Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Saturday, February 13, 2010

Marc Thiessen: In the years after the 9/11 attacks, the CIA worked with Pakistani and other intelligence services to hunt down senior terrorist leaders and take them in for interrogation. Today, Obama is no longer attempting to capture men like these alive; it is simply killing them. This may be satisfying, but it comes at a price. With every drone strike that vaporizes a senior al Qaeda leader, actionable intelligence is vaporized along with him. Dead terrorists can't tell you their plans to strike America.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

NoGov4Me

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

I think what he is actually trying to say is:

Look, Mr. President, my boss and I are bored, we need more torture tapes to masturbate to. We at least need to know that you're water boarding naked men to get off. Show some decency!

This traitor Thiessen's obviously in bed with the terrorists. Aidin' n' abettin', that's what he's doing. Why not ship his sorry ass down to Gitmo and...huh?...he worked for Bush?...

Marc Thiessen's a great American.

~GOPiggie Locsteppers, Enablers, and Shills

FTA: "In the wake of 9/11, [the CIA] put forward a program that had a lethal component to strike back at the people who did this. But the other component was to prevent this kind of catastrophe from happening again. And for that, killing people -- especially killing senior al Qaeda leaders -- is potentially counterproductive in that we can't know or learn of future attacks. You can't kill them all, and you don't want to kill them all from an intelligence standpoint. We needed to know what they knew."

You can't kill them all?

You don't want to kill them all?

Um, actually you kinda can and you really should try.

Unless of course yer committed to notion of a "Forever War" (TM).

/See: Dumbya's deliberately incompetent handling of the terrorist threat.

Spud to CIA:

Ya wanna try capturing top AQ leadership?

Stop relying on the technical aspects of yer game and get more eyes and ears on the ground.

Be Well.

Could you imagine the way the GOP would rip anyone who said this during the Bush admin? They'd be labeled anti-American, unpatriotic, etc. Never mind this dillweed didn't even bother with the truth or accuracy, trotting out an example that's been repeatedly disproved, much less examples that have nothing to do with the CIA. In fact, he used another example where Bush almost ruined the UK's investigation.

Thiessen is absolutely stunning in his lack of depth and understanding. Then again, he was never in a position of knowing anything so it's not surprising. His bona fides ends with being a speech writer.

The problem with drone attacks is the high civilian to militant death ratio. I have read as high as 15:1 and as low as 8:1.

Obama has stepped up this standoff type of attack in order to get kills.

While Thiessen perhaps would have been called unAmerican during the Bush administration, the poor civilian to militant kill ratios wouldn't be tolerated by the DR left either.

Odd, I don't recall any righties feeling drone-induced civilian deaths before January 2009 were anything more than unpleasant but necessary "collateral damage."

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris at

The side that says stuff like:

YEE HAW! We needs to turn that thar desert into a fukkin sheet of glass!!!

is now concerned about "colateral damage."

Amazing...

The problem with drone attacks is the high civilian to militant death ratio. I have read as high as 15:1 and as low as 8:1.

What is the problem?

I don't see one.The terrorists are usually the first to scream about civilian casualties while all the while avoiding the fact they use them as sheilds.
They know the MSM will pick up on this and sensationalize it,it's the reason why they do it.
As far as the terror alerts go,you get what you cry for.Wait and see if another strike happens in America, every single intelligence report will be scrutinized by the media until they find one they can twist and truther about.

rwd

Don't you know it's easier to kill them than to give them a trial?

If it were so easy to capture 'terrorists' in the vast mountains and caves of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we'd be doing it. The GOP will is to really do that anyway. Not when Bin Laden and crew were cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora and in the sights of the U.S. on the ground there - who begged for permission to shoot, going so far as the White House. Rangers who could have continued there were already spoken for for the upcoming war with Iraq.

Remember "Dead or Alive" days after 9/11 and then "I don't think about him much" (sic)? Face it, the GOP need boogiemen to terrorize Americans with or use for political gain.

The GOP will isn't to really do that anyway (kill them)

This article is a GREAT example of WHY Conservative thought is DANGEROUS for America!

DANGER ON THE RIGHT!!

I would have to rate this article as 50/50...

