Another general joins ranks opposing Rumsfeld

[D_House 0]

-80-

[paulinstl 296]

I agree with you as far as that goes, but who is to say we would have killed OBL by now? That is one of the roughest places to fight, let alone find one individual who has the support of many of the tribes/leaders there, as well as in neighboring Pakistan.

Ask Russia how easy it was to fight there.

Clinton had a chance to kill Osama, why is that not being brought up?

 

 

And I'll agree that the collateral damage Clinton was afraid of causing in trying to kill Bin Laden would have been worth it. He did try one time and missed him by about 6 minutes. He had good intel once on where he was but refused to pull the trigger because of the loss of civilian life, mostly kids. Probablyhsould have taken the shot.

 

As far as finding Bin Laden, we had some serious sympathy currency with the Arab world after 9-11. Pakistan was helping us, and for the most part, the world of Islam was holding their collective breath on how we were going to react. With the BILLIONS of dollars and 120,000 trppos at our disposal, we would have found him and killed him for sure.

[Snuff 10]

With the BILLIONS of dollars and 120,000 trppos at our disposal, we would have found him and killed him for sure.

 

 

And that would have been the end of terrorism, huh?

[paulinstl 296]

And that would have been the end of terrorism, huh?

 

 

It would have been a damn good start. I'm not aware of any attacks on the US other than AQ in a very long time. Are you?

 

 

As of right now AQ is still active, Bin Laden is still alive and we squandered any chance we had of exterminating them the minute we diverted our attention and went into Iraq.

[What is the deal? 1]

Care to show me examples of either of those groups attacking the United States?

 

You kill off AQ by cutting off it's head first. Bin Laden is still active for chrissakes. Do you really think if we had used our resources to track him down instead of getting into that clusterfock in Iraq, he'd still be alive?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

After emerging during the civil war of the early 1980s as an Iranian-sponsored second resistance movement (besides Amal) for Lebanon's Shia community, Hezbollah focused on expelling Israeli and Western forces from Lebanon. It is the principal suspect in several notable attacks on the American, French and Italian Multinational forces, whose "claimed" purpose was the stabilization of Lebanon: the suicide bombings of the U.S. Embassy, which killed 63 including 17 Americans, of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut (see 1983 Beirut barracks bombing), which killed 241 American servicemen, and of the French multinational force headquarters which killed 58 French troops. Seven months after the U.S. withdrew its forces from Lebanon a second attack upon the United States embassy annex in Beirut in September 1984 killed 20 people including two Americans.[14].

 

Hamas is a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood which is why I refer to them since if they support Hamas then the entire organization needs to be watched. If you don't think we should worry abotu these folks then you are grossly mistaken. They are more focused on removing Israel from the planet. They are largely supported by Iran.

 

So you think if Bin Laden goes down there will not be another Radical Nutbag that rises through the ranks? That none of the terrorist organizations sworn to Jihad will try to attack us again? So you are saying the only way we can fight them is if one of those groups hits us first and then retalliation needs to restricted to geographical location of where the organization comes from? Doesn't matter that they are known terrorism organizations that are sworn to cause terror to the Western Culture and eliminate Israel from the planet?

 

Do you understand the conflict that we are dealing with? This is not Osama Bin Laden personally responsible for everything, he is only one man, not this creepy God-like creature that you imagine of him. If Bill Gates had a stroke do you think Microsoft would tank?

[Snuff 10]

It would have been a damn good start. I'm not aware of any attacks on the US other than AQ in a very long time. Are you?

As of right now AQ is still active, Bin Laden is still alive and we squandered any chance we had of exterminating them the minute we diverted our attention and went into Iraq.

 

Sure, most of us want to see OBL dead, but it would be more symbolic than anything else. AQ would go on. Also, we almost had him a few years ago when Pakistani forces almost caught him at Tora Bora.

As far as no terrorist attacks on the US in quite a while, what do you attribute that to? Dare I even say it?

[paulinstl 296]

LMFAO!

 

You show me as an example an attack that took place over 20 years ago?

 

Are they why we went to war in Iraq?

 

Give it up fastfish, you're dying over here.

[What is the deal? 1]

Sure, most of us want to see OBL dead, but it would be more symbolic than anything else. AQ would go on. Also, we almost had him a few years ago when Pakistani forces almost caught him at Tora Bora.

As far as no terrorist attacks on the US in quite a while, what do you attribute that to? Dare I even say it?

It couldn't be that they are focused on fighting us in the Middle East could it?

