This is disheartening:

[hockeybeat]

According to the WaPo, we have no idea where OBL is.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14724112/

 

[Songbird]

We know where he is. We'll have his head on a platter about 6-8 weeks before the next election. At this point it's all a ****ing game. Posturing this. Lies that. We know where he is. We probably have him and everything we've seen during the last year or two is wag-the-dog footage to dupe us into believing he's like Saga (read: on the loose).

 

[DyePack]

That was December 2001. Only two months later, Bush decided to pull out most of the special operations troops and their CIA counterparts in the paramilitary division that were leading the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for war in Iraq, said Flynt L. Leverett, then an expert on the Middle East at the National Security Council.

"I was appalled when I learned about it," said Leverett, who has become an outspoken critic of the administration's counterterrorism policy. "I don't know of anyone who thought it was a good idea. It's very likely that bin Laden would be dead or in American custody if we hadn't done that."

Several officers confirmed that the number of special operations troops was reduced in March 2001.



An error that has no business being in an advance article of this importance.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

We know where he is. We'll have his head on a platter about 6-8 weeks before the next election. At this point it's all a ****ing game. Posturing this. Lies that. We know where he is. We probably have him and everything we've seen during the last year or two is wag-the-dog footage to dupe us into believing he's like Saga (read: on the loose).

If we knew where he was, why not capture him, say, November 1st, 2004....catch him right on the eve of the election and Bush gets another 5-7% of the vote and captures a few more states? People keep trotting that out, but if we knew where he was, we'd nab him....it would help Bush politically and would be a key moment in our fight against terrorism (the significance would be more symbolic than operational, but it would be seminal, nonetheless).

 

[HejiraHenry]

Liberals, 2002: We know where he is. We'll have his head on a platter about 6-8 weeks before the next election.
Liberals, 2004: We know where he is. We'll have his head on a platter about 6-8 weeks before the next election.
Liberals, 2006: We know where he is. We'll have his head on a platter about 6-8 weeks before the next election.
Liberals, 2008: We know where he is. We'll have his head on a platter about 6-8 weeks before the next election.

 

[BYH]

I hate to say it but HH is right (nothing personal, just different politics). Us Bush-hating bastards (George, not Sophia) have been waiting for OBL's head to show up right before an election and it hasn't happened yet.

Just chalk it up to ineptitude, like everything else the last six years.

 

[alleyallen]

We know where he is. We'll have his head on a platter about 6-8 weeks before the next election. At this point it's all a ****ing game. Posturing this. Lies that. We know where he is. We probably have him and everything we've seen during the last year or two is wag-the-dog footage to dupe us into believing he's like Saga (read: on the loose).

Not to argue with you Xan, but that theory has been bandied about before, particularly before the 2004 election. It wasn't true then and I doubt it's true now.

 

[farmerjerome]

Maybe catching him is not important as it was a few years ago.

He's a sick old man. Maybe the most important thing is now is to get the higher-ups.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if we caught the worthless piece of ****. But he's more of a figurehead now.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

That was December 2001. Only two months later, Bush decided to pull out most of the special operations troops and their CIA counterparts in the paramilitary division that were leading the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for war in Iraq, said Flynt L. Leverett, then an expert on the Middle East at the National Security Council.

"I was appalled when I learned about it," said Leverett, who has become an outspoken critic of the administration's counterterrorism policy. "I don't know of anyone who thought it was a good idea. It's very likely that bin Laden would be dead or in American custody if we hadn't done that."

Several officers confirmed that the number of special operations troops was reduced in March 2001.



An error that has no business being in an advance article of this importance.

Jesus.
Let us suppose that the bin Laden tape in question was obtained along about the time this one was.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/tape.transcript/

OK, let's then suppose that the troops were pulled out on or about March 1.
77 days.

Of course, if the OBL tape was obtained on or about December 30, then we're talking about 60 days or, as it is sometimes referred to, two months.
Oh, and the obvious typo.
Yes, an egregious error.
No wonder people don't trust journalists.
I want his sorry ass in the NYC courtroom and then in Pelican Bay.

