PDA

View Full Version : American troops had bin Laden 'within our grasp'



Roger Perry
11-29-2009, 08:14 AM
November 29, 2009 - 7:09am
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/files/112909binladenap.jpg


By CALVIN WOODWARD



Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says.

The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man. Bin Laden's escape laid the foundation for today's reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says.

Staff members for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Democratic majority prepared the report at the request of the chairman, Sen. John Kerry, as President Barack Obama prepares to boost U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

The Massachusetts senator and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate has long argued the Bush administration missed a chance to get the al-Qaida leader and top deputies when they were holed up in the forbidding mountainous area of eastern Afghanistan only three months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

More pointedly, it seeks to affix a measure of blame for the state of the war today on military leaders under former president George W. Bush, specifically Donald H. Rumsfeld as defense secretary and his top military commander, Tommy Franks.

"Removing the al-Qaida leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat," the report says. "But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide. The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism."



http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/20399

Clay Rogers
11-29-2009, 08:21 AM
So what is this suppose to mean? You gonna believe something put together by a man that lied about his military service? Yea, you probably will. I am starting to think you need help.

Roger Perry
11-29-2009, 08:41 AM
So what is this suppose to mean? You gonna believe something put together by a man that lied about his military service? Yea, you probably will. I am starting to think you need help.

Exactly what did Kerry lie about?

Several members of SBVT served in the same unit as Kerry, but only one, Stephen Gardner, served on the same boat. A number of Kerry's later SBVT critics claimed to have been present on accompanying Swift Boats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Patrol_Craft), at some of the salient events of Kerry's enemy engagements in Vietnam.
Other SBVT members included two of Kerry's former commanding officers, Grant Hibbard and George Elliott. Hibbard and Elliott have alleged, respectively, that Kerry's first Purple Heart and Silver Star were undeserved. In addition, members of SBVT have questioned the merit of Kerry's other medals and his truthfulness in testimony about the war. None of these allegations were made until the 2004 presidential campaign.
Defenders of John Kerry's service record, including nearly all of his former crewmates, have stated that SBVT's accusations are false.

road kill
11-29-2009, 08:51 AM
He lied about being in Cambodia and he lied about seeing innocents murdered.

Ken Bora
11-29-2009, 09:08 AM
slick willie also had a chance, with a drone. but OBL was just a tall guy in a white sheet then......... had he pushed the button then....... oh well second guessing history is like saying you could have gotten into that girls pants at the prom.
you didnt and now she has her own double wide on the front lawn of her daddies farm.

BonMallari
11-29-2009, 09:12 AM
I wont take much credence to the report since its headed by Kerry who obviously has his own deep seated agenda to discredit a past administration. Did we make mistakes in Afghanistan/Pakistan in capturing bin Laden,absolutely..but you had a corrupt Pakistani govt on one side and a less than cooperative Afghani government on the other...what were we to do , carpet bomb the whole country side, of course not

This is another example of bureaucratic process of finding example to support a hypothesis and of couse you have a willing Senator with an axe to grind heading up the committee to "find the facts"...nothing but political grandstanding...i am just waiting to see how BHO uses this report to tie in another speech to the health plan

Its almost like the old Mutual of Omaha commercials on Wild Kingdom where somehow Marlin Perkins would always find a way to equate nature and M of O insurance in the same vein..

Clay Rogers
11-29-2009, 09:31 AM
Exactly what did Kerry lie about?

Several members of SBVT served in the same unit as Kerry, but only one, Stephen Gardner, served on the same boat. A number of Kerry's later SBVT critics claimed to have been present on accompanying Swift Boats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Patrol_Craft), at some of the salient events of Kerry's enemy engagements in Vietnam.
Other SBVT members included two of Kerry's former commanding officers, Grant Hibbard and George Elliott. Hibbard and Elliott have alleged, respectively, that Kerry's first Purple Heart and Silver Star were undeserved. In addition, members of SBVT have questioned the merit of Kerry's other medals and his truthfulness in testimony about the war. None of these allegations were made until the 2004 presidential campaign.
Defenders of John Kerry's service record, including nearly all of his former crewmates, have stated that SBVT's accusations are false.

