T Nation

Osama Bin Laden


We were told this man was responsible for 9/11. Ok, where is Osama bin Laden? Afghanistan? Let's go to Afghanistan. While there, we are told that Iraq is producing WMD on nifty, nuclear-bomb-producing trailer homes or something. We ABANDON the mission to get Saddam. We find no WMD. We're told that Saddam is a bad man and needs to be destroyed. Ok fine, we get Saddam.

Now, what started as a manhunt for the leader of the most horrific attack on American soil has transformed into something completely different. "Spreading democracy" is NOT "Capturing Osama bin Laden" folks. I don't care what O'Reilly, Limbaugh, or Hannity tell you, these are completely different missions.

The truth is that we CUT AND RUN in Afghanistan. Mission WAS NOT Completed. The U.S. GOVERNMENT has FAILED us.

This sums it all:


obofill. I--CANNOT---TYPE--IT--AGAIN!!!

You don't read. It's not worth the time.

However, I did predict that dems would downplay zarqawi.

You will do the same when we can get Mushareef to look the other way and we get bin laden.

It's sadly predictable. It will be, "bin laden was just a figurehead"
or "If Bush hadn't invaded Iraq we would have gotten him sooner" or "we are just going to create 1000 more bin ladens from killing him."

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Oh, bin laden is in Pakistan. Unless we want to invade Pakistan, having 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 more troops in Afghanistan since 2001, wouldn't have made any difference.

But, don't let facts get in the way of your nonsense.



Good job in completely disregarding everything I wrote and labeling me as a Democrat.

Everything I said comes straight from the mouths of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, McClellan, and others. If you've been watching T.V. you can instantly recognize this fact. Stop living in your fantasy world. Face the fact that the men and women running America DO NOT embody the ideals of Conservatism.

By the way, my political views have changed monumentously since living in a city which only airs Conservative talk radio (Bud Hedinger, Mike Gallagher, Neil Bortz, even the crazy Michael Savage. I avoid Hannity and Limbaugh like the plague).



You say that your post comes straight from the mouths of the Administration.

One word: Horseshit.


I'm feeling charitable. I'll just point out a few of your many errors.

You wrote:

Don't know where to start with this one. Is this a lazy man's version of chemical weapons labs on rail?

Seriously, it's so far from what the Administration contended, that I'm having trouble interpreting what you are trying to say.

However, in the interest of debate, I'd be willing to correct my error if you can show me where the above mentioned people contended that Iraq had nuclear weapons on trailer homes.

We actually DID find wmd. Further, we found one hell of a lot of information showing that he was hell bent on reconstituting a full arsenal.

Do you pass your driver's training examinations on the first try? Seriously? Do you have to re-take it?

Again, go up to search. I've referenced W's speeches many times. Regime change and democracy has been a paramount goal from day number one.

Please show me where the Administration's primary goal was a "manhunt" for bin laden. Seriously, I don't remember anything "starting" as that.

If you are too lazy to open your mind, that is entirely your problem.

If you are an American, I am ashamed of you.

Cut and run? Tell that to the people fighting and dying in Afghanistan. They launched a new offensive this week.

In short, you are certainly no Conservative.

This whole, "I'm a Conservative who doesn't agree with Bush" tag-line is invalid. It is shown to be completely false by your go-to move of regurgitating most of the dnc's platform (errors included).

Kindly give your brain a chance.



We are still in Afghanistan as are our many. many allies.

If you had half a clue you would know that.

The key to Afghanistan is keeping the troop levels low so we do not turn the country against us yet high enough to fight the Taliban.

You are using stupid talking points that don't apply to the real world.


President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief[/center]

  1. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

Mr Bush indicated that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan would be punished if it continued to support bin Laden.

"All I can tell you is that Osama bin Laden is a prime suspect, and the people who house him, encourage him, provide food, comfort or money are on notice. And the Taliban must take my statement seriously."

Speaking at the State Department on Monday afternoon, Secretary of State Colin Powell said several leads were being followed, all of them leading back to al Qaeda as a center point. He likened the organization to a wide-ranging corporation.

"It's not one individual, it's lots of individuals and it's lots of cells," Powell told reporters. "Osama bin Laden is the chairman of the holding company, and within that holding company are terrorist cells and organizations in dozens of countries around the world, any one them capable of committing a terrorist act.

"It's not enough to get one individual, although we'll start with that one individual."

Like I said, straight from the horse's mouth. Just a couple examples of the horrible job this administration has done. All it took was 5 minutes to research.

No spin, no bullshit.

Have fun convincing yourselves that what was said was not said.


LOL. Because that's working so well in Iraq too, isn't it.

