The Hunt for bin Laden - stalled

[5stringJeff]

I'm not sure if this is a turf war battle or not, but you'd think if Bush was serious about capturing bin Laden, he'd cut through the bureaucratic BS and order bin Laden hunted down, whether he's in Pakistan or not.

This story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2224726/White-House-in-fighting-stalled-Osama-bin-Laden-hunt-in-Pakistan.html) calls it a turf war:


For six months, the possibility of killing or capturing the al-Qa'eda leader and mastermind of the September 11 terrorist attacks has diminished because of political in-fighting, according to the New York Times.

Late last year, the newspaper said, senior Bush administration officials, casting aside long-held concerns about the diplomatic ramifications, drafted a plan to enable US Special Forces to operate in the lawless tribal areas.

But the classified Pentagon order, which was designed to mark a shift from what some officials saw as an aversion to risk, became bogged down in a Bush administration turf war and has not been carried out.

While this story (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5275304&page=1) pins the blame on Bush:


The Pentagon has drafted a secret plan that would send U.S. special forces into the wild tribal regions of Pakistan to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, but the White House has balked at giving the mission a green light, The New York Times reported today.
New leaked reports have exposed U.S. covert operations in the Middle East.

The Bush administration, which has seven months left in its term, gave the go-ahead for the military to draw up the plan to take the war on terror across the Afghan border and into the mountains of Pakistan where bin Laden is believed to be hiding, according to the newspaper.

Intelligence reports have concluded that bin Laden has re-established a network of new training camps, and the number of recruits in those camps has risen to as many as 2,000 in recent months from 200 earlier this year.

Although the special forces attack plan was devised six months ago, infighting among U.S. intelligence agencies and among White House offices have blocked it from being implemented, the Times reported.

[mundame]

I'm not sure if this is a turf war battle or not, but you'd think if Bush was serious about capturing bin Laden, he'd cut through the bureaucratic BS and order bin Laden hunted down, whether he's in Pakistan or not.

This story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2224726/White-House-in-fighting-stalled-Osama-bin-Laden-hunt-in-Pakistan.html) calls it a turf war:



While this story (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5275304&page=1) pins the blame on Bush:


Yeah, really.

There is no excuse for Bush making war in Afghanistan for six years or more AFTER BIN LADEN WAS GONE. And never bothering to try to catch him; saying he, Bush, didn't care where the guy was who bombed New York.

To me that is just such incredible dereliction of duty.

[Hagbard Celine]

It was never about Bin Laden. Hours--probably minutes after 911, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush were pushing to find a way to pin it on S. Hussein. Bin Laden was and is an after-thought.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/view/main.html

[mundame]

It was never about Bin Laden. Hours--probably minutes after 911, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush were pushing to find a way to pin it on S. Hussein. Bin Laden was and is an after-thought.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/view/main.html


So it appears, Hagbard, but that's really pretty awful considering two of our cities were bombed. Including our central military command!! Darn. And Bush doesn't care where bin Laden is, doesn't worry much about him as he said?

[DragonStryk72]

Any problems with going in and getting him, if they exist within Bush's administration, fall at Bush's feet, since he is supposedly their leader, the one with whom the buck stops, so in that, the articles are both accurate.

[Psychoblues]

Timing is everything and everything is political. There have been numerous reports as to how the US Forces have had obl in their sites but were pulled back for one reason or another. Anyone want to guess as to why this happens? Yeah, me neither.

[namvet]

US troops are not allowed in Pakistan. whats that tell ya????

[5stringJeff]

US troops are not allowed in Pakistan. whats that tell ya????

It tells me that Condi isn't doing her job.

[namvet]

It tells me that Condi isn't doing her job.
try again.

[Hagbard Celine]

try again.

Condi never has done her job. She's weak and ineffectual.

[Sitarro]

Any problems with going in and getting him, if they exist within Bush's administration, fall at Bush's feet, since he is supposedly their leader, the one with whom the buck stops, so in that, the articles are both accurate.

Well if a miracle happens and Jesus Christ comes down and anoints Bob Barr as President, I'm sure that he will go get him personally........ sure!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[namvet]

Condi never has done her job. She's weak and ineffectual.

US troops have NEVER been allowed there. ever.

[Hagbard Celine]

US troops have NEVER been allowed there. ever.