What does your post prove? The same as the first, NOTHING! What your attempting to do is try to show how GWB messed up and didn't get the job done. What you should be doing is trying to figure out why Clinton didn't handle the problem when he had the chance(at least 4 chances if memory serves). And these things weren't called into question until he tried to run on the ticket of being some war hero.

Roger Perry
11-29-2009, 10:48 AM
What does your post prove? The same as the first, NOTHING! What your attempting to do is try to show how GWB messed up and didn't get the job done. What you should be doing is trying to figure out why Clinton didn't handle the problem when he had the chance(at least 4 chances if memory serves). And these things weren't called into question until he tried to run on the ticket of being some war hero.

Bush's lies and secrets are starting to come out. Wonder what we will be hearing about next.

Ken Bora
11-29-2009, 10:56 AM
Bush's lies and secrets are starting to come out. Wonder what we will be hearing about next.
Next………….
Next would be President Obama’s lies and secrets
After that would be the next Presidents lies and secrets.

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss:rolleyes:

Ken Bora
11-29-2009, 11:01 AM
Its almost like the old Mutual of Omaha commercials on Wild Kingdom where somehow Marlin Perkins would always find a way to equate nature and M of O insurance in the same vein..
And just like that great show from our youth Marlin (the politicians) is safely in the copter, while Jim Fowler is clinging to the grill of the Rover with a rope. Going 60mph through the underbrush being driven by the “Friendly” native peoples.

.

Clay Rogers
11-29-2009, 11:04 AM
Bush's lies and secrets are starting to come out. Wonder what we will be hearing about next.

Still no proof, just constant crap. Can you bring one fact to the table? Put the kool-aid down sir, and step away from the car.

K G
11-29-2009, 12:21 PM
Give it up, man...Roger still holds the Germans responsible for Pearl Harbor....:cool:

With apologies to Bluto regards, ;-)

kg

Terry Britton
11-29-2009, 12:29 PM
Bin Laden was killed, and the messenger, Benazir Bhutto, that brought the fact out was killed for letting the truth known.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg

Terry Britton
11-29-2009, 12:35 PM
Or is this the truth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcxhcMyn8rU&feature=related

:)

It is on the internet, so it must be true.

Roger Perry
11-29-2009, 01:15 PM
Or is this the truth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcxhcMyn8rU&feature=related

:)

It is on the internet, so it must be true.

Fox entertainment is reporting the same senate report.

Senate Report: Bin Laden Was 'Within Our Grasp'


FOXNews.com

Report says Al Qaeda leader was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force.

Clay Rogers
11-29-2009, 01:18 PM
Fox entertainment has the same senate report if fox entertainment says its true, it must be true.

Senate Report: Bin Laden Was 'Within Our Grasp'


FOXNews.com

Report says Al Qaeda leader was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force.

Nobody said the report was published. Heck, I could publish a report that said everyone that lives in Port St. Lucia is communist all because I think you are, but that doesn't make the report valid. See my point? Probably not. Call the poison control center in florida, I think you have overdosed on kool-aid.

K G
11-29-2009, 02:49 PM
Fox entertainment is reporting the same senate report.

Senate Report: Bin Laden Was 'Within Our Grasp'


FOXNews.com

Report says Al Qaeda leader was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force.

It's a sign of the Apocalypse....Roger is quoting Fox News.....:o

Clinton could've killed OBL years before this alleged "opportunity" Roger...WHY aren't you as upset about that?

Thin as cellophane regards,

kg

road kill
11-29-2009, 03:12 PM
It's a sign of the Apocalypse....Roger is quoting Fox News.....:o

Clinton could've killed OBL years before this alleged "opportunity" Roger...WHY aren't you as upset about that?

Thin as cellophane regards,

kg

RP would quote the devil if he bad mouthed President Bush or Sarah Palin!!:D

Roger Perry
11-29-2009, 03:21 PM
Nobody said the report was published. Heck, I could publish a report that said everyone that lives in Port St. Lucia is communist all because I think you are, but that doesn't make the report valid. See my point? Probably not. Call the poison control center in florida, I think you have overdosed on kool-aid.


So I take it you are saying the senate report is not true

subroc
11-29-2009, 03:26 PM
why are you so ready to accept this report when there were plenty of reports that highlighted that there were WMDs in Iraq yet you want to dismiss them?