Do a search on any news site for Afghanistan and you will see that there has been a recent surge of troops and attention being paid to the country. Why? Because the Taliban have been able to build up their forces and they are continuing their drug trade.

We diverted our attention away from Afghanistan BEFORE we stablized the region, BEFORE we got rid of the Taliban, BEFORE we caught Osama.

No spin, no bullshit.


Do a search? Are you kidding me?

I have read at least a dozen books on Afghanistan and the Taliban.

I have kept up with the news. This annual spring offensive was predicted long ago. They do it every year.

I am well aware of the problems the poppy trade is causing. If you have any idea how tp stop it without turning te entire population of Afghanistan against us I am sure there are many that would listen to you.

The idea that WE can stabilize Afghanistan is silly. We could have a million troops over there and it would not be stable. They have to stabilize themselves. We can only help by providing economic and military aid.


I'm going to be even more blunt with you obfill:

Give it up. You are in over your head.

You don't understand the basis(or lack thereof) of the comments you are making.

Here is the exchange in it's entirety:

from www.whitehouse.gov

"Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn'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 truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money."

Now, I gave the maxiumum alloted time that I budget for the uninformed. It took me 12 seconds to find this on google. It took me another 12 seconds to read it. Finally, it took me about 5 seconds to respond to you here.

That's 1 second shy of the 30 second rule.

It is the sign of your intellectual laziness that you don't understand what you are saying.




A really good idea about the poppy is to buy all of it. Use it for medicine, pay the Afganis, and keep it out of the drug trade.


That actualy is a good idea. We sometimes pay our own farmers much the same way.

I am sure there would be plenty of complications but it would be a good start.

The trick would be to make the payments get to the farmers and not the warlords aligned with the Taliban.

I wonder what the total crop value really is.


No, no, no,

don?t destroy a good idea, pay the warlords...

They will get ALL the opium...

Since one kilo of raw opium costs around 8000 $ in Afghanistan you could buy all years harvest for a good price.

The farmers would probably sell it, you do have a 70 billion dollar industry though that will make sure that this will never, ever happen...

DEA, FBI, private prisons, politicians that get electd because they are "tough on crime"...



You are completely over your head and outclassed here. My advice to you would be to.....cut and run.



Take your own advice, Mission Not Complete!



So, when were we lied to: When we were told Osama WAS responsible for 9/11 or when we were told he WAS NOT responsible for 9/11?

Which is it, huh "Mr.Read-A-Lot"?


You're not making sense - these two are not incompatible.


Oops, I mistyped.

Should read,
"So, when were we lied to: When we were told Osama WAS responsible for 9/11 or when we were told he WAS NOT responsible for 9/11?"


What are you blathering on about now?

Everyone knew osama was the leader of the 911 terrorist attacks.

Please show where the Administration stated otherwise?

If you can't, please return to the nursery, you are irritating the adults.



oboffill is mostly typing garbage, but this isn't true either. It's that kind of thinking that may well lose both the war in Afghanistan and the one in Iraq. Unfortunately, it's thinking that is embraced by our inept Secretary of Defense and the nearly as bad President.

Frederick Kagan puts it well:

One of the reasons for this reluctance is the conviction, reinforced by the first battle of Falluja in early 2004, that coalition forces cannot really perform such missions. Generals John Abizaid, George Casey, and many others have argued that the mere presence of U.S. forces is an irritant, and their active operations against insurgents alienate more Iraqis than they win over. Yet a number of developments in 2005 should have called this assumption sharply into question.

Coalition forces partnered with Iraqi units were able to put down an uprising in Sadr City, a huge predominantly Shiite district of Baghdad, in early 2005 and then clear out a major insurgent stronghold in Tal Afar in September. In both cases, skillful preparation, the intelligent and discriminate use of force, and attention to vital "nonkinetic" parts of the operation (efforts to change local attitudes by improving water and sewer systems, building schools and clinics, handing out military rations, and so on) led to great and lasting success. These operations seriously undermine the argument that only the Iraqis can successfully prosecute such clear-and-hold missions, though they also show that the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) will not be ready to conduct them on their own for the foreseeable future. In fact, the present course of "muddling through" while attempting to draw down as rapidly as possible is almost certain to prolong the insurgency, and with it the American troop presence in Iraq...



[center]I thought it couldn't get any simpler than


I gave factual, non-opinionated statements. Reading comprehension folks.

Obviously, you guys are so out of touch with reality that there is no getting through to you. You've bought into this partisan bullshit and it has affected our country for the bad.

Those in power have used terrorism to propagate whatever agenda they may have. The sad truth is that they don't even have to hide behind their lies anymore. They know that their pawns (read: "Republican" base) will buy into it because they have complete trust in the government. Hell, I've proven this fact with this very thread. You guys are worthless peons in their game.