Republicans Failed us in Catching Osama

[bush_cheney2004]

While there is no guarantee we would have got bin Laden, it sounds as if it would have been quite likely; at the very least, the best shot we would have had.

It doesn't really matter...the threat is not solely dependent on Osama Bin Hidin anyway. I don't care if he is ever captured or killed....he is just the bunny at a dog racing track.

As for whether or not other NATO partners were any more invested than Bush, Bush was the one saying he was going to get bin Laden dead or alive; smoke him out of the caves. That was his focus, according to what he told America/the world. He should have stayed focused; things could well be different in Afghanistan now if he had.

So what? Since when did anything Bush ever say suddenly become so important? This is just a political game....and Bush won (two term president).

[eyeball]

I don't care if he is ever captured or killed....he is just the bunny at a dog racing track.

Good analogy, especially from a military-industrial perspective.

[Guest American Woman]

It doesn't really matter...the threat is not solely dependent on Osama Bin Hidin anyway. I don't care if he is ever captured or killed....he is just the bunny at a dog racing track.

I don't care if you care if he is ever captured or killed. Bush cared. I would think I had made that point clear in the post you are responding to.

Bush is the one who said we had to get him. Bush is the one who said we would get him dead or alive. Bush is the one who said we would smoke him out of the caves. And a year later, Bush's focus had changed.

Furthermore, I don't see the failure to get bin Laden as the only repercussion of Bush changing his focus right after we went into Afghanistan. I thought I had made that clear, too.

So what? Since when did anything Bush ever say suddenly become so important? This is just a political game....and Bush won (two term president).

You may not think what our POTUS says is important, but I do; and when it comes to war, to getting support for war, I do think what the Commander in Chief says is especially important; and I daresay more people would agree that it is than that it isn't.

As for Bush winning a second term, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand; it has nothing to do with whether or not his decision was a factor in how things played out/didn't play out in Afghanistan.

Edited November 30, 2009 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't care if you care if he is ever captured or killed. Bush cared. I would think I had made that point clear in the post you are responding to.

So what? Bush is gone....now all of the sudden whatever he wanted is sacred to his detractors? LOL!

Bush is the one who said we had to get him. Bush is the one who said we would get him dead or alive. Bush is the one who said we would smoke him out of the caves. And a year later, Bush's focus had changed.

Yep....he found Saddam in a spider hole instead....go figure!

Furthermore, I don't see the failure to get bin Laden as the only repercussion of Bush changing his focus right after we went into Afghanistan. I thought I had made that clear, too.

OK...FDR "focused" on Europe even though it was Japan that kicked our ass at Pearl.

You may not think what our POTUS says is important, but I do; and when it comes to war, to getting support for war, I do think what the Commander in Chief says is especially important; and I daresay more people would agree that it is than that it isn't.

What he says is not as important as what he does.

As for Bush winning a second term, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand; it has nothing to do with whether or not his decision was a factor in how things played out/didn't play out in Afghanistan.

I disagree obviously...as an "unfocused" Bush prevailed in the face of A-stan policy criticism during the campaign. Maybe you don't remember that.

[eyeball]

What he says is not as important as what he does.

There is much truth in this, but that said, what he did will probably not be as important as what's done in reaction to it.

That seems to have been the trend when it comes to the causes and effects of actions taken at the President's level.

[Guest American Woman]

So what? Bush is gone....now all of the sudden whatever he wanted is sacred to his detractors? LOL!

Who cares if he's gone? That has nothing to do with the consequences of his actions while he was in office.

Yep....he found Saddam in a spider hole instead....go figure!

"Instead" being the key word there. "Instead" doesn't do anything to help the first situation, does it? Furthermore, if Saddam had anything to do with 9-11, maybe his "instead" would mean something. But since it was bin Laden he was going on and on about, since it was bin Laden he was going to smoke out, getting Saddam has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You really like to stray from the topic, don't you? The topic, in case your forgot, is the failure to get bin Laden.

OK...FDR "focused" on Europe even though it was Japan that kicked our ass at Pearl.

Ummmm..... you do realize that Germany declared war on the United States, right?

What he says is not as important as what he does.

What he says is just as important when he's making a case for war. But notice I criticized what he did.

I disagree obviously...as an "unfocused" Bush prevailed in the face of A-stan policy criticism during the campaign. Maybe you don't remember that.

Apparently you don't remember that I said Bush's re-election has nothing to do with this discussion, even though I said it just moments earlier.

[bush_cheney2004]

Who cares if he's gone? That has nothing to do with the consequences of his actions while he was in office.

Clinton didn't capture or kill him either....you mean those consequences?