Roger Perry
11-29-2009, 03:30 PM
why are you so ready to accept this report when there were plenty of reports that highlighted that there were WMDs in Iraq yet you want to dismiss them?

I am still waiting for the WMD to be found. Can no one produce them? Did they vanish into thin air?

subroc
11-29-2009, 03:32 PM
In case you missed it...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334

Roger Perry
11-29-2009, 03:43 PM
In case you missed it...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

YardleyLabs
11-29-2009, 03:43 PM
In case you missed it...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334
In case you missed it, that yellowcake was there the last time we invaded Iraq. We chose to leave it in place then with UN supervision because it did not represent a risk and there is no evidence suggesting that it ever did anything except sit there. It removal was never considered a very high priority and it was not part of any allegations on the existences of WMD's and a program of WMD development.

subroc
11-29-2009, 03:49 PM
wmd in Iraq

K G
11-29-2009, 03:57 PM
You're in denial, Roger...you're embarrassing even your left-leaning buddies...

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml?s=ic

Priorities regards,

kg

Clay Rogers
11-29-2009, 04:12 PM
So I take it you are saying the senate report is not true

Are you really this slow, or are you just fooling around? I will spell it out for you. POLITICAL BS, nobody can know for sure if OBL was in the mountains at that time. It is all speculation brought on by John Kerry, the war hero:rolleyes:, to make people like you drink the koolaid. The number to poison control is 1-800-222-1222. Call now, before it is too late.

Roger Perry
11-30-2009, 05:58 AM
You're in denial, Roger...you're embarrassing even your left-leaning buddies...

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml?s=ic

Priorities regards,

kg

I don't recall seeing Clintons name mentioned once in the Senate report.

K G
11-30-2009, 09:03 AM
I don't recall seeing Clintons name mentioned once in the Senate report.

Here's more info to keep you in denial, Roger....

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/sudan_offered_to_arrest_bin_laden.html

I'll provide more (as if it would matter...) as soon as the internet speeds up...Cyber Monday is having its effect.

kg

Roger Perry
11-30-2009, 10:36 AM
Here's more info to keep you in denial, Roger....

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/sudan_offered_to_arrest_bin_laden.html

I'll provide more (as if it would matter...) as soon as the internet speeds up...Cyber Monday is having its effect.

kg

I don't know why you keep bringing Clinton's name up, he did not order the invasion of Afghanistan. As far as Mansoor Ijaz who claimes Sudan offered up Bin Laden for "benefits", here is what I found on him.
International negotiator
Mansoor Ijaz has been involved in unofficial negotiations between US and Sudanese governments with regard to extradition of Osama bin Laden. In 1996 the United States Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) had imposed sanctions against the Sudanese government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_government) over the terrorist operations on its soil [9] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A61251-2001Oct2). Mansoor Ijaz reportedly tried to negotiate a deal between Sudan's president Omar al-Bashir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_al-Bashir) and Clinton administration officials including Sandy Berger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger). Ijaz argued the U.S. should adopt a policy of "constructive engagement" with Sudan, in return for deporting Osama bin Laden [10] (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1997_hr/h970610i.htm). However bin Laden made his way to Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan) after the deportation from Sudan. According to Ijaz, that was a missed opportunity to capture bin Laden who has not even been indicted by US authorities [11] (http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/568), a claim that Clinton's administration has denied. The 9/11 Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission) found that although "former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Laden to the United States", "we have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim." [12] (http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf).

Ijaz’s claims in this regard appeared in numerous Op-Ed pieces including one in the Los Angeles Times [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansoor_Ijaz#cite_note-2) and one in the Washington Post co-written with former Ambassador to Sudan Timothy Carney .[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansoor_Ijaz#cite_note-3)
Similar allegations have been made by Vanity Fair contributing editor David Rose[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansoor_Ijaz#cite_note-4) and Richard Miniter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Miniter), author of Losing bin Laden, in a November 2003 interview with World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_(magazine)).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansoor_Ijaz#cite_note-5)
Several sources dispute Ijaz's claim, including the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States (the 9-11 Commission) which concluded in part “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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansoor_Ijaz#cite_note-6)

ducknwork
11-30-2009, 10:44 AM
It's a sign of the Apocalypse....Roger is quoting Fox News.....:o

Clinton could've killed OBL years before this alleged "opportunity" Roger...WHY aren't you as upset about that?

