• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

People, this is what a stand down order looks like.

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,848
Reaction score
4,151
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
as is usually the case, cons cry and scream over something imaginary from President Obama but strangely were silent when Bush actually did it.
travel back in time with me to December 2001. We've invaded Afghanistan for the Taliban's role in aiding al Qaeda's attack on 9-11 and refusal to turn over OBL. We easily rout the Taliban and install a new government. We've got the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies on the run. Bush prances around the WH talking tough

""I want justice," Bush said. "And there's an old poster out West that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive."'

Cons cackle with glee. (they do that whenever a grown man prances around talking tough. see Ted Nugent). Thanks to the intel, we know al Qaeda is headed for their redoubt in Tora Bora and we are waiting. Once we know they are there the massive bombardment starts with as many as 100 airstrikes a day. They even roll a 15,000 lb bomb out the back of a C130. Commanders on the ground ask for available troops to cut off OBL's escape to Pakistan. Strangely, the tough talking president is concerned about upsetting the people of Afghanistan

"The decision not to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, the architects of the unconventional Afghan battle plan known as Operation Enduring Freedom. Rumsfeld said at the time that he was concerned that too many U.S. troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency."

http://foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tora_Bora_Report.pdf

OMFG, bush didn't prance around saying "dead or alive unless it upsets people". Commanders scream for the available troops to cut off OBL's escape. Remember, that's why we were there. Bush says "no, it might upset people"

"‘‘We needed U.S. soldiers on the ground!’’ he wrote. ‘‘I’d sent my request for 800 U.S. Army Rangers and was still waiting for a response. I repeated to anyone at headquarters who would listen: We need Rangers now! The opportunity to get bin Laden and his men is slipping away!!’’
At one point, Berntsen recalled an argument at a CIA guesthouse in Kabul with Maj. Gen. Dell Dailey, the commander of U.S. special operations forces in Afghanistan at the time. Berntsen said he renewed his demand that American troops be dispatched to Tora Bora immediately. Following orders from Franks at U.S. Central Command (CentCom) headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, Dailey refused to deploy U.S. troops, explaining that he feared alienating Afghan allies.
‘‘I don’t give a damn about offending our allies!’’ Berntsen shouted.
‘‘I only care about eliminating al Qaeda and delivering bin
Laden’s head in a box!’’
Dailey said the military’s position was firm and Berntsen replied,
‘‘Screw that!’’
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,523
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I predict this thread will attract no attention from the wingnuts

Too many facts
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,848
Reaction score
4,151
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Here's another stand down order. Once the second plane hit the WTC on 9-11, there were no longer any doubts about the fact that we were under attack. Secret Service come into the VP's office to take him to the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center). The Transportation Secretary gets there about 9:20. He clearly states that the VP is already there. They are tracking the plane headed towards DC. He said recounts this conversation approx 5 minutes after his arrival.


"MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And –"
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

He clearly states that he assumed the order was to shoot down flt 77. He later realizes that the order was to not shoot down flt 77 because it wasn't.

so, there is no longer any doubt that we are under attack. Terrorists are using planes as missles. Hundreds if not thousands may already be dead in NY. a plane is headed toward DC. now they didnt know the target (hopefully they didnt know the target) so they have to assume hundreds if not thousands more will die. It just makes sense that the plane should be shot down. Trans Sec clearly stated he thought that was the decision. But it wasnt shot down so obviously Cheney or Bush gave a stand down order when we were under attack.

On a side note, the official 9-11 timeline pretends the Trans Sec does not exist because it has Cheney getting to the PEOC at 9:37 and not entering until 9:58. Cheney says he "hung around the outside looking at the monitors". Holy jesus!! what a giant pile of sh1t. Not even a conservative could believe that micromanaging POS cheney loitered around outside the PEOC. But since Cheney 'spoke' to the 9-11 commission only in secret and not under oath and only for an hour, we dont know exactly what he said. But we do know he lied.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
38,138
Reaction score
45,078
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'll ignore the 9/11 stuff because it's pure speculation but with regard to Tora Bora it was a bad decision. The proper way to prosecute a war is with extreme violence upon the target taking out their supply lines, communications and personnel until their will to fight is thoroughly broken. The American death toll would have been much higher but we would have shown the enemy a will to fight that they did not possess and we would have been out of that hellhole in a year or two instead of a decade or more.

That being said, this thread reeks of "Bush did it" syndrome and serves no purpose other than to play partisan games. If the OP's goal was to show that Obama was every bit as much of a ****up as Bush was then congratulations, your point has been made.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,523
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That being said, this thread reeks of "Bush did it" syndrome and serves no purpose other than to play partisan games. If the OP's goal was to show that Obama was every bit as much of a ****up as Bush was then congratulations, your point has been made.
The thread is in response to the partisan claims that Valerie Jarrett is the person responsible for issuing a stand down order in response to the attack in Benghazi. The OP's point is that she was not capable of doing such a thing because she did not have the authority to do such a thing

He is contrasting Jarrett, who did not have the authority, to people like Cheney and Dailey, people who clearly did have the authority to issue stand down orders.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
67,684
Reaction score
26,417
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Thanks, guys. I wasn't sure what the point of this thread was. Now I understand it's just the usual liberal way of excusing Obama and his people by saying, "but Bush did it too...and worse".

This thread is dismissed.
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,848
Reaction score
4,151
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Thanks, guys. I wasn't sure what the point of this thread was. Now I understand it's just the usual liberal way of excusing Obama and his people by saying, "but Bush did it too...and worse".

This thread is dismissed.
The very first sentence in the thread explains it. Cons obediently complain about imaginary things President Obama did but ignore the real things Bush and company actually did. There were no stand down orders given in regard to Benghazi. Thus again proving cons cant criticize President Obama without lying. So its not a “bush did it too” thread. It’s a “bush did it, President Obama didn’t” thread. I was pretty clear so I don’t understand yours or luther’s ‘confusion’.

Wait. is this the ole “cons cant respond to the facts posted so they pretend to ‘misunderstand’ the point so they can respond” post? Let me make it “unmisunderstandable” even for cons.

Actual stand down orders from Bush: 2 (and counting)
Actual stand down orders from President Obama : 0
Imaginary stand down orders from President Obama : 3
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
67,684
Reaction score
26,417
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The very first sentence in the thread explains it. Cons obediently complain about imaginary things President Obama did but ignore the real things Bush and company actually did. There were no stand down orders given in regard to Benghazi. Thus again proving cons cant criticize President Obama without lying. So its not a “bush did it too” thread. It’s a “bush did it, President Obama didn’t” thread. I was pretty clear so I don’t understand yours or luther’s ‘confusion’.

Wait. is this the ole “cons cant respond to the facts posted so they pretend to ‘misunderstand’ the point so they can respond” post? Let me make it “unmisunderstandable” even for cons.

Actual stand down orders from Bush: 2 (and counting)
Actual stand down orders from President Obama : 0
Imaginary stand down orders from President Obama : 3
Yeah...okay...whatever.

Personally, I don't care if there was a "stand down" order or not. What bothers me is that there was no order given to defend our people with whatever assets that were available. To me, that indicates an unwillingness to defend US citizens. Not a good thing for a President to have on his record.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,523
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yeah...okay...whatever.

Personally, I don't care if there was a "stand down" order or not.
Is that why you're participating in a thread about whether or not a stand down order was issued?


What bothers me is that there was no order given to defend our people with whatever assets that were available. To me, that indicates an unwillingness to defend US citizens. Not a good thing for a President to have on his record.
That's in another thread
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,848
Reaction score
4,151
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Personally, I don't care if there was a "stand down" order or not. What bothers me is that there was no order given to defend our people with whatever assets that were available. To me, that indicates an unwillingness to defend US citizens. Not a good thing for a President to have on his record.
well the good news about your brand new made up narrative of "no order" is that you admit the "stand down order" narrative is just another republican lie. You really should start a thread with that one. Anyhoo, back to Bush's actual stand down orders.

Now might say "that's not a stand down order" but put it in the context of Bush prancing around saying "dead or alive" and yea, its a stand down order

C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden

"The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?_r=0
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,848
Reaction score
4,151
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'll ignore the 9/11 stuff because it's pure speculation but with regard to Tora Bora it was a bad decision. .
First thing luther, telling the troops to stand down and let OBL walk to Pakistan was not a bad decision if your Day 1 goal was to invade Iraq. seems like it was more of a political decision than a military one.

" President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that he was mapping preparations to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as soon as he took office.

Bush's comments came in response to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's contention in a new book that the chief executive was gunning for Saddam nine months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and two years before the U.S. invasion of Iraq."

