Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bush would send troops inside Pakistan to catch bin Laden

Sarek

Sarek

Vuhlkansu Wihs
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/20/bush.intv/index.html

NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush said Wednesday he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good intelligence on the fugitive al Qaeda leader's location.

"Absolutely," Bush said.

The president made the comments Wednesday in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

Yeah right.

You can relax dude. You've got Iraq, and you can't get elected again. No need to fill the American public with anymore bullshit.
 
Bush was repeatedly asked in his press conference last week why wouldn't he send troops into Pakistan. This was the position of snide journalists, demanding an answer. And Bush was incredulous, he said, Pakistan is a sovereign nation. If the President of Pakistan asked for that, to find Bin Laden, then we'd do it. Bush also noted that Al-Queda has tried repeatedly to kill Mushariff, the Pakistani government doesn't want their country to be an Al-Queda haven.

It's not an accident that millions more people voted for Bush in 2004 than Kerry. While Kerry and his crowd carps from the sidelines, Bush has been doing a bang-up job. Only the simplest of idiots would assume that islamic fundamentalist terrorists would love us if only a Democrat had been in office these past six years.

-Ogami
 
Bush could have said "If there were credible evidence that Bin Laden was in Detroit, I'd send troops there too" and it would have amounted to as much.

Clinton almost got him twice. We have 10 times the resources looking for him now. What is the major malfunction in Bush's Bin Laden strategy?

Or is it just that he doesn't really want to catch him? Once Bin Laden is caught, there goes every reason we went into Iraq. Oops, sorry Iraq, thought he was here. So long, enjoy the leftover rations...
 
Ogami said:
Bush was repeatedly asked in his press conference last week why wouldn't he send troops into Pakistan. This was the position of snide journalists, demanding an answer. And Bush was incredulous, he said, Pakistan is a sovereign nation. If the President of Pakistan asked for that, to find Bin Laden, then we'd do it. Bush also noted that Al-Queda has tried repeatedly to kill Mushariff, the Pakistani government doesn't want their country to be an Al-Queda haven.

It's not an accident that millions more people voted for Bush in 2004 than Kerry. While Kerry and his crowd carps from the sidelines, Bush has been doing a bang-up job. Only the simplest of idiots would assume that islamic fundamentalist terrorists would love us if only a Democrat had been in office these past six years.

-Ogami
Click to expand...

It's been 5 years since 9/11. Bin Laden has been directly linked to the attacks AND taken responsibility for them.

There is absolutely NO indication or evidence pointing to Iraqs involvement.

If Bin Laden walked through my front door and killed a family member, I'm not going to go over to the neighbors house and kick the shit out of his kid for pissing on my rose bush.

Where's Bin Laden?
 
And Sarek, if Saddam Hussein were in power today, with Iran seeking nuclear weapons, do you think he'd sit there and twiddle his thumbs, or still be trying to get his own?

I am grateful we have a president who does not share your extreme short-sightedness.

-Ogami
 
And that has what to do with Bin Laden?

Oh that's right. Like Bush, you're an advocate for making the mess but not cleaning it up. That'll be someone elses responsibility.
 
Ogami said:
And Sarek, if Saddam Hussein were in power today, with Iran seeking nuclear weapons, do you think he'd sit there and twiddle his thumbs, or still be trying to get his own?

I am grateful we have a president who does not share your extreme short-sightedness.

-Ogami
Click to expand...

Try to answer his question.

The Bush Cabal loves people like you.
 
Sarek said:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/20/bush.intv/index.html

NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush said Wednesday he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good intelligence on the fugitive al Qaeda leader's location.

"Absolutely," Bush said.

The president made the comments Wednesday in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

Yeah right.

You can relax dude. You've got Iraq, and you can't get elected again. No need to fill the American public with anymore bullshit.
Click to expand...

AMEN

Thank God he can't get elected again.
 
Sarek (and Rafterman) asked:

Where's Bin Laden?

Who cares? Bush and Rumsfeld clearly answered this question back in December 2001, check their speeches and comments to reporters. Slapping a pair of handcuffs on Bin Laden would not end the war on terror, that's sophistry. While it would be nice to get him, ending him won't end Al-Queda. Islamic terrorism is much bigger than he is.

It's a standard Democrat WHINE that we haven't gotten Bin Laden, no matter how many Al-Queda leaders we kill or take into custody. Again, it's just griping from the sidelines from the party out of power and the party that plans to stay out of power, apparently.

I guess your side would have impeached Harry Truman for not "getting" Hitler. Truman still hasn't found him! Obviously a meaningless question in context of winning the war.

