Bin Laden - Remember him?

[Mephisto]

Bin Laden Manhunt Still Drawing a Blank

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 2, 2006
Filed at 12:10 a.m. ET

AFGHANISTAN-PAKISTAN BORDER (AP) -- The al-Qaida terror camps are gone from Afghanistan, but the enigma of Osama bin Laden still hangs over these lawless borderlands where tens of thousands of U.S. and Pakistani troops have spent nearly five years searching for him.

Villagers say the CIA missed by only a few miles when it targeted bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, with a missile strike in January. Then in May, U.S. Special Forces arrested one of al-Zawahri's closest aides, suggesting the trail has not gone entirely cold.

As for bin Laden himself? He may be nearby. Yet hopes of cornering the Saudi-born al-Qaida leader seem distant as ever. The last time authorities said they were close to getting him was in 2004, and in hindsight those statements seem more hope than fact.

Five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the most publicized manhunt in history has drawn a blank. The CIA has reorganized agents searching for the al Qaida leaders in the face of the evolving nature of the terrorist threat. And the American military's once-singular focus is diffused by the need for reconstruction and a growing fight against the Taliban, the resurgent Afghan Islamic movement that once hosted bin Laden.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Sept-11-Hunt-for-Bin-Laden.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
____________

from the same link

"Strained by the demands of Iraq, the U.S. has only about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. The roughly 10,000 in the border area must cover about 30,000 square miles of some of the most forbidding territory on Earth: jagged mountains, both arid and forested, that become impassable in winter. There are steep valleys and rushing rivers spanned by rickety rope bridges; dark caves that could be booby trapped. Deeply religious and xenophobic villagers also obstruct efforts to run down al-Qaida remnants."

[TragicMonkey]

I really don't see what capturing terrorists has to do with the War On Terrorism.

[Mephisto]

I really don't see what capturing terrorists has to do with the War On Terrorism.

You're right, TM - that's why we're CREATING more terrorists in Iraq. It provides job security for the alarmists AND the Republicans.

[TragicMonkey]

You're right, TM - that's why we're CREATING more terrorists in Iraq. It provides job security for the alarmists AND the Republicans.

Creating them? Like, in a lab? Igor, ve need more brains, bolt of lightning, neck bolts?

[Bikewer]

We were watching Chris Mathews yesterday and he was asking much the same question to the "panel". Osama seems to have fallen off the radar for some reason.

[Mephisto]

Creating them? Like, in a lab? Igor, ve need more brains, bolt of lightning, neck bolts?

:) No, no, it's more like cooking, and it's a simple recipe that can be used in any Muslim country.

682 pounds of Nigerian yellowcake
5,000 tons of WMD
25 aluminum tubes
150 unmanned drones capable of crossing the Atlantic
2 Downing Street memos
10 mobile laboratories
200 outdated SCUD launchers
passionate convictions

Mix first two ingredients well in the aluminum tubes and shake vigorously. Add the remaining ingredients stirring 9/11 times until well blended. Pour into an empty head mold. Set aside for 7 minutes. Release from mold and frost generously with passionate convictions. Serve while hot. ;)

[Ladewig]

I though that the most recent intelligence reports indicated that bin Laden had crossed into Pakistan and the administration decided not to send forces to capture or kill him because of the political ramifications.

[joe1347]

Coulter: Bin Laden Is ‘Irrelevant,’ ‘Things Are Going Swimmingly In Afghanistan’
Last night on Hannity and Colmes, guest host Kirsten Powers confronted Ann Coulter about President Bush’s failure to capture Osama Bin Laden and the rapidly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.

Coulter responded, “As for catching Osama, it’s irrelevant. Things are going swimmingly in Afghanistan.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/25/coulter-ends-segment/



Don't you know that OBL doesn't matter anymore with regards to the war on terror. It's all about Iraq now so we don't have to fight them in the streets of America. Granted I'm not exactly sure who it is we'll have to fight in the streets - but I guess that I need to be afraid of whoever the Bush Admin tells me to.

[casebro]

The Army and the CIA have never commented on ongoing activities. Just because they are not telling CNN about the cuurent location of every sniper team does not mean we don't have sniper teams. In Pakistan? Why not? Do you really think that if we whack OBL, the worlds #1 bad guy, the Paks will come out vocally against it? We'll give credit to some Pak Air Force Drone and hold a cremation.

