I am confused

[skins]

Didnt this guy give like a dozen political speeches last week quoting Bin Ladin and saying how dangerous he was?

[tonorator]

this is insane. there should be a tally on the front page of every U.S. newspaper boldly showing the number of days that bin laden has been free since 9/11. every day it should be upped by one and every day bush should be repeatedly asked why this man has not been brought to justice.

 

[spain]

I saw a show on History Channel or A&E the other day. Our intelligence told us that bin laden was in a hunting camp. It was confirmed 100% and we were ready to completely obliterate the building he was in. But there was a plane with the symbol of the United Arab Emirants on the side. Bill Clinton didnt want to offend anyone by killing a high ranking member of the United Arab Emirants, so he called off the operation in the name of political correctness. We could have had him killed before 911 but after we knew he was responsible for numerous terrorist acts including the destruction of 2 American embassies in Africa. But comrade clinton, ever the p.c. democrat let him go because he was afraid to offend someone. This is the true essence of modern day liberals: Dont do the right thing if it has the chance to offend somebody. This was a few years after Clinton turned down Sudans offer to turn him over to us. So, our best chances to get this dude were under your favorite commie president, but he didnt want to hurt anyones feelings. As a result, 3000 people were killed on 911....

[skins]

I saw a show on History Channel or A&E the other day. Our intelligence told us that bin laden was in a hunting camp. It was confirmed 100% and we were ready to completely obliterate the building he was in. But there was a plane with the symbol of the United Arab Emirants on the side. Bill Clinton didnt want to offend anyone by killing a high ranking member of the United Arab Emirants, so he called off the operation in the name of political correctness. We could have had him killed before 911 but after we knew he was responsible for numerous terrorist acts including the destruction of 2 American embassies in Africa. But comrade clinton, ever the p.c. democrat let him go because he was afraid to offend someone. This is the true essence of modern day liberals: Dont do the right thing if it has the chance to offend somebody. This was a few years after Clinton turned down Sudans offer to turn him over to us. So, our best chances to get this dude were under your favorite commie president, but he didnt want to hurt anyones feelings. As a result, 3000 people were killed on 911....

 

 

What a bunch of crap. Richard Clarke and the CIA officers involved testified to Congress that there was a UAE prince and other government officials staying in the same hunting lodge who would have been killed so they nixed it because of collateral damage to our allies. Funny thing is, the UAE at the time denied their prince and government officials were there but it was confirmed by us.

 

Side note, the UAE was hanging with Bin Laden in 1998 and Bush recently was going to give their government control over our ports (the Dubai port deal)?

 

Spain, let me get this straight: you love Bush and his cut and run strategy in Afghanistan and his neverending war of attrition in Iraq, and yer response to Bush ignoring Bin Laden now and for the last five years is.....

 

Clinton didnt blow up our allies to get him in 1998?

 

Yer doing a heckuva job.

[I Like Soup]

this is insane. there should be a tally on the front page of every U.S. newspaper boldly showing the number of days that bin laden has been free since 9/11. every day it should be upped by one and every day bush should be repeatedly asked why this man has not been brought to justice.

 

 

Good info here.

 

Bush should be ashamed that he has taken the stance he has on the capture/killing of bin Forgotten. What a disgrace.

[TheGrunt]

this is insane. there should be a tally on the front page of every U.S. newspaper boldly showing the number of days that bin laden has been free since 9/11. every day it should be upped by one and every day bush should be repeatedly asked why this man has not been brought to justice.

 

 

That's the most stupid idea I've heard in a long time. Why let the media take advantage of, and exploit from our President's faults in not finding Bin Laden? You want the world to hate us don't you? Because every time the Liberal Media regurgitates these stories to the public (a public who already knows), all they are doing is grabbing more international attention and making the U.S. look less and less capable of fighting the war on terror. They are actually pleasing the terrorists by printing stories about our failures in this war; failures that are already known by everyone.

 

Many people probably won't admit this, but it appears to me like a lot of Liberals love to view the pessimistic side of everything. All I hear is complaining, more complaining, and then you top it off with some insults. Then what? What have you solved prior to complaining and insulting? Many Republicans seem to have this very optimistic view point, and from what I can tell, they love to see the better side of things. The positives.