Thin as cellophane regards,

kg


why are you so ready to accept this report when there were plenty of reports that highlighted that there were WMDs in Iraq yet you want to dismiss them?


Roger....In case you missed these...

ducknwork
11-30-2009, 10:45 AM
Are you really this slow, or are you just fooling around? I will spell it out for you. POLITICAL BS, nobody can know for sure if OBL was in the mountains at that time. It is all speculation brought on by John Kerry, the war hero:rolleyes:, to make people like you drink the koolaid. The number to poison control is 1-800-222-1222. Call now, before it is too late.

Perhaps the best point on this thread.

Roger Perry
11-30-2009, 10:54 AM
Roger....In case you missed these...


In case you missed the article read the whole thing again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by subroc http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=530158#post530158)
In case you missed it...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by subroc http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=530158#post530158)
In case you missed it...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334

In case you missed it, that yellowcake was there the last time we invaded Iraq. We chose to leave it in place then with UN supervision because it did not represent a risk and there is no evidence suggesting that it ever did anything except sit there. It removal was never considered a very high priority and it was not part of any allegations on the existences of WMD's and a program of WMD development.

Or this:

The 9/11 Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission) found that although "former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Laden to the United States", "we have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim." [12] (http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf).

Several sources dispute Ijaz's claim, including the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States (the 9-11 Commission) which concluded in part “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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansoor_Ijaz#cite_note-6)

ducknwork
11-30-2009, 11:01 AM
And the clinton thing?

Roger Perry
11-30-2009, 11:16 AM
And the clinton thing?

All of that happened when Clinton was in office, don't you read? Maybe you should go back to reading "My Pet Goat" Bush's favorite.

ducknwork
11-30-2009, 11:18 AM
No, no silly boy. This part:


Clinton could've killed OBL years before this alleged "opportunity" Roger...WHY aren't you as upset about that?

BTW, who can prove that Bin Laden was in the mountains when you say he was? Could it be speculation? Say it ain't so...

Where is the, as your article says, 'credible evidence' he was there?

Steve Amrein
11-30-2009, 12:18 PM
And just like that great show from our youth Marlin (the politicians) is safely in the copter, while Jim Fowler is clinging to the grill of the Rover with a rope. Going 60mph through the underbrush being driven by the “Friendly” native peoples.

.

I was thinking about Jim wrestling the giant anaconda while marlin is pointing " Get him Jim"

Roger Perry
11-30-2009, 02:07 PM
No, no silly boy. This part:


Quote:
Clinton could've killed OBL years before this alleged "opportunity" Roger...WHY aren't you as upset about that?


Well lets check in with fact check shall we?

Q:
Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
Was Bill Clinton offered bin Laden on "a silver platter"? Did he refuse? Was there cause at the time?
A:
Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.


http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html

Hew
11-30-2009, 02:53 PM
Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.

And therein lies the stupidity and naivete of treating/trying these animals like they are common criminals. It's almost like we (well, mainly folks like you) are still living in September 10, 2001.

dnf777
11-30-2009, 03:49 PM
Yeaaahhh.....Kill 'em all and let God sort them out!! (our God, that is, not theirs)

Hew
11-30-2009, 04:24 PM
Yeaaahhh.....Kill 'em all and let God sort them out!! (our God, that is, not theirs)
Because waiting until they killed 3,000 people before acting was proven to be such a winning policy.

subroc
11-30-2009, 04:39 PM
lets not forget, that 3000 could have been 50,000.

road kill
11-30-2009, 05:25 PM
lets not forget, that 3000 could have been 50,000.


More importantly.....it could have been 0!!

subroc
11-30-2009, 05:27 PM
one pre-emptive strike...

Roger Perry
11-30-2009, 07:21 PM
More importantly.....it could have been 0!!

If you think killing Bin Laden at the time would have stopped the terrorists from flying planes into the world trade center, you are looney.

Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment (http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html) against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.

We have to be careful about engaging in what historians call "Whig history," which is the practice of assuming that historical figures value exactly the same things that we do today. It's a fancy term for those "why didn't someone just shoot Hitler in 1930?" questions that one hears in dorm-room bull sessions. The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996.

