How Osama bin Laden slipped from our grasp: The definitive a

[ijwthstd]

A 6 page detailed account of the Battle Of Tora Bora. Still fun reading even if you are one of the Republicans around here who insists Osama doesn't really matter.

http://www.tnr.com/article/the-battle-t ... a?page=0,0

[pooldude]

10 months after Clinton passed on taking Bin Laden out, just 9 months before the 9/11 attack that killed thousands of Americans. Funny how that works.

Rather than discuss what happened @ Tora Bora, YourMomma prefers to talk about what the other guy didn't do, before 9/11.

Obviously some people will never be able to bring themselves to admit that their team (who cloaked themselves in the garb of Super Patriots doing God's work) might just possibly have dropped the ball, regardless of the evidence.

[pooldude]

I would place blame on both administrations for dropping the ball. Wouldn't you?

That sounds reasonable. There's always room for improvement, especially in hind-sight.

[tin00can]

I would place blame on both administrations for dropping the ball. Wouldn't you?

It sure didn't sound like that in your first post. However, I'm sure that was on purpose. OK.

[Skate4RnR]

Take backwater to mouth, then suck. Repeat.

[EvilMadman]

"Worried about intercepts showing a growing likelihood of al-Qaeda attacks around the millennium, the CIA steps up ties with Ahmed Shah Massoud, leader of the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban. The CIA sends a team of agents, led by bin Laden unit chief Richard Blee, to Massoud’s headquarters in a remote part of northern Afghanistan, seeking his help to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. The CIA team and Massoud meet twice, and Blee tells him, “We have a common enemy.” Massoud complains that the US is too focused on bin Laden, and is not interested in the root problems of Taliban, Saudi, and Pakistani support for terrorism that is propping him up. He agrees to help nonetheless, and the CIA gives him more aid in return. However, the US is officially neutral in the Afghan civil war and the agents are prohibited from giving any aid that would “fundamentally alter the Afghan battlefield.” The CIA team will later be reported to admire Massoud greatly. They see him as “a Che Guevara figure, a great actor on history’s stage,” and “a poet, a military genius, a religious man, and a leader of enormous courage who defied death and accepted its inevitability.” Author Steve Coll will write: “The CIA team had gone into the Panjshir [Valley, where Massoud’s headquarters is located] as unabashed admirers of Massoud. Now their convictions deepened even as they recognized that the agency’s new partnership with the Northern Alliance would be awkward, limited, and perhaps unlikely to succeed.” Perhaps because of this, the team members agree with Massoud’s criticism of US policy and agree to lobby for a policy change in his favor in Washington. [COLL, 2004, PP. 469-472; WASHINGTON POST, 2/23/2004]"

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js ... ah_massoud

[tin00can]

It sure didn't sound like that in your first post. However, I'm sure that was on purpose. OK.

I was pointing out that a previous President failed well before W did. In the end does it really matter who failed harder? The guy is most likely dead anyway. Or so I've heard.

Strange. Your post sure read like you placed all the blame on Clinton, but now you say it doesn't matter who failed harder.

[chickenona]

Hahaha @ "your side failed first and harder than my side".

I could go on a lengthy harangue about how the Bush administration back-burnered a security report pointedly entitled "bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the US" in August of 2001, or we could all finally admit that the whole debate of who screwed up worse ten years ago is pointless.

[EvilMadman]

Hahaha @ "your side failed first and harder than my side".

I could go on a lengthy harangue about how the Bush administration back-burnered a security report pointedly entitled "bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the US" in August of 2001, or we could all finally admit that the whole debate of who screwed up worse ten years ago is pointless.

"A secret intelligence document prepared for President Bill Clinton in December 1998 reported on a suspected plot by Osama bin Laden to hijack a U.S. airliner in an effort to force the United States to release imprisoned conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center attacks."

washingtonpost.com

There is NO WAY Democrats can attack Republicans for not doing anything to stop Al-Qaeda because they (Democrats) weren't aware there was a serious threat from Al-Qaeda before the USS Cole and the 9-11 attacks. The Clinton administration basically fumbled chance after chance to capture, or more likely assassinate OBL, and Bill Clinton just couldn't bring himself to pull the trigger when he had the chance.