Bush admits he targeted Saddam from the start - seattlepi.com

and second I've posted no "pure speculation". I posted the Transportation Sec telling you what he heard. He clearly "speculated" that it was a shoot down order. And not a bad speculation. We were under attack and the enemy was using planes as missiles. By 9:30 hundreds or thousands of people could be dead in NY and a plane was headed towards DC. Now the reason its not speculation that a stand down order was given is that they didn't shoot down flt 77. Its not "pure speculation". Its process of elimination. so yes luther, as Cheney said "the stand down order still stands".
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
67,684
Reaction score
26,417
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
well the good news about your brand new made up narrative of "no order" is that you admit the "stand down order" narrative is just another republican lie. You really should start a thread with that one. Anyhoo, back to Bush's actual stand down orders.

(if you don't mind, let's NOT go back to Bush...kay?)
Anyway, I didn't admit anything about the "stand down order" narrative. I said I don't care about it. So, why don't YOU start a thread about it, eh?

Come on, Vern...you don't think I'd let you get away with putting words in my mouth, now, do you?
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,848
Reaction score
4,151
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Anyway, I didn't admit anything about the "stand down order" narrative. I said I don't care about it. So, why don't YOU start a thread about it, eh?

Come on, Vern...you don't think I'd let you get away with putting words in my mouth, now, do you?
mmmm, I could have sworn you said "no order was given".


What bothers me is that there was no order given to defend our people with whatever assets that were available. To me, that indicates an unwillingness to defend US citizens. .
you bolded and underlined the word "given". So I'm sorry if I misunderstood your statement but unlike you and luther I didn't have to pretend not to understand. I simply read what you wrote. And fyi, your new made up narrative is false. Orders were given to defend our people. Wait are you referring to Bush letting 9-11 happen? then yes you are correct no order given to defend our people with whatever assets that were available to prevent 9-11.
 

humbolt

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
25,740
Reaction score
17,434
Location
SW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why are we comparing Obama to Bush? I thought we were supposed to be comparing Obama to Lincoln.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
as is usually the case, cons cry and scream over something imaginary from President Obama but strangely were silent when Bush actually did it.
"The decision not to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, the architects of the unconventional Afghan battle plan known as Operation Enduring Freedom. Rumsfeld said at the time that he was concerned that too many U.S. troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency."
http://foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tora_Bora_Report.pdf

"‘‘We needed U.S. soldiers on the ground!’’ he wrote. ‘‘I’d sent my request for 800 U.S. Army Rangers and was still waiting for a response. I repeated to anyone at headquarters who would listen: We need Rangers now! The opportunity to get bin Laden and his men is slipping away!!’’

Is that why you're participating in a thread about whether or not a stand down order was issued?
That's in another thread
First of all we just do not know yet what really happened regarding Benghazi, except for the fact that nothing was done, not a finger lifted to move assets in place to assist fellow Americans. The failure to issue an order to do something in a situation in which only the C-I-C can do so is tantamount to issuing a stand down order... done in a way that a weasel would do it so in the aftermath be able to truthfully say no stand down order was ever issued.

Besides which, the two... [have not read the Vern's other "stand down order" link ] are not comparable situations. One, Benghazi, had American lives imminently in danger/at stake; the other had a report, while issued by a CIA operative who was admittedly usually good at his job, that was not verified...so is just supposition. I also tried to find verification of the Dec 14th will and testament of bin Laden that Kerry mentions in the senate report indicates was authentic [ I could find nothing of substance/consequence verifying its existence nor its authentication ] regarding bin Laden's thoughts on his time in Tora Bora. The will does not confirm much, certainly does nothing to verify specifically Bernstein’s call for 800 Rangers, but only really confirms the fact that the US was after him and bombing the living hades out of the mountains where his nest of caves were.
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,848
Reaction score
4,151
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Why are we comparing Obama to Bush? I thought we were supposed to be comparing Obama to Lincoln.
I do have to chuckle how some cons just have to post to this thread but without addressing the facts of the thread. Anyhoo, I was very clear, I'm not comparing President Obama to Bush. I'm contrasting them. And by doing so I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and lies of republicans. But if you want to compare President Obama to anybody, compare him to FDR. He saved capitalism too.
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,848
Reaction score
4,151
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
First of all we just do not know yet what really happened regarding Benghazi, except for the fact that nothing was done, not a finger lifted to move assets in place to assist fellow Americans. The failure to issue an order to do something in a situation in which only the C-I-C can do so is tantamount to issuing a stand down order... done in a way that a weasel would do it so in the aftermath be able to truthfully say no stand down order was ever issued.
Well thank you for at least addressing the facts of the thread but you are not doing it with facts. You are doing it with spin and falsehoods. And we know enough about Benghazi to know that republicans are lying. And we know enough to know "nothing was done" is just the latest lying republican narrative.. Now we do know for a fact that "nothing was done" to prevent 9-11 and it took considerable effort to do so.

