More Voters Blame Bush For Failure to Catch Bin Laden (1 Viewer)

[ProudAmerican]

everyone say it with me......

P O L L S A R E C R A P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216299,00.html

though I kinda agree with this one in one sense. Its hard to blame Clinton for not catching him, when he wasnt really trying to in the first place.

It makes more sense to blame the president that is ACTUALLY PERSUING him for not catching him.

 

[ProudAmerican]

woops. feel free to move this to "Breaking news"

 

[shuamort]

Me? I blame not only Clinton and Bush for not catching him, but Reagan for installing him. It's an impotent circle jerk of blame though, let's just get the job done.

 

[aquapub]

Me? I blame not only Clinton and Bush for not catching him, but Reagan for installing him. It's an impotent circle jerk of blame though, let's just get the job done.

Installing him where? Are you talking about us giving stinger missiles to the Afghanis during the Soviet invasion?

If so, that's a pretty weak claim. Bin Laden came into that conflict halfway through and funded it, but I've never heard anything indicating he was involved with Reagan.

 

[Iriemon]

everyone say it with me......

P O L L S A R E C R A P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216299,00.html

though I kinda agree with this one in one sense. Its hard to blame Clinton for not catching him, when he wasnt really trying to in the first place.

It makes more sense to blame the president that is ACTUALLY PERSUING him for not catching him.

You know, every time I start thinking you are moving a little more into the rational/reasonable column like the last post you wrote in response to Aquapub, you write something like this.

Clinton "wasn't trying" but Bush is "ACTUALLY PERSUING" him. You mean with all the 8500 guys the Bush Admin had in Afghanistan the first two years? Or the 1/7 of the guys we have there compared to Iraq now?

Back into the rabid partisan column you go for me.

 

[shuamort]

Installing him where? Are you talking about us giving stinger missiles to the Afghanis during the Soviet invasion?

If so, that's a pretty weak claim. Bin Laden came into that conflict halfway through and funded it, but I've never heard anything indicating he was involved with Reagan.

Follow the link I had in my post. I'll snip out the relevent quotes, go to the link for the full story (and so my snipping isn't construed as cherry-picking):

Reagan's Osama Connection
How he turned a jihadist into a terrorist kingpin.

Reagan and, even more, his intensely ideological CIA director, William Casey, saw the battle for Afghanistan as a titanic struggle in the war between Eastern tyranny and Western freedom.

The exit strategy, he said, would be a negotiated deal with Washington: The Soviets pull out troops; the Americans stop their arms shipments to the rebels.

However, within days, Gorbachev learned to his surprise that Reagan had no interest in such a deal. In a conversation on Feb. 27 with Italy's foreign minister, Giulio Andreotti, Gorbachev said, "We have information from very reliable sources … that the United States has set itself the goal of obstructing a settlement by any means," in order "to present the Soviet Union in a bad light." If this information is true, Gorbachev continued, the matter of a withdrawal "takes on a different light."

Without U.S. cooperation, Gorbachev couldn't proceed with his plans to withdraw. Instead, he allowed his military commanders to escalate the conflict. In April, Soviet troops, supported by bombers and helicopters, attacked a new compound of Islamic fighters along the mountain passes of Jaji, near the Pakistani border. The leader of those fighters, many of them Arab volunteers, was Osama Bin Laden.

Had Gorbachev thought that Reagan was willing to strike a deal, the battle of Jaji would not have taken place—and the legend of Bin Laden might never have taken off.

However, Reagan—and those around him—can be blamed for ignoring the rise of Islamic militancy in Afghanistan and for failing to see Gorbachev's offer to withdraw as an opportunity to clamp the danger.

 

[shuamort]

And from the US Gov't directly:

While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA.

Installation was underwritten by the US vis-a-vis the ISI.

 

[Navy Pride]

I personally believe that Bin Laden has become a non factor..........He is cowering in some cave on the Pakistan border.............He has not made a video since prior to the 2004 presidential elections......We will get him sooner or later but then the left will say it makes no differnece that someone else will just take his place.............That is exactly what they did with Zaquawi....