Since when did the US need to be "allowed" to do anything? A good sec. of state would get it done.

[Psychoblues]

There is certainly plenty of evidence to back that up. But, she does stay out of Dick and georgy's way and that is her main purpose in life, isn't it?




Condi never has done her job. She's weak and ineffectual.

I don't know if I've ever seen more 180's in the handling of an international problem than I've seen in this Iranian quagmire. Hell, it just keep getting worse and the lies keep getting told, refuted, then told again!!!!!!!!! Wake up, folks!!!!!!!!!!!

[namvet]

Since when did the US need to be "allowed" to do anything? A good sec. of state would get it done.

you mean with islamic terrorist living there???? try again. you ain't even close

[emmett]

:link:
Timing is everything and everything is political. There have been numerous reports as to how the US Forces have had obl in their sites but were pulled back for one reason or another. Anyone want to guess as to why this happens? Yeah, me neither.


:link:


:link:


:link:

[emmett]

Well if a miracle happens and Jesus Christ comes down and anoints Bob Barr as President, I'm sure that he will go get him personally........ sure!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

That may not be as funny as you think Sitarro. I realize that you have said this because you see the LP as weak on (being the world's police officer). While it is true that most Libertarians would prefer national defense to remain national "DEFENSE" , not offense, OBL attacked the US. Bob Barr would probably continue the search for him. Just as aggressively as GWB, probably moreso because he would begin to withdraw resources from that futile effort currently mounted in Iraq. Oh sure, there has been progress, but completely on the hands of our troops. It needs to be the Iraquis that take care of their own defense at this point.

Libertarians actually have a better national defense strategy than either of the two "big politicos". We believe in actually defending our country, not attacking other ones.

It is time to finally face some facts here. Our two bigsters have failed. They have failed to work together, they have failed our economy, they have failed our tax system, they have destroyed our housing market, they have ruined our dollar and have screwed up our country. When will we finally face these OBVIOUS facts and get smart and go back to the real American philosophy, FREEDOM. When you have freedom, you win the war every day.

So, yes, I believe Bob Barr woulod find OBL. Can you prove he wouldn't, or couldn't? I'm interested. Why do you think he would not?

[Psychoblues]

Really? Just what is the record of the Libertarian National Defense Strategy?




Libertarians actually have a better national defense strategy than either of the two "big politicos".

One thing is for certain, the conservative wing of the Libertarian Party was/is hip on Hitler and completely against any American involvement in WWII. I think a bunch of them live in Idaho now.

[emmett]

Really? Just what is the record of the Libertarian National Defense Strategy?




One thing is for certain, the conservative wing of the Libertarian Party was/is hip on Hitler and completely against any American involvement in WWII. I think a bunch of them live in Idaho now.

david, that is like saying that a larger wing of the then Democratic Party is communist now and were against bringing down the Berlin wall. There will always be extremists in any philosophy. You know, those who only relate to a subject in yes and no. They are usually the ones standing so far at the end of a spectrum they can't even fathom the middle, much less see it.

You are far too intelligent to really believe that Libertarians (true) would have supported Hitler. Tyrants like that threaten everything to do with our liberty. Extremists just ride the platform and are associated with it. Real Libertarians believe in Liberty for EVERYONE!!! One set of rules for everybody. Personal Responsibility for one self, accountability, liberty and freedom. Freedom to do whatever you want so long as it does not bring any restriction to anyone else's freedom. The KKK, those guerilla militias and other extremist organizations don't represent that at all. They frankly represent something exactly the opposite.

See, there really isn't one single thing wrong with the basic beliefs of true Libertarians. They believe what those men in that room in Philidelphia believed. They just believe it in the year 2008. Just goes to show you how the very ideas that our country was founded on can become distorted. There will always be influences from abroad. As our country changes face (new people come in) our beliefs will vary from it's origianal intent. I know that, I'd be a fool not to be realistical enough to admit that. The fact is though, we must hold true to as much of that original philosophy as possible or we are doomed.