 

[hondo]

By criticizing the Bush administration for not having gotten OBL to this point, and for not knowing where he is, you open the door to the criticism that the Clinton administration did know where he was -- several times -- and didn't take the chance to capture or kill him.

Can't have it both ways, much as you would like. But you'll still try.

 

[heyabbott]

Maybe, just maybe, we're better off with him alive and in a Pakistani cave rather than alive and in a CIA prison in Thailand or Cuba or dead in Crawford, Texas.

 

[hondo]

I hate to say it but HH is right (nothing personal, just different politics). Us Bush-hating bastards (George, not Sophia) have been waiting for OBL's head to show up right before an election and it hasn't happened yet.

Just chalk it up to ineptitude, like everything else the last six years.

Ineptitude: do you mean taking the measures to insure that we haven't been attacked on our soil in five years?
The current administration must be doing something right in that regard. And even you libs should find it hard to argue with five years, no attacks.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

By criticizing the Bush administration for not having gotten OBL to this point, and for not knowing where he is, you open the door to the criticism that the Clinton administration did know where he was -- several times -- and didn't take the chance to capture or kill him.

Can't have it both ways, much as you would like. But you'll still try.

hondo --
Please cite, using actual news sources, the "several times."
Miniter's book doesn't count. Neither does Miller's.
Try the 9/11 commission report for starters.
Nothing in the Clinton years matches the bungle at Tora Bora. Nothing.

 

[Ace]

By criticizing the Bush administration for not having gotten OBL to this point, and for not knowing where he is, you open the door to the criticism that the Clinton administration did know where he was -- several times -- and didn't take the chance to capture or kill him.

Can't have it both ways, much as you would like. But you'll still try.

Whatever, hondo.

Had we listened to our military leaders on the ground, we would have had enough troops to get OBL at Tora Bora.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html

 

[old_tony]

Before posting on this thread, it helps to remember the rules.

Here are the rules, as given by the lefties on SportsJournalists.com:

If Bush doesn't do something, it's because he's inept.

If Bush does do something, it's because of politics.

Example: Up until Dec. 2003, Saddam was not captured. This meant the Bush administration was incompetent. In Dec. 2003, Saddam was captured. This meant the Bush administration was playing politics, that they probably had him all the time and brought him out to improve Bush's sagging ratings.

Right now, OBL is not in custody. In leftyworld, this means the Bush administration is incompetent (even though Clinton never got him, either -- always remember, Clinton is infallible). When/if OBL is captured, this will mean they had him all along and Bush was just waiting until near an election to swing the results.

Everyone understand now?

Glad to help.

 

[Ace]

Before posting on this thread, it helps to remember the rules.

Here are the rules, as given by the lefties on SportsJournalists.com:

If Bush doesn't do something, it's because he's inept.

If Bush does do something, it's because of politics.

Example: Up until Dec. 2003, Saddam was not captured. This meant the Bush administration was incompetent. In Dec. 2003, Saddam was captured. This meant the Bush administration was playing politics, that they probably had him all the time and brought him out to improve Bush's sagging ratings.

Right now, OBL is not in custody. In leftyworld, this means the Bush administration is incompetent (even though Clinton never got him, either -- always remember, Clinton is infallible). When/if OBL is captured, this will mean they had him all along and Bush was just waiting until near an election to swing the results.

Everyone understand now?

Glad to help.

It you want to make an argument for Bush's competence, feel free.

We'll wait ....

 

[alleyallen]

Before posting on this thread, it helps to remember the rules.

Here are the rules, as given by the lefties on SportsJournalists.com:

If Bush doesn't do something, it's because he's inept.

If Bush does do something, it's because of politics.

Example: Up until Dec. 2003, Saddam was not captured. This meant the Bush administration was incompetent. In Dec. 2003, Saddam was captured. This meant the Bush administration was playing politics, that they probably had him all the time and brought him out to improve Bush's sagging ratings.

Right now, OBL is not in custody. In leftyworld, this means the Bush administration is incompetent (even though Clinton never got him, either -- always remember, Clinton is infallible). When/if OBL is captured, this will mean they had him all along and Bush was just waiting until near an election to swing the results.

Everyone understand now?