[tin00can]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

[lerxstcat]

The bottom line is both administrations failed in killing the little fuck. At least the current one has taken a good first step in not surrendering in Afghanistan. What he does from here remains to be seen. I"m not too optimistic however.

Little fuck? He's 6 ft. 5" tall, not exactly a "little fuck" imo. And he has become the biggest thorn in our side since Adolf Hitler, I wouldn't call that "little" either.

[killeverything]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

There goes Tin again. Bringing "FACTS" into a discussion on the War Board. Geez.

[EvilMadman]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

Yeah, okay, he did a great job of catching one of the masterminds of the '93 WTC attack [Ramzi Youssef], and maybe a few other plotters/foot soldiers. But he failed miserably to mount a concerted effort to smash the Al-Qaeda network and either capture or kill Bin Laden.

Wait, I know what you're going to say, "But so did President Bush". Yes, but President Bush wasn't offered custody of Bin Laden from the Sudanese government.

"Men and women at the CIA risked their lives to provide occasions to kill a man we knew had declared war and had attacked America four or five times before 1998. We had plans that had been approved by the Joint Operations Command at Fort Bragg. We had opportunities, many opportunities to kill him.

But that's the president's decision. That's absolutely the case. It's not a simple, dumb bureaucrat like me; that's not my decision. It's his. But for him to get on the television and say to the American people he did all he could is a flat lie, sir." - FORMER CIA UNIT CHIEF MICHAEL SCHEUER - 2006 Fox News Sunday Interview

And what's with all the "We just let him [Bin Laden] go" nonsense?

How the hell can you just let someone go that you never even had possession of in the first place?

And we [The U.S.] didn't "just let him go", he fucking ESCAPED through a mountain range [The Hindu Kush] that are bigger and more treacherous than the American Rocky Mountains! He probably used the exact same underground bunkers and passages that the Mujahideen used to hide from the Russian army?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0 ... index.html

[Ugmo]

Wait, I know what you're going to say, "But so did President Bush". Yes, but President Bush wasn't offered custody of Bin Laden from the Sudanese government.

How about doing a little research before throwing around that timeworn GOP myth?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... 1-2001Oct2

The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.

[tin00can]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

Yeah, okay, he did a great job of catching one of the masterminds of the '93 WTC attack [Ramzi Youssef], and maybe a few other plotters/foot soldiers. But he failed miserably to mount a concerted effort to smash the Al-Qaeda network and either capture or kill Bin Laden.

Wait, I know what you're going to say, "But so did President Bush". Yes, but President Bush wasn't offered custody of Bin Laden from the Sudanese government.

"Men and women at the CIA risked their lives to provide occasions to kill a man we knew had declared war and had attacked America four or five times before 1998. We had plans that had been approved by the Joint Operations Command at Fort Bragg. We had opportunities, many opportunities to kill him.

But that's the president's decision. That's absolutely the case. It's not a simple, dumb bureaucrat like me; that's not my decision. It's his. But for him to get on the television and say to the American people he did all he could is a flat lie, sir." - FORMER CIA UNIT CHIEF MICHAEL SCHEUER - 2006 Fox News Sunday Interview

And what's with all the "We just let him [Bin Laden] go" nonsense?

How the hell can you just let someone go that you never even had possession of in the first place?

And we [The U.S.] didn't "just let him go", he fucking ESCAPED through a mountain range [The Hindu Kush] that are bigger and more treacherous than the American Rocky Mountains! He probably used the exact same underground bunkers and passages that the Mujahideen used to hide from the Russian army?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0 ... index.html

That was also pre-9/11 when the American public didn't even know who bin laden was. Americans didn't really give a shit about terrorism then. Selling the public (more on that in a minute) on a plan to risk American lives to get a figure who at that time was relatively unknown to the public would have been almost impossible. So, Clinton didn't take advantage of situations that could have led to bin laden's capture or death. That is indeed his fuck-up, not going harder after bin laden. However, it doesn't seem to be as cut and dried - "he had so many chances and he never had him killed!" - as people make it out to be.

Now, about selling the public...that shouldn't be a president's concern, and that is where I have some admiration for Bush. Even when his course of action was unpopular he stuck with it, polls be damned. Whether I agree with the course is irrelevant; he stuck to it and I honestly think it was because he truly believed in it. Clinton, however, seemed to be much more malleable in his convictions.