The only thing that would have stopped the terrorist attack is if Bush would have taken action when the FBI and Bush was told of an impending attack as far back as what April 20001.

http://www.slate.com/id/2098861/

K G
11-30-2009, 07:41 PM
Here's another one, Roger....just know that I will continue to post evidence of Clinton's culpability as long as you deny it....;-)

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp

From the man who didn't know what "is" was regards, :rolleyes:

kg

M&K's Retrievers
11-30-2009, 08:35 PM
[

The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996.[/B]

[/URL]

Or Obama in 2009

Hew
12-01-2009, 06:24 AM
Today's Wall St. Journal reminds us what a buffoon Kerry is:

John Kerry's Tora Bora Campaign

The Senator is now in favor of more troops after he was against them

President Obama unveils his new Afghanistan strategy today, and in the nick of time Senator John Kerry has arrived with a report claiming that none of this would be necessary if former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had only deployed more troops eight years ago. Yes, he really said more troops.

In a 43-page report issued yesterday by his Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Kerry says bin Laden and deputy Ayman Zawahiri were poised for capture at the Tora Bora cave complex in late 2001. But because of the "unwillingness" of Mr. Rumsfeld and his generals "to deploy the troops required to take advantage of solid intelligence and unique circumstances to kill or capture bin Laden," the al Qaeda leaders escaped.
This in turn "paved the way for exactly what we had hoped to avoid—a protracted insurgency that has cost more lives than anyone estimates would have been lost in a full-blown assault on Tora Bora."

The timing of the report's release suggests that Mr. Kerry intends this as political cover for Mr. Obama and Democrats, and some in the press corps have even taken it seriously. But coming from Mr. Kerry, of all people, this criticism is nothing short of astonishing.

In 2001, readers may recall, the Washington establishment that included Mr. Kerry was fretting about the danger in Afghanistan from committing too many troops. The New York Times made the "quagmire" point explicitly in a famous page-one analysis, and Seymour Hersh fed the cliche at The New Yorker.

On CNN with Larry King on Dec. 15, 2001, a viewer called in to say the U.S. should "smoke [bin Laden] out" of the Tora Bora caves. Mr. Kerry responded: "For the moment what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way." The Rumsfeld-General Tommy Franks troop strategy may have missed bin Laden, but it reflected domestic political doubts about an extended Afghan campaign.

Remarkably, Mr. Kerry is now repeating those same doubts about Mr. Obama's troop decision, saying that the "Afghans must do the heavy lifting" and that he supports additional troops only for "limited purposes" and wants the U.S. out within "four to five years." Adapting his legendary 2004 campaign locution, Mr. Kerry is now in favor of more troops after he was against them, but in any case not for very long.

Roger Perry
12-01-2009, 06:52 AM
Here's another one, Roger....just know that I will continue to post evidence of Clinton's culpability as long as you deny it....;-)

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp

From the man who didn't know what "is" was regards, :rolleyes:

kg

Keith, you were quick on the draw to look up factcheck when I posted that GW thought the Constitution was just a GD piece of paper. Go back and read the factcheck I posted or do you just quote factcheck when it suits you?

Bin Laden was known about in the early 1990's, why did Bush 41 not take him out?
Indeed, it is possible that Clinton and his national-security team learned of bin Laden even before the 1993 World Trade Center attack. My interviews and investigation revealed that bin Laden made his first attack on Americans was December 1992, a little more than a month after Clinton won the 1992 election.

K G
12-01-2009, 08:20 AM
Your interviews and investigation? :o Since when have YOU interviewed anybody about this issue? Are you leading a double life on us, or do you just not know how to properly quote a source??:confused:

Inquiring minds regards, :rolleyes:

kg

Roger Perry
12-01-2009, 08:56 AM
Your interviews and investigation? :o Since when have YOU interviewed anybody about this issue? Are you leading a double life on us, or do you just not know how to properly quote a source??:confused:

Inquiring minds regards, :rolleyes:

kg

Actually Keith, the quote came from the source you quoted http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp
You did read the article didn't you? or are you just posting up sources before you check them out?

and while you are at it, could you please explain the ties between the Bushs and Bin Laden?
Bush-Bin Laden connections
the Bush dynasty has closer links to the bin Ladens than Saddam Hussein did
http://www.oilempire.us/bush-binladen.html

Or can you explain why the Bin Laden family was suddenly taken out of the country after 9/11?
Bin Ladens allowed out of U.S. after 9-11
Former White House official confirms operation said to be rumor

Posted: September 04, 2003
5:00 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com

In the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks while U.S. airspace was restricted, planes sanctioned by the Bush administration flew about the country gathering some 140 high-ranking Saudi Arabians – including several relatives of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden – who were then spirited out of the country within a week of the terror, according to a senior official.