[Tailgater]

If OBL dies, someone else will take his place and it doesn't really matter. If everyone else around him dies, he's still in charge and it doesn't really matter. Killing him doesn't change anything except news headlines. He will either be alive or a martyr. Which is worse? Manpower used fighting the worldwide network of people is better than parking thousands of troops in one spot to find him. Will 40k troops find him any better than 20K? Does it matter? That's not an endorsement of Iraq, so save your breath. But there are plenty of other places that could use more troops that are justifiable. That's one of the sad results from the Iraq war, is that it has become the scapegoat for every problem relating to terror. There was such a large coverage of terror cells all over the world before Iraq was invaded and how they had existed for years. Now, anytime more cells are found, it's because of Iraq.

[TragicMonkey]

If OBL dies, someone else will take his place and it doesn't really matter. If everyone else around him dies, he's still in charge and it doesn't really matter. Killing him doesn't change anything except news headlines.

Well, there is an abstract concern for justice. Some people simply cannot be permitted continued existence, whether they're going to repeat their deeds or not.

[Tailgater]

Well, there is an abstract concern for justice. Some people simply cannot be permitted continued existence, whether they're going to repeat their deeds or not.

True. I've always had a problem with focusing only on OBL from the beginning. The administration and the media overdid it. Like getting him is the only goal. That's like if Mcdonalds was a terrorist organization and everyone thought taking out the CEO and Ronald the clown required all the resources.

Arguing this point usually labels you as for the Iraq war much like arguing against the war somehow makes you un-american.

[Pardalis]

The latest terrorist plots that have been thwarted in England and Canada are proof that the intelligence agencies are not drawing blanks. To get to OBL isn't that all important, as long as the terrorist cells are discovered and brought down. But I'm sure we'll get that SOB some day.

[Mephisto]

To get to OBL isn't that all important, . . .

"Speaking with reporters after a Pentagon briefing on plans to call up reserve troops, Bush offered some of his most blunt language to date when he was asked if he wanted bin Laden dead.

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

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/bush.powell.terrorism/
________

"Does Bush Care About Osama Bin Laden?

In 2001, George W. Bush said that he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." In 2002 Bush said "I truly am not that concerned about him." During the third debate with John Kerry, when that second comment was brought up, Bush said "I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations."

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/118899.htm
_________

Then you agree that Bush is a flip-flopper?

[Pardalis]

Then you agree that Bush is a flip-flopper?

No, I just think he is not being quoted properly, out of context.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.


KERRY: Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.

Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."

We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?

BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

My interpretation of this is that Bush is worried about OBL because he is a terrorist icon, so of course he wants his head. But as far as the war in Afghanistan is concerned, OBL has no loger authority there as he is in hiding, so he is no longer a primary concern.

[andyandy]

Bin who? :)

[joe1347]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi and coalition forces have arrested the second most senior figure in al-Qaida in Iraq, Iraq’s national security adviser announced on Sunday, saying the group now suffered from a “serious leadership crisis.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14647177/



Well if we don't need to catch Bin Laden, at least we're catching his number two. Although it certainly seems like there's an awful lot of #2's in Al Quaeda. I guess being an #2 in Al Queda is a lot like being a Vice President at Ford or GM (i.e., there seems to be an endless of supply of them and they don't seem to do much)?

[Mephisto]

Well if we don't need to catch Bin Laden, at least we're catching his number two. Although it certainly seems like there's an awful lot of #2's in Al Quaeda. I guess being an #2 in Al Queda is a lot like being a Vice President at Ford or GM (i.e., there seems to be an endless of supply of them and they don't seem to do much)?

I've often wondered how we're expected to celebrate the capture or death of a #2 man when the #1 man (Bin Laden) isn't (according to their own words) all that important any longer?

[Pardalis]

I've often wondered how we're expected to celebrate the capture or death of a #2 man when the #1 man (Bin Laden) isn't (according to their own words) all that important any longer?

No longer important in the Afghani situation. You can't keep quoting people of out context.

[Mephisto]

No longer important in the Afghani situation. You can't keep quoting people of out context.

I'll have to agree that he's no longer important in the Afghan situation, but he should still be our #1 target if we're looking for payback for 9/11. I agree that the whole shebang shouldn't ride on Bin Laden, but I would still like to see him dead OR brought to justice.

[New Ager]

You're right, TM - that's why we're CREATING more terrorists in Iraq. It provides job security for the alarmists AND the Republicans.

LOL!! No, we are creating freedom and democracy in Iraq.

And last time I looked, terrorists die there every day.

They were only being created when Saddam and his cronies had kids.

[New Ager]

He's the guy hiding from the world that comes out every year and makes a tape. Pretty scary. :)

[Ausmerican]

Wether you see his capture as relevant to the ongoing WOT or not surely you would have to admit from a recruiting and propaganda POV his continued freedom is problematical.

The fact remains that the man responsible for the greatest terrorist act in the history of the U.S. and probably the world is still free five years later must come under the heading "emboldening our enemies."