Oh that's right. Like Bush, you're an advocate for making the mess but not cleaning it up. That'll be someone elses responsibility.

Bill Clinton suggested this week that Bush talk to Iran's Mullahs. Clinton, of course, had eight years to talk to them, and never did. Whether it's North Korea, Iraq, or Al-Queda, George Bush has had to clean up Bill Clinton's messes.

Thank goodness the Clinton team solved the 1993 World Trade Center bombing with a few arrests and subpoenas! That really cowed them.

-Ogami
 
Standard RepuboBush deflection whenever the slippery subject of Bin Laden comes up: "You got it wrong! Despite the 500 declarations Bush made to get the man dead or alive, it's not so important to get him!"

Yeah, he's just one man. One man SINGLEHANDEDLY FUNDING MOST OF AL FUCKING QUEDA, WHILE HIS FAMILY HAS DINNER WITH THE BUSHES AND TSKS TSKS THE BOY.

Wanna get Al Queda? Follow the money. That should sound real familiar to a Republican, shouldn't it...
 
Eggs Mayo wrote:

Standard RepuboBush deflection whenever the slippery subject of Bin Laden comes up: "You got it wrong! Despite the 500 declarations Bush made to get the man dead or alive, it's not so important to get him!"

Like I said, Bush and Co. said this back in 2001. No lies, they said getting Bin Laden wouldn't end the war, and they said fighting global islamic terror wouldn't be quick or easy. All true, to this day.

Yeah, he's just one man. One man SINGLEHANDEDLY FUNDING MOST OF AL FUCKING QUEDA, WHILE HIS FAMILY HAS DINNER WITH THE BUSHES AND TSKS TSKS THE BOY.

This is what I mean when I say there is zero actual debate about the war on terror or the war in Iraq. This is the sort of fluff that "Bush critics" toss out, with zero intellectual content behind it.

Wanna get Al Queda? Follow the money. That should sound real familiar to a Republican, shouldn't it...

The wealthiest people in the United States congress are Democrats. Look it up.

-Ogami
 
Deflecting? I laugh at the same tired list of complaints that Bush critics have trotted out every election. Stick to 'em, maybe they'll win this time!
 
Ogami said:
Sarek (and Rafterman) asked:

Where's Bin Laden?

Who cares? Bush and Rumsfeld clearly answered this question back in December 2001, check their speeches and comments to reporters. Slapping a pair of handcuffs on Bin Laden would not end the war on terror, that's sophistry. While it would be nice to get him, ending him won't end Al-Queda. Islamic terrorism is much bigger than he is.
Click to expand...

Any strategist will tell you, one of the quickest and most effective ways to defeat an enemy is to decapitate him. Take out the head of an organization and the body recoils in chaos. Sometimes long enough to deal the mortal blow.

But, I guess we’ll never know as Bush put a higher priority on bringing Saddam Hussein to justice thinking it would end the reign of terror that Saddam was inflicting on the west and the Iraqi people would rise up in joy and profound thanks to the great Bush for bringing them freedom and democracy.

I bet Bin Laden is sitting in a cave somewhere laughing his ass off over that one.

It's a standard Democrat WHINE that we haven't gotten Bin Laden, no matter how many Al-Queda leaders we kill or take into custody. Again, it's just griping from the sidelines from the party out of power and the party that plans to stay out of power, apparently.
Click to expand...

I’ll grant you that one. Clinton should have taken care of it when he had the chance. He failed. But that’s been the Republican whine for the last 6 years now. Clinton should have taken care of it! Sadly, it appears the Republicans are to stupid to take the lessons of history to heart and have repeated it.

Bill Clinton suggested this week that Bush talk to Iran's Mullahs. Clinton, of course, had eight years to talk to them, and never did. Whether it's North Korea, Iraq, or Al-Queda, George Bush has had to clean up Bill Clinton's messes.
Click to expand...

He’s done a good job on the clean up too. We’re trillions of dollars in debt, most of the Muslim world hate us and want to kill us and a good majority of the rest of the world wants to help. Or at least not hinder it.

Thank goodness the Clinton team solved the 1993 World Trade Center bombing with a few arrests and subpoenas! That really cowed them.
Click to expand...

But it was a tangible result for the effort put forth.

You may think I’m a strong advocate for Clinton and the Democrats, but I’m not. He had his problem just like any other president does. But his problems, lies, mistruths, blindness, what ever you want to call it, didn’t launch us into two different wars, cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars or result in 2/3 of the planet wanting to exterminate us.