 

It's pretty obvious that no matter what happened in the war on terror, there will always be mistakes, and always be issues that were not solved; however, stop focusing all of your energy on the negatives and start focusing on the positives! It's starting to get annoying at this point. Like a pest that simply won't go away, that continues to point out every negative detail of every action taken. Try looking at the other side of what's going on. Try looking at what POSITIVE things have come out of our nations actions taken against the war on terror. We can start with the fact that there has not yet been a successful attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

 

That's a BIG deal. That's AWESOME new's that should be sent out on the front page of every newspaper in bold letters! We are fighting the war on terror and winning! As Americans, we should stand together in this time of war and be proud of what has been accomplished, but look forward to a new and better plan that hopefully the next-coming President will offer out great nation.

 

But for the love of everything that is good in this world, stop focusing on the negatives.

 

[spain]

Spain, let me get this straight: you love Bush and his cut and run strategy in Afghanistan and his neverending war of attrition in Iraq, and yer response to Bush ignoring Bin Laden now and for the last five years is.....

 

Clinton didnt blow up our allies to get him in 1998?

 

Yer doing a heckuva job.

 

Clinton was a weak, cowardly, ineffectual President who was only concerned with making sure he ingratiated himself to the UN and others who hated us. Are you saying that he should have killed bin laden or not? I am saying that he was a typical p.c. Democrat that didnt want to offend people who were hanging out with a known terrorist and murderer. That was the last best chance to kill him, but Clinton was too weak and afraid to offend that he let him go. And because of his weakness, 3000 people died on 911. That is a fact...

[spain]

But for the love of everything that is good in this world, stop focusing on the negatives.

 

 

You are essentially asking liberals not to be liberal. Negativity is their inherent nature. The can only criticize and tear down the USA. They never build up the USA. Ever. And never will...

[bushwacked]

Because every time the Liberal Media regurgitates these stories to the public (a public who already knows), all they are doing is grabbing more international attention and making the U.S. look less and less capable of fighting the war on terror.

 

 

 

Why do modern day republitards champion incompetence and fear personal responsibility. Republitards blaming the liberal media has become as tired as liberals playing the race card.

[Bier Meister]

how easily you forget grunt. :shakeshead: i've never such scrutiny than the rush inspired digs during clinton's 8. bottom line- i do not see anything to be proud of from this president (still bothers me that he duped the US twice).... said it at the time-> we would have been better off with sr in there. dub-ya may go down in history as one of our worst presidents.

[tonorator]

That's the most stupid idea I've heard in a long time. Why let the media take advantage of, and exploit from our President's faults in not finding Bin Laden? You want the world to hate us don't you? Because every time the Liberal Media regurgitates these stories to the public (a public who already knows), all they are doing is grabbing more international attention and making the U.S. look less and less capable of fighting the war on terror. They are actually pleasing the terrorists by printing stories about our failures in this war; failures that are already known by everyone.

 

hey grunt, we're not talking about some day-to-day battle loss or a minor screw-up here ... we are talking about bringing in the leader of the organization that is directly responsible for the attacks on 9/11. you're damn right i want to use the media to highlight this situation because apparently, the mass of people don't seem to be getting through to bush that we are livid that this guy is still on the loose, and he doesn't seem to care.

 

and i'm not even a liberal, i'm a registered republican.

[Brewer]

Clinton was a weak, cowardly, ineffectual President who was only concerned with making sure he ingratiated himself to the UN and others who hated us. Are you saying that he should have killed bin laden or not? I am saying that he was a typical p.c. Democrat that didnt want to offend people who were hanging out with a known terrorist and murderer. That was the last best chance to kill him, but Clinton was too weak and afraid to offend that he let him go. And because of his weakness, 3000 people died on 911. That is a fact...

 

 

Spain, you must still be feeling the effects of Vegas, 'cause your bait here is especially weak. Your excuse for Bush not going after bin hidden is that "Bill had a chance, but he was too p.c. and didn't do it because he didn't want to kill UAE dimplomats, so Bush can't finish the job now. "

 

Or is it that Bin hidden was worth killing along with diplomats in 1998, but is not worth the time or energy to hunt down in 2006?

 

either way, it's obvious that you are still thinking about that 7 footer with the large adams apple.