Would there BE a war on terror if not for him? No, and yet he's unimportant or irrelevant?

As far as the political ramifications of going into Pakistan goes, I remember someone 5 years ago saying something along the lines of 'you are either with us or with the terrorists.' I didn't realize at that time that he meant "If you publically say you are with us you can privately continue to harbor the most wanted of terrorists and we won't do squat."

[Regnad Kcin]

LOL!! No, we are creating freedom and democracy in Iraq...You'll no doubt be taking your next vacation there. Don't forget to send a postcard!

[Pardalis]

As far as the political ramifications of going into Pakistan goes, I remember someone 5 years ago saying something along the lines of 'you are either with us or with the terrorists.' I didn't realize at that time that he meant "If you publically say you are with us you can privately continue to harbor the most wanted of terrorists and we won't do squat."

I'm not sure Pakistan (the government) is harbouring OBL, but definitely terrorist forces within Pakistan are helping him hide, there was a big difference with the Taliban.

[JayT]

Two days after 9/11, President Bush declared:

The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our No. 1 priority, and we will not rest until we find him.

Six months later, laying political groundwork for the Iraq war, President Bush said:

I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority.

And again, I don't know where he is. I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

President George W Bush, March 13, 2002


Gosh, I don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden.
That's kind of one of those exaggerations.

President Bush, October 13, 2004

He's as consistent and noncontradictory as the Bible he thumps! Each page of the history he makes says the direct opposite of some other page. At least he's consistently inconsistent.

LOL

[Pardalis]

He's as consistent and noncontradictory as the Bible he thumps! Each page of the history he makes says the direct opposite of some other page. At least he's consistently inconsistent.
LOL

I beg to differ. I don't want to necesserally defend the guy, but you have to place all these quotes into their context. What question was he answering to, and what was he exactly referring to?

(was he talking about Afghanistan, Iraq, the war on terror, a particular attack or video message, or terrorism at large?)

[demon]

New Ager:
"LOL!! No, we are creating freedom and democracy in Iraq."


Yes, no doubt there's a silent majority of Iraqis who staunchly support the occupation and will soon carry Chalabi to victory on their shoulders.

[Mephisto]

LOL!! No, we are creating freedom and democracy in Iraq.

And last time I looked, terrorists die there every day.

They were only being created when Saddam and his cronies had kids.

Funny, the last time I looked American soldiers die there every day, along with about 100 Iraqis.

[Mephisto]

Wether you see his capture as relevant to the ongoing WOT or not surely you would have to admit from a recruiting and propaganda POV his continued freedom is problematical.

The fact remains that the man responsible for the greatest terrorist act in the history of the U.S. and probably the world is still free five years later must come under the heading "emboldening our enemies."

Would there BE a war on terror if not for him? No, and yet he's unimportant or irrelevant?

As far as the political ramifications of going into Pakistan goes, I remember someone 5 years ago saying something along the lines of 'you are either with us or with the terrorists.' I didn't realize at that time that he meant "If you publically say you are with us you can privately continue to harbor the most wanted of terrorists and we won't do squat."

Well said, and it's important to note the BS coming from our camp - I always thought it was fairly expedient to simply discount OBL's importance when we realized we weren't going to catch him quickly.

[Mephisto]

I beg to differ. I don't want to necesserally defend the guy, but you have to place all these quotes into their context. What question was he answering to, and what was he exactly referring to?

(was he talking about Afghanistan, Iraq, the war on terror, a particular attack or video message, or terrorism at large?)

But Pardalis, they are contradictory statements no matter how you look at them. I can't imagine what context would make them "appear" to be contradictory.

[Darth Rotor]

As far as the political ramifications of going into Pakistan goes, I remember someone 5 years ago saying something along the lines of 'you are either with us or with the terrorists.' I didn't realize at that time that he meant "If you publically say you are with us you can privately continue to harbor the most wanted of terrorists and we won't do squat."
That's an excellent thought, but it focuses on the micro concern, rather than the macro concern. The macro concern is a nation of over 150 million (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pk.html), mostly Muslims (Sunni 77%, Shi'a 20%, Christian, Hindu, and other 3%) being governed by parties who pursue secular, rather than religious, aims. The current Pakistani leadership can be worked with, but there are considerable limits to the government's control of the population, particularly in the north and northwest of the country. So, the US has to allow Pakistan to undertake a patient infiltration of the North to find Bin Laden. That is not a short project.

If a less secular party takes over in Pakistan, what then?

DR

[Pardalis]

But Pardalis, they are contradictory statements no matter how you look at them. I can't imagine what context would make them "appear" to be contradictory.