[paulinstl 296]

It couldn't be that they are focused on fighting us in the Middle East could it?

 

 

We've been fighting Hamas and The Muslim Brotherhood in the Mideast for 20 years since their last attack on us? Serioulsy?

[What is the deal? 1]

LMFAO!

 

You show me as an example an attack that took place over 20 years ago?

 

Are they why we went to war in Iraq?

 

Give it up fastfish, you're dying over here.

Now there you go back to Iraq. I have already told you 100 times. The Iraq war was completely legal. They violated the UN Sanctions 17 times and didn't think anyone would do anything about it cause they had backdoor oil deals with France and Russia.

 

That is who we are fighting NOW in Iraq.

 

Are you saying that Hezbollah is no threat at all? That if you were in a room or say on a plane with 3 guys that claimed they were Hezbollah that you would not feel threatened?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

With the BILLIONS of dollars and 120,000 trppos at our disposal, we would have found him and killed him for sure.

 

Funny how you know this for sure but can't put 2 and 2 together on the Niger deal.

[paulinstl 296]

Now there you go back to Iraq. I have already told you 100 times. The Iraq war was completely legal. They violated the UN Sanctions 17 times and didn't think anyone would do anything about it cause they had backdoor oil deals with France and Russia.

 

That is who we are fighting NOW in Iraq.

 

Are you saying that Hezbollah is no threat at all? That if you were in a room or say on a plane with 3 guys that claimed they were Hezbollah that you would not feel threatened?

 

If they are a current threat, why no attacks in 20 years? C'mon bring some common sense to the table, at least. Jeebus!

 

[What is the deal? 1]

We've been fighting Hamas and The Muslim Brotherhood in the Mideast for 20 years since their last attack on us? Serioulsy?

I imagine to some extent, but not like you are implying. It's just recently since we have taken down Saddam that we are fighting them because they don't want to see Free Iraq succeed because it would assist capitalism and Western Culture in having an influence on their culture.

[Snuff 10]

Yeah, lets go kill Osama so this terrorism stuff doesn't happen anymore.

[paulinstl 296]

Funny how you know this for sure but can't put 2 and 2 together on the Niger deal.

 

Show me one item of proof. Show me one document or STFU! You have been served on this one.

[D_House 0]

Niger

Racist!!!!

[paulinstl 296]

Yeah, lets go kill Osama so this terrorism stuff doesn't happen anymore.

 

 

How many attacks have other groups done to us in the last 20 years? That's the only question.

[What is the deal? 1]

If they are a current threat, why no attacks in 20 years? C'mon bring some common sense to the table, at least. Jeebus!

 

There is always a time frame in between attacks whether it be 20 years or 10 minutes, regardless I don't want to see the next one.

 

It only takes them to have one strike and we lose. So you are saying Hamas and Hezbollah all of the people that fight in the name of Jihad are no threat to the US? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?

 

Show me one item of proof. Show me one document or STFU! You have been served on this one.

Show me a document or proof that we could have found Osama had we not gone in Iraq, like the two are even related.

[Jeff Garcia 8]

Four Retired Generals support Rumsfeld.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/17/rumsfeld/index.html

[Snuff 10]

How many attacks have other groups done to us in the last 20 years? That's the only question.

 

Not sure I understand where you're coming from. I was only talking about AQ with you.

And why is your question so important?

[paulinstl 296]

There is always a time frame in between attacks whether it be 20 years or 10 minutes, regardless I don't want to see the next one.

 

It only takes them to have one strike and we lose. So you are saying Hamas and Hezbollah all of the people that fight in the name of Jihad are no threat to the US? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?

Show me a document or proof that we could have found Osama had we not gone in Iraq, like the two are even related.

 

 

1. I don't either. I think that our chances of success against terror would have been to kill off AQ first and foremost since they were the group that was responsible for all of the terror acts against us in recent history.

 

2. Hamas and other groups are way more interested in attacking Isreal than they are of attacking us, 20 years of zero attacks is proof of that.

 

3. I never claimed the two are related. Two different discussions with RP, both of which he is getting his azz handed to him.

 

Not sure I understand where you're coming from. I was only talking about AQ with you.

And why is your question so important?

 

 

I was responding to your comment about killing of OBL would end terrorism. I thought that was directed to me.

[Korben Dallas 0]

I agree with you as far as that goes, but who is to say we would have killed OBL by now? That is one of the roughest places to fight, let alone find one individual who has the support of many of the tribes/leaders there, as well as in neighboring Pakistan.

