George W. bush had a combination of personal and business reasons for doing so, and decided they were more important than actually honoring our dead. 9/11 was not the reason for attacking Iraq. It was the excuse.
And that is the reason I detest George W. Bush. He reduced the dead in the rubble, the victims and the brave emergency personnel who died trying to rescue them, to nothing but a slogan to support his own agenda.
So now we have a two-front, probably unwinable war, and our dead remain unavenged.
Anyone who invokes 9/11 to support Bush's policies is either a fool, a hypocrite, or willfully blind.
"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn
"He reduced the dead in the rubble, the victims and the brave emergency personnel who died trying to rescue them, to nothing but a slogan to support his own agenda.
So now we have a two-front, probably unwinable war, and our dead remain unavenged."
Bush did nothing of the sort. We went after OBL and al Qaeda almost immediatly after we were attacked. We took down the Taliban and captured many in the al Qaeda organization. We froze , or tried to, the assets of phony organizations used as fronts to funnel $$ for the terrorist. ( Unfortunatly, the NYTimes figured it was a better idea to out some of our secret operations ) But fighting a terrorist organization which is small and mobile isn't the same as trying to take down an established country. OBL went underground, and our lack of intel in the area cost us. It wasn't because of a lack of will or leadership, but simply not having the resources required to track our target in the wilderness. It makes less sense to highly broadcast our daily fight and search for this guy. But just because we've not caught 2 big names, we're still making life miserable for them, and keeping them on the move. Point is, don't equate our inability to get OBL as a sign we don't care, or that we're not trying. Because we do care, and we are trying.
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
Auraptor:
You're missing my point.
I didn't define "finishing the job in Afghanistan" as "capturing OBL". My definition would be "stabilizing the region, and/or establishing a viable democratic government." Granted, capturing Bin Laden would be icing on the cake, but it wasn't the primary goal.
I supported the attack on Afghanistan. They had provided aid, both financial and logistical, to the bastards responsible for 9/11. They richly deserved to be brought down.
But then GWB, for, as I stated above, "personal and business reasons" decided it was a smart idea to wage a two-front war, and diverted resources needed for the stabilization of Afghanistan to attack Iraq. Despite the fact that Iraq had precisely Jack Shit to do with 9/11. Despite the fact that OBL and the Taliban hated Saddam's guts worse than ours, and that the SOB, for all his evil, was a force for stability in the region.
Bush invoked 9/11 as a slogan to justify his dividing of our forces for no good reason except to further his own political/financial goals. And in doing so he dishonored our dead.
I'm not sure if he did this out of greed, egotism, or simple incompetence. And in the end, it doesn't matter.
If Dante was right in reserving the coldest spot in Hell for traitors, then George W. Bush has a very chilly room reserved for him indeed.
"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Horse puckies. Bush said
But fighting a terrorist organization which is small and mobile isn't the same as trying to take down an established country. OBL went underground, and our lack of intel in the area cost us. It wasn't because of a lack of will or leadership, but simply not having the resources required to track our target in the wilderness.
Quote:What a blowhard. But anyway... Here is the story from the guy who led the attack on Tora Bora and had bin Laden pinned down. Gary Bernsten was a CIA officer who had tracked bin Laden through both the Clinton and Bush administrations. A Republican, he is still highly critical of the Clinton Administrations' lack of guts on taking out bin Laden. After 9-11 he made it his personal mission to bring the terrorist in.
So we don't know whether he's in a cave with the door shut or a cave with the door open. We just don't know. There's all kinds of reports and all kinds of speculation. But the thing we are certain about is that he's on the run, that he's hiding in caves, if hiding at all. And the other thing I'm certain about is we'll bring him to justice.
Quote:
BERNTSEN: With Tora Bora, it began, the final portion of that operation began after we seized the capital, Kabul. I sent an eight-man team down into Jalalabad. From Jalalabad, they moved down south right up against the mountains there, where Tora Bora was back up in the mountains. ...
We had locations on him, we had human source reporting which had proved reliable throughout the war. And that is why we won the war so rapidly. We had picked up a radio off of a dead al Qaeda member and we're listening to bin Laden pray with his people, apologize to his people for bringing them in there.
I had CIA's top Arabic linguist with me, who had listened to bin Laden's for four years. We threw a 15,000-pound Blue 82 at them and then we had B52's conduct strikes on the same areas where he knew he was. ... we did know exactly.