 

[shuamort]

I personally believe that Bin Laden has become a non factor..........He is cowering in some cave on the Pakistan border.............He has not made a video since prior to the 2004 presidential elections......We will get him sooner or later but then the left will say it makes no differnece that someone else will just take his place.............That is exactly what they did with Zaquawi....

Exactly. I wouldn't doubt if he were dead. We've got troops all over there and a bounty on his head big enough for someone over there to give in for the cash. It'd be good to find him/his body for peace of mind but it would mostly be a symbolic gesture at this point as he's been stripped of any power he's had.

 

[Gibberish]

I personally believe that Bin Laden has become a non factor..........He is cowering in some cave on the Pakistan border.............He has not made a video since prior to the 2004 presidential elections......We will get him sooner or later but then the left will say it makes no differnece that someone else will just take his place.............That is exactly what they did with Zaquawi....

Bin laden is a threat if he is still alive. Just because he's in a cave doesn't mean he can't plan and orchestrate an attack.

IMO it is not Bin Laden himself that is dangerous, it is any person with his power, money, and agenda. Bin Laden is not the last terrorist America will see. So killing him or capturing is a short-term resolution if it is a resolution at all. The mob (America) just wants someone to hang and burn so they feel better.

 

[ProudAmerican]

You know, every time I start thinking you are moving a little more into the rational/reasonable column like the last post you wrote in response to Aquapub, you write something like this.

Clinton "wasn't trying" but Bush is "ACTUALLY PERSUING" him. You mean with all the 8500 guys the Bush Admin had in Afghanistan the first two years? Or the 1/7 of the guys we have there compared to Iraq now?

Back into the rabid partisan column you go for me.

so how many soldiers did Clinton send in persuit of him?

anyway.......I blame the terrorists for the problem, and the entire federal government equally for what happened on 9-11.

and hey, at least you have had reason to thin I might move more to the rational/reasonable column. I certainly cant say the same about you.

well, other than the same thread you are talking about.

 

[jfuh]

Exactly. I wouldn't doubt if he were dead. We've got troops all over there and a bounty on his head big enough for someone over there to give in for the cash. It'd be good to find him/his body for peace of mind but it would mostly be a symbolic gesture at this point as he's been stripped of any power he's had.

Never underestimate a cornered tiger.

 

[dragonslayer]

everyone say it with me......

P O L L S A R E C R A P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216299,00.html

though I kinda agree with this one in one sense. Its hard to blame Clinton for not catching him, when he wasnt really trying to in the first place.

It makes more sense to blame the president that is ACTUALLY PERSUING him for not catching him.

Sure they are when everyone votes against you. Think of the coming election. hehehee

Clinton never tried to catch him, at least publically not publically. he did fire Cruise Missiles to try to kill him. Remember we had not started Bush War or invaded Afghanistan.

Bush's problem is that Bin Laden gave him leverage with the people, why would he want to kill him, when Bush can keep him alive and manipulate America. Thing have gone from bad to worse under Bush.

 

[Navy Pride]

Bin laden is a threat if he is still alive. Just because he's in a cave doesn't mean he can't plan and orchestrate an attack.

IMO it is not Bin Laden himself that is dangerous, it is any person with his power, money, and agenda. Bin Laden is not the last terrorist America will see. So killing him or capturing is a short-term resolution if it is a resolution at all. The mob (America) just wants someone to hang and burn so they feel better.

I can remember prior to our invasion of Afghanistan OBL was publishing a video every other week spewing his hate.............It is obvious he is having a much harder time doing that now..........If he is not dead we will get him sooner or later like we did Saddam and Zaquawi.....Its just a matter of time..........

 

[Navy Pride]

Sure they are when everyone votes against you. Think of the coming election. hehehee

Clinton never tried to catch him, at least publically not publically. he did fire Cruise Missiles to try to kill him. Remember we had not started Bush War or invaded Afghanistan.

Bush's problem is that Bin Laden gave him leverage with the people, why would he want to kill him, when Bush can keep him alive and manipulate America. Thing have gone from bad to worse under Bush.