Ask Russia how easy it was to fight there.

Clinton had a chance to kill Osama, why is that not being brought up?

 

 

Clinton? Why? Clinton did plenty to elevate Bin Laden's status as a threat.

 

Read the 9/11 Commission report.

 

Read the 9/11 Commission Report

 

 

The Sudan story lacks anything but an assertion from Sudan's Minister of Defense. Which defines suspect and we had nothing yet to indict him on.

 

In late 1995, when Bin Ladin was still in Sudan, the State Department and the CIA learned that Sudanese officials were discussing with the Saudi government the possibility of expelling Bin Ladin. U.S. Ambassador Timothy Carney encouraged the Sudanese to pursue this course. The Saudis, however, did not want Bin Ladin, giving as their reason their revocation of his citizenship.6

 

Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel Bin Ladin. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment out-standing.7

 

They were trying to capture him...

In sum, in late 1997 and the spring of 1998, the lead U.S. agencies each pursued their own efforts against Bin Ladin. The CIA's Counterterrorist Center was developing a plan to capture and remove him from Afghanistan. Parts of the Justice Department were moving toward indicting Bin Ladin, making possible a criminal trial in a New York court.

 

The plan sucked an Clinton never saw it...

Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as "half-assed" and predicted that the principals would not approve it. "Jeff " thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger's doing, though perhaps on Tenet's advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to "turn off" the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger's recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision

 

Clinton took a chance to hit Bin Laden, don't you remember that the GOP threw a temper tantrum, called him "Wagging the Dog", said that the attack was "too aggressive" (a classic now), etc....

Later on August 20, Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles. Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed.

 

And his decision was pretty hawkish..."uncalled" for if you were a whiny Republican.

 

Despite the availability of information that al Qaeda was a global network, in 1998 policymakers knew little about the organization. The reams of new information that the CIA's Bin Ladin unit had been developing since 1996 had not been pulled together and synthesized for the rest of the government. Indeed, analysts in the unit felt that they were viewed as alarmists even within the CIA. A National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism in 1997 had only briefly mentioned Bin Ladin, and no subsequent national estimate would authoritatively evaluate the terrorism danger until after 9/11. Policymakers knew there was a dangerous individual, Usama Bin Ladin, whom they had been trying to capture and bring to trial. Documents at the time referred to Bin Ladin "and his associates" or Bin Ladin and his "network." They did not emphasize the existence of a structured worldwide organization gearing up to train thousands of potential terrorists.

 

But Clinton wasn't afraid of the panzy GOP'ers, he wanted more attacks.

 

During the last week of August 1998, officials began considering possible follow-on strikes. According to Clarke, President Clinton was inclined to launch further strikes sooner rather than later. On August 27, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Walter Slocombe advised Secretary Cohen that the available targets were not promising.

 

Clinton signed a covert action by 98 that allowed anyone to kill Bin Laden with his blessing.

 

Policymakers in the Clinton administration, including the President and his national security advisor, told us that the President's intent regarding covert action against Bin Ladin was clear: he wanted him dead.

 

The most common "attack" on Clintons options came from the camp they choose not to hit, because half of the prince-dom of the UAE was there. That would have been bad.

 

Reporting from the CIA's assets provided a detailed description of the hunting camp, including its size, location, resources, and security, as well as of Bin Ladin's smaller, adjacent camp.152 Because this was not in an urban area, missiles launched against it would have less risk of causing collateral damage. On February 8, the military began to ready itself for a possible strike.153 The next day, national technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of Bin Ladin's quarters could not be pinned down so precisely.154 The CIA did its best to answer a host of questions about the larger camp and its residents and about Bin Ladin's daily schedule and routines to support military contingency planning. According to reporting from the tribals, Bin Ladin regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis; the tribals expected him to be at the hunting camp for such a visit at least until midmorning on February 11.155 Clarke wrote to Berger's deputy on February 10 that the military was then doing targeting work to hit the main camp with cruise missiles and should be in position to strike the following morning.156 Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert appears to have been briefed on the situation

 

or maybe this one. Which it appears the CIA nixed.

