Anyone Seen Osama?

[preemptingyou03]

If Bush hightens security, he is accused of being a fear-monger. Yet if he doesn't, and an attack happens, he is accused of not protecting the American people.

If Bush tightens security, he is accused of restricting our freedoms, (ie: restricting the terrorists' ability to commit an attack) yet if he doesn't tighten security, he's called weak on defense.

If Bush tightens security to protect the American people, liberals claim that's "what the terrorists want." If Bush kills a terrorist leader, according to liberals, that terrorist becomes a martyr and that's "what the terrorists want."

If Bush reaches out to the UN, and the UN passes a resolution and France and Russia don't wish to enforce it, Bush is considered unilateral.

If Bush builds a coalition that is taking 20% of the casualties, Bush is considered unilateral.

Democrats only cherish those opinions of those who disagree with us, (for finanical reasons) such as the French.

Bush's policy of preemption in Iraq, with all the evidence that Saddam had WMD is blasted by Democrats, yet they wanted him to preempt Afghanistan and the Taliban (without Pakistan's support) and with less evidence of a threat.

Bush failed against al-Qaeda in eight months, while Clinton did shit, while he got blowjobs and let our country get attacked by al-Qaeda five times, including a battleship.

Bush gets a memo that says Osama bin Laden wants to attack us, no date, no time, no place, yet Bill Clinton's in office and Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Mohammed Atef, DECLARE WAR on the United States, and nothing happens.

Bush enforces Resolution 1441, while Clinton didn't enforce the other 16 war treaties Saddam violated. Bush is blasted for that.

Bush destroys hundreds of terrorist camps in Afghanistan, removes the Taliban from power, and captures and kills 10 of the top 16 terrorists and 7 of the top 10 terrorists in al-Qaeda, yet he is blasted for not finding Osama.

And if Bush does find Osama, he'll be blasted for either "waiting to tell the public" or they'll say "Osama doesn't matter anymore."

France, Russia, Germany, UK, Italy, Poland, Spain, Japan, and China, as well as all nations in the Security Council, the UN thought Saddam had WMD, but Bush is the only liar.

Dems thought Saddam had WMD but say Bush hand-picked intelligence, but fail to remember Congress thought Saddam had WMD, and sees intelligence before the White House.

And if we do find WMD in Iraq, (a nation the size of California) Bush will be accused of planting them there.

Democrats... have yet to prove they count in a post-9/11 world.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
1) Osama bin Laden - at large on Afghan/Pakistani border
2) Ayman al-Zawahiri - at large on Afghan/Pakistani border
3) Mohammed Atef - killed by US missile in Afghanistan
4) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - captured by CIA in Pakistan
5) Abu Zubaydah - captured by CIA in Pakistan
6) Hambali - captured by CIA in Southeast Asia
7) Saif al-Adel - at large in Iran
8) Ramzi Binalshibh - captured by CIA in Pakistan
9) Anas al-Liby - captured by US forces in Afghanistan
10) Mohammed Haydar Zammar - captured by CIA in Morocco
11) Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri - captured by CIA in Yemen
12) Omar al-Faruq - captured by CIA in Indonesia
13) Ali Qaed Senyan al-Harthi - killed by US drone missile in Yemen, something every Dem got mad at Rumsfeld for
14) Saad bin Laden - at large in Iran
15) Sulaiman Abu Ghaith - at large in Iran
16) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - at large in Iraq

Yup, Bush is doing a terrible job in finding terrorists.

Saddam Hussein gave sponsorship to the following terrorist groups within Iraq: the MEK, the PKK, and Ansar al-Islam, all having ties to al-Qaeda.

Saddam Hussein funded: Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, the largest terrorist groups in the world behind al-Qaeda.

Saddam Hussein sheltered: Abu Nidal, and his ANO terrorist group, Abu Abbas, and his PLF terrorist group, Abdul Yassin, a plotter of the 1993 WTC attack and al-Qaeda operative, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaeda operative.

Not to mention, Saddam Hussein violated 17 war treaties 333 times, regarding his WMD, the UNSC, Congress, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, the UK, and every Democrat thought he had WMD, he used WMD, he admitted to it, he kicked inspectors out, he detained and blindfolded inspectors, he admitted to having WMD in 1998 and never accounted for the material the world thought he had, oh and... he slaughtered 750,000 of his own people.

Yup, Saddam wasn't a terrorist and Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.

Stop with your facts Premempting. Ha it does not much up with acludem's fantasy world painted for him by the NYTIMES link that he gave.

