Why?

[The Rabbi]

Actually they didnt offer to turn him over. They offered to talk about turning him over. That isn't the same thing. Bush was right to reject what was obviously a delaying tactic.

They offered to turn him over IF we could produce evidence of his guilt.

Given the faulty intel the Bush admin was peddling about the Al Qaeda/Iraq link and Iraq's "continuing" WMD program, you can hardly blame the Taliban for wanting to check under the hood.

However, the crimes were obviously commited against U.S. citizens on US. soil, so turning Bin Laden over to a "neutral third country" would have been (imho) inappropriate.

The idea that negotiating the Taliban offer would have created an unacceptable delay is (imho) absurd. Bush's refusal to try to work with the Taliban on this one really didn't speed anything along, now did it?

Given that Osama boasted about planning and executing 9/11 producing evidence of his guilt seems superfluous. The Taliban was offered numerous opportunities, all of them rejected. The idea that somehow it was going to be different now is absurd. You don't negotiate with your enemy when you are winning.
And see Rdean's comments above about turning over guests to their enemies.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Vayank can't be honest, so this thread is dead. He's welded to Obama's shorts full time. Adios.

 

[Claudette]

NO Yank. Not trying to lower any bar but anything that saves lives works for me and should for anyone else. The surge did work in Iraq but I don't believe it will work in AFg. Why put more people in harms way if you don't have to????

 

[The Rabbi]

Vayank can't be honest, so this thread is dead. He's welded to Obama's shorts full time. Adios.

Most liberals cannot be honest. We see it over and over on these threads. When Obama is criticized the answer isn't to defend him or his policies. It is: Bush did it too! And when you point out that Obama ran on changing the failed policies of the Bush administration you get "you're just a rightwingnut. Busshhhhh. It was Busshhhhh."

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Bush sucked, not sure why Democrats can't admit that.

Someone let me know when the change kicks in...........

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Bush sucked, not sure why Democrats can't admit that.

Someone let me know when the change kicks in...........

 

[Claudette]

Yank. I'm not trying to lower the bar on anything. I just don't think from all I've read about Afg and heard from folks who have been there that a surge will work in this instance. Anything that saves lives works for me. Why put more folks in harms way for a strategy that won' work?? Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I voted for Obama. I still support many of his initiatives. HOWEVER, can someone please explain to me WHY we need to send more troops to Afghanistan. I CANNOT see us winning anything there. Based on our best intelliegince, Osama Bin Laden is no longer there, but rather in Pakistan. Besides more deaths, and more billions of dollars spent, what good is goiing to come from this?

He'll get re-elected.

Pulling out of Afghanistan at this point is political suicide. The announcement he was going to send more troops may as well have been an announcement he was going to seek re-election.

Winning Afghanistan may not be possible after ignoring that front in favor of Iraq for so long, but not trying would finish the Obama Administration. So, the war goes on....

 

[saveliberty]

Actually they didnt offer to turn him over. They offered to talk about turning him over. That isn't the same thing. Bush was right to reject what was obviously a delaying tactic.

They offered to turn him over IF we could produce evidence of his guilt.

Given the faulty intel the Bush admin was peddling about the Al Qaeda/Iraq link and Iraq's "continuing" WMD program, you can hardly blame the Taliban for wanting to check under the hood.

However, the crimes were obviously commited against U.S. citizens on US. soil, so turning Bin Laden over to a "neutral third country" would have been (imho) inappropriate.

The idea that negotiating the Taliban offer would have created an unacceptable delay is (imho) absurd. Bush's refusal to try to work with the Taliban on this one really didn't speed anything along, now did it?

Proof of guilt? You mean proof that a conservative would agree with then in a deabte with a liberal or vice versa? I think it is fair to say the level of proof the Taliban is impossible as they would have disputed anything. How's that olive branch to Iran working for your guy? No delays I assume.

 

[xsited1]

And this has WHAT to do with my original question?

It has everything to do with it. You see, people like John Kerry (and the Obama Administration) want to sell to the American people the importance of sending more troops to Afghanistan because if we can just get Osama, everything will be wonderful. Aren't you glad they're in charge?

Correct me if I am wrong, but way back in the day, wasn't getting OBL our original mission in Afghanistan?

Yep. And according to Kerry and the Obama Administration, he still is. And don't worry about funding. The US will just print more money to pay for it. No biggie.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Actually they didnt offer to turn him over. They offered to talk about turning him over. That isn't the same thing. Bush was right to reject what was obviously a delaying tactic.

They offered to turn him over IF we could produce evidence of his guilt.

Given the faulty intel the Bush admin was peddling about the Al Qaeda/Iraq link and Iraq's "continuing" WMD program, you can hardly blame the Taliban for wanting to check under the hood.

However, the crimes were obviously commited against U.S. citizens on US. soil, so turning Bin Laden over to a "neutral third country" would have been (imho) inappropriate.

The idea that negotiating the Taliban offer would have created an unacceptable delay is (imho) absurd. Bush's refusal to try to work with the Taliban on this one really didn't speed anything along, now did it?

Given that Osama boasted about planning and executing 9/11 producing evidence of his guilt seems superfluous. The Taliban was offered numerous opportunities, all of them rejected. The idea that somehow it was going to be different now is absurd. You don't negotiate with your enemy when you are winning.
And see Rdean's comments above about turning over guests to their enemies.

The Taliban offered to turn him over (in spite of whatever cultural observances others perceive may have been violated) and they asked for some evidence of guilt. Given the faulty intel that the administration was peddling concerning an Iraq/AQ link and a continuing Iraq WMD program, I understand the Taliban's reluctance to just take Bush's word for it.