While the Saudis have long denied involvement in the massacre that claimed the lives of some 3,000 people, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from the kingdom. Former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke described the Saudi exodus in an interview for the current issue of Vanity Fair on newsstands today. Clarke, who left the White House in February, lends confirmation to reports of the evacuation which first surfaced in September 2001

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34405

K G
12-01-2009, 12:17 PM
Keith, you were quick on the draw to look up factcheck when I posted that GW thought the Constitution was just a GD piece of paper. Go back and read the factcheck I posted or do you just quote factcheck when it suits you?

Bin Laden was known about in the early 1990's, why did Bush 41 not take him out?
Indeed, it is possible that Clinton and his national-security team learned of bin Laden even before the 1993 World Trade Center attack. My interviews and investigation revealed that bin Laden made his first attack on Americans was December 1992, a little more than a month after Clinton won the 1992 election.


Just playin' the game you're obsessed with, Roger...and above is your post with no attribution whatsoever.....;-)

Here's another one for you, as promised. Please do something different and try to stay on topic for once. If Clinton had taken out OBL when he had the chance, you'd have a helluva lot less to blame on Bush43.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/535793/posts

You know that, I know that, and the American people know that (with apologies to Bob Dole) regards,

kg

gman0046
12-01-2009, 12:37 PM
As bad as Barry Hussien Osama is it would have been worse if that lying Horse Face Kerry beat out W.

JDogger
12-01-2009, 10:54 PM
As bad as Barry Hussien Osama is it would have been worse if that lying Horse Face Kerry beat out W.

As is pointed out here so frequently...try to stay focused on the here and now. There is only currently one President, and agree with him or not, it's whatcha' got. Better get the next one ready, or it might be to late.

Jess sayin'

JD

Roger Perry
12-02-2009, 07:25 AM
Just playin' the game you're obsessed with, Roger...and above is your post with no attribution whatsoever.....;-)

Here's another one for you, as promised. Please do something different and try to stay on topic for once. If Clinton had taken out OBL when he had the chance, you'd have a helluva lot less to blame on Bush43.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/535793/posts

You know that, I know that, and the American people know that (with apologies to Bob Dole) regards,

kg

Lets just check out who authored your source shall we?
Cliff Kincaid is a "right-wing writer and activist who has been a longtime critic of the United Nations and other multinational organizations.

K G
12-02-2009, 07:42 AM
Lets just check out who authored your source shall we?
Cliff Kincaid is a "right-wing writer and activist who has been a longtime critic of the United Nations and other multinational organizations.

No worse than some of the left-wing writers and activists you quote...you've crossed the line into total hypocrisy, Roger...even your buddy JDog suggests we stay in the here-and-now...:cool:

As promised...http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A61251-2001Oct2

And the hits just keep on comin' regards,

kg

Bob Gutermuth
12-02-2009, 09:26 AM
Anyone who is a vocal conservative crtitic of the stinkin UN is OK with me.

Its time to kick the UN out of the US and get the US out of the UN!

Robbie Coleman
12-02-2009, 11:57 AM
I think in all of the above discussion we need to keep in mind that the President in privileged to a lot more information than any of us and any reporter. The confidential information in the Presidents daily reports is what’s really going on the in the world.

Also I am confused, the left constantly puts W down for being an idiot/stupid. Then I read about his supposed connections to Terrorist inferring he had something to do with 9/11? Which one is he, and idiot or the mastermind behind the largest terrorist attack ever?

I tend to believe he is a smart, good man who made the best decisions he could with the information he had. Again the information he has is not the same information we get.

road kill
12-03-2009, 07:22 AM
Bush's lies and secrets are starting to come out. Wonder what we will be hearing about next.

That He was on the "Grassy Knoll??":D