It does make sense to capture and interrogate the top guys but when was the last time we did that in Pakistans western areas? I don't think we have ever captured anyone there... Maybe we should try it a few times...

I figure it would be a real good thing as far as scaring the terror leadership... Black helicopters in the night come in and you are never seen again... I think they would fear that much more then death...

How about doing stuff like the livestock UFO mutilations at night... That would be the coolest... The boys wake up and they're leader is on the ground Hog Tied with all of his internals removed.... We could nail notes to they're foreheads with a nail gun that say "I'll Be Back".... Hooky shit man...

I think I am on to something... How about we drag out all of the old 1950's sci fi horror movies and re-manufacture all the monsters to a realistic extent. Make the locals in western Pakistan think the Blob killed everyone in the compound.... Make them think Monsters are roaming the countryside eating peoples faces off... COOL!

Okay back to the article...

On the flip side... I am no Obama fan.. But this guy is turning out to be the Shaquille O'neil of terrorist killers...

I don't think most of you realize that the man has killed dozens of terrorists in Pakistan in the last year.

He whacked hakimullah Mehsud this January...

The leader of the Pakistani Taliban. He hunted him relentlessly after Mehsud released a video claiming responsibility for killing 7 CIA Personnel.

He Killed Mehsuds predecessor last august... The guy is Killing Taliban and Al-Qaeda like there is no tomorrow.

It has been so bad on the terrorists in Pakistan that they seem hard pressed to plan anything long range... They are to busy running and hiding. I have no doubt that Ben Laden is scared to death at this point. He may very well be dead this year for sure.

This is probably why we start to see things being planned in Yamen now... They had the breathing room to pull something off... Not any More man... When it comes to killing terrorists.... Obama is moving the ball down court hard... AND, IT's ALL KNEES AND ELBOWS!

Come on now. When we get to 100 "Number 2" men, we win.

The neocon idiot who wrote that article is a fool. I guess people with no skills who don't know what they are talking about end up writing for magazines like that.

Not when Bin Laden and crew were cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora and in the sights of the U.S. on the ground there - who begged for permission to shoot, going so far as the White House. Rangers who could have continued there were already spoken for for the upcoming war with Iraq.
#10 |

Lets see a link to that claim.I want to see it.
rwd

Come on now. When we get to 100 "Number 2" men, we win.

#14 | Posted by LetUsPrey

How many #2 men does the American military have.

Just wondering.

rwd

RWDON....

Lets see a link to that claim.I want to see it.
rwd.

He is correct on that point.

The senior Special Forces guy wrote an entire book on it. He was 2000 yards away and couldn't get permission to bring in more troops. He requested permission to attack tora bora from the back side and was also denied.

The WH wanted the press to see that it was an Afghani operation and the Americans were under strict orders not to be seen by the press for some absurd reason.

Beyond belief dude......

Read Kill Osama Ben Laden...

This is about the funniest thing I've heard in a long time---The Right critiquing someone for fighting a war too well.

The hypocrisy is stunning. But I can understand where it comes from. Obama just might be able to have a righteously documented and very high terrorist body count to brag about in a few years; in fact some posters upthread argue convincingly he already does.

This can't be good for Republican election prospects, or for the increasinly stupid Republican meme Obama is soft on anyone.

The problem with drone attacks is the high civilian to militant death ratio. I have read as high as 15:1 and as low as 8:1.

I understand the concern over Civilian deaths.
However....how high was that ratio on our side on 9/11? Anyone?
{chirp}

{chirp}
That's what I thought.

In regard to civilian deaths from drone attacks.. I have gone on youtube and seen some horrible things... I don't mind the adults as much as the little children... The adults let terrorists hide in their homes... The children had no say... It is hard to watch some of the video of the little children all wounded in a hospital...

That being said.... Bin laden is still out there... We need to maybe be more careful but by all means kill him if you can.

When you see the kids all bandaged up in the video... You know we are going to have to deal with them in 20 years. They are scared for life and may seek to make the US pay for killing Mommy.... Tough call...

