We should all wonder why this was ever put on the back burner in the first place.
But all of a sudden it dawns on him that his legacy is #### and he brings us back to where we were immediately after 9/11.
Imagine a world where we catch bin Laden before the end of 2003, conclude a successful, multilateral nation-building mission in Afghanistan by 2008, and invest less than a quarter of what we squandered on the Iraq blunder on homeland security/law enforcement....
We won’t get him, unless we go into pakastan. Our chances get less everyday. They went down the toliet when we moved most of our assets to Iraq.
I’ve read countless posts from rightwingers on here dismissing the need to catch bin Laden, who they think is totally impotent because he is hiding in a cave. I’ve always thought that if our priorities were to catch him quickly after 9/11 that we would have sent a message to other would-be terrorists out there. But we lost focus and got bogged down in Iraq, where we remain today in the middle of ethnic and secterian conflict, watching from the sidelines as Iran and Russia grow in strength and Islamic extremism is as strong, if not stronger, than it was before 9/11.
The Britons might be able to do what bush failed to do. He has wasted years fighting for oil in Iraq while allowing the terrorist to build up their forces
in afghanistan and pakistan. We pay for the whole war while Iraq puts billions in the bank. Bin Laden was not important to Bush after he was re-elected
and he is only looking for something he can say he accomplished during his time in office.
Bush will be remember as the worst President in the history of our country.
You speak like right after 9/11, catching bin laden was forgotten about.. Nothing is further from the truth. I beleive one of the reasons he hasn’t been caught, he’s been in either Pakistan or Iran.
You speak like right after 9/11, catching bin laden was forgotten about.. Nothing is further from the truth. I beleive one of the reasons he hasn’t been caught, he’s been in either Pakistan or Iran.
Another reason is that in late 2002 and early 2003 many vital assets were moved out of Afganistan! And has been treated as “the Other War” since.
You speak like right after 9/11, catching bin laden was forgotten about.. Nothing is further from the truth. I beleive one of the reasons he hasn’t been caught, he’s been in either Pakistan or Iran.
It may not have been “forgotten about,” but it was put way down the priority scale in our runup to Iraq in 2003.
We actually did have him on the run in Torra Borra, but our priorities were rearranged for us when Saddam Hussein became public enemy number one, nevermind the fact that no Iraqi was on any of the planes flown into the WTC or Pentagon on 9/11, or, as a secular ruler, Saddam had just as much to fear from bin Laden as we did, or that a stable Iraq was the key to keeping Iran boxed in.
You speak like right after 9/11, catching bin laden was forgotten about.. Nothing is further from the truth. I beleive one of the reasons he hasn’t been caught, he’s been in either Pakistan or Iran.
It may not have been “forgotten about,” but it was put way down the priority scale in our runup to Iraq in 2003.
We actually did have him on the run in Torra Borra, but our priorities were rearranged for us when Saddam Hussein became public enemy number one, nevermind the fact that no Iraqi was on any of the planes flown into the WTC or Pentagon on 9/11, or, as a secular ruler, Saddam had just as much to fear from bin Laden as we did, or that a stable Iraq was the key to keeping Iran boxed in.
No Iraqi’s in the planes? True. There were no Afghani’s either. If we used that criteria, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia. I do beleive at the time, there was more to fear from a dictator of a country instigating world terror than one terrorist hiding out in the mountains. And at the time the entire world, and the American Senate and Congress agreed.
You speak like right after 9/11, catching bin laden was forgotten about.. Nothing is further from the truth. I beleive one of the reasons he hasn’t been caught, he’s been in either Pakistan or Iran.
It may not have been “forgotten about,” but it was put way down the priority scale in our runup to Iraq in 2003.
We actually did have him on the run in Torra Borra, but our priorities were rearranged for us when Saddam Hussein became public enemy number one, nevermind the fact that no Iraqi was on any of the planes flown into the WTC or Pentagon on 9/11, or, as a secular ruler, Saddam had just as much to fear from bin Laden as we did, or that a stable Iraq was the key to keeping Iran boxed in.
No Iraqi’s in the planes? True. There were no Afghani’s either. If we used that criteria, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia. I do beleive at the time, there was more to fear from a dictator of a country instigating world terror than one terrorist hiding out in the mountains. And at the time the entire world, and the American Senate and Congress agreed.