[Ugmo]

Clinton took a HUGE amount of criticism for going after Bin Laden with the missile strike - especially from Republicans.

There was a whole movie made out of it - remember Wag The Dog?

[Earl Skakel]

I think more than enough blame can be placed on both the left and the right. I mean we were funding what eventually became Al Qaeda during the Carter Administration so blame in some form or another could be placed on Carter and every President after in my opinion.

There seems to be a race to blame Clinton or Bush entirely on 9/11 but the wheels for 9/11 go far before either of them. Although I'm not a republican I do feel the Clinton administration shoulders more of the blame as he was in office for 8 years while 9/11 happened after Bush was in office for 8 or so months? Bush to me by no means gets off scott free for 9/11 but I don't know how the left could say 9/11 was pretty much all his fault when Clinton did have opportunities and most importantly more time than Bush. I don't blame 9/11 on Clinton and I think to many people on both sides seem caught up in blaming one or the other(Clinton/Bush) which I think is unfair to both.

To this day I think that nobody on 9/10/2001 in the US government and top military thought that Bin Laden or Al Qaeda was capable of doing what they did on 9/11. I mean I know they knew of the plan to use jets as human missiles but who before that day truly thought they were capable of doing it with the eventual precision that they showed?

Earl

[pooldude]

^^^ That sounds too reasonable, Earl.

Waddaya tryin' to do...let all the hot air outta everyone's balloon, or what?

[Earl Skakel]

^^^ That sounds too reasonable, Earl.

Waddaya tryin' to do...let all the hot air outta everyone's balloon, or what?

Reasonable and me should never be in the same sentence PD!! I think it's such a fascinating subject and one that is on such a scope that to me there is no way one person or for that matter one administration can be blamed. I think people on both sides of the aisle and ones like me who sit in the middle/on the fence never imagined in their wildest dreams that something like 9/11 could happen on our turf and with such devastating precision. I think people in our government and military thought that attacks on this country would come from people like Richard Reid and the guy 2 weeks ago and that attacks would be so primitive that they could be either stopped or not carried out due to incompetence. Now in Reid's and the other guy's case they were right but Al Qaeda has shown a devastating like attitude of try and try again until you get it right and time is on their side. John Miller's book The Cell is a really good read(although slightly confusing with the amount of terrorists names envolved)into the timeline and almost 20 year planning of an attack of this magnitude.

Here is to a great new year for everyone!
Earl

[pooldude]

I have to admit, Earl...your stage presentation reminds me a lot of Al Franken.

And now, after these 2 latest Sludge posts, I'm thinkin' maybe you have a future in politics.

[Dana_Dubrow]

Ask any investigator the best way to solve a crime involving theft and murder. You simply follow the money. Who stood to profit, who had the motive, who stood to gain the most?

Was it terrorists to strike a blow at our "freedom" cause you know , they hate it?

Or security and defense industries because they stood to make so much money if our country went to war?

Or was it the oil industry, because the country's that wouldn't play ball, were the ones that sat on large amounts of the worlds remaining oil reserves?

Or was it the banking industry, who had/has/is held aloft by laundering drug money from the sales of cocaine in South America and the sale of opium/heroin from Afghanistan?

Fact is, is that both party's have their finger in the pie, gr(R)anted, one more than the other. UBL was/ is nothing more than the common enemy propped up for us to hate, he became the new USSR.

[VinnieKulick]

Ask any investigator the best way to solve a crime involving theft and murder. You simply follow the money. Who stood to profit, who had the motive, who stood to gain the most?

Was it terrorists to strike a blow at our "freedom" cause you know , they hate it?

Or security and defense industries because they stood to make so much money if our country went to war?

Or was it the oil industry, because the country's that wouldn't play ball, were the ones that sat on large amounts of the worlds remaining oil reserves?

Or was it the banking industry, who had/has/is held aloft by laundering drug money from the sales of cocaine in South America and the sale of opium/heroin from Afghanistan?

Fact is, is that both party's have their finger in the pie, gr(R)anted, one more than the other. UBL was/ is nothing more than the common enemy propped up for us to hate, he became the new USSR.

Then who was behind all of the terrorist activities prior to both Clinton and Bush?

