Bush would send troops inside Pakistan to catch bin Laden

[Paulie]

I thought bin Laden wasn't a big deal to him anymore.

Ya know, if he hadn't pulled all those troops so he could carry out the Bush family vendetta against Saddam, we might not have to be looking to enter another sovereign nation in a continued search for someone he really isn't all that concerned about.

This so-called "leader", the Texas Usurper, George W. Bush, is a freakin' disgrace.

Paulie

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/20/bush.intv/index.html

[ConnieB]

Guess you haven't kept up with the whole issue of Iraq. It wasn't a Bush Vendetta. Saddam disobeyed EVERY sanctions placed on him during the cease fire back in 1991. If you read that actual cease fire,(Which by the way, is online) you would see that if he disobeys any sanction, it gives the U.N the right to invade his country and remove him if need be. Remember though, the U.N members were being bought off, so the US is actually doing what the U.N should've done in the mid 90's.

Secondly, We haven't given up on finding Bin Laden and never have. We have plenty of troops in Afghanistan right now, and we can send more if needed. We are not low in military power as some may think, there are many international bases we can pull them from. Now, on to another point, Pakistan WILL NOT allow us to enter their country to go after Bin Laden, so it is at a stand still. We know he's in Pakistan...but where in those mountains is what we don't know. It's very rough terrian out there, and without help from the country who knows the land, it's hard to track him. Even if we KNEW Bin Laden's EXACT location in Pakistan, and could prove it, we still could NOT go in and get him....So yes, Pakistan is definitely giving Bin Laden a safe place to live, even though they deny it.

[Venisenvy]

I don't believe the president should make this public considering the pressure Mushareff is under in his country, but it is obviously something he should do, and i would not be surprised if we are doing right now which is having operationgs in Pakistan without the knowledge of the government.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I had a very interesting converstaion with one of my patients last night. He's a recently retired CIA field agent who has worked nearly his whole career in the Middle East. We were talking bin Laden, Iraq, Iran, et. al.

One of the things he mentioned was how the politicians twist the intelligence to suit their agenda. He said he and other agents would submit on-the-ground intelligence and by the time it went through the agency and up to the White House, it more times than not had little resemblence to the actual facts.

About Muslim extremism: He said that Muslim extremism is growing all over the world, and that it doesn't matter one bit if we catch or kill bin Laden, and the administration and military know that. bin Ladin's capture is a spin for the public. The bigger threat, he said, is allowing Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran fall into the hands of these extremists. He said that those who would come to power would be thisclose to having nuclear weapons.

He said that President Bush and his top people made a big mistake in the way they went into Iraq. They really underestimated what would happen. He said that al-Qaeda was in Iraq before the war, but they were truly confined to the northern part of the country under the protection of the local warlords (much like Afghanistan). Saddam had the power to keep them confined to that area, and knew that if he tried to go into the area, an all-out civil war could ensue. The Americans destablized the country and did exactly that. Now, that we've done that, though, he said it's imparative that we not let the muslim extremists get control.

He also said that the rest of the Middle East takes a wait-and-see attitude with the US. If we are successful, they will swing our way; if not, they'll swing with the Muslim groups. Whatever party gains power after the next US elections will have to win in Iraq.

He's a Republican, and he prefaced all of this by saying that he though he disagreed with some of what each administration has done, in his position, he served the President(s).

Smart man. Very well spoken. And even though I disagreed with some of what he was saying on a philosophical level, I can't really argue with his take on what's going on in the Middle East. He was there.

[Annoyedlistner]

Guess you haven't kept up with the whole issue of Iraq. It wasn't a Bush Vendetta. Saddam disobeyed EVERY sanctions placed on him during the cease fire back in 1991. If you read that actual cease fire,(Which by the way, is online) you would see that if he disobeys any sanction, it gives the U.N the right to invade his country and remove him if need be. Remember though, the U.N members were being bought off, so the US is actually doing what the U.N should've done in the mid 90's.