Glad to help.

While the lefties who use this argument sound foolish, the righties who insist on holding up George Bush sound just as foolish. Prior to the Shrub spouting off about the axis of evil, no one but the Shrub and a few Republicans were clamoring for Saddam to be captured. I don't recall a great outpouring of Democrats saying Bush was being lazy for NOT capturing Saddam. Do you?

 

[old_tony]

Before posting on this thread, it helps to remember the rules.

Here are the rules, as given by the lefties on SportsJournalists.com:

If Bush doesn't do something, it's because he's inept.

If Bush does do something, it's because of politics.

Example: Up until Dec. 2003, Saddam was not captured. This meant the Bush administration was incompetent. In Dec. 2003, Saddam was captured. This meant the Bush administration was playing politics, that they probably had him all the time and brought him out to improve Bush's sagging ratings.

Right now, OBL is not in custody. In leftyworld, this means the Bush administration is incompetent (even though Clinton never got him, either -- always remember, Clinton is infallible). When/if OBL is captured, this will mean they had him all along and Bush was just waiting until near an election to swing the results.

Everyone understand now?

Glad to help.

While the lefties who use this argument sound foolish, the righties who insist on holding up George Bush sound just as foolish. Prior to the Shrub spouting off about the axis of evil, no one but the Shrub and a few Republicans were clamoring for Saddam to be captured. I don't recall a great outpouring of Democrats saying Bush was being lazy for NOT capturing Saddam. Do you?

No, they didn't say he was lazy. They said he was incompetent.

 

[alleyallen]

Before posting on this thread, it helps to remember the rules.

Here are the rules, as given by the lefties on SportsJournalists.com:

If Bush doesn't do something, it's because he's inept.

If Bush does do something, it's because of politics.

Example: Up until Dec. 2003, Saddam was not captured. This meant the Bush administration was incompetent. In Dec. 2003, Saddam was captured. This meant the Bush administration was playing politics, that they probably had him all the time and brought him out to improve Bush's sagging ratings.

Right now, OBL is not in custody. In leftyworld, this means the Bush administration is incompetent (even though Clinton never got him, either -- always remember, Clinton is infallible). When/if OBL is captured, this will mean they had him all along and Bush was just waiting until near an election to swing the results.

Everyone understand now?

Glad to help.

While the lefties who use this argument sound foolish, the righties who insist on holding up George Bush sound just as foolish. Prior to the Shrub spouting off about the axis of evil, no one but the Shrub and a few Republicans were clamoring for Saddam to be captured. I don't recall a great outpouring of Democrats saying Bush was being lazy for NOT capturing Saddam. Do you?

No, they didn't say he was lazy. They said he was incompetent.

And you're proving my point by arguing lazy and incompenent as opposed to the actually meat of the comment. Thanks.

 

[Ace]

Before posting on this thread, it helps to remember the rules.

Here are the rules, as given by the lefties on SportsJournalists.com:

If Bush doesn't do something, it's because he's inept.

If Bush does do something, it's because of politics.

Example: Up until Dec. 2003, Saddam was not captured. This meant the Bush administration was incompetent. In Dec. 2003, Saddam was captured. This meant the Bush administration was playing politics, that they probably had him all the time and brought him out to improve Bush's sagging ratings.

Right now, OBL is not in custody. In leftyworld, this means the Bush administration is incompetent (even though Clinton never got him, either -- always remember, Clinton is infallible). When/if OBL is captured, this will mean they had him all along and Bush was just waiting until near an election to swing the results.

Everyone understand now?

Glad to help.

While the lefties who use this argument sound foolish, the righties who insist on holding up George Bush sound just as foolish. Prior to the Shrub spouting off about the axis of evil, no one but the Shrub and a few Republicans were clamoring for Saddam to be captured. I don't recall a great outpouring of Democrats saying Bush was being lazy for NOT capturing Saddam. Do you?

No, they didn't say he was lazy. They said he was incompetent.

old_t,

Could you perchance find a quote from some liberal or democrat criticizing Bush 43 for not capturing Saddam earlier?

Perhaps you have him mixed up with bin Laden?

Lot of that going around.