 

It was in Kandahar that perhaps the last, and most likely the best, opportunity arose for targeting Bin Ladin with cruise missiles before 9/11. In May 1999, CIA assets in Afghanistan reported on Bin Ladin's location in and around Kandahar over the course of five days and nights. The reporting was very detailed and came from several sources. If this intelligence was not "actionable," working-level officials said at the time and today, it was hard for them to imagine how any intelligence on Bin Ladin in Afghanistan would meet the standard. Communications were good, and the cruise missiles were ready. "This was in our strike zone," a senior military officer said. "It was a fat pitch, a home run." He expected the missiles to fly. When the decision came back that they should stand down, not shoot, the officer said, "we all just slumped." He told us he knew of no one at the Pentagon or the CIA who thought it was a bad gamble. Bin Ladin "should have been a dead man" that night, he said.173

 

Working-level CIA officials agreed. While there was a conflicting intelligence report about Bin Ladin's whereabouts, the experts discounted it. At the time, CIA working-level officials were told by their managers that the strikes were not ordered because the military doubted the intelligence and worried about collateral damage. Replying to a frustrated colleague in the field, the Bin Ladin unit chief wrote: "having a chance to get [bin Ladin] three times in 36 hours and foregoing the chance each time has made me a bit angry.... [T]he DCI finds himself alone at the table, with the other princip[als] basically saying 'we'll go along with your decision Mr. Director,' and implicitly saying that the Agency will hang alone if the attack doesn't get Bin Ladin."174 But the military officer quoted earlier recalled that the Pentagon had been willing to act. He told us that Clarke informed him and others that Tenet assessed the chance of the intelligence being accurate as 50-50. This officer believed that Tenet's assessment was the key to the decision.175

 

Tenet told us he does not remember any details about this episode, except that the intelligence came from a single uncorroborated source and that there was a risk of collateral damage. The story is further complicated by Tenet's absence from the critical principals meeting on this strike (he was apparently out of town); his deputy, John Gordon, was representing the CIA. Gordon recalled having presented the intelligence in a positive light, with appropriate caveats, but stating that this intelligence was about as good as it could get.176

 

Berger remembered only that in all such cases, the call had been Tenet's. Berger felt sure that Tenet was eager to get Bin Ladin. In his view, Tenet did his job responsibly. "George would call and say, 'We just don't have it,'" Berger said.

 

 

So you show me where CLINTON chose not to get Bin Laden. Seems to me he was gung-ho while the Republicans were dragging their feet and concerning themselves with blowjobs. Perhaps if their priorities would have been on national security and not power (just like now?)....

[Snuff 10]

1. I don't either. I think that our chances of success against terror would have been to kill off AQ first and foremost since they were the group that was responsible for all of the terror acts against us in recent history.

 

2. Hamas and other groups are way more interested in attacking Isreal than they are of attacking us, 20 years of zero attacks is proof of that.

 

3. I never claimed the two are related. Two different discussions with RP, both of which he is getting his azz handed to him.

I was responding to your comment about killing of OBL would end terrorism. I thought that was directed to me.

 

It was directed at you. I'm just stating that I do not think the killing of OBL would end terrorism, or even stem it a bit. Sure we should have followed through with it, or at best tried harder. No dispute there. It would have been a moral victory no doubt, but would it end terrorism? No focking way.

Plus who is to say what was said behind closed doors about going into Pakistan to try to get him. Pakistan is becoming a good ally, and who's to say what US troops on their soil would mean to them. Too much we don't know about, even today with this wonderful media we have.

[Toro 1]

Looking back on this situation and how it's unfolded, it looks like everyone has the right answer - NOW. 20/20 hindsight.

 

You mean Hitler killed all the jews? Oh, man. I was SOOOO against that guy.

[Korben Dallas 0]

Four Retired Generals support Rumsfeld.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/17/rumsfeld/index.html

 

 

and READ there article, its hilarious. It was written using the same talking points as the Delongs. Looks like Rummy's sending it out to as many random generals as he can find. These are Rumsfeld's "TV Generals", his words, not mine. They shill for Bush.

 

Looking back on this situation and how it's unfolded, it looks like everyone has the right answer - NOW. 20/20 hindsight.

 

You mean Hitler killed all the jews? Oh, man. I was SOOOO against that guy.

 

 

Definitely true Toro. On both sides. But the Joint Chiefs and most of the military said BEFORE HAND that the plan sucked, one was even fired or "resigned" for it. These guys are just coming forward and placing blame in the same place.

[footballpowers 0]

You can hear the birds chirping from the Bush lovers after that KD post.

 

 

Well done, KD. I have yet to see someone shut the Bush lovers up quite the way you did. They know they're wrong and have nothing to say...

[Toro 1]

Definitely true Toro. On both sides. But the Joint Chiefs and most of the military said BEFORE HAND that the plan sucked, one was even fired or "resigned" for it. These guys are just coming forward and placing blame in the same place.