... The Afghans were less than reliable and this is why I was calling for ground forces. And I called for, you know, 600-to-800 rangers to be inserted in there, and had 600-to-800 rangers been inserted, we probably would have ended the thing.
...I made the request in the first two or three days of December. We initiated that operation. We inserted our team in late November into Jalalabad there.
Well, I requested the rangers directly from the commander of JSOC, who was on the ground out there. And of course, their decision was not to do that. They were pleased with the fact that we were killing several hundred of them a day. The problem is this: when you are fighting terrorists, success for the terrorists is not defeating us on the battlefield, it's escaping. And I was trying to make sure that we eliminated every single one of them. And in that case, we didn't. We killed quite a large number of bin Laden's force. We killed 75 percent of the people there. He did cross the border. You may recall that 130 of them were captured by the Pakistanis on the back side of Tora Bora, but bin Laden and his element were able to escape.
...General Franks is a great American. I, however, was on the ground running the intelligence collection operation. ... The U.S. military, the soldiers that were with us on the ground there, fought like lions. They did a wonderful job. The problem was, was Tora Bora was a very, very difficult place to access. It was an area that was far away, it was high, it was cold. It would have been very difficult and it would have been risky to put soldiers in. There likely would have been significant casualties. The fact is is no one, whether they're in the CIA or the military gets ahead taking risks. It would have been a risky endeavor. But I put my four men in there. They went up. And actually two of my men were CIA officers and two of them were JSOC officers that had been assigned over to me. This is a fact of the war.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10639901/
Also
Quote:
A vivid remindeNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Question is, will Big D let Bush wear the red cape AU is makin' for him?
Originally posted by RocketJock:
If Dante was right in reserving the coldest spot in Hell for traitors, then George W. Bush has a very chilly room reserved for him indeed.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I can only conclude that Bin Laden is worth more as a constant threat than a dead body...to some.......
Originally posted by SignyM:
But Bush's stated mission- YOU know, dead or alive. drain the swamp, etc- would have been accomplished.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I guess there's nothing like on-the-ground facts to kill a thread.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
See, this is EXACTLY what I mean. Lefties are cowards and pussies for trying to dodge and squirm out of the issue, and then when you call them on it , they hyper analyze the god damn sentence,
Wow. That's fuckin rich coming from a guy who
Sorry dickhead, but I've never dodged one god damn fucking thing.
You do nothing but dodge, you lying little fuck.
You have a well-established rep for vanishing from a thread whenever someone posts proof to counter your bullshit.
Then you start another thread saying the same bullshit.
You are the coward. And a sychophantic little yes-man who buys into everything your precious Bush tells you.
You're not even worth discussion.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Storymark, you always sugar-coat your stuff...just let AU have it, for once!
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey storymark, fuck off. You lying piece of shit. You're full of crap but no substance.
I've done everything BUT dodge. What's gotten your panties in a bunch is that I don't blindly follow your zealous hatred for Bush, and when I give you an answer you don't like, you call it a dodge. Typical Left wing puke response.
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
rue - as a reply to your request from the other thread,.....
I say Bush poorly phrased a line to show that FAILING to get OBL hasn't taken away from the success which has been made in dealing with al Qaeda. Kinda like happened w/ Saddam. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. We couldn't find Saddam, and heard much of the same comments. Then, when we DID find him, the antagonist acted as if it was no big deal. So Bush's position is to simply minimalize the actual capture ( or NON capture ) of OBL as being the end all/ be all measure of success on the war on terror.
Even if we GET OBL, the terrorsit will still fight us and the West, so getting him, while a high priority, might not be the make or break that we have thought.
This is the question you waited all weekend for to ask ?
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: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
hasn't taken away from the success which has been made in dealing with al Qaeda
But what about 9/11 and the interests of JUSTICE for the people who were killed and their families ? (And I do mean JUSTICE - not revenge.) Don't you want to see that done to redress the great human tragedy ? Or is the tragedy - in YOUR mind - merely a trifle ?
***************************************************************
"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:
But what about 9/11 and the interests of JUSTICE for the people who were killed and their families ? (And I do mean JUSTICE - not revenge.) Don't you want to see that done to redress the great human tragedy ?
(On the morning of September 12, 2001)
Rue: I heard. This Osama is a brigand, nothing more.
Auraptor: And how would you deal with this brigand?
Rue: Like any common thief. Have the local magistrate arrest him and punish him accordingly.
Auraptor:(Punches his Rue.) Osama has already
killed the magistrates and taken control of Afganistan...
****************
Sometimes justice is easier said then done.
Saddam's victims cried out for justice for his crimes against humanity twenty years ago. But it was not until his armies were scattered, his nation torn from beneath his heel, and he was dragged weeping with fear from his hole that justice could be served.
Likewise the greatest of all human tragedies, the holocaust, was forced to wait upon the successfull conclusion of the war before its architects could be given the justice they had earned.
Such is life, such is war, such is justice.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But the US had bin Laden trapped and ready to be captured. And then just let him go. It was quite easily done if there had been the will. But there apparently wasn't one, despite the 'dead or alive' rhetoric.
Are you saying it was OK to let him go when he was within reach ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
S'wneyways, while I'm waiting for answers from Rap and 'hero' - did you all notice how the bushits have been buzzing lately ? That speech Thursday musta really made them nervous. After being on the down low for so long, it's interesting how they all came out, so to speak - so the rest of us now know exactly who they are - Rap, Jong, 'hero', Geezer, Skywalken, BDN ...
Amazing, ain't it ? All those folk claiming they just want 'fairness' finally came out in their little parade for all to see.
***************************************************************
"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:
But the US had bin Laden trapped and ready to be captured. And then just let him go. It was quite easily done if there had been the will. But there apparently wasn't one, despite the 'dead or alive' rhetoric.
Are you saying it was OK to let him go when he was within reach ?
I doubt very much the US simply 'let him go ', as you try to paint the picture. Nearly got him, but he got away.
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
Clearly you didn't read this, posted by SignyM
"Here is the story from the guy who led the attack on Tora Bora and had bin Laden pinned down. Gary Bernsten was a CIA officer who had tracked bin Laden through both the Clinton and Bush administrations. A Republican, he is still highly critical of the Clinton Administrations' lack of guts on taking out bin Laden. After 9-11 he made it his personal mission to bring the terrorist in.
Quote:
BERNTSEN: With Tora Bora, it began, the final portion of that operation began after we seized the capital, Kabul. I sent an eight-man team down into Jalalabad. From Jalalabad, they moved down south right up against the mountains there, where Tora Bora was back up in the mountains. ...
We had locations on him, we had human source reporting which had proved reliable throughout the war. And that is why we won the war so rapidly. We had picked up a radio off of a dead al Qaeda member and we're listening to bin Laden pray with his people, apologize to his people for bringing them in there.
I had CIA's top Arabic linguist with me, who had listened to bin Laden's for four years. We threw a 15,000-pound Blue 82 at them and then we had B52's conduct strikes on the same areas where he knew he was. ... we did know exactly.
... The Afghans were less than reliable and this is why I was calling for ground forces. And I called for, you know, 600-to-800 rangers to be inserted in there, and had 600-to-800 rangers been inserted, we probably would have ended the thing.
...I made the request in the first two or three days of December. We initiated that operation. We inserted our team in late November into Jalalabad there.
Well, I requested the rangers directly from the commander of JSOC, who was on the ground out there. And of course, their decision was not to do that. They were pleased with the fact that we were killing several hundred of them a day. The problem is this: when you are fighting terrorists, success for the terrorists is not defeating us on the battlefield, it's escaping. And I was trying to make sure that we eliminated every single one of them. And in that case, we didn't. We killed quite a large number of bin Laden's force. We killed 75 percent of the people there. He did cross the border. You may recall that 130 of them were captured by the Pakistanis on the back side of Tora Bora, but bin Laden and his element were able to escape.
...General Franks is a great American. I, however, was on the ground running the intelligence collection operation. ... The U.S. military, the soldiers that were with us on the ground there, fought like lions. They did a wonderful job. The problem was, was Tora Bora was a very, very difficult place to access. It was an area that was far away, it was high, it was cold. It would have been very difficult and it would have been risky to put soldiers in. There likely would have been significant casualties. The fact is is no one, whether they're in the CIA or the military gets ahead taking risks. It would have been a risky endeavor. But I put my four men in there. They went up. And actually two of my men were CIA officers and two of them were JSOC officers that had been assigned over to me. This is a fact of the war.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10639901/"
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The problem was, was Tora Bora was a very, very difficult place to access. It was an area that was far away, it was high, it was cold. It would have been very difficult and it would have been risky to put soldiers in. There likely would have been significant casualties
I recall one official , forget who, who claimed that a Daisy Cutter had taken out a large group of bad guys, traveling at night, very quickly. This was during a period of high radio / mobile phone activity, which led our forces to believe OBL was on the move. When the Daisy Cutter was used to take out this one group, the one official was dead certain OBL was among those traveling,and that no one survived. He was certain of it. He wasn't speaking in an official capacity, this was an informal interview, not a press briefing.
That, as they say, is war.
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
I'd go with the guy directing the fight, nto "some official" who wasn't there.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rap,
And yet, if you're going to attack a country, send in tens of thousands of men, remove a government and install your own - why not an extra few hundred as needed ? There was exceptional intelligence about bin Laden's location, he WAS public enemy #1, and there was actual international support.
In fact, why not turn him over to the ICC in the first place before going to war ?
When you think about it - the whole thing makes no sense if the US's goals were to obtain justice and increase its security.
What are the reasons for NOT turning bin Laden over to the ICC ? One is that you don't have proof he did what you said he did, and you know if you turn him over to the Court the prosecution would fall through. Another reason is that you are looking for an excuse to place troops in the country, topple the government, and get an oil pipeline. Yet another reason is that you have already agreed with the family who are your friends (and whom you spirit out of the country) to finger bin Laden but not put him at risk of actual capture and prosecution. All of these fit the facts extremely well.
Remember, when Afghanistan offered to turn bin Laden over to the ICC the US responded 'no' in a matter of hours, with the (lame) excuse that they didn't want to get involved in negotiations involving details of the actual transfer. It's exactly what happened in Iraq - what do you do when the country you're trying to invade actually responds reasonably ? Why, you attack, of course.
And just like Iraq, not only do the pre-attack facts smell bad, so do the post-attack ones. The US spent roughly 18 months sifting through boxcars of 'evidence' looking for 'proof' it was bin Laden and / or al Qaeda what done it. The first thing one should have noticed was the obvious contradiction - if they had 'proof' at the start that it was bin Laden - enough to go for 'dead or alive', attack a sovereign country, and remove its government - why did they then need to find it in Afghanistan ? (BTW the mistake they made - which they were sure to not repeat in Iraq - was having the UN and other forces also looking for and incidentally witnessing said finds of 'proof'. There were many false claims the US government made about 'proof' which evaporated quietly, never to be mentioned again.) And if the proof was good enough to start a war, why not turn it over to the ICC ? There's also that little matter of backing off and allowing him to escape. (And allowing him to later take 'credit' for 9/11 in late 2004 - by then US troops were enmeshed in Iraq.)
And, then the US left Afghanistan prematurely - which is before capturing bin Laden as Bush swore to do - but after setting up a compliant mayor of Kabul who duly signed treaties in 2002 with Pakistan and Turkmenistan to put in a US pipeline:
"Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan on Friday signed here a framework agreement for a US $ 3.2 billion gas pipeline project passing through the three countries."
And then it was off to Iraq ...
... with bin Laden on the loose, and a fresh new pipeline agreement in place.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The problem I have with this is that if they had sent in those 700 rangers and they had taken heavy casualties without getting Bin Laden you would be on this board complaining about the waste of US life. In fact you would probably have "known from the start" that this move wouldnt have got him.
So if they DO something and it doesnt work Rue and Sig say they are idiots for trying. If they don't do anything Rue and Sig say they are idiots for NOT trying.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is the part I keep coming back to 'The problem was, was Tora Bora was a very, very difficult place to access. It was an area that was far away, it was high, it was cold. It would have been very difficult and it would have been risky to put soldiers in. There likely would have been significant casualties. The fact is is no one, whether they're in the CIA or the military gets ahead taking risks. It would have been a risky endeavor.'
Personally, if they had taken the risk; sustained heavy casualties, and failed to take OSB, I would have chalked it up to the fates of war. However, given the risks, I understand why the choice made was made. In this case I would not look any further than two folks looked at the situation and came to a different conclusion; it's very hard to say it was 'wrong' to not go in here. I will acknowledge Fletch's point, I'm not confident the bulk of the US population would have accepted a loss under the circumstance if it did not result in a successful capture of OSB.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You ask why didn't we turn OBL over to the ICC before going to war? Well, for one reason, we need to HAVE him in custody in order to pass him over to the ICC, and another thing is, the ICC (International Criminal Court ) didn't even come into full effect until July 1,2002. Which poses a HUGE obstacle when the crime and the ensuing war took place in 2001.