Besides which, the two... [have not read the Vern's other "stand down order" link ] are not comparable situations. One, Benghazi, had American lives imminently in danger/at stake; the other had a report, while issued by a CIA operative who was admittedly usually good at his job, that was not verified...so is just supposition. I also tried to find verification of the Dec 14th will and testament of bin Laden that Kerry mentions in the senate report indicates was authentic [ I could find nothing of substance/consequence verifying its existence nor its authentication ] regarding bin Laden's thoughts on his time in Tora Bora. The will does not confirm much, certainly does nothing to verify specifically Bernstein’s call for 800 Rangers, but only really confirms the fact that the US was after him and bombing the living hades out of the mountains where his nest of caves were.
as is usually the case when cons actually try to address the facts, your post is not clear. Please clarify what you are trying to say when you say "the other had a report, while issued by a CIA operative who was admittedly usually good at his job, that was not verified..."

I know what you are trying to do but your message is not clear. While we wait, I'lll update the Stand Down-O-Meter

Actual stand down orders from Bush: 4
Actual stand down orders from President Obama : 0
Imaginary stand down orders from President Obama : 3


I added "doing nothing about 9-11" to bush's stand down total. The complete lack of action from Bush despite the clear and repeated warnings seems to meet the conservative version of a "stand down order". Heck, it meets my version too.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
67,684
Reaction score
26,417
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
mmmm, I could have sworn you said "no order was given".




you bolded and underlined the word "given". So I'm sorry if I misunderstood your statement but unlike you and luther I didn't have to pretend not to understand. I simply read what you wrote. And fyi, your new made up narrative is false. Orders were given to defend our people. Wait are you referring to Bush letting 9-11 happen? then yes you are correct no order given to defend our people with whatever assets that were available to prevent 9-11.
Are you serious?

You really don't know the difference between "giving an order to stand down" and "giving an order to defend Americans"?

And you can get off the Bush thing. I've already said I'm not interested in your attempts to use the "but Bush did it" tactic.
 

humbolt

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
25,740
Reaction score
17,434
Location
SW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I do have to chuckle how some cons just have to post to this thread but without addressing the facts of the thread. Anyhoo, I was very clear, I'm not comparing President Obama to Bush. I'm contrasting them. And by doing so I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and lies of republicans. But if you want to compare President Obama to anybody, compare him to FDR. He saved capitalism too.
Not comparing, but contrasting? How does one contrast without comparison?
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,848
Reaction score
4,151
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Are you serious?

You really don't know the difference between "giving an order to stand down" and "giving an order to defend Americans"?

And you can get off the Bush thing. I've already said I'm not interested in your attempts to use the "but Bush did it" tactic.
well at least you are no longer trying to "misunderstand" it as a "Bush did it too" tactic

Not comparing, but contrasting? How does one contrast without comparison?
I contrasting the differences not comparing the similarities. I don't know if the wording is correct (seems correct) but the point is pretty clear. And I'm not interested in "semantic games" the way you seem to be. I'm just interested in the facts.
 
Last edited:

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
67,684
Reaction score
26,417
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
well at least you are no longer trying to "misunderstand" it as a "Bush did it too" tactic
:doh

Okay...I give up.

Talking to you is like trying to talk to someone who doesn't understand English.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well thank you for at least addressing the facts of the thread but you are not doing it with facts. You are doing it with spin and falsehoods. And we know enough about Benghazi to know that republicans are lying. And we know enough to know "nothing was done" is just the latest lying republican narrative.. Now we do know for a fact that "nothing was done" to prevent 9-11 and it took considerable effort to do so.
Well, if I am doing it with spin and falsehood, in debate you set out with facts to prove the other side's spin and falsehood wrong, correct? Let's see what you got.