#19 | Posted by themaniscoming

I am having a problem verifying the claim the Bush administration denied the green light to kill bin laden.
A 60 Minutes interview with Dalton Fury doesn't even come close to reporting that at all.
What it does say is the when bin laden was sighted the Afghans pulled a stunt by saying they had just negotiated a cease fire with bin ladens men.When Dalton said fuck it he's going anyway the Afghans pulled down on them with their weapons.
After a 12 hour standoff our military managed to launch rockets ito the cave where bin laden had just entered.
They thought for sure they killed him,but in '04 when they went to the cave to collect forensic evidence they did not find him.
If you or anyone is going to claim that Bushed denied wanting to kill bin laden you got to come up with something better then this.

rwd

www.cbsnews.com

http://www.amazon.com/
Jawbreaker-Attack-Personal-
Account-Commander/dp/
0307237400

Contradicting Bush administration denials, Berntsen writes that his teams discovered bin Laden and the remnants of his entourage in the now famous Tora Bora Mountains along the lawless, rugged Afghan-Pakistani border. U.S. operatives under his direction were able to call in precision strikes 24 hours a day and pulverize the remaining al Qaeda forces.

Berntsen recounts very credibly how he and others pleaded with Gen. Tommy Franks and the Pentagon brass to put in blocking forces so that bin Laden and the remnants of al Qaeda's leadership could not flee into Pakistan. But for reasons that remain unclear to Berntsen (and, indeed, to this reviewer), the Bush administration or Franks decided to depend instead on local Afghan warlords rather than put U.S. forces on the ground to block bin Laden's escape.

The CIA and Berntsen, who had many years of experience with these militiamen, warned that relying on them, with their many personal agendas and family and tribal ties, would mean letting al Qaeda's leader cross easily into Pakistan. Ignoring their counsel was a huge blunder -- one we continue to pay for as we are taunted by bin Laden, who remains alive and well, probably in the mountains of Pakistan, continuing to inspire jihadists worldwide and helping organize the increasing counterattacks on the fragile democratic government in Kabul.

Berntsen did his best to try to get bin Laden; many in Washington have yet to do theirs.

-- John Lehman, who was secretary of the Navy during the Reagan administration, was a member of the 9/11 Commission.

PDF of 2009 Senate Report available here:

Senate Report Claims Bin Laden Was 'in Our Grasp' in 2001

The Right critiquing someone for fighting a war too well.

Given that they can't fight wars well, what else do you expect? remmeber the righties bitching about Clinton liberating Kosovo with 2 KIA? Reagan couldn't liberate a golf course in the Caribbean without losing ten times as many. And that was the high point of his Commander-in-Chiefing.

"Jawbreaker", by CIA operative who had Bin Laden in his sights, is available at book stores and at

www.amazon.com

(Lehman's review: scroll down)

RIGHTWINGDON

There are the links. CIA operative Gary Berntsen's on the ground testimony is compelling. The Senate Report says the same thing. If you don't want to download a PDF for the Senate Report you can use this HTML link:

HTML of Senate Report

Bush LET Bin Laden get away. Imagine if they'd only given Berntsen and the Special Forces the help they wanted...

I read the book "Kill Bin Laden" by the guy that was leading the delta force team and he stated in the book that he had never been turned down for any mission plan that he had ever proposed. This guy proposed two plans. 1. Surround the border w/ Army Rangers on the trails into Pakistan or 2. leave landmines on the trails. Once Osama's group tripped the land mines they could bomb the entire area to kill them. both plans were denied by Washington. I do not understand why the plans were denied except for political reasons. That bothers me me immensley. I don't mean "political" in except there are countries that objected to these plans. GW would have been the greatest President of all time "if" he had killed Bin Laden.

Well, you didn't read the book by the CIA operative, "Jawbreaker" by Gary Berntsen, who was THERE and had Bin Laden in his sights with Special Forces there, did ya?

Or a single post on this thread evidently:

Contradicting Bush administration denials, Berntsen (CIA operative THERE) writes that his teams discovered bin Laden and the remnants of his entourage in the now famous Tora Bora Mountains along the lawless, rugged Afghan-Pakistani border. U.S. operatives under his direction were able to call in precision strikes 24 hours a day and pulverize the remaining al Qaeda forces.

Berntsen recounts very credibly how he and others pleaded with Gen. Tommy Franks and the Pentagon brass to put in blocking forces so that bin Laden and the remnants of al Qaeda's leadership could not flee into Pakistan. But for reasons that remain unclear to Berntsen (and, indeed, to this reviewer), the Bush administration or Franks decided to depend instead on local Afghan warlords rather than put U.S. forces on the ground to block bin Laden's escape.