I don't see them as contradictory statements. He said OBL wasn't a concern in the Afghanistan situation, but as far as the global war on terror, OBL remains an important person to catch.

I think it's your own hatred of Bush that makes you interpret it as contradictory. I don't like nor dislike Bush, maybe that's the difference.

[demon]

Mephisto:
"In 2001, George W. Bush said that he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." In 2002 Bush said "I truly am not that concerned about him.""

Hey, we`re back in business, he`s concerned again.
Bush is comparing Osama to Hitler again, and with Lenin thrown in to for good measure.

quote:
Bush compares Bin Laden to Hitler

President George W Bush has compared Osama Bin Laden to Lenin and Hitler in a speech to US military officers.
"Underestimating the words of evil and ambitious men is a terrible mistake," he said as he quoted extensively from Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda figures...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5318204.stm

Satire or reality? Make your own mind up.

[a_unique_person]

He's as important as Hitler or Stalin, yet has pursued other less important matters for several years, and largely forgotten about Osama.

[Regnad Kcin]

This wouldn't by any chance be 5th-Anniversary-of-9/11 talk, coupled with mid-term election positioning, would it?

[joe1347]

This wouldn't by any chance be 5th-Anniversary-of-9/11 talk, coupled with mid-term election positioning, would it?


Of course not. Just like the upcoming October terror alerts have nothing to do the Nov. Mid-term election.

[JayT]

I beg to differ. I don't want to necesserally defend the guy, but you have to place all these quotes into their context. What question was he answering to, and what was he exactly referring to?

(was he talking about Afghanistan, Iraq, the war on terror, a particular attack or video message, or terrorism at large?)

I understand your point and it's valid.

But, he's not being taken out of context here.

When it comes to him, there is no need to distort or exaggerate or take anything out of context. His record is clear.

He was asked what ever happened to his promise to track down bin Laden and never rest until it was done. He seemed to have gone silent about it, so the reporters were wanting to know why it seemed to have lost all importance to him.

So he then changed his position and said bin Laden wasn't his highest priority - the direct opposite of his previous statement.

Asked again about it at a later date, he then denied he ever said bin Laden was no longer his main priority at all.

If you collect his words, you will see that his actions and words are most often light years out of sync.

He's forfeited any right to expect me to believe anything he says after his well documented public record.

The only difference I can see between a pathological liar and a politician is that a politician is paid to make a career out of lies. Power, money and deceit is the Holy Trinity of that profession - and now, more than ever before.

[Darth Rotor]

Bin Laden - Remember him?

Oh, wait, didn't he used to play second base for the Red Sox? :p

DR

[Tony]

"Bin Laden doesn't matter" (while attacking clinton for not getting bin laden no less) is the latest right-wing apologist talking point to spin the utter failure and incompetence of the bush administration and republican policy. You're only fooling youselves.

[Darth Rotor]

"Bin Laden doesn't matter" (while attacking clinton for not getting bin laden no less) is the latest right-wing apologist talking point to spin the utter failure and incompetence of the bush administration and republican policy. You're only fooling youselves.
Had Bin Laden been bagged in Tora Bora, I don't think his symbolic power would have continued to increase among sundry underground movements. That line is remarkably divorced from the political realities.

Not getting Zarqawi expeditiously in 2004 also mattered, massively, since it wasn't until over a year later that he (and his cadre) acted as catalyst for some of the current strife by bombing Shia holy sites.

In war, failure often matters. A man called Vero would agree.

DR

[Tony]

Had Bin Laden been bagged in Tora Bora, I don't think his symbolic power would have continued to increase among sundry underground movements. That line is remarkably divorced from the political realities.

Not getting Zarqawi expeditiously in 2004 also mattered, massively, since it wasn't until over a year later that he (and his cadre) acted as catalyst for some of the current strife by bombing Shia holy sites.

In war, failure often matters. A man called Vero would agree.

DR

What are you saying here DR?

[Darth Rotor]

What are you saying here DR?
When you fail to take out leadership, particularly symbolic leadership, of a terror organization, that is like losing a battle in a war.

Vero lost to Hannibal at Cannae.

DR

[Tony]

When you fail to take out leadership, particularly symbolic leadership, of a terror organization, that is like losing a battle in a war.


Ok, that's what I thought, and I agree. The reason I asked what you meant is because I kind of thought you were attributing the "Bin Laden doesn't matter" attitude to me.

[Darth Rotor]

Ok, that's what I thought, and I agree. The reason I asked what you meant is because I kind of thought you were attributing the "Bin Laden doesn't matter" attitude to me.
Ah. I forget sometimes that quotes don't transfer, and should have copied the original attribution to avoid confusion.

My bad.

DR