I would say it rather sounds like you are doing the spinning. Prove me wrong, don't just do the indolent you-are-spinning and falsifying thing. That is not debate.


as is usually the case when cons actually try to address the facts, your post is not clear. Please clarify what you are trying to say when you say "the other had a report, while issued by a CIA operative who was admittedly usually good at his job, that was not verified..."
Just the fact, that you could tell by the report that where bin Laden was, in fact, was not verified, it was only a report. "Fury is adamant that bin Laden was at Tora Bora until mid-December. ‘‘There is no doubt that bin Laden was in Tora Bora during the fighting,’ and similar others in the very partisan sounding report show they may have had him in the general region, but had no idea where he really was. If they knew exactly where he was they could call in airstrikes and take him out. They dropped the 1500 lb daisy cutter hoping to get him. Was not like they were not trying. And regarding the 800 Rangers, who knows where those assets might have been otherwise and how fast they could get there.

Do you know where those assets were at the time?


I added "doing nothing about 9-11" to bush's stand down total. The complete lack of action from Bush despite the clear and repeated warnings seems to meet the conservative version of a "stand down order". Heck, it meets my version too.
I think you mistakenly misplaced doing nothing about 9-11 erroneously on Bush, that should have been Billy boy Clinton's job. He had several open shots at bin Laden and, like Obama, never gave orders on anything. What is the proper military term for that do you think, wusing out, maybe?

Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning The Looming Tower flatly states that Sudan made the offer to turn over bin Laden. Plus,
there were several incidents reported by Clinton's military attache, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson, of him refusing, not ever making the decision to take bin Laden out. See book, Dereliction of Duty.
 

humbolt

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
25,740
Reaction score
17,434
Location
SW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
:doh

Okay...I give up.

Talking to you is like trying to talk to someone who doesn't understand English.
But you gotta love it. It's like the two year old standing in front of a kitchen counter knowing that there be cookies in a jar at the back of the counter, but there's just no way to reach them. The failure is the salt in the wound of the longing.
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,848
Reaction score
4,151
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
First of all we just do not know yet what really happened regarding Benghazi, except for the fact that nothing was done, not a finger lifted to move assets in place to assist fellow Americans.
The annex responded immediately. That disproves the first two stand down lies (courtesy of Fox). And a security team from sent from the embassy. Those two things alone disprove your false "nothing was done" narrative and the even more ridiculous assertion that somehow that decision rested with the C-I-C. Other things were done as well. Feel free to read the inspectors general report. Please don’t make the false claim that it was disputed. Not one thing in the report was disputed.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/12/18/202446.pdf
Just the fact, that you could tell by the report that where bin Laden was, in fact, was not verified, it was only a report. "Fury is adamant that bin Laden was at Tora Bora until mid-December. ‘‘There is no doubt that bin Laden was in Tora Bora during the fighting,’ and similar others in the very partisan sounding report show they may have had him in the general region, but had no idea where he really was.
There are three things wrong with your “we didn’t know if he was there” narrative. First that excuse was used after the fact. Remember, the lying excuse used at the time was concern “that too many U.S. troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency.” We’ve invaded a country, replaced its govt and are bombing the sh1t out of tora bora and the best excuse they could come up with was concern about upsetting people. You just cant accept that.

Second, the intel was that OBL was at Tora Bora with “"the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war". They were tracking him all the way to Tora Bora. We knew where he would go there and we were tracking him there. Its why we were waiting for him. So everybody knew he was there. Read the report every day Rumsfeld ask the second in command if we got him yet.

“Every day during the bombing, Rumsfeld asked me, ‘Did we get him? Did we get him?’ I would have to answer that we didn’t know.’’

See we thought he was there that’s why they couldn’t use the excuse “we didn’t know if he was there” at the time. That was the ‘after the fact” rationalization. And here’s the key. During the Tora Bora campaign we had radio intercepts of him. Intel just doesn't It was the American commanders on the ground saying he was there.

And here’s the third reason, it wasn’t just OBL. It was also "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war". We invaded Afghanistan to get OBL and al qaeda. So the excuse “we didn’t know if OBL was there” doesn’t explain letting “"the largest concentration of al qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan. Even if you weren’t sure OBL was there (but we were) you cant deny that a large force of al qaeda was allowed to escape. There simply is no excuse for letting him and "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape.

As far as your narrative goes about available troops and their locations, OBL and al qaeda were the mission. No reasonable or intelligent person can make the excuse the troops weren’t available. But guess where the focus of resources were being directed to? Yea, Iraq.
 
Top Bottom