"Instead" being the key word there. "Instead" doesn't do anything to help the first situation, does it? Furthermore, if Saddam had anything to do with 9-11, maybe his "instead" would mean something. But since it was bin Laden he was going on and on about, since it was bin Laden he was going to smoke out, getting Saddam has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You really like to stray from the topic, don't you? The topic, in case your forgot, is the failure to get bin Laden.

Get a grip....you know you can't shut me down. Please use ignore feature if you can't stand expanding on a topic....as in....just what did President Bush do instead of staying "focused" on Osama.

Ummmm..... you do realize that Germany declared war on the United States, right?

So what...again. I think Japan did too!

What he says is just as important when he's making a case for war. But notice I criticized what he did.

No it's not...look up the meaning of "rhetoric".

Apparently you don't remember that I said Bush's re-election has nothing to do with this discussion, even though I said it just moments earlier.

Your opinion on the matter is no better than anyone elses...sheeesh.

[Moonlight Graham]

Really, was Bush the one who told those American troops not to move faster to catch Osama.

I'm not fan of George W Bush, in fact I think his Presidency was a complete failure. But you can't blame all of the problems in the world on him.

The report puts most of the blame of Rumsfeld actually. A different piece of poop, but the same toilet.

[Guest American Woman]

Clinton didn't capture or kill him either....you mean those consequences?

No, I don't mean those consequences. Your attempts to change the topic are non-stop, but I'm not following your attempt to divert the topic. Again. The topic is the failure to capture bin Laden when the chance presented itself because of the shift in focus to Iraq.

Get a grip....you know you can't shut me down. Please use ignore feature if you can't stand expanding on a topic....as in....just what did President Bush do instead of staying "focused" on Osama.

While I'm fine with "expanding" on a topic, I have no interest in being led off topic. Sorry about that. So you best follow your own advice, get a grip, and use the ignore feature if you can't handle staying on topic.

So what...again. I think Japan did too!

Yes, they both did. And therein lies the difference. FDR focused on both Japan and Europe because they both declared war on us. In case you're unaware of it, Saddam neither declared war nor was part of 9-11. Now here's another difference between Bush and FDR: FDR didn't lose focus on Japan in his focus on Europe.

Your opinion on the matter is no better than anyone elses...sheeesh.

Yes, it is. Since the topic has nothing to do with Bush's re-election, my opinion would be "right." That makes it "better."

Bush being reelected had nothing to do with what happened before he was reelected. Not getting bin Laden when the opportunity presented itself because of the focus turning to Iraq wouldn't have been undone had Bush not been reelected. I repeat. Bush being reelected has nothing to do with the topic.

[M.Dancer]

Not getting bin Laden when the opportunity presented itself because of the focus turning to Iraq wouldn't have been undone had Bush not been reelected. I repeat. Bush being reelected has nothing to do with the topic.

Speaking of things with nothing to do with the topic....

Iraq.

Iraq had nothing, zip, zilch, nada to do with missing Bin Laden....in December, 2001.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, I don't mean those consequences. Your attempts to change the topic are non-stop, but I'm not following your attempt to divert the topic. Again. The topic is the failure to capture bin Laden when the chance presented itself because of the shift in focus to Iraq.

Bin Laden had been in US sites for many years prior to Bush's term, but that is an inconvenient truth.

While I'm fine with "expanding" on a topic, I have no interest in being led off topic. Sorry about that. So you best follow your own advice, get a grip, and use the ignore feature if you can't handle staying on topic.

Then don't respond to the posts...is that so difficult for you? I will do as I please and there is nothing you can do about it except whine.

Yes, they both did. And therein lies the difference. FDR focused on both Japan and Europe because they both declared war on us. In case you're unaware of it, Saddam neither declared war nor was part of 9-11. Now here's another difference between Bush and FDR: FDR didn't lose focus on Japan in his focus on Europe.

Bullshit.....you don't know much about the Philippines or Bataan death march I guess. Europe was the focus over Japan.

Yes, it is. Since the topic has nothing to do with Bush's re-election, my opinion would be "right." That makes it "better."

Great...you win absolutely nothing.

Bush being reelected had nothing to do with what happened before he was reelected. Not getting bin Laden when the opportunity presented itself because of the focus turning to Iraq wouldn't have been undone had Bush not been reelected. I repeat. Bush being reelected has nothing to do with the topic.

More bullshit.....he was re-elected after specifically not "catching Osama".

[Guest American Woman]

Bin Laden had been in US sites for many years prior to Bush's term, but that is an inconvenient truth.

Yet this thread is about a very specific point in time. So once again, you stray.

Then don't respond to the posts...is that so difficult for you? I will do as I please and there is nothing you can do about it except whine.

I'm not responding to the off-topic aspects of your posts. Surely that hasn't escaped a smart guy like you.