Secondly, We haven't given up on finding Bin Laden and never have. We have plenty of troops in Afghanistan right now, and we can send more if needed. We are not low in military power as some may think, there are many international bases we can pull them from. Now, on to another point, Pakistan WILL NOT allow us to enter their country to go after Bin Laden, so it is at a stand still. We know he's in Pakistan...but where in those mountains is what we don't know. It's very rough terrian out there, and without help from the country who knows the land, it's hard to track him. Even if we KNEW Bin Laden's EXACT location in Pakistan, and could prove it, we still could NOT go in and get him....So yes, Pakistan is definitely giving Bin Laden a safe place to live, even though they deny it.


its not a bush vendetta? then why did the UN not back Bush when he asked them to?

[db44]

Every sanction, funny, he seems to have disarmed, which was the major issue. Or have you found those WMDs on your own Connie?

As for Pakistan, Bush's kingdom is falling more. Musharaff's statement to 60 Minutes... And did anyone see the two presidents presser today? Bush on at least one occasion inturupted Musharaf while the latter was making a statement!

[ConnieB]

Every sanction, funny, he seems to have disarmed, which was the major issue. Or have you found those WMDs on your own Connie?

As for Pakistan, Bush's kingdom is falling more. Musharaff's statement to 60 Minutes... And did anyone see the two presidents presser today? Bush on at least one occasion inturupted Musharaf while the latter was making a statement! He hid those weapons in Syria, just like he flew all his air craft over to Iran during the first Gulf war. Remember, we do have Satillite pics of all those conveys, which the Liberals deny.

There has been WMD found in Iraq since 2000, there are pictures of them in Duelfer's report, you can see them with your own eyes if you read this report. Most liberals won't accept the weapons we did find as WMD, so there's the first problem we have. Second, we never found the huge supply, but we did find small caches, and it seems like liberals will deny this at every chance as well. Third, there is NO record of Saddam disarming all of his weapons, so what happened to them ??? He had large supplies in the mid 90's and I don't recall him using them.

Now, how about 8 yrs worth of Clinton's Admin, saying Saddam was a huge threat to the USA, and the world. How about 8 yrs of Clinton saying Saddam was in the process of making WMD...what intelligence did he use????? ROFL, I believe it was the same as President Bush. SO how can things change so damn quickly in between presidents?

Just to show you what I mean....and I quote....

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

Again I ask, what has changed? If Saddam was such a threat in the 1990's why wouldn't he be now??????? By the way, should I remind you Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation act, which included a regime change in Iraq. It was not a Bush Vendetta, Bush was doing what Clinton wouldn't do.

By the way, there has been at least 4-6 resolutions put on Saddam over the years, just to get him to obey the sanctions placed on him in 1991...ROFL. So yes he has disobeyed every sanction,, and if he didn't, then why would the U.N place so many resolutions against him?

[DoubleEdgeSword]

If all of that's true, why doesn't President Bush make his case, show all the evidence, all the photos, lay it all out for the public? It sure would make his job easier.

Let me guess? Because no matter how many "sources" you quote, Connie, it's not true.

[ConnieB]

I had a very interesting converstaion with one of my patients last night. He's a recently retired CIA field agent who has worked nearly his whole career in the Middle East. We were talking bin Laden, Iraq, Iran, et. al.

One of the things he mentioned was how the politicians twist the intelligence to suit their agenda. He said he and other agents would submit on-the-ground intelligence and by the time it went through the agency and up to the White House, it more times than not had little resemblence to the actual facts.

About Muslim extremism: He said that Muslim extremism is growing all over the world, and that it doesn't matter one bit if we catch or kill bin Laden, and the administration and military know that. bin Ladin's capture is a spin for the public. The bigger threat, he said, is allowing Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran fall into the hands of these extremists. He said that those who would come to power would be thisclose to having nuclear weapons.

I've been saying things like this for months now, and I've been attacked for it. This is why I believe we did the right thing, by going to Iraq when we did...Iraq is a central part of Muslim Extremism, and if we weren't there, I think this would've happened anyways, but just a few years down the road.

Yes, Politicians do twist things to help their agenda...we've seen that in the past 12 years. Clinton and his Admin claimed Saddam was a threat, and needed to be taken out, and making it legal to do so by signing the Iraqi Liberation act, which called for a regime change. Now that Bush has done it, Clinton is against it....I just don't get it. For 10+ years, the same intelligence was there, both Dem and Rep. Admins/congress seen the same thing and made the same conclusion. How could it be so wrong....ROFL.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I've been saying things like this for months now, and I've been attacked for it. This is why I believe we did the right thing, by going to Iraq when we did...Iraq is a central part of Muslim Extremism, and if we weren't there, I think this would've happened anyways, but just a few years down the road.

.

That's not what my patient said, and that's not what I wrote.

ROFL

What the hell is up with you putting this after your posts? What is so funny that has you rolling on the floor laughing?

[db44]

We have no such proof of the convoys! Besides, every satelitte picture Bush has used for the war in the first place turned out to lead to nothing.

But do please site all this proof, once again you talk like you know everything, and then you always prove to know N-O-T-H-I-N-G!

Then you go off quoting Senators going on what Bush's people fed them. Ask Kerry and Kennedy (in his quote, mind you, Kennedy says nothing about Hussien having WMDs, so I don't see how that is a confirmation of your point). The quotes are dated, and in some don't have time references as being fact even when they were uttered.

[db44]

If all of that's true, why doesn't President Bush make his case, show all the evidence, all the photos, lay it all out for the public? It sure would make his job easier.

Let me guess? Because no matter how many "sources" you quote, Connie, it's not true.

You'd think, for all of Super Secret Agent Connie's proof, that Bush would have reason beyond a doubt to convince the American people of a need to be in Syria. I'd be ears for that. Funny he hasn't pushed it.

But then, up until his woeful numbers, bin Laden wasn't a threat again either.

[tracyraz]

Connie, I suggest you read the Iraq Liberation Act.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

It talks of supporting the Iraqi opposition from within Iraq. Not to take a cowboy approach and invade Iraq.

[Stopanimalabuse]

Guess you haven't kept up with the whole issue of Iraq. It wasn't a Bush Vendetta. Saddam disobeyed EVERY sanctions placed on him during the cease fire back in 1991. If you read that actual cease fire,(Which by the way, is online) you would see that if he disobeys any sanction, it gives the U.N the right to invade his country and remove him if need be. Remember though, the U.N members were being bought off, so the US is actually doing what the U.N should've done in the mid 90's.
I guess the United States and Israeli governments haven't violated any UN resolutions then, right?:o Only use laws when it favors your side. That's typical.

[Stopanimalabuse]

He hid those weapons in Syria, just like he flew all his air craft over to Iran during the first Gulf war. Remember, we do have Satillite pics of all those conveys, which the Liberals deny.

There has been WMD found in Iraq since 2000, there are pictures of them in Duelfer's report, you can see them with your own eyes if you read this report. Most liberals won't accept the weapons we did find as WMD, so there's the first problem we have. Second, we never found the huge supply, but we did find small caches, and it seems like liberals will deny this at every chance as well. Third, there is NO record of Saddam disarming all of his weapons, so what happened to them ??? He had large supplies in the mid 90's and I don't recall him using them.

Now, how about 8 yrs worth of Clinton's Admin, saying Saddam was a huge threat to the USA, and the world. How about 8 yrs of Clinton saying Saddam was in the process of making WMD...what intelligence did he use????? ROFL, I believe it was the same as President Bush. SO how can things change so damn quickly in between presidents?

Just to show you what I mean....and I quote....

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

Again I ask, what has changed? If Saddam was such a threat in the 1990's why wouldn't he be now??????? By the way, should I remind you Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation act, which included a regime change in Iraq. It was not a Bush Vendetta, Bush was doing what Clinton wouldn't do.

By the way, there has been at least 4-6 resolutions put on Saddam over the years, just to get him to obey the sanctions placed on him in 1991...ROFL. So yes he has disobeyed every sanction,, and if he didn't, then why would the U.N place so many resolutions against him?
Where were you when the Reagen administration was Saddam's ally in the Iraq-Iran war and American companies were supplying them with weapons? There's been a lot of speculation that the chemical weapons used against the Kurds were supplied by the United States.

[pinky]

...Iraq is a central part of Muslim Extremism.....It is now, but it WASN'T until we took out Saddam, a brutal dictator, to be sure, but decidedly secular, and an archenemy of Iran, a truly extreme Islamic state.

[db44]

Where were you when the Reagen administration was Saddam's ally in the Iraq-Iran war and American companies were supplying them with weapons? There's been a lot of speculation that the chemical weapons used against the Kurds were supplied by the United States.

Our super-agent was probably on the other side of the region, training bin Laden on the use of all those great U.S.-made weapons he's come to enjoy so. :o