You know why its not in the media. Because even the media understands that Afghanistan is a success. They realize that the country is being pretty well controlled. They are focusing hardcore on trying to turn Iraq into Vietnam despite one having nothing to do with the other. Every casuality, every minor setback is front page news because it hurts Bush's effort in winning the War. Despite the big picture which shows iraq is not in trouble. That the progress made there has been astounding. A dictator that harbored and funded terrorists and had his own aspirations for eliminating the US has been removed. A country that has never before been free, is well on its way to Free Elections sometime this year. People that hadnt known what hope is suddenly have plenty of it for the future of their country, their region and most importly their lives and their childrens lives. No longer do they live in fear that this was the day they would be executed, or raped, or made an example of by Sadaam's sadism.

Iraq is a success and it pains everyone that opposes Bush to admit that. Just like it pains them to admit that he is a great president.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Iraq is a success? not yet, kemosabe. one word.....fallujah.


granted there's a cease fire right now and I hope its resolved but I would hardly call this a success yet.

 

[insein]

how is one uprising setting the whole country back to pre-war status. Yes uprisings occur. Its a war. But we'll handle just like we've handled numerous others undoubtedly that havent made the precious CNN headlines because they were successfully put down.

 

[preemptingyou03]

This isn't an uprising. When 1% of 60% of the population disagrees with something, it is usually because guys like Sadr won't get elected once democracy is established. While our mission in Iraq is far from over, it is much better than post-war Germany and post-war Japan, politically, as well as security.

I find it sort of funny, yet pathetic,, how a mob of angry people in Iraq can alter public opinion of the world's strongest and unparalleled superpower.

Has anyone realized we're the only "empire" in the history of civilization, to not only leave the countries we invade, but leave them off much, much better than they were when they were our enemies?

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by insein
Ever hear of the Shah of Iran. While not a real humanitarian guy, he was an allie to america. His loyalty was unquestioned. When he came under fire from rebels, he expected that at any moment the US would help out and send in troops to save him since he supported the US so much.

No support came. The Aaytollah took over and a new breed of Anti-American sentiment grew in the Middle East led by Iran.

That is a major contributor to why the "Hate America" doctrine that has become so widespread over there was allowed to spread further.

You might want to read up on the Shaw a bit. He had a lot in common with Mabuto, Devalier, Saddam, Noriaga, Marcos, Samosa, Suharto to name just a few of the anti-democratic, repressive, murdous thugs that the US backed during the cold war. Just why did you think so many people in the developing world are deeply suspecious of US motives. You don't really buy that "they all hate freedom" crap Bush spews do you? We backed their fathers oppressors. Why do you think it is such a tough sell for so many people that we just want to bring democracy?

 

[insein]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
You might want to read up on the Shaw a bit. He had a lot in common with Mabuto, Devalier, Saddam, Noriaga, Marcos, Samosa, Suharto to name just a few of the anti-democratic, repressive, murdous thugs that the US backed during the cold war. Just why did you think so many people in the developing world are deeply suspecious of US motives. You don't really buy that "they all hate freedom" crap Bush spews do you? We backed their fathers oppressors. Why do you think it is such a tough sell for so many people that we just want to bring democracy?

So we needed allies then against a larger enemy. The shah was an ally and alot tamer than Sadaam was. Yet we were forced to ally with Sadaam becase the Shah was removed. Now we're under a different President who wants to correct past mistakes. But all those mistakes are Bush's fault? Doesnt quite make sense to me.

Just sounds like a hatred for past American Transgressions has manifested itself into a hatred for the current leader who wants to do something about it. But why Bush? Why no hatred for Clinton or Bush Sr? Why such a profound hatred for a man who has taken an active approach to solving the problems we face over there?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
You don't really buy that "they all hate freedom" crap Bush spews do you?

Why do you attribute this solely to Bush? Thousands of people all over the nation have been saying this for many, many years - and you seem to think Bush made this up out of the clear blue sky? Your ability to blame him for anything and everything is nothing more than laughable.

Furthermore, most terrorists DO want to prevent freedom and democracy from taking place where they live. They live to control and instill fear.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by insein
Just sounds like a hatred for past American Transgressions has manifested itself into a hatred for the current leader who wants to do something about it. But why Bush? Why no hatred for Clinton or Bush Sr? Why such a profound hatred for a man who has taken an active approach to solving the problems we face over there?

Because moveon.org hasn't told him to hate them. The tinfoil can only protect so much at one time.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by jimnyc

Furthermore, most terrorists DO want to prevent freedom and democracy from taking place where they live. They live to control and instill fear.

Hence they are terrorists. Some people aught to learn the meaning of the word.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
I'm quite sure al-Qaeda's gotten the attention of the White House. You come from the school where once Mr. bin Laden is captured, you're complacency kicks back in, correct? There's more to defending America than capturing OBL and dismanlting al-Qaeda, however, from our actions, you can't say we haven't done a damn good job on al-Qaeda.

Does al-Qaeda have state sponsorship from the Taliban anymore? Does al-Qaeda have any terrorist camps anymore? No and no.