Bullshit.....you don't know much about the Philippines or Bataan death march I guess. Europe was the focus over Japan.

I'm not even going to go off on that tangent, because again, Germany declared war on us too. FDR didn't "switch focus," Germany declared war. Again. Iraq/Saddam neither declared war on us nor was part of 9-11. As much as you think you have some sort of relevant point/comparison, you don't.

More bullshit.....he was re-elected after specifically not "catching Osama".

And ... one ... more ... time. That has nothing to do with what happened, or more specifically what didn't happen, regarding this specific issue: We took our eye off the ball instead of moving in on him at Tora Bora, the previous administration decided to move its forces to Iraq.

Whether or not Bush was re-elected has no bearing on what happened at Tora Bora; therefore his re-election is totally irrelevant.

So go on and on about it if you must ... and considering how many times you bring it up, regardless of the topic, I'm assuming for some odd reason you "must" ... but it just tells me that you're desperate to put the focus on anything but the topic.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yet this thread is about a very specific point in time. So once again, you stray.

Tough titty said the kitty when the milk ran dry.

I'm not responding to the off-topic aspects of your posts. Surely that hasn't escaped a smart guy like you.

You just did....again.

I'm not even going to go off on that tangent, because again, Germany declared war on us too. FDR didn't "switch focus," Germany declared war. Again. Iraq/Saddam neither declared war on us nor was part of 9-11. As much as you think you have some sort of relevant point/comparison, you don't.

Whereas you often have no point at all.

And ... one ... more ... time. That has nothing to do with what happened, or more specifically what didn't happen, regarding this specific issue: We took our eye off the ball instead of moving in on him at Tora Bora, the previous administration decided to move its forces to Iraq.

Wrong....there were many US and NATO forces in Afghanistan.....have been for many years.

Whether or not Bush was re-elected has no bearing on what happened at Tora Bora; therefore his re-election is totally irrelevant.

No, I think you are irrelevant.

So go on and on about it if you must ... and considering how many times you bring it up, regardless of the topic, I'm assuming for some odd reason you "must" ... but it just tells me that you're desperate to put the focus on anything but the topic.

No more than you are to respond to my posts. Sigh.....it must be love.

[Guest American Woman]

deleted

Edited December 1, 2009 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

I'm not even going to go off on that tangent, because again, Germany declared war on us too. FDR didn't "switch focus," Germany declared war. Again. Iraq/Saddam neither declared war on us nor was part of 9-11. As much as you think you have some sort of relevant point/comparison, you don't.

There is an oft quoted maxim, those who something history are doomed to something....

A lessor known maxim is those who don't know history are bound to make me chuckle.

1) FDR through the insistence of Churchill allocated the Lion share of the US war effort to Europe in spite of the opposition of the Navy and just about everyone else,

2) Iraq had nothing to do with missing Bin Laden, a point that AW might get if she knew how to read a calendar and ride a high horse at the same time.

3) A miss is a miss, whether it is Clinton missing or Bush, they both count as fails.

Edited December 1, 2009 by M.Dancer

[Guest American Woman]

Getting back to the topic:

"Removing the al-Qaida leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat," the report says. "But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide. The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism." link

That's a pretty damning statement. I can't help but wonder if the Bush administration has regrets.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's a pretty damning statement. I can't help but wonder if the Bush administration has regrets.

Sorry....Bush regrets are off topic.....LOL!

[Oleg Bach]

Everything went according to the grand inept plans of a bunch of overly privledged and inbred American elite.. in the hopeless coarse of events that led up to the non-capture of their mirror image- Bin Laden who as their counterpart - Is also a privledged and inbred elite..the stupid people can not catch the stupid people---maybe if we wait long enough the high egoed twits will plan together and in the end like a million monkeys typing - might just come up with a novel - But I doubt it...we all used to think this is a conspriacy but it is not - All of the players invloved to date on both sides are simply mindless. That's what happens when the privledged breed with the privledged for 500 years straight..They get pin heads in a sad attempt to create super humans- genetics is a cruel jokester.

[Shady]

Everything went according to the grand inept plans of a bunch of overly privledged and inbred American elite.. in the hopeless coarse of events that led up to the non-capture of their mirror image- Bin Laden who as their counterpart - Is also a privledged and inbred elite..the stupid people can not catch the stupid people---maybe if we wait long enough the high egoed twits will plan together and in the end like a million monkeys typing - might just come up with a novel - But I doubt it...we all used to think this is a conspriacy but it is not - All of the players invloved to date on both sides are simply mindless. That's what happens when the privledged breed with the privledged for 500 years straight..They get pin heads in a sad attempt to create super humans- genetics is a cruel jokester.

Complete and utter nonsense.