[TheGrunt]

Why do modern day republitards champion incompetence and fear personal responsibility. Republitards blaming the liberal media has become as tired as liberals playing the race card.

 

Typical

 

hey grunt, we're not talking about some day-to-day battle loss or a minor screw-up here ... we are talking about bringing in the leader of the organization that is directly responsible for the attacks on 9/11. you're damn right i want to use the media to highlight this situation because apparently, the mass of people don't seem to be getting through to bush that we are livid that this guy is still on the loose, and he doesn't seem to care.

 

and i'm not even a liberal, i'm a registered republican.

 

You're right. By nature, the fact that Bin Laden is still on the loose is a major screw up that our current President has failed to take action against. He's failed to make a considerable movement towards actually capturing this guy. Bin Laden is the one who actually planned the attack on 9/11 in the first place, not Saddam. In fact, we probably should have massed troops in Afghanistan to search for him instead of going into Iraq.

 

But the problem is that the liberal media loves to use this to their advantage in an attempt to claim that Democrats would have, or will do it better. And maybe they will if -- and that's a big if -- they win the next election. But maybe the next Republican President will also have a better plan for the war on terror -- whoever wins the next election, it WILL NOT be President Bush. Blaming the Republican party as a whole doesn't solve the primary issue though, which is what the far left liberal media will do, and has done.

 

I hope, and believe that someday we will capture Bin Laden. I really do. And hopefully the next President will pay more attention to what the nation's citizens have been calling out for. It's painfully obvious that President Bush's "Strategery" plan doesn't quite match what most Republicans AND Liberals had in mind. I almost consider him his own party of one. However, and in the mean time, I see Bin Laden hiding in some hole (just as Saddam was doing before his capture), and he's probably hurting, sick, tired, and obviously leading a horrible life of misery. But for our sake, we want his misery to be taking place in a U.S. prison awaiting execution by a firing squad. That will be a beautiful day.

[Brewer]

Typical

You're right. By nature, the fact that Bin Laden is still on the loose is a major screw up that our current President has failed to take action against. He's failed to make a considerable movement towards actually capturing this guy. Bin Laden is the one who actually planned the attack on 9/11 in the first place, not Saddam. In fact, we probably should have massed troops in Afghanistan to search for him instead of going into Iraq.

 

But the problem is that the liberal media loves to use this to their advantage in an attempt to claim that Democrats would have, or will do it better. And maybe they will if -- and that's a big if -- they win the next election. But maybe the next Republican President will also have a better plan for the war on terror -- whoever wins the next election, it WILL NOT be President Bush. Blaming the Republican party as a whole doesn't solve the primary issue though, which is what the far left liberal media will do, and has done.

 

I hope, and believe that someday we will capture Bin Laden. I really do. And hopefully the next President will pay more attention to what the nation's citizens have been calling out for. It's painfully obvious that President Bush's "Strategery" plan doesn't quite match what most Republicans AND Liberals had in mind. I almost consider him his own party of one. However, and in the mean time, I see Bin Laden hiding in some hole (just as Saddam was doing before his capture), and he's probably hurting, sick, tired, and obviously leading a horrible life of misery. But for our sake, we want his misery to be taking place in a U.S. prison awaiting execution by a firing squad. That will be a beautiful day.

 

 

Grunt,

the problem that I have with the republican party is they will not slap Bush straight when it comes to Iraq and the fight against terror. All that you hear from them is "people need to stop being critical of the President." If they aren't willing to kick his rearend in public, they should do it in some back room. I don't have a problem with libs or the media calling Bush out, because his own party isn't. If republicans are serious about these issues, shouldn't they be trying to correct some of Bush's mistakes?

[bushwacked]

Typical

 

 

It's all too typical for the hardcores that seem totally unwilling to face the reality of the historical ineptutide of our current administration. Anything is easier, blame Clinton, blame the media, anything except actually accepting the slightest ounce of responsiblity and reality.

 

Many a Republican stopped following our incompetent leader to the cliff. They aren't typical. They think for themselves, they don't pull punches, they don't defend the indefensible becasue they can't logically justify it, and the stopped trying to put lipstick on this pig.

[skins]

That's the most stupid idea I've heard in a long time. Why let the media take advantage of, and exploit from our President's faults in not finding Bin Laden? You want the world to hate us don't you? Because every time the Liberal Media regurgitates these stories to the public (a public who already knows), all they are doing is grabbing more international attention and making the U.S. look less and less capable of fighting the war on terror. They are actually pleasing the terrorists by printing stories about our failures in this war; failures that are already known by everyone.

 

Many people probably won't admit this, but it appears to me like a lot of Liberals love to view the pessimistic side of everything. All I hear is complaining, more complaining, and then you top it off with some insults. Then what? What have you solved prior to complaining and insulting? Many Republicans seem to have this very optimistic view point, and from what I can tell, they love to see the better side of things. The positives.

 

It's pretty obvious that no matter what happened in the war on terror, there will always be mistakes, and always be issues that were not solved; however, stop focusing all of your energy on the negatives and start focusing on the positives! It's starting to get annoying at this point. Like a pest that simply won't go away, that continues to point out every negative detail of every action taken. Try looking at the other side of what's going on. Try looking at what POSITIVE things have come out of our nations actions taken against the war on terror. We can start with the fact that there has not yet been a successful attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

 

That's a BIG deal. That's AWESOME new's that should be sent out on the front page of every newspaper in bold letters! We are fighting the war on terror and winning! As Americans, we should stand together in this time of war and be proud of what has been accomplished, but look forward to a new and better plan that hopefully the next-coming President will offer out great nation.

 

But for the love of everything that is good in this world, stop focusing on the negatives.

 

 

 

Grunt, all you said here was that it is more important to create an appearance of competence in the so-called War on Terror than actually win it.

 

Good to see you have yer priorities straight.

 

Instead of whining about the media boogey man, why dont you explain how we can do this better. I will start by suggesting we focus on capturing Bin Laden. That is something the Republicans dont appear to want to do. And the reason every Republican is at fault is because the Republican Party has been running the entire US federal government for more than five years. Everything done incorrectly during that time is their fault. Period. Of course, you dont want to hear that because you place party loyalty over competence and success.

Edited September 15, 2006 by skins

[skins]

Typical

You're right. By nature, the fact that Bin Laden is still on the loose is a major screw up that our current President has failed to take action against. He's failed to make a considerable movement towards actually capturing this guy. Bin Laden is the one who actually planned the attack on 9/11 in the first place, not Saddam. In fact, we probably should have massed troops in Afghanistan to search for him instead of going into Iraq.

 

But the problem is that the liberal media loves to use this to their advantage in an attempt to claim that Democrats would have, or will do it better. And maybe they will if -- and that's a big if -- they win the next election. But maybe the next Republican President will also have a better plan for the war on terror -- whoever wins the next election, it WILL NOT be President Bush. Blaming the Republican party as a whole doesn't solve the primary issue though, which is what the far left liberal media will do, and has done.

 

I hope, and believe that someday we will capture Bin Laden. I really do. And hopefully the next President will pay more attention to what the nation's citizens have been calling out for. It's painfully obvious that President Bush's "Strategery" plan doesn't quite match what most Republicans AND Liberals had in mind. I almost consider him his own party of one. However, and in the mean time, I see Bin Laden hiding in some hole (just as Saddam was doing before his capture), and he's probably hurting, sick, tired, and obviously leading a horrible life of misery. But for our sake, we want his misery to be taking place in a U.S. prison awaiting execution by a firing squad. That will be a beautiful day.

 

 

Bush one week ago:

 

He said the world had ignored the writings of Lenin and Hitler "and paid a terrible price" - adding the world must not to do the same with al-Qaeda.

 

Mr Bush has been defending his security strategy as mid-term elections loom.

 

His speech on Tuesday - the day following the US Labor Day holiday - coincided with the country's traditional start date for election campaigning.

 

"Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them," he said.

 

Bush a couple days ago:

 

Barnes said that Bush told him capturing bin Laden is a not a top priority use of American resources.

Edited September 15, 2006 by skins

[wiegie]

However, and in the mean time, I see Bin Laden hiding in some hole (just as Saddam was doing before his capture), and he's probably hurting, sick, tired, and obviously leading a horrible life of misery.

Osama does not view living in some hole as being in misery. He views living such an austere lifestyle as Allah's will. Along with planning the killing of Americans. He is happy right now.

[thecerwin]

skins, I got a question for you (okay, more than one...). Is the threat that Bin Laden poses to America as big as he is made out to be? Or is Bin Laden now used more as a symbol of the war on terrorism?

 

I understand that he had a lot of money and resources to use against us at one point in time, but does he still possess the ability and resources? Since 9/11 I can only assume we have poured billions on building an anti-terror infrastructure with an emphasis on bringing Bin Laden to justice. Obviously we don't have Bin Laden, but should we also assume that the progress we have made in the war has not undermined his ability to attack us? Is he still the undisputed #1 threat to us?

 

I would love it if we caught Bin Laden alive and put him in one of our hidden prisons that we don't like to talk about. I just question whether the threat he poses is worth the resources that could be spent on other, more able terror threats.

 

I dunno... What do you think?

 

[TheGrunt]

skins, I got a question for you (okay, more than one...). Is the threat that Bin Laden poses to America as big as he is made out to be? Or is Bin Laden now used more as a symbol of the war on terrorism?

 

I understand that he had a lot of money and resources to use against us at one point in time, but does he still possess the ability and resources? Since 9/11 I can only assume we have poured billions on building an anti-terror infrastructure with an emphasis on bringing Bin Laden to justice. Obviously we don't have Bin Laden, but should we also assume that the progress we have made in the war has not undermined his ability to attack us? Is he still the undisputed #1 threat to us?

 

I would love it if we caught Bin Laden alive and put him in one of our hidden prisons that we don't like to talk about. I just question whether the threat he poses is worth the resources that could be spent on other, more able terror threats.

 

I dunno... What do you think?

 

 

+1

 

He said it better than I could.

[TheGrunt]

Grunt, all you said here was that it is more important to create an appearance of competence in the so-called War on Terror than actually win it.

 

Good to see you have yer priorities straight.

 

Instead of whining about the media boogey man, why dont you explain how we can do this better. I will start by suggesting we focus on capturing Bin Laden. That is something the Republicans dont appear to want to do. And the reason every Republican is at fault is because the Republican Party has been running the entire US federal government for more than five years. Everything done incorrectly during that time is their fault. Period. Of course, you dont want to hear that because you place party loyalty over competence and success.

 

Where is the "party loyalty" here?

 

Like I mentioned earlier, President Bush has made mistakes that even the Republican party is beginning to question. His faults are not going unheard by all Republicans, as you suggest.

 

And no, my priorities are NOT about falsely claiming that we are winning the war on terrorism. We will win. We are winning. Everything won't happen in one night though.

[skins]

skins, I got a question for you (okay, more than one...). Is the threat that Bin Laden poses to America as big as he is made out to be? Or is Bin Laden now used more as a symbol of the war on terrorism?

 

I understand that he had a lot of money and resources to use against us at one point in time, but does he still possess the ability and resources? Since 9/11 I can only assume we have poured billions on building an anti-terror infrastructure with an emphasis on bringing Bin Laden to justice. Obviously we don't have Bin Laden, but should we also assume that the progress we have made in the war has not undermined his ability to attack us? Is he still the undisputed #1 threat to us?

 

I would love it if we caught Bin Laden alive and put him in one of our hidden prisons that we don't like to talk about. I just question whether the threat he poses is worth the resources that could be spent on other, more able terror threats.

 

I dunno... What do you think?

 

 

 

IMO, he is obviously less of an operational threat with Al Qaeda disbursed and less centralized and amorphous Al Qaeda lite loose affiliates springing up all over. But that is why he is a much much larger threat as an idea and a leader of a jihadist movement. He has beaten us since 9/11 after Cowboy Bush used all his bs "dead or alive" language and promptly pulled the Special Forces and interpreters out of Afghanistan and sent them to Iraq.

 

Bin Laden represents our failure and that is far more threatening than his ability to send "suiciders" to Manhattan. Because he inspires thousands of new terrorists who watch as we let him go free.

 

And I think you are missing the point in a big way. When people like me, who are critical of the strategic decisions of the Republican civilian leadership of the United States, say we need to get Bin Laden, we are saying a lot more than trying to catch one guy. What it means is that we focus on getting those who attacked us: Al Qaeda and the Taliban. And that is done by securing Afghanistan, shutting down the Taliban/Al Qaeda sympathizers along the Pakistan border (Pakistan just entered into a truce with the Paki Taliban who are hiding Bin Laden), and wiping out the people who actually attacked us.