The Taliban was given one alternative - hand him over without any stipuluations or we'll continue this decade-long quagmire.

Since you had never heard of the Taliban's offer before I presented it to you a few minutes ago - it's seems odd that you feel qualified to comment on what it "really was" and why it should have been rejected.

As for the claim that "you don't negotiate with your enemies when you are winning" seems to be one more reflection of ill-informed, knee jerk reactions. We negotiated terms of surrender with Japan after we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we negotiated terms of surrender with Saddam after Gulf War I .... in fact virtually every war - won or lost - includes negotiating terms of surrender.

I don't mean to be offensive and I truly hope I have not been, but your points just don't hold up.

 

[nodoginnafight]

But regardless of what some "Crystal Balls" here may predict about "what would have happened" if Bush had pursued this offer from the Taliban further, it is clear that it would have cost us nothing to try and could have potentially saved many lives, much money, and could have resulted in a definitive answer to the issue of Bin Laden rather than the questions that still remain.

Clear Mistake.

But that is water under the bridge. What we are left with is a decision on how to make the best of the situation as it stands now.

And (imho) the very little that can still be accomplished in Afghanistan is not worth it.

 

[VaYank5150]

NO Yank. Not trying to lower any bar but anything that saves lives works for me and should for anyone else. The surge did work in Iraq but I don't believe it will work in AFg. Why put more people in harms way if you don't have to????

I agree that there is not much of a case for putting more of ouur soldiers in harm's way in Afghanistan, however, to blindly believe that the surge "worked" when your only measure is it decreased US casualties doesn't help me understand how it "worked"?

 

[VaYank5150]

Vayank can't be honest, so this thread is dead. He's welded to Obama's shorts full time. Adios.

Troll. RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

 

[The Rabbi]

No I'm sorry your points are just plain stupid. The Taliban repeatedly refused to hand him over. They were in no position to dictate any terms once bombs started falling. Osama had boasted of his role in 9/11 so there was no proof needed. It was simply a delaying tactic, much like the Iranians and North Koreans have been playing.
And you were dishonest in describing the incident as "they offered to turn bin Laden over." That is simply not true. They offered to talk about turning him over.
Further since you weren't privy to every communication between the two parties and otehr relevant intel, you are in no position to judge what Bush did.

 

[The Rabbi]

But regardless of what some "Crystal Balls" here may predict about "what would have happened" if Bush had pursued this offer from the Taliban further, it is clear that it would have cost us nothing to try and could have potentially saved many lives, much money, and could have resulted in a definitive answer to the issue of Bin Laden rather than the questions that still remain.

Clear Mistake.

But that is water under the bridge. What we are left with is a decision on how to make the best of the situation as it stands now.

And (imho) the very little that can still be accomplished in Afghanistan is not worth it.

Well yeah it would have cost plenty. Using hte delay the Taliban could have dug in, prepared hide outs, done all sorts of things. And they knew that time was on their side, that the US would get tired of the war and want to go home. Which is where we are now.

 

[VaYank5150]

I voted for Obama. I still support many of his initiatives. HOWEVER, can someone please explain to me WHY we need to send more troops to Afghanistan. I CANNOT see us winning anything there. Based on our best intelliegince, Osama Bin Laden is no longer there, but rather in Pakistan. Besides more deaths, and more billions of dollars spent, what good is goiing to come from this?

He'll get re-elected.

Pulling out of Afghanistan at this point is political suicide. The announcement he was going to send more troops may as well have been an announcement he was going to seek re-election.

Winning Afghanistan may not be possible after ignoring that front in favor of Iraq for so long, but not trying would finish the Obama Administration. So, the war goes on....

I disagree with the whole political suicide point, but we are obviously allowed to disagree. My bigger question would be what does "finishing" in Afghanisatn mean? What does "winning" in Afghanistan mean? What are our goals now? What were they originally? Does anyone even remember? If we continue to move the finish line, we will NEVER cross it in victory or defeat!

 

[noose4]

But regardless of what some "Crystal Balls" here may predict about "what would have happened" if Bush had pursued this offer from the Taliban further, it is clear that it would have cost us nothing to try and could have potentially saved many lives, much money, and could have resulted in a definitive answer to the issue of Bin Laden rather than the questions that still remain.

Clear Mistake.

But that is water under the bridge. What we are left with is a decision on how to make the best of the situation as it stands now.

And (imho) the very little that can still be accomplished in Afghanistan is not worth it.

Well yeah it would have cost plenty. Using hte delay the Taliban could have dug in, prepared hide outs, done all sorts of things. And they knew that time was on their side, that the US would get tired of the war and want to go home. Which is where we are now.

The Taliban had continuous warfare for over 20 years, they were already dug in.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Yes, I'm the troll. I'm not sure why ewe asked a question if ewe were going to get all whiney about the response Vayank.........

Obama should get the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Say it, and say it out loud. What's the hold up?

 

[EriktheRed]

I voted for Obama. I still support many of his initiatives. HOWEVER, can someone please explain to me WHY we need to send more troops to Afghanistan. I CANNOT see us winning anything there. Based on our best intelliegince, Osama Bin Laden is no longer there, but rather in Pakistan. Besides more deaths, and more billions of dollars spent, what good is goiing to come from this?

He'll get re-elected.

Pulling out of Afghanistan at this point is political suicide. The announcement he was going to send more troops may as well have been an announcement he was going to seek re-election.

Winning Afghanistan may not be possible after ignoring that front in favor of Iraq for so long, but not trying would finish the Obama Administration. So, the war goes on....

Why would getting out of there be political suicide? If the GOoPers yell "cut and run" as a result, so what? Doesn't seem to me - after Iraq, that is - that that would have the same effect it once did.