OT: I need info from dbu

Do me a favor, OK? When I ask someone a question, butt out unless you are the someone, OK?

Thanks, Jeff.

"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message news:3gOli.27$ct5.12@trnddc06...

Another Right-Wing fantasy that never happened. Having him put in chains on a plane bound for a country that would hand him over to us was not one of the proffered options.

This is sooo tedious. You couldn't just trust me on this?

Flip (Remarks at the Pentagon, Sept 16th, 2001):

Do you want bin Laden dead?THE PRESIDENT: I want justice. There's an old poster out west, as Irecall, that said, "Wanted: Dead or Alive." Flop (Press Conference, March 13th, 2002): But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't trulybe eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And Iwouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And,again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I trulyam not that concerned about him. Lie about it (Third Presidential Debate, October, 2004): Anything to add, Senator Kerry?KERRY: Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osamabin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghanwarlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, thispresident was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. Idon't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama binLaden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

I was irked by your oblique slap on liberals. We're well aware of what's going on in Pakistan.

Because I'm such a great person, I'm going to give you some advice to avoid looking silly from this moment on. Open your list of canned "facts" and erase the one about Clinton and OBL. Do it right now. Don't ever say it again. Then, read this:

Apparently, dbu is too pussified to respond to this issue. There's a piece of information missing, and when you put all the puzzle pieces together, it gets very interesting.

1) The Afghan governor says Pakistan's intelligence service (the ISI) is not within Musharraf's ability to control any more. 2) Our intelligence services say the same thing.

3) The governor says the ISI is trying to recruit fighters in Afghanistan to resume an old war with India, in which Pakistan got its ass kicked in two weeks.

4) George W. Bush gave approval for Pakistan to buy as many F-16s as they want. They're perfect for delivering nuclear weapons.

5) George W. Bush ignored the need to put the bulk of our troops where they were needed to fight the real enemy.

I won't bother to ask you again what your favorite news sources are, as I've done in the past. If you're can't figure out what's going on in Pakistan, your news sources are faulty. There's more than enough information available EVERY SINGLE DAY for you to understand.

I mentioned Clinton because you needed to understand that Bush also may have been handed OBL "on a silver platter", but called it off for no good reason. If the aborted mission wasn't based on decent intelligence, why was it within hours of being carried out? An exercise to see if soldiers could tie their boot laces?

Allies do not harbor terrorist in border regions and refuse to let us touch them. Get Musharraf out of Pakistan, set him up for life with a new identity and 1000 acres in Montana, and have our way with his country's border region.

He is not our ally. He is harboring terrorists. You will recall that Saddam was also harboring terrorists, according to your president. That made him "NOT an ally", even though we have nice photos of him shaking hands with Rumsfeld.

Let me ask you a couple questions about the article you wish for us to read and believe.

1. "according to intelligence and military officials" Could we at least get some names?
2. Could we get some transcripts of the meeting between Goss and Rumsfeld? "officials said." What officials?
3. "officials said." What officials? Names?
4. "Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled," "said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning." Who was this offical? Name please.
5. "About a dozen current and former military and intelligence officials were interviewed for this article, all of whom requested anonymity because the planned 2005 mission remained classified."

It would appear that somebody needs to be investigated for divulging classified material. The first person that should be visited is Mark Mazzetti.

"outside experts" "officials said" "officals said" and so on. If they can't commit their names then the article is rumor and BULLSHIT!!!

How in hell do you expect any reasonable person to read this drivel and believe it. This is the kind of stuff novels are made of.

If you had the names, you still wouldn't believe it. Denying reality because of a missing name is a common tactic of yours when you need to get back to whatever you're watching on TV.

Hey! How about you answer the ?'s asked of you in the other thread? Or are you going to continue to bury your head in the sand

You've sussed him out. ;-)

Cathy

KMA you fake.

Tell us about your 'military' service and 'wound' that took a year in hospitals to cure.

Tell us the hospital.

Tell us your unit.

Tell us about your service....

If anything he's fucxxx up in the head.

Here's the story:

Sudan offered to return him to Saudi Arabia (which had expelled him and stripped him of Saudi citizenship) but ONLY if the Saudis gave bin Laden a pardon.

Also, that was in 1996, by which date I do not think we could actually pin any specific crime on bin Laden (I may reread this chapter more carefully, later). The Khobar Towers incident might have been earlier but I do not think we knew bin Laden was involved. His status at that time was probably more like "troublemaker" and it's unlikely that we could have justified, say, shooting down his plane or even forcing it down elsewhere (that would be an act of war).

In any event, the "on a silver platter" idea is pure fantasy.

Well, as you see, maybe you should. I wasn't lying. Ordinarily, I'd say that I used "unimpeachable" sources... :-)

I certainly disagree with you on this. bin Laden is not trapped and cornered (of course, he might be dead) and he's gotten away with his crime. Now, I do not believe in the death penalty but I did agree, on Sept 16th,

2001, with the President that those responsible must be brought to justice. To be ignoring him after 6 months is bad justice and, given that Al-Qaeda is now as strong as ever or stronger (our own assessment), it's also bad policy.

I also found the "dead or alive" frontier justice posturing, followed by the "truly am not... concerned..." to be offensive (OK, maybe I'm just easily annoyed but part of my concern is that frontier justice often claims innocent victims). Lying about it in the election? That's not right. It's an interesting measure of the President's popularity and personal appeal to his base (which was then wider) that there was no outcry about this. He lied but nobody cared. Kerry's honesty and record were under constant attack but this outright, bald-faced lie skated right by. I think that speaks to a true double-standard on the part of the President's base, who were so outraged by supposed Democratic lies but willing to turn a blind eye (or deaf ear) to the President's.

I'm also troubled by the President's de-emphasis of bin Laden in another way; was the President setting the stage for the invasion of Iraq as the "solution" to our terrorism problem? I'm not the same conspiracy theorist that Joe seems to be but I look back at that and think that we were being set up.

And I think it was bad policy to deemphasize bin Laden. First, I believe we should treat terrorism as a crime, to depoliticize it and to seek out the perpetrators (or their accessories, in the case of suicide attackers) and deal with them firmly (I'm against the death penalty, as I said, but if they're shot resisting arrest I'm not going to ask too many questions). What the President has done has certainly inflamed a lot of Muslims that would be much more likely to sit still while we went after criminals and has the effect of strenghthening our enemies. There is evidence for this view; the Israelis and the Saudis and the CIA have all come to this conclusion (a year ago and more, in fact - the Israeli report was in '05 or so).

And I think this was a foreseeable outcome, which is all the more tragic.

Oh, I figured his question was disingenuous; that he was bringing something to dbu's attention and being snarky about it. You didn't think so? I thought "I asked dbu, so butt out" was be a dead giveaway.

:-)

Where *I* am suggesting the enemy is? What have you read about the Taliban recently? Do you have any idea how all of this fits into a 1500 year old religious battle that we cannot do anything about?

I think what you will see soon is Pakistan's military giving Musharraf the boot (if he's lucky), or a bullet in the head. There's nothing to stop them. Someone's already taken pot shots at him and his aircraft. Then, it will not seem funny that we sold that country fancy jets. India won't think it's funny. Our military won't think it's funny.

Scott will think it's funny, but he's nothing.

Vally Forge General in PA.

1st Div.

Yup, avoid the "?'s. More deflections. What a no balls idiot you are. Ya have to be about 17.

You are a fake. I have no time for those who pretend. Go play on your youtube.