 

So do I think Bin Laden is a very serious threat individually? Not as much as "Im so ronery" Kim Jong Ill. But the Bush admin has essentially made Bin Laden a hero to militant Islam and jihadists by doing exactly what he wanted. He predicted we would invade and occupy a Muslim country and said it was about oil, so instead of securing Afghanistan, we invade Iraq and occupy for what is looking like it will be decades.

 

Brilliant.

 

And we have abandoned Afghanistan and should be ashamed. They are predicting that the largest opium crop in world history is coming out of there now and that the Taliban/Al Qaeda will earn about one third of the revenue, or around $1 billion. That buys a lot of ammo and security. We arent rebuilding Afghanistan and have done nothing to eradicate the poppy crop. If the Iraqis can have freedom, why cant the Afghanis?

 

So, not a short answer, but if someone thinks we shouldnt concentrate on Bin Laden, I would kindly suggest they are incredibly naive and ill informed. Right now, that is Bush and the Republicans (Edited to add: and Grunt).

Edited September 15, 2006 by skins

[skins]

Where is the "party loyalty" here?

 

Like I mentioned earlier, President Bush has made mistakes that even the Republican party is beginning to question. His faults are not going unheard by all Republicans, as you suggest.

 

And no, my priorities are NOT about falsely claiming that we are winning the war on terrorism. We will win. We are winning. Everything won't happen in one night though.

 

 

I think it is commendable that those Republican Senators care more about our soldiers than party loyalty. They should be applauded. But Bush's failures and incompetence are those of the Republican Party and all Republicans.

 

What standards are you using to measure our "winning"? Please explain why "winning" the war on terror, and maybe you should define what the war on terror is while yer at it, so we know what yer talking about.

Edited September 15, 2006 by skins

[wiegie]

IMO, he is obviously less of an operational threat with Al Qaeda disbursed and less centralized and amorphous Al Qaeda lite loose affiliates springing up all over. But that is why he is a much much larger threat as an idea and a leader of a jihadist movement. He has beaten us since 9/11 after Cowboy Bush used all his bs "dead or alive" language and promptly pulled the Special Forces and interpreters out of Afghanistan and sent them to Iraq.

 

Bin Laden represents our failure and that is far more threatening than his ability to send "suiciders" to Manhattan. Because he inspires thousands of new terrorists who watch as we let him go free.

 

And I think you are missing the point in a big way. When people like me, who are critical of the strategic decisions of the Republican civilian leadership of the United States, say we need to get Bin Laden, we are saying a lot more than trying to catch one guy. What it means is that we focus on getting those who attacked us: Al Qaeda and the Taliban. And that is done by securing Afghanistan, shutting down the Taliban/Al Qaeda sympathizers along the Pakistan border (Pakistan just entered into a truce with the Paki Taliban who are hiding Bin Laden), and wiping out the people who actually attacked us.

 

So do I think Bin Laden is a very serious threat individually? Not as much as "Im so ronery" Kim Jong Ill. But the Bush admin has essentially made Bin Laden a hero to militant Islam and jihadists by doing exactly what he wanted. He predicted we would invade and occupy a Muslim country and said it was about oil, so instead of securing Afghanistan, we invade Iraq and occupy for what is looking like it will be decades.

 

Brilliant.

 

And we have abandoned Afghanistan and should be ashamed. They are predicting that the largest opium crop in world history is coming out of there now and that the Taliban/Al Qaeda will earn about one third of the revenue, or around $1 billion. That buys a lot of ammo and security. We arent rebuilding Afghanistan and have done nothing to eradicate the poppy crop. If the Iraqis can have freedom, why cant the Afghanis?

 

So, not a short answer, but if someone think we shouldnt concentrate on Bin Laden, I would kindly suggest they are incredibly naive and ill informed. Right now, that is Bush and the Republicans.

 

+1

 

(I think I probably could have said it better, but I'm too lazy to type it up.)

[skins]

(I think I probably could have said it better, but I'm too lazy to type it up.)

 

 

THAT IS A BALLD FAIECED LIEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!