Kinda defeats the whole foundation of your post, and your claims that we could have had OBL and that we just didn't want to bother w/ some technical legal issues. ( Which, of course we didn't, but that's another issue )
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:
Originally posted by rue:
Are you saying it was OK to let him go when he was within reach ?
You should ask Clinton...or perhaps ask General Ewell why he did not push through the town and take the hill, Jackson would never have stopped with the Yankees on the run and ground like that just sitting there. Such is war.
I think the term your looking for is 'Armchair General'. 'Monday Morning Quarterback' works too.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In fact, why not turn him over to the ICC in the first place before going to war ?
I assume you mean the International Criminal Court and not the Internation Chamber of Commerce.
First of all this is a question you need to direct to the Taliban. They were given an ultimatum to surrender Osama and the other Al Queda leaders. Had they taken the option then likely there would have been no outright invasion. Likely they could have surrendered bin Ladden to the ICC and met the spirit if not the letter of our demand.
Second, the United States of America is not a party to the ICC's treaty and are thus not bound by its jurisdiction. If you recall President Clinton decided in 1998 not to sign the treaty because he was afraid of making US soldiers subject to foriegn jurisdiction. President Bush, likewise, has not signed the treaty and its unlikely that it would be ratified by the Senate if either of them had sought to do so.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rap, dude ...
"for one reason, we need to HAVE him in custody in order to pass him over to the ICC'
No problem. Afghanistan agreed to take Usama into custody if he could be turned over to the ICC and not the US.
"and another thing is, the ICC (International Criminal Court ) didn't even come into full effect until July 1,2002"
But the ICC was fully ready to accept custody of accused criminals, for example Slobodan Milosevic, on June 28, 2001. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/06/28/serbia88.htm
Do you have anything else to say ???
***************************************************************
"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:
From www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10639901/
... The Afghans were less than reliable and this is why I was calling for ground forces. And I called for, you know, 600-to-800 rangers to be inserted in there, and had 600-to-800 rangers been inserted, we probably would have ended the thing.
So willing to accept conjecture as dogma when it fits your preconceived notions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
rue
Yeah, you're naive beyond all comprehension if you think the Taliban would have given OBL over to anyone, and second, as mentioned already, the US wasn't a treaty party to the ICC, so it's all moot.
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
LeadB and Fletch2
I think you're missing the logic.
I hope I'm not making this overly complicated - BUT - if Iraq had had even a few WMD all of the illogic leading up to the attack would have been swept under the rug. By way of comparison, even though that did happen with bin Laden, it doesn't mean he was the real reason to attack Afghanistan. And you can see that by examining facts and timetables.
Assuming the US had bona fide evidence bin Laden was behind 9/11, the US could have had him if it had agreed to turn him over to the ICC. The US refused.
The US attacked Afghanistan October 7, 2001, toppled the Taliban and installed Karzai as interim chairman December 22, 2001.
During that period bin Laden slipped away from Tora Bora. Not only did the US not send in the elite troops requested by the military on the ground to capture bin Laden, it failed to guard escape routes "Pir Baksh Bardiwal, the intelligence chief for the Eastern Shura, which controls eastern Afghanistan, says he was astounded that Pentagon planners didn't consider the most obvious exit routes and put down light US infantry to block them", and trusted their paid allies (warlords) to capture and contain him. Unfortunately the 'allies' were for sale to the highest bidder and bin Laden simply outbid the US. Could the Three Stooges have been any worse ?
Bush, having the Iraq agenda already in play and anxious steer attention from bin Laden to Iraq came up with the statement "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned." -President Bush, March 13, 2002
At that point I think you can clearly see neither 9/11 justice nor bin Laden were, and never had been, major concerns of the administration.
On December 28, 2002 the Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan inked a pipeline agreement.
And on March 20, 2003 the US attacked Iraq.
***************************************************************
"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 BigDamnNobody:Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
From www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10639901/
... The Afghans were less than reliable and this is why I was calling for ground forces. And I called for, you know, 600-to-800 rangers to be inserted in there, and had 600-to-800 rangers been inserted, we probably would have ended the thing.
So willing to accept conjecture as dogma when it fits your preconceived notions. Well, since it's an EXPERT conjecture of a MILITARY person who was THERE - yeah, I think I'd take it over yours -
And you have ... what ? Bush's word on it that his intentions were honorable ? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA - what a tool.
***************************************************************
Ya should'a used protection.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rap, it doesn't matter if the US was or is treaty to the ICC or not - the ICC still had jurisdiction over Usama bin Laden.
And if the Taliban had failed to turn bin Laden over, the US and its allies (it really did have them back then) still did have the invasion option.
But look what happened afterward - Bush dropped the bin Laden issue like a hot potato as soon as it became inconvenient. Do you think Bush was REALLY after bin Laden ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
'hero'
"Likely they could have surrendered bin Ladden to the ICC and met the spirit if not the letter of our demand." The Taliban offered to do so.
"the United States of America is not a party to the ICC's treaty and are thus not bound by its jurisdiction" The ICC was set up for just such an occasion (non-members protecting accused war criminals). It did have jurisdiction over bin Laden.
See above
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So what you are saying is not that a commander on the ground decided not to risk 700 of his men to a hunch from a CIA operative, or that political considerations in Washington meant that the US played it's usual game of letting allies (in this case the Northern Alliance) take the heavy casualties at Tora Bora but that the administration fearing that capturing Bin Laden would mean "game over" in the war on terror let him go?
I see what you are saying. Getting Bin Laden in 2001 means no Iraq in 2003 but this is getting very heavily into "pirate" territory.
Reality is that in almost every war there are miscalculations. There are times when you think you have good intel and you're wrong, there are times when you decide intel is bad and you find out later you would have been right. Remember that the guy you are quoting doesn't KNOW that he is right about OBL, he in his own mind is sure but he could have gone to where he thought Bin Laden was and not found him.
I'm pretty sure Bush thought he would find WMD in Iraq, because going in and finding nothing seriously destroys his credibility going forward... something he wouldnt chose to do. Likewise just like Bush this guy believed he knew where Bin Laden was. Had he made a similar mistake, had he gone in taken heavy US casualties and OBL not been there, right now you'd be telling us what an idiot he was because YOU knew OBL wasn't there all along.... yes 20/20 hindsight is a beautifull thing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I guess Hell must be freezing over, because I find I must agree with Rue on the Osama issue.
It was a gross derelection of duty by Bush not to use every means available to capture Bin Laden. The entire Afghanistan "effort" was a pathetic response and poorly executed. Why the hell did Bush wait 30 days? I would have lobbed some offshore shells into Kabul on Day 2 after the ultimatum to the Taliban. The invasion force should have been much, much, larger...we should NEVER have paid off mercenaries to do the job for us, and as Rue pointed out...the miltary blunder of allowing him free access to escape is in itself unforgivable. I believe it all again goes back to idiot Rumsfeld....he was wrong on every single action we took there and Iraq as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I'm not making convoluted conspiracy claims, just asking for a healthy dose of reality checking. The claim is that bin Laden was not the focus of the attack on Afghanistan. And that's why I asked you to look at the data and logic both before and after Afghanistan, which, if I may add, is the same type of data (observations of the US) and logic that predicted no WMD. And to not limit yourself to a singular focus on Tora Bora but to look at the ENTIRE set of data I posted.
All commercial flights were grounded September 11- 14, 2001. On September 14, 2001 bin Laden family members started evacuating from the US. It's not until the next day that Bush announced Usama as the prime suspect:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010915-4.html
September 15, 2001
Q
Sir, are you satisfied that Osama bin Laden is at least a kingpin of this operation?
Bush
There is no question he is what we would call a prime suspect. And if he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he will be sorely mistaken.
In the non-public response, within hours of 9/11 Bush asked for and received approval from Congress to use military force against countries, despite the overwhelming evidence that the attack was perpetrated by 'stateless' terrorists. And as we know from already released memos, within hours Bush was already intent on tying Hussein in with 9/11 as an excuse to attack. As further evidence of his intent to attack countries of choice, during the time between 9/11 and the attack on Afghanistan, Bush continually escalated his rhetoric from 'bin Laden dead of alive' to "whoever is responsible', to the Taliban, to Afghanistan to any country that supports terrorists, to 'you're either with us or you're with the terrorists'. By the end of the rhetorical escalation, bin Laden was already a footnote.