In the 1800's when we were confronted by foriegn invaders we repelled them. We defeated many an enemy to make our country complete. (yes we defeated the original owners of this land). The thing is though, we did not immediately aggress to their land to destroy their way of life. We defeated them and then set up our defenses. The British, the French, the Spanish, the Mexicans, all found out we were serious about maintaining our freedom. The Japanese learned it too. All were justified defenses of our nation. We did not launch aggressive attacks on their countries after the threat was eliminated. The bomb in Japan was necessary to eliminate the threat, and it worked huh?It was only until Korea, Viet Nam and now Iraq where we have learned that aggressive behavior has it's consequences such as did the aggressive actions of those who chose to attack us in earlier times.

The hate groups and extremists you are referring to who live in isolation away from mainstream America are just that, hatemongers. They no more stand for what Libertarians believe than the man in the moon. You know that. Nor do the communists stand for the basic beliefs of democrats. Libertarians stand for the best of the left and right. We are tolerant, peace loving pursuers of true Liberty. But then, in your heart, you know that don't you?

Until the next time I can have the pleasure of educating you in an area where you are lacking, peace brother!

[Psychoblues]

Thanks for the comprehensive answer, emmie. I don't agree with all of it as I don't agree with all I find in the Democratic Party distractions. As far as the hatemongering wing of the Libertarian Party are concerned don't you think it would be better for you to denounce them loudly, publically and often so that they might go elsewhere for the recognition they so crave? There is another Party to which they are attracted so send them there and we'll be done with that bunch of idiots that we both despise!!!!!!!!!!!

:clap::clap::cheers2::clap::clap:

[Sitarro]

That may not be as funny as you think Sitarro. I realize that you have said this because you see the LP as weak on (being the world's police officer). While it is true that most Libertarians would prefer national defense to remain national "DEFENSE" , not offense, OBL attacked the US. Bob Barr would probably continue the search for him. Just as aggressively as GWB, probably moreso because he would begin to withdraw resources from that futile effort currently mounted in Iraq. Oh sure, there has been progress, but completely on the hands of our troops. It needs to be the Iraquis that take care of their own defense at this point.

Libertarians actually have a better national defense strategy than either of the two "big politicos". We believe in actually defending our country, not attacking other ones.

It is time to finally face some facts here. Our two bigsters have failed. They have failed to work together, they have failed our economy, they have failed our tax system, they have destroyed our housing market, they have ruined our dollar and have screwed up our country. When will we finally face these OBVIOUS facts and get smart and go back to the real American philosophy, FREEDOM. When you have freedom, you win the war every day.

So, yes, I believe Bob Barr woulod find OBL. Can you prove he wouldn't, or couldn't? I'm interested. Why do you think he would not?

Like I have said before, Libertarians have nobody in office to help him out. He wouldn't be able to get gas for Air Force One if he was President, neither the Dems or the Republicans in Congress would allow him to do anything, especially if it might make them look bad.

I don't have as much of a problem with the Libertarian platform as I do with the idea that voting that way will be giving all three branches of the government to the Democrats.

[Psychoblues]

Interesting, ridiculous but interesting.




I don't have as much of a problem with the Libertarian platform as I do with the idea that voting that way will be giving all three branches of the government to the Democrats.

That little statement about sums you up doesn't it, zero? How can you live with so much fear and hate in your heart?

[5stringJeff]

Like I have said before, Libertarians have nobody in office to help him out. He wouldn't be able to get gas for Air Force One if he was President, neither the Dems or the Republicans in Congress would allow him to do anything, especially if it might make them look bad.

I don't have as much of a problem with the Libertarian platform as I do with the idea that voting that way will be giving all three branches of the government to the Democrats.

First, there are Libertarians who hold elected office, although they are at the local and state level. And a Libertarian President would necessarily have to work with both big parties; Barr would work with the Democrats on civil liberties issues, for example, and the GOP on economic freedoms.

Second, a strong showing for the Libertarians shows both parties, not just the GOP, that Americans are interested more in freedom than in maintaining the status quo.

[DragonStryk72]

Well if a miracle happens and Jesus Christ comes down and anoints Bob Barr as President, I'm sure that he will go get him personally........ sure!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Wow, nice of you to stop by to stick your head up your ass. Note that I don't use these little kid tactics when I speak to you. Where have I said anything that would even begin to approach that thought process. Oh well, you're losing the debate in the other thread, so I get you need the ego stroke.

Now, if Bob Barr were president, and it was this same situation, it would be his responsiblity.

If McCain was president, and it was this same situation, it would be his responsiblity.

If Obama were president, and it was this same situation, it would be his responsiblity.

If Hilary were president, and it was this same situation, it would be his responsiblity.

Have I covered everyone now?

[emmett]

Like I have said before, Libertarians have nobody in office to help him out. He wouldn't be able to get gas for Air Force One if he was President, neither the Dems or the Republicans in Congress would allow him to do anything, especially if it might make them look bad.

I don't have as much of a problem with the Libertarian platform as I do with the idea that voting that way will be giving all three branches of the government to the Democrats.

The republicans are doing that all by themselves my friend.

[emmett]

We had the chance to properly educate our children inthe 70's 80's and 90's, to be good examples and interact with them. Instead, we left them at home in front of a Nintendo, stopped playing catch with them and allowed them to do whatever they want. Now we whine because they have grown up to be democrats. Go figure!!!

[Psychoblues]

My 3 kids did all that, played in the high school bands, took college prep courses, played sports in the neighborhood and in the community teams and they really are closer to Libertarian than me. But, they tell me they vote Democratic and that's all that matters in the grand American scheme of things, isn't it? They all expect their freedoms and because I showed them that freedom and liberty are just political bywords and they need to concentrate on attitude, actions and propensities in their own personal interests and aspirations for their country they need to be serious about their votes I feel I have done about all I can for them in that respect.



We had the chance to properly educate our children inthe 70's 80's and 90's, to be good examples and interact with them. Instead, we left them at home in front of a Nintendo, stopped playing catch with them and allowed them to do whatever they want. Now we whine because they have grown up to be democrats. Go figure!!!

Did I mention that they are all very successful, don't ask me for a thing, they hold civic positions, bank accounts and own their own careers/businesses? And none of them have any dope, alcohol, family or other problems? And they all tell me that they love me each time we speak!!!!!!!!!

Good God, I am a very lucky man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gaffer]

Bush is leaving office soon, so all the bureaucrats are jockeying for position. Security of the country means nothing when it comes to power and prestige.

[Psychoblues]

That's an awfully dismal outlook, guffer.



Bush is leaving office soon, so all the bureaucrats are jockeying for position. Security of the country means nothing when it comes to power and prestige.

You must be a sanctimonious prick?!?!?!?!??! Think so?

[bullypulpit]

I'm not sure if this is a turf war battle or not, but you'd think if Bush was serious about capturing bin Laden, he'd cut through the bureaucratic BS and order bin Laden hunted down, whether he's in Pakistan or not.

This story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2224726/White-House-in-fighting-stalled-Osama-bin-Laden-hunt-in-Pakistan.html) calls it a turf war:



While this story (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5275304&page=1) pins the blame on Bush:

The hunt for bin Laden "stalled" the day Bush decided to work off his chubby for Saddam instead of hunting down the REAL threat to US and world security...Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

[actsnoblemartin]

no, this has been going on for 15 years

but nice try bush hater


The hunt for bin Laden "stalled" the day Bush decided to work off his chubby for Saddam instead of hunting down the REAL threat to US and world security...Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

[bullypulpit]

no, this has been going on for 15 years

but nice try bush hater

<blockquote>"I want justice, There's an old poster out west, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" - George W. Bush, 9/17/2001</blockquote>

So...Where is he? You gotta do better than throwing childish epithets around.

[Psychoblues]

Maybe the reputation of obl is more valuable than the man himself. bush is not alone in that observation.

[actsnoblemartin]

Im not trying to call you names, you dont love bush do you. But to be fair, if your offended, ill call you a bush-disliker

and i want justice too

no offense meant


<blockquote>"I want justice, There's an old poster out west, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" - George W. Bush, 9/17/2001</blockquote>

So...Where is he? You gotta do better than throwing childish epithets around.

[Psychoblues]

You back to slappin' the ol' softshoe, marty?



Im not trying to call you names, you dont love bush do you. But to be fair, if your offended, ill call you a bush-disliker

and i want justice too

no offense meant

You're disappointing me!!!!!!!!!!! BTW, thanks for the word, my friend!!!!!!!

[DragonStryk72]

Like I have said before, Libertarians have nobody in office to help him out. He wouldn't be able to get gas for Air Force One if he was President, neither the Dems or the Republicans in Congress would allow him to do anything, especially if it might make them look bad.

I don't have as much of a problem with the Libertarian platform as I do with the idea that voting that way will be giving all three branches of the government to the Democrats.

You mean things like, say, doing absolutely nothing? Especially with a 3rd party candidate who has just proven that 3rd party is in fact viable, and therefore, no one "has" to vote Dem or Republican. And do you really think he'd be the only one to pull it? You've seen the reports: 62% of American favor fewer government programs with lower taxes. That is a libertarian's dream to run on.

I mean come on, this dream world you live is laughable at best. Here's what would happen: Barr gets elected, or hell, gets a significant percentage, and 90% of the Dems and Reps collectively shit a brick, period. Do you know what that does to their job security? they are vote dependent, and as we have seen time after time, when the demographic shift, so do the opinions of the politicians. they've spent so much time going at each other to the exclusion of all others they have no strategy for the 3rd party candidates. The shift would be swift, not enough to claim the full majority, but certainly enough to make them have to work with them. Also, you assume I want the Libertarians to be the only people in office. Christ no, that would just turn into the same problem all over again.

I always dislike these suppositions that do not put reality anywhere in them. You have a habit of this, I've noticed. You jump in, throw around some choice insults, contribute little to nothing to the debate, and then throw around some rhetoric when you start to catch exactly the type of argument you've sown. you're better than this, because I cannot believe this is alls there is in you.

[DragonStryk72]

Reading over the posts, and thinking on it... Sadam was a sadistic murdering bastard who used mustard gas on his own people, who established rape rooms, and who played that same punk game with us again and again: Step up to the world governments, talk big right until we're almost kicking in the door, then back down, wait for us to leave, and declare victory for Iraq. We created him, we made Iraq his back in the 80s, just as we made Afghanistan the Taliban's, and thus empowered bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

If this should have shown us anything, it is that we have no place attempting to tell others how to live, and now, those seeds we have sown are now ours to reap. We have so far failed our responsibility both to the Iraqi people, and to the Afghans. Bin Laden did not decide to become a terrorist on 9/10, he was an established leader, and we ignored it until it was in our laps. The first time we invaded Iraq, we told people to rise up, then abruptly, we left them to die.

We are not the world's police force, and you can't tell me there were not threats to the world outside the US at any other time in our history. We had to worry about the English empire coming to take us back while we were weak from the war, we had to worry about the French, who wanted the land we occupied, we had to worry even about the Spanish, who had the world's premier navy. We had to worry about the Nazis and the Japanese even, and somehow, despite all of those things, it is not until Russia became kind of powerful, and these tiny little dictators popped up that we truly started sacrificing liberty.

It has been going this way for a long time, with only minimal checks to balance it, and now, we are facing a time I believe, where we will be forced to fight to reinstate those rights which have been stripped of us these past few decades. The most unwitting supporters of this stripping being, as always, the american people. We have continually kept electing, and re-electing those who do it, and thus, as we fail our responsibility as the natural check to it, thus it falls to our feet as well.

We cannot be the world's police, we cannot "make" people be democratic, or force them to abandon hate. The most that we can do is defend our people, render what aid we can, and watch for a people who yearn to be free enough to fight revolution for it. This is where we lack patience, and this is where we need it the most.

Yes, we need to take down Bin Laden, now, before he has any further chance to escape, and we need to finish our responsiblities to the Iraqi people, but when this is done, we need to retreat from the world stage, allow the world to fend for itself for a time, and not keep making this one grievous mistake time and again.

[Psychoblues]

But, but, but what are we going to do about the crime in New York City? In reality, Rudy didn't do very much.

[gabosaurus]

Dubya has never been interested in finding bin Laden. It would take away the most visible cartoon figure in his bogus "War on Terror."
The whole charade was an excuse to get even with Osama for insulting his daddy.

http://i30.tinypic.com/10igps0.jpg

[Psychoblues]

Mammy, mammy, Sammy come home from Afghanabammy
Fix me some eggs and hammy, hot dammy, mammy, Sammy.




Dubya has never been interested in finding bin Laden. It would take away the most visible cartoon figure in his bogus "War on Terror."
The whole charade was an excuse to get even with Osama for insulting his daddy.

http://i30.tinypic.com/10igps0.jpg

I guess it could have been worse, gabby.

[mundame]

Mammy, mammy, Sammy come home from Afghanabammy
Fix me some eggs and hammy, hot dammy, mammy, Sammy.


Wow, sounds like a jump-rope rhyme, Psychoblues?

The one I remember jumping to referred to, ahem, a rather earlier war:

Strawberry shortcake
Huckleberry pie
V-I-C-T-O-R-Y.

[bullypulpit]

Maybe the reputation of obl is more valuable than the man himself. bush is not alone in that observation.

That 'bout sums it up. Chimpy needs a boogey-man to frighten the rabble and keep them in line.

[Sitarro]

Wow, nice of you to stop by to stick your head up your ass. Note that I don't use these little kid tactics when I speak to you. Where have I said anything that would even begin to approach that thought process. Oh well, you're losing the debate in the other thread, so I get you need the ego stroke.

Now, if Bob Barr were president, and it was this same situation, it would be his responsiblity.

If McCain was president, and it was this same situation, it would be his responsiblity.

If Obama were president, and it was this same situation, it would be his responsiblity.

If Hilary were president, and it was this same situation, it would be his responsiblity.

Have I covered everyone now?

Gee, you Libertees are just as testy as liberals. Have you bought a used Chevy from your boy Root yet? What I don't get about that guy is how he gets that same shit eating grin on his face for every photo op. I'm sure he could get Bin Laden in a late model Impala at a great price if he buys it today...... grin.

Seems you guys are just as enamored with the Libertarian guys as the Obama followers, you seem to forget that these guys are salesmen too, selling to a specific audience..... you ......... they talk a great game but at the end of the day they are still career politicians that didn't do that well in their original party so rather than try to change it they took their ball and started a brand new party...... they may not have a frizbee's chance in a category five hurricane of winning anything, but they are getting a heavy dose of their attention fix.


By the way, I voted for whomever the libertarian candidate was in 2000 knowing that Bush had Texas' electoral votes sewed up, I was going to try to get the Republican and Democrat's attention too........ didn't do shit. Been there, done that.

[gabosaurus]

Let's face it. Dubya has never been interested in getting bin Laden. It has all been a charade.
Dubya began his first term by ignoring intelligence reports that signaled an upcoming attack. He never saw terrorism as a threat until there was an attack. He then used the attack as an excuse to get rid of Saddam.
So let's sum it up -- Dubya's complete ignorance allowed the Sept. 11 attacks to happen. He has since ignored the perpetrator in favor of evening the score with a personal enemy. Over 4,000 Americans have died as a result.
Makes Bush a pretty evil terrorist to me.

[Sitarro]

Let's face it. Dubya has never been interested in getting bin Laden. It has all been a charade.
Dubya began his first term by ignoring intelligence reports that signaled an upcoming attack. He never saw terrorism as a threat until there was an attack. He then used the attack as an excuse to get rid of Saddam.
So let's sum it up -- Dubya's complete ignorance allowed the Sept. 11 attacks to happen. He has since ignored the perpetrator in favor of evening the score with a personal enemy. Over 4,000 Americans have died as a result.
Makes Bush a pretty evil terrorist to me.

Gabby want a cracker?

[manu1959]

Let's face it. Dubya has never been interested in getting bin Laden. It has all been a charade.
Dubya began his first term by ignoring intelligence reports that signaled an upcoming attack. He never saw terrorism as a threat until there was an attack. He then used the attack as an excuse to get rid of Saddam.
So let's sum it up -- Dubya's complete ignorance allowed the Sept. 11 attacks to happen. He has since ignored the perpetrator in favor of evening the score with a personal enemy. Over 4,000 Americans have died as a result.
Makes Bush a pretty evil terrorist to me.

how many times was the us and us assets and interests hit under tenant and clarke under clinton....btw these were the same folks in charge under bush on sept 11.....

[gabosaurus]

Mock all you want. Facts are facts.

[Sitarro]

Mock all you want. Facts are facts.

In that tiny parrot mind they are real facts, at least that's what Keith Olbermann told you and he would know....... yea, a second rate sports reporter that couldn't possibly have ever played any sport...... wait ..... maybe tiddlywinks?
http://www.tiddlywinks.org/
I'm sure he's somewhere at that site. A lousy sports boy wannabe that now reports on politics, good enough for libs I guess.