Defend the guy all you want, but to me, a lying, cheating failure is just that. No matter the party.
 
Sarek wrote:

But, I guess we’ll never know as Bush put a higher priority on bringing Saddam Hussein to justice thinking it would end the reign of terror that Saddam was inflicting on the west and the Iraqi people would rise up in joy and profound thanks to the great Bush for bringing them freedom and democracy.

The Iraqi people did react with joy at being freed from that monster. But there are, of course, a good number of evil men who want to become the next Saddam Husseins. For Sarek to pretend otherwise is what's laughable. You also know Bill Clinton paid lip service to liberating Iraq, Bush doesn't govern by lip service and sound bites and photo ops. And the world's dictators don't like it. Why do you think Hugo Chavez got such thunderous applause at the UN calling Bush the devil?

Interesting side you chose to put yourself on, by the way.

I bet Bin Laden is sitting in a cave somewhere laughing his ass off over that one.

With his senior Al-Queda leadership dead or in custody, their safe havens reduced to caves (and not open-aired training camps as under Clinton), their finances and cash reserves tracked down and seized, Bin Laden would have very little to laugh about. Assuming he's still around.

I’ll grant you that one. Clinton should have taken care of it when he had the chance. He failed. But that’s been the Republican whine for the last 6 years now. Clinton should have taken care of it! Sadly, it appears the Republicans are to stupid to take the lessons of history to heart and have repeated it.

Bush and Cheney went into the war on terror with their eyes wide open. They said there are evil men who will everything possible to stop us, and they were right. To simply look at the fierceness of the opposition of the Islamic terrorists and declare Bush was wrong based on that reaction is stupid. Of course they won't simply roll over and die, or give up! If America's policy was to only undertake wars that were cakewalks, we never would have won World War II.

He’s done a good job on the clean up too. We’re trillions of dollars in debt, most of the Muslim world hate us and want to kill us and a good majority of the rest of the world wants to help. Or at least not hinder it.

Sadly neither party will cut the spending of government. Democrats promise to cut military spending and Republicans promise to cut social spending. Then they compromise and increase both every year. ;)

But his problems, lies, mistruths, blindness, what ever you want to call it, didn’t launch us into two different wars, cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars or result in 2/3 of the planet wanting to exterminate us.

I disagree. Clinton's lies cost American lives, and cost lives around the world, by treating Al-Queda as a court case photo-op. We're paying the price today, and will continue to pay, for our lack of action against Islamic Terrorism prior to 9/11. That blame includes all administrations. But wave after wave of people came to the Clinton Administration and said they needed to act, and they did nothing. That's changed.

-Ogami
 
Deflect it all you want. Blame the Clinton administration all you want.

The fact remains, the worst terrorist attack, the worst attack on US soil period, occurred under President George W. Bush's watch.

And when he leaves office after having spent trillions of dollars, after having sanctioned the deaths of thousands of American citizens and thousands of innocent non-combatants in a war against a nation which he and his cabinet have admitted had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on the United States, after having failed to bring the one man he knows for a fact is responsible for it to justice, and after completely and totally destroyed our standing in the international community with his lies, his diversions, his threats, his total disregard for the humane conventions of war that we hold so dear and have claimed sets us above and apart from the rest of the world in both standards and integrity, history will not treat him kindly.

And after having blatantly stated that fixing this mess that he, his administration and the Republicans have created will be the responsibility of whoever comes after him,

Nope, I don't think history is going to look kindly on Bush at all.
 
Sounds like a speech by Hugo Chavez! Or that nut that the mullahs selected as president in Iran.

Remember that old slogan, 'selected not elected'? The world took notice as the Democrats and liberals heaped insult after insult onto Bush, and they believed what the Democrats said about him. The Dems said he stole the 2000 election, that he was an 'illegitimate' president, that he was a liar and could not be trusted, and so on.

Thus you should not be surprised to see Hugo Chavez come to this country and use the same language to describe our President. The Democrats showed the way, seeking partisan gain over a united front against the world's terrorists and dictators and thugs.

Thanks heaps!

-Ogami
 
Again, nothing countering the argument or refuting my statements. Just, in true Republican form, blind deflection and misdirection of the presented issues.

And it’s for that reason that the Republicans don’t stand a chance of maintaining control next November. People want change. They don’t trust and they don’t believe the Republican Party anymore.
 
Eggs Mayonnaise said:
Wanna get Al Queda? Follow the money. That should sound real familiar to a Republican, shouldn't it...
Click to expand...

Yes it should. But it would never work. The Republicans can't hold on to money long enough to get a scent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top