Bush had the opportunity to have Usama turned over to the ICC and refused. He had the opportunity to capture Usama and blew it so badly it looked like a clownish pratfall. I can't imagine any way in which it could have been worse. And as the pipeline negotiations were winding to a close and he was turning US opinion to Iraq, Bush was only too happy to dismiss bin Laden from any consideration at all.
Usama bin Laden who ??? Whatever.
And finally, after months of searching for and failing to find the 'proof' he had already said he had in September 2001, it became a dead-end topic.
Justice for the tragedy of 9/11 was never a goal. Afghanistan was an adventitious tidbit demanded by the logic of the situation and dropped as soon as humanly possible. Bin Laden was never truly on the radar.
***************************************************************
"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, it doesn't matter if the US was or is treaty to the ICC or not - the ICC still had jurisdiction over Usama bin Laden.
Afghanistan did not ratify the ICC treaty until Feb 10, 2003. The ICC had no jurisdiction since the plot was planned and executed by persons who were not in ICC countries. The ICC has no jurisdiction in the United States.
He could theoretically be turned over to the ICC now (if he's captured by someone other the the US), but he would still be subject to extradition to the US from whichever country he is held in or captured by. I doubt the ICC would even contest the issue.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Usama would have been and is now under the jurisdiction of the ICC:
"Like the United Nations or the World Trade Organization, the ICC is trans-national not supra-national. This means it is a voluntary association of countries -- no nation is forced to participate.
The ICC, however, can prosecute individuals regardless of their nationality. Even if Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia failed to ratify the ICC treaty, someone like Osama bin Laden could still be prosecuted by the ICC if no other legal authority (including the American courts) stepped forward to take care of it."
"Hero" - would you PLEASE go get a law degree instead of just pretending to have one.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, to bring the topic back on track:
The terrorist actions of 9/11 were under ICC jurisdiction, and the ICC was ready and able to accept custody of terrorists, just like it had taken custody of Milošević a few months earlier.
Claiming it had 'proof' the Bush administration quickly identified bin Laden as the primary target but then deliberately escalated its response to 9/11 from bin Laden and al Qaeda to any country anywhere in the world, leaving bin Laden as a footnote.
The Bush administration had the opportunity to agree to have Usama bin Laden turned over to the ICC by the Taliban, but refused - opting to invade instead.
Through simultaneous egregious blunders, the Bush administration was not able to take bin Laden into custody, or later to find proof that indeed bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.
After appointing Karzai and setting-up US pipeline negotiations, Bush dismissed any concern for bin Laden.
Shortly afterwards, the Bush administration turned it's attention and resources to Iraq and Hussein.
Six years later, Usama is free and Al Qaeda has built up to pre-9/11 capability in key areas.
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
The Bush administration was focused neither on bin Laden nor justice. Instead, bin Laden and the Taliban were excuses to go into Afghanistan, excuses maintained only as long as dictated by circumstance. Afghanistan itself was an adventitious tidbit, but not the real focus of the Bush administration.
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Any questions ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Like the United Nations or the World Trade Organization, the ICC is trans-national not supra-national. This means it is a voluntary association of countries -- no nation is forced to participate.
The ICC, however, can prosecute individuals regardless of their nationality. Even if Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia failed to ratify the ICC treaty, someone like Osama bin Laden could still be prosecuted by the ICC if no other legal authority (including the American courts) stepped forward to take care of it."
The ICC does not have jurisdiction over the September 11 attacks because those attacks predated the court's existence, they in a non-ICC country, by persons who were legal residents of non-ICC countries.
It could prosecute him for other crimes he has committed or for any crime a member nation chooses to cede jurisdiction over.
An American citizen is not subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC. Thats why American soldiers cannot be tried in international courts. American citizens can be tried in foriegn courts if they fall under the laws of the countries they are in. Often that is determined by the particular countries reciprocale agreements and other international treaties (for example, the The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Any questions?
The terrorist actions of 9/11 were under ICC jurisdiction, and the ICC was ready and able to accept custody of terrorists, just like it had taken custody of Milošević a few months earlier.
How could the ICC have jurisdiction for crimes committed against non-member nations by persons residing in non-member countries?