Their leaders are dead and in jail cells and those that remain at large are sleeping with one eye open in a cave somewhere. As for the Iraq war "diverting resources..." look... al-Qaeda's a non-geographical force. The 130,000 troops in Iraq cannot invade al-Qaeda because al-Qaeda is all over the world. You cannot militarily invade individuals. The War on Terror isn't a literal war, yet it may consist of literal wars.

As for the war in Iraq giving Osama a recruitment tool... all I have to say is a free Iraq, will de-radicalize the Middle East a generation from now. If we fight terrorism, it may inflame radicalism, sure... but we must endure that for we know democracy doesn't preach hatred.

"You come from the school where once Mr. bin Laden is captured, you're complacency kicks back in, correct?"

Incorrect. I'm not sure capturing bin Laden will "decapitate" al-Qaeda at this point. As you yourself point out later in the post, al-Qaeda is a worldwide movement. Many terrorists are only loosly allied with al-Qaeda at best.



There's more to defending America than capturing OBL and dismanlting al-Qaeda...

true.

however, from our actions, you can't say we haven't done a damn good job on al-Qaeda.

On the contrary, that is exactly my point. There is much more that should be done by Bush that he is not doing because he is myopicly focused on Iraq, including;

Working with our allies instead of pissing them all off. We need greater cooperation following the "money trail;" we need to invest in, train and develop cooperative efforts regarding international travel; we need to develop greater international police coordination with "old Europe" instead of marginalizing them; We need to support the UN and its democracy building institutions; we need to understand that if poor kids in the middle east don't have a school to go to then the Maddresses (spelling ?) will fill the void -- if you're serious about terror, then we have to help provide basic educational opportunities in "failed states;" We need to use some of the 150 billion we have wasted in Iraq on providing US first responders with the training and equipment they need to respond to an emergency; We need to spend some of it to better protect our ports and borders.

If Bush were serious about terrorism, we would be doing these things and many more, instead we're fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq that not only robs financial resources from the fight against terrorism, it diverts military resources and has undermined the UN and undermined our relationships with the allies we need to get serious about defending our country. If Bush is not willing to do the job, we should elect someone who will.

PS

Do you really think "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" was a 'historical" document? Pah-Leeze!

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by acludem
blah blah blah....
Bush is so obsessed with Iraq, he's all but forgotten the terrorists. Is he helping to go after those responsible for bombing of the Spanish communter train? How about the terrorists threatening to attack France? Oh, wait, France supports the terrorists so to hell with them.

acludem

With your selective reading of the facts, you missed where the CIA tipped off France just last week to a bomb plot regarding their rail system. Ooops, doesn't fit your agenda I guess it means nothing.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by acludem
How is Bush "holding the terrorists accountable"? He's all but abandoned Afghanistan, don't believe me? Ask the guy we put in power, he's wondering if we haven't abandoned them.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/n02262003_200302269.html

There's a story from the armed forces news network...or is this a liberal media source?

Bush is so obsessed with Iraq, he's all but forgotten the terrorists. Is he helping to go after those responsible for bombing of the Spanish communter train? How about the terrorists threatening to attack France? Oh, wait, France supports the terrorists so to hell with them.

acludem

Good post.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Why do you attribute this solely to Bush?

I didn't. Is saying Bush said something -- which I think everyone will agree he has said often -- the same as attributing "this solely to Bush?"

My post neither said that nor implied it. Why do you persist in waisting my time with this nonesense Jim?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
I didn't. Is saying Bush said something -- which I think everyone will agree he has said often -- the same as attributing "this solely to Bush?"

My post neither said that nor implied it. Why do you persist in waisting my time with this nonesense Jim?

Why do you persist in being an asshole?

You made a reference to one person, and on person only - GWB.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by insein

Just sounds like a hatred for past American Transgressions has manifested itself into a hatred for the current leader who wants to do something about it. But why Bush? Why no hatred for Clinton or Bush Sr? Why such a profound hatred for a man who has taken an active approach to solving the problems we face over there?

Hate? Who said anything about hate? Are you taking lessons from Jim?

Oh, I get it. If I simply have an irrational hatred of Bush then you don't have to think about the issues I've raised. That's a bit lazy if you ask me.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Hate? Who said anything about hate? Are you taking lessons from Jim?

Better than from someone with the mentality of a walnut like you.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Why is it that every time you question someone with liberal leanings on one of their so called facts they never answer?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
I simply have an irrational hatred of Bush

There you have it, folks, this explains everything.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Why do you persist in being an asshole?

You made a reference to one person, and on person only - GWB.

If I wrote that Jim called me an asshole, would that imply that nobody else has called me an asshole. Hardly. In fact, lots of people have called me an asshole. My mother has called me an asshole. Bet yours has too.

Love, St8:kiss2: