- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 19,405
- Reaction score
- 2,187
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
KCConservative said:You didn't?
All right; I will concede my sarcastic remark. For the record and for all those confused; I do not actually think that Bush or his administration actually thinks or thought bin Laden was ever in Iraq.
Which, to me, does raise the question of why we put 10x more guys into Iraq, where the Bush Administration *knew* bin Laden was not -- if, as Bush stated, their goal was to get bin Laden "dead or alive."
As for your question about whether I think the military can multi-task, let's look at the record:
2001: Bush says we we'll get bin Laden dead or alive.
2003: Cheney says that the Iraqi operation will probably last weeks, unlikely 6 months.
2006: We still don't have bin Laden, the mastermind who attacked us, dead or alive, he is still the symbolic leader of the radical Islamic movement.
2006: We still have a presence in Iraq, we still have not stablized the country so we can bring our troops home and there is no end in sight -- our president indicating he'll pass the buck on any withdrawal to the next lucky president to win the WH.
So apparently neither task is being accomplished very effectively, is it? Maybe it would have been more effective to concentrate our available forces in the country where we knew bin Laden was, and not in the country we knew bin Laden was not.