How could Milosevic be tried by the Internation Criminal Court when he was busy being tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, a seperate entity?
Quote:
The Bush administration had the opportunity to agree to have Usama bin Laden turned over to the ICC by the Taliban, but refused - opting to invade instead.
When did our friendly neighborhood Taliban make this offer?
Why should the US accept an International Court for crimes committed on American soil?
Why should the criminals be allowed to dictate when and where they will allow criminal trials to proceed?
Why should the Taliban have not been accountable for the destruction wrought by Al Queda?
Quote:
The Bush administration was focused neither on bin Laden nor justice. Instead, bin Laden and the Taliban were excuses to go into Afghanistan, excuses maintained only as long as dictated by circumstance.
Do you consider the Bombing of Pearl Harbor to be Roosevelt's "excuse" for going into Japan?
Do you understand the difference between "excuse" and "reason"?
Its late, I'm going to use my hunger as an "excuse" to go get some dinner but I intend to be at the resturant only as long as dictated by cicrcumstance.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All these answers and more are located above. I take my comment back - you don't need a law degree, you need to learn to read.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, it does matter. Greatly.
Originally posted by rue:
Rap, it doesn't matter if the US was or is treaty to the ICC or not - the ICC still had jurisdiction over Usama bin Laden.
Quote:No need to play the game of 'Red Rover , Red Rover, send OBL over....The time to act was our right and our priority.
And if the Taliban had failed to turn bin Laden over, the US and its allies (it really did have them back then) still did have the invasion option.
Quote:
But look what happened afterward - Bush dropped the bin Laden issue like a hot potato as soon as it became inconvenient. Do you think Bush was REALLY after bin Laden ?
That Bush dropped him like a hot potato is a crock. There's every indication that Bush was and still is after OBL. All you've got it Monday morning qb-ing, which is the easiest thing in the world by far. Shoulda, woulda, coulda....
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:I honestly do not think that Bush 'wanted' OBL to slip away. I am of the opinion in the case of them not dropping the 600 or so rangers in the above item a judgment call.
Originally posted by rue:
LeadB [...]
I think you're missing the logic.
Now is it possible that in Bush's heart of hearts, he pulled the entire Afghan invasion to get an oil pipe line deal? Maybe... seems a bit weak to me, but I can't rule it out.
Personally, 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. Personally, I wish he had called their bluff, but I don't think they would have followed through.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
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."
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.
"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.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
rue wrote: 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."
That's a mere 6 months later.
Bush was simply not that interested in bin Laden or justice for 9/11
I explained in the best way I know WHY it was that Bush said what he said. You've chosen to dismiss it completely out of hand and write in your own version of the facts. Shocker there, huh?
OBL is wanted dead or alive. Period, end of discussion. When Bush later says " I'm not that concerned" , he's only attempting to put out the view that OBL's continued freedom is of some great bane to Bush's very existence. Granted, it's a tricky situation, and one Bush could have dealt better with, but he's not going to give those supporting OBL the pleasure of having Bush publically squirm at the notion that OBL is still out and about.
It's a pointless Catch 22 until OBL is dead or captured.
Rue - you're making far too big deal about this.
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
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.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You have to kind of weigh the realities here. I’m pretty sure Bush doesn’t want Bin Laden alive. No one’s ever wanted him alive, but Bush would love to have him dead for sure. But how do you do it? Invade Pakistan? Now you’ve opened up another Iraq at the expense of a US alley. For what? Just to kill a single man? A man who may or may not be in Pakistan go kill. The fact that people like rue are so quick to damn Bush for this is clear evidence that they’re blinded by ideological hatred of Bush to the realities involved. It’s the classic damned if you do-damned if you don’t. If Bush pursued bin Laden as aggressively as Rue is criticizing Bush for not doing, then Rue would be criticizing Bush for his aggressive pursuit of Bin Laden.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
OBL is wanted dead or alive. Period, end of discussion. When Bush later says " I'm not that concerned" , he's only attempting to put out the view that OBL's continued freedom is of some great bane to Bush's very existence. Granted, it's a tricky situation, and one Bush could have delt better with, but he's not going to give those supporting OBL the pleasure of having Bush publically squirm at the notion that OBL is still out and about.
It's a pointless Catch 22 until OBL is dead or captured.
Rue - you're making far too big deal about this.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | 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.
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