What about it? I hope a lot of liberals keep their promise this time and move to Canada if they lose but sadly I don't see that happening.....

 

[Iriemon]

I personally believe that Bin Laden has become a non factor..........He is cowering in some cave on the Pakistan border.............He has not made a video since prior to the 2004 presidential elections......We will get him sooner or later but then the left will say it makes no differnece that someone else will just take his place.............That is exactly what they did with Zaquawi....

heh heh yeah, I'm sure you'd be telling us what a "non-factor" bin Laden is if they actually got him.

 

[Iriemon]

so how many soldiers did Clinton send in persuit of him?

Same number Bush sent before 3000 died on 9-11.

anyway.......I blame the terrorists for the problem, and the entire federal government equally for what happened on 9-11.

Fair enough

and hey, at least you have had reason to thin I might move more to the rational/reasonable column. I certainly cant say the same about you.

Thanks!

 

[Navy Pride]

heh heh yeah, I'm sure you'd be telling us what a "non-factor" bin Laden is if they actually got him.

No I just remember how you liberals said it was so important to get Saddam and Zaquawi and when we got them you said its no big deal someone else will just take their place............

You will do the same when we get OBL so what is the point..........

 

[ProudAmerican]

heh heh yeah, I'm sure you'd be telling us what a "non-factor" bin Laden is if they actually got him.

actually its probably YOU that would be doing that.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Same number Bush sent before 3000 died on 9-11.

difference is Clinton had multiple attacks. you whould have thought At SOME POINT he may have done something.

 

[jfuh]

difference is Clinton had multiple attacks. you whould have thought At SOME POINT he may have done something.

Aren't we still under multiple attacks today?

 

[ProudAmerican]

Aren't we still under multiple attacks today?

this would be where you want to claim a guerilla war is the same thing as terrorist attacks on specific American targets.

the answer is NO....as long as you are comparing apples to apples.

we are definate NOT under multiple attacks.

unless I missed the last suicide bomb on a warship, or plane flown into a building, or bomp placed in a business basement.

soldiers being attacked IN A WAR is hardly the same as AMerican civilians being attacked at will in country, or at specific targets.

as a matter of fact, more of those types of attacks have been thwarted than during Clintons term. Unless he just chose not to tell us when he stopped one because he didnt want the publicity....LMAO.

ALSO......

Bush decided to do something after the first one. Clinton NEVER DID.

 

[Thorgasm]

Bush decided to do something after the first one. Clinton NEVER DID.

What was that about comparing apples to apples? Are you equating the other attacks with 9/11? I am sure the families of those who lost their life that day are proud of how you are politicizing their tragedy. You may be the Dems best campaigner.

 

[ProudAmerican]

What was that about comparing apples to apples? Are you equating the other attacks with 9/11? I am sure the families of those who lost their life that day are proud of how you are politicizing their tragedy. You may be the Dems best campaigner.

so you dont think the USS COle, WTC I, Kobar Towers and WTC II are the same type of attacks?

sure the magnatude is different.......the the type of attacks are exactly the same.

its pretty clear im apples to apples here.

ok, I will conced the Cole and take it out since that was an attack against a Military vessel and not aimed at civilians.

the others are fair game.

and I will concede I am politicizing those deaths if the left concedes to all the Soldiers faimilies that have died in combat that they are politicizing theirs.

 

[jfuh]

this would be where you want to claim a guerilla war is the same thing as terrorist attacks on specific American targets.

the answer is NO....as long as you are comparing apples to apples.

we are definate NOT under multiple attacks.

unless I missed the last suicide bomb on a warship, or plane flown into a building, or bomp placed in a business basement.

soldiers being attacked IN A WAR is hardly the same as AMerican civilians being attacked at will in country, or at specific targets.

as a matter of fact, more of those types of attacks have been thwarted than during Clintons term. Unless he just chose not to tell us when he stopped one because he didnt want the publicity....LMAO.

ALSO......

Bush decided to do something after the first one. Clinton NEVER DID.

Partisan slave, not even going to bother re-debunking you over and over.