 

Where that is true, the reason they are coming forward is because ultimately, Bush was proven wrong about WMD (and just about everything else). Although the plan "sucked", I guarantee you these guys would not have been doing this if there had been WMD.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Show me one item of proof. Show me one document or STFU! You have been served on this one.

 

I guess once France, Italy, GB, et al declassify their docs you will have what you want. All the intelligence agencies who have the docs stand behind the claim Iraq was seeking uranium.

 

But I guess you have better intel than them.

 

The only thing you are serving up is softballs, and ever one has been sent over the fence.

[footballpowers 0]

I guess once France, Italy, GB, et al declassify their docs you will have what you want. All the intelligence agencies who have the docs stand behind the claim Iraq was seeking uranium.

 

But I guess you have better intel than them.

 

The only thing you are serving up is softballs, and ever one has been sent over the fence.

 

 

 

 

You are even stupider than I could have imagined (I thought you might understand stupider). Let me guess, YOU have information on classified docs from other countries. Wow! you just got your a$$ handed to you and that was the most pathetic response I could imagine!

[DanXIII 8]

According to Bush administration officials, in 2001 Iraq was not a threat to the US.

 

Were they lying then, or were they lying right before the invasion? (I know they're lying now).

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

You are even stupider than I could have imagined (I thought you might understand stupider). Let me guess, YOU have information on classified docs from other countries. Wow! you just got your a$$ handed to you and that was the most pathetic response I could imagine!

 

No, I have read articles containing information leaked from the intel docs that clearly show Iraq was seeking Uranium from Niger because there is nothing else Niger has to offer, especially to the Head of Iraq's Nuclear program.

 

 

His visits were "official", meaning well documented and publicly known. WTF do you think he was looking to buy, spears?

[Toro 1]

Niger

 

Hey, I think they preferred to be called african-americans.

[footballpowers 0]

No, I have read articles containing information leaked from the intel docs that clearly show Iraq was seeking Uranium from Niger because there is nothing else Niger has to offer, especially to the Head of Iraq's Nuclear program.

His visits were "official", meaning well documented and publicly known. WTF do you think he was looking to buy, spears?

 

 

Even better. Now I bet you really did read these articles and they really were from a balanced/fair source as well. I bet, I just bet you no longer have links to these articles, now do you RP.

 

 

You make us fair and balanced peoples jobs too easy.

 

Hey, I think they preferred to be called african-americans.

 

He's a Bush lover, remember. Uneducateded and stuck in the past!

[DanXIII 8]

Even better. Now I bet you really did read these articles and they really were from a balanced/fair source as well. I bet, I just bet you no longer have links to these articles, now do you RP.

You make us fair and balanced peoples jobs too easy.

 

It's merely more proof that you can lead a horse to water, but whether it drinks or not it's still a focking stupid horse.

[What is the deal? 1]

In late 1995, when Bin Ladin was still in Sudan, the State Department and the CIA learned that Sudanese officials were discussing with the Saudi government the possibility of expelling Bin Ladin. U.S. Ambassador Timothy Carney encouraged the Sudanese to pursue this course. The Saudis, however, did not want Bin Ladin, giving as their reason their revocation of his citizenship.6

 

Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel Bin Ladin. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment out-standing.

 

The Sudenese offered Bin Laden to the US, but there was no evidence to prove it. Why would Fatih Erwa make this claim if it wasn't true? What benefit does he gain from lying about it? The commission just couldn't confirm the details. That does not mean it didn't happen. Clinton didn't think he had enough evidence to convict him of any charges.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I bet, I just bet you no longer have links to these articles, now do you RP.

 

Some are posted in another thread.

[footballpowers 0]

Some are posted in another thread.

 

 

You are a pethetic excuse for a wasted load of sperm. Thats all you got??? You got owned liked I have yet to see on this bored.

[DanXIII 8]

The Sudenese offered Bin Laden to the US, but there was no evidence to prove it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(hint...if there is no evidence to prove it, then we call that "hearsay")

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You are a pethetic excuse for a wasted load of sperm. Thats all you got??? You got owned liked I have yet to see on this bored.

 

You: Do ya got a link?

 

Me: Posted already, go read for yourself.

 

You: You are owned.

 

 

....and you call me pathetic.

 

What a tool.

[Giants Fan 85]

Well we can all agree on one thing. Life is precious. Thank God for Bush and his war against stem cell research.