You are right about no Afghanis being part of 9/11, but bin Laden was a guest of the government of Afghanistan at the time, which explains why we went there.
There was no more to fear from Saddam Hussein in 2001 than there was in 1991, 1992, 1993...1999 or 2000. The “entire world” though we were rushing into a blunder-in-the-making, which is why, with the exception of Britain and a handful of members of the “coalition of the willing” (remember that idiotic term?), we went at this mission alone without world support.
You are right about no Afghanis being part of 9/11, but bin Laden was a guest of the government of Afghanistan at the time, which explains why we went there.
There was no more to fear from Saddam Hussein in 2001 than there was in 1991, 1992, 1993...1999 or 2000. The “entire world” though we were rushing into a blunder-in-the-making, which is why, with the exception of Britain and a handful of members of the “coalition of the willing” (remember that idiotic term?), we went at this mission alone without world support.
That’s right Leon! If you can get everyone to completely disregard the other 34 countries that sent troops into Iraq, Bush pushed us into Iraq totally ALONE!!!!
BUSH LIED!!! HATE BUSH!!!!
Whatever happened to Hillary’s and Kerry’s prediction that the manipulating W Bush was going to have bin Laden found just before the last Presidential election?
You are right about no Afghanis being part of 9/11, but bin Laden was a guest of the government of Afghanistan at the time, which explains why we went there.
There was no more to fear from Saddam Hussein in 2001 than there was in 1991, 1992, 1993...1999 or 2000. The “entire world” though we were rushing into a blunder-in-the-making, which is why, with the exception of Britain and a handful of members of the “coalition of the willing” (remember that idiotic term?), we went at this mission alone without world support.
That’s right Leon! If you can get everyone to completely disregard the other 34 countries that sent troops into Iraq, Bush pushed us into Iraq totally ALONE!!!!
BUSH LIED!!! HATE BUSH!!!!
Whatever happened to Hillary’s and Kerry’s prediction that the manipulating W Bush was going to have bin Laden found just before the last Presidential election?
dan, I do feel sorry for you sometimes. I know you have a tough job of being the resident rightwinger “secretary of Republican defense” on this board with all these pesky facts getting in the way of what you wish was reality.
Let’s examine the 34 number that you assert to be shouldering the burden in Iraq along with our troops and shouldering the taxpayer burden on the home front.
With Britain having well less than five thousand troops in theater, it appears currently that the United States is the only current member of the “coalition of the willing.” This, of course, excludes those numerous countries, such as the Solomon Islands, Eritrea, and Georgia, who do continue to provide “moral” support (big shout out to these brave countries).
Now if you included non sovereign entities, such as KBR and Halliburton, as part of the “coalition of the willing,” it may still be said that we have important “allies” contributing military and other personnel alongside our 150,000 current troop presence, but I don’t think even you would consider such multinationals as members of the “coalition of the willing.”
Your smugness while being wrong never ceases to amaze me lev.. It only is matched by your lack of historical knowledge. I’m glad you are so concerned about all the foreign point of view.. We were attacked.. I don’t give a damn what Eritrea or Georgia think. And it seems you’ve changed your mind on bin laden since bush made him a priority again.. Your “hate bush” syndrome is flaring up.
While we republicans concentrate on the upcoming election, and the new candidates, you’re stuck on Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your smugness while being wrong never ceases to amaze me lev.. It only is matched by your lack of historical knowledge. I’m glad you are so concerned about all the foreign point of view.. We were attacked.. I don’t give a damn what Eritrea or Georgia think. And it seems you’ve changed your mind on bin laden since bush made him a priority again.. Your “hate bush” syndrome is flaring up.
While we republicans concentrate on the upcoming election, and the new candidates, you’re stuck on Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What specifically do you believe was wrong with what was in my last post about the composition of the “coalition of the willing”?
How did you deduce that I was concerned with “the foreign point of view” from the contents of my last post about the composition of the “coalition of the willing”?
How have I changed my mind “on bin laden since bush made him a priority again”?
And you are also not very observant.. I slam the republicans almost as much as the dimo’s…
I no longer consider myself a republican first.. I’m a conservative.
And you are also not very observant.. I slam the republicans almost as much as the dimo’s…
I no longer consider myself a republican first.. I’m a conservative.
do you read what you type on here??
