Dear President Bush, as the 6th anniversary of 9-11 approaches ...

And 5 years ago today, this from Dick Cheney
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/051588.php

"The case of Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of our country, requires a candid appraisal of the facts.... [W]e now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.... Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon....

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us....

"As President Bush has said, time is not on our side. Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator, or the two working together, constitutes as grave a threat as can be imagined. The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action."

 

Bill Clinton signed a presidental order in 1998, six years after attacks directed towards American troops in Yemen (he missed, but he intended). They tried to kill him with a cruise missle attack in August 1998. 19 died, but Bin Laden was not among them. Catching this guy isn't as easy as throwing money at the problem and assuming that'll take care of it. Ask some 1980-era Soviets how hard it is to fuck with Afghanistan and WHY it's hard to fuck with it.

I understand that Iraq is a highly unpopular war and one that gets harder to justify with each passing day. But even if Saddam Hussein was sitting in his palace today, I don't think we'd have a lot more success catching Bin Laden. And if Bin Laden is caught/killed by the U.S., it'll be people we didn't even know were on the ground there, if I had to guess.

 

Sorry, Meat. 1980s-era USSR found it tough to deal with Afghanistan because we (The Reagan administration) financed and propped up the Taliban -- and it's little off-shoot group that became Al-Qaeda -- to stop the "Evil Empire" from advancing.
That worked out real well, didn't it.

 

But simply by sheer numbers and force, the Soviets should have won that war going away, no matter how much we financed them. Home-field advantage was a massive assist for Afghanistan, who knew where to hide and where to attack, whereas the Soviets did not and got dropped. It's a tough nut to crack, and the two largest militaries in modern history have both discovered that.

 

As has been the case going all the way back through the Brits and Genghis Khan (KHAN!!!) to Alexander the Great.

Afghanistan can be had, but the price of taking her is very, very dear.

 

And, again, Meat, all that proves is that haring off after a country that didn't attack us, just to prove how tough we are, looks dumber by the hour.

 

I honestly don't think Iraq matters that much in the U.S.'s pursuit of Bin Laden. At least directly. Because a traditional air/ground attack on his caves won't (and hasn't) produced. For all we know, he's about to take the Martinsville sports editor job. The man knows how to not get caught, and whether we're in Iraq, Iran, North Korea or Curacao shouldn't have much impact on the search for Bin Laden, since that probably isn't going to come about via traditional military strike.

 

MM, you need to understand that there is a difference between the military in '98 and that which was in '02. The technology involved along with the precision of our satellites in space have advanced so much that they are running in near real time.

Clinton didn't have half of the technology at his disposal that Bush has now. Much of this was developed and implemented during Clinton's presidency, but it wasn't fully operational. It is also part of the reason that Bush is interested in Star Wars and missile shields.

Now, I'm not going to say this guarantees Bin Laden's capture but it does give one person an advantage over the other.

I will also point out that Iraq has a lot to do with Afghanistan. When you place the best military strategists in charge of an operation or task, you aren't exactly going to be ascertaining the best in information for other tasks. This is one of the problems with Iraq.

Troop numbers are finite. When you place one in Iraq that is one less than you can place in Afghanistan. I'm not stating this to argue that each and every troop we have should be in Iraq, however if you are going to claim that your number one priority is to bring to justice those responsible for 9/11, you cannot remove potential resources that you might need. It just doesn't make sense.

In addition to this, you have the money spent. The money spent in Iraq is money that cannot be spent in Afghanistan. Our wallets are not bottomless. Money that was spent in Iraq cannot purchase information in Afghanistan.

So, remove troop options, remove money, remove strategists and what you have is an operation that you just aren't giving your best effort to complete.

 

you seldom disappoint.

 

Watch out for those black helicopters. And they're putting flouride in your drinking water. 9-11 was an inside job. LBJ had Kennedy killed. Lincoln was a freemason who forced the Civil War for profit. George Washington sacrificed virgins at Valley Forge.

Can you be more paranoid?

Feel free to cite any credible proof about your wild allegations.

 

where's bin laden, dude? you got him in your basement, or what?

 

We could capture Osama Bin Laden at any time. But the administration is cleverly keeping surveillance on him.

If we capture or kill him, Al Queda will just find a new leader -- perhaps someone even worse than Bin Laden.

Better to deal with the Terrorist you know than the Terrorist you don't.