Not only that, but we were getting briefs on OBL in 1996 during the time we were in the Persian Gulf.

[Dana_Dubrow]

again, follow the money. Do your own math. If you read about it from some dipshit on a message board, most likely, you'll dismiss it.

Search it out, and make your own opinion.




Just so I don't look like a total aloof twat: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... =firefox-a

It's a couple hours long, so grab a sandwich.

[Earl Skakel]

I have to admit, Earl...your stage presentation reminds me a lot of Al Franken.

And now, after these 2 latest Sludge posts, I'm thinkin' maybe you have a future in politics.

PD, I'm way to honest and upfront to be a politician or the bass player in KISS so I'll stick to comedy for now!!

Earl

[VinnieKulick]

again, follow the money. Do your own math. If you read about it from some dipshit on a message board, most likely, you'll dismiss it.

Search it out, and make your own opinion.




Just so I don't look like a total aloof twat: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... =firefox-a

It's a couple hours long, so grab a sandwich.

Don't have a couple of hours to waste.
What I am saying is, you say "follow the money" as if the terrorist are all because of the last two presidents, and I am saying, those 'peaceful religion' followers have been blowing people up for over 40 years. Who was profiting then? Who's profiting when they blow up shit in Spain, or Indonesia?

[EvilMadman]

Was it terrorists to strike a blow at our "freedom" cause you know , they hate it?

Congratulations, you figured it out!

[EvilMadman]

How about doing a little research before throwing around that timeworn GOP myth?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... 1-2001Oct2

The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.

So, there was absolutely no legal grounds to gain custody of Osama Bin Laden from the Sudanese government in 1996?

"In 1996, bin Laden personally engineered a plot to assassinate Clinton while the president was in Manila for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation. However, intelligence agents intercepted a message just minutes before the motorcade was to leave, and alerted the United States Secret Service. Agents later discovered a bomb planted under a bridge."

en.wikipedia.org

http://www.progressivenewsdaily.com/?p=10607

"In 1996, al-Qaeda announced its jihad to expel foreign troops and interests from what they considered Islamic lands. Bin Laden issued a fatwa, which amounted to a public declaration of war against the United States of America and any of its allies, and began to refocus al-Qaeda's resources towards large-scale, propagandist strikes. Also occurring on June 25, 1996, was the bombing of the Khobar towers, located in Khobar, Saudi Arabia."

en.wikipedia.org

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/inter ... osama.html

That's right, President Clinton couldn't get custody of Bin Laden because his inept Justice Department couldn't figure out how to read a known transnational terrorist his goddamn Miranda rights, which has never had any legal precedent to begin with!

"Freeze, you're under arrest Mr. Bin Laden!"?

What are you fucking kidding me?!

[Dana_Dubrow]

again, follow the money. Do your own math. If you read about it from some dipshit on a message board, most likely, you'll dismiss it.

Search it out, and make your own opinion.




Just so I don't look like a total aloof twat: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... =firefox-a

It's a couple hours long, so grab a sandwich.

Don't have a couple of hours to waste.
What I am saying is, you say "follow the money" as if the terrorist are all because of the last two presidents, and I am saying, those 'peaceful religion' followers have been blowing people up for over 40 years. Who was profiting then? Who's profiting when they blow up shit in Spain, or Indonesia?

so, I'm offering an answer but you can't be bothered to watch? The link I posted doesn't involve remote control airplanes, or explosive charges, or photographic or video evidence that the official version is completely wrong.

Just watch, then ask.

[Ugmo]

Ah, I love a good conspiracy theory. Because the most far-fetched explanation is usually the correct one.

[chickenona]

I do remember the whole "Wag the Dog" premise - Clinton's efforts to retaliate for the Cole bombing were poohed-poohed by both the GOP and the general public as grandstanding meant to distract the country from Monica Lewinsky. So as always we remained focused on bullshit that didn't matter and the wheels for a successful domestic terrorist strike were set in motion.

Remember the big hoo-hah about the successful efforts to stop the Y2K bombers at the Canadian border? I think at the time they were discovered, stopped and rounded up, everyone genuinely thought that that was as bad as it was going to get. Nobody realized that a bigger plot, one that involved no crossing of international borders at all, was brewing, and domestic security got a little more relaxed than it should have.