He didn't LET him go! Don't be ridiculous.

As for Obama and killing terrorists with drones--I have no problem with this tactic.

He didn't LET him go! Don't be ridiculous.

As for Obama and killing terrorists with drones--I have no problem with this tactic.

YES he did, Murphy. Berntsen even called the White House BEGGING for airstrikes and more special forces. They turned him down. Bin Laden walked out into Pakistan.

Your saying so contradicts the CIA operative ON THE GROUND, and the Senate Report. Sorry, they're right, you're wishing you were.

I have not read the book "jawbreaker". but, as i said I read the book of the guy "Dalton Fury" who was the delta force commando. Who by the way fought side by side w/ the northern alliance against al queda. He stated clearly that he had several plans that were turned down by his commanders. I am not saying that you or anyone was wrong. I am only stating that the Military turned down his request. To think that President bush would willingly let bin laden go is laughable. Why would he not want to kill bin laden? To say otherwise would mean Bush was a traitor? If you make that charge he should be hung or executed.

So Au you are calling for the execution for "treason" of George W. Bush?

"To think that President Bush would knowingly let Bin Laden go is laughable...."

Never was the the point. The point always was Bush was too stupid to get him.

The point always was Bush was too stupid to get him.

The Messiah is doing a bang up job as well.

DALTON

I don't call for anything but literal reading of verified reports.

If and when Obama as CiC gets a report the CIA have Bin Laden in their sights Bin Laden will be one dead mother fucker as opposed to what he should have been instead of being allowed to walk out of Tora Bora.

Bin Laden walked out when he was in the sights of the CIA and Special Ops. Only idiots who choose not to read believe otherwise with all the reports that confirm Berntsen's account. So did a couple of the Special Ops guys who were up there with him.

Like when Clinton had him? I mean the Sudan offered bin laden up for free and Clinton would not take him? I think it's all wrong. Clinton should have killed him. Bush should have gone all in to kill him but, to say that one or the other didn't for nefarious reason is treason. And I am asking should Bush be executed? you on the other hand want to blame one "side" and not the other

Ahhhhhhh. Back to Clinton deflections. Pfft!

Bush didn't fire a single shot at Bin Laden. In fact, he ordered the destroyers and subs with cruise missiles out of range. Niiiiiiiiiiiic.

Bin Laden hadn't been ID as behind a single attack when he was in Sudan. When confirmation came Al Qaeda was behind the Cole bombing Cliton launched one cruise missile after another when actionable intelligence came in.

Bush was a fucking loser of a CiC, with a band of merry losers who must wish on the Tooth Fairy 2001-2009 would vanish into a black hole.

If I'm gonna watch fiction tonighty it'll be a movie with my wife. You can continue your fairy tales all night for all I care. What an American you are! "Dead or Alive!". THAT phrase ring a bell DALTON? Bush uttered it days after 9/11. THEN, when Bin Laden WAS in our sights he let him walk away. Lyin' Pussy.

Bin Laden walked out when he was in the sights of the CIA and Special Ops.

He walked out of the gunsights prior to 2001 as well. Slippery little devil, isn't he?

"So did a couple of the Special Ops guys who were up there with him."

American Unity. You are the most pompous ass on this site!The fact that you would say a couple of special ops guys were there shows your ignorance. If any and I mean any special ops guy had the chance to kill or capture bin laden after 9/11 they would have done it in a heart beat! They would be heroes for doing so. So, in all your reading you still have no understanding of the Men that fight the wars that are necessary to keep you safe!

AU "Bush didn't fire a single shot at Bin Laden. In fact, he ordered the destroyers and subs with cruise missiles out of range. Niiiiiiiiiiiic."

Bush took the whole fucking country you dumb ass! I have said all along in this discussion that Bush made mistakes. Answer the question. Should he be executed for treason? Not one shot? You are a lying political hack at best. At worst you are a moron.

Dalton

Bin Laden was, by Bush, known without a doubt to have been behind the Cole and bombings of the Khobar Towers and our embassy in Kenya.

Yet, between the time he was sworn in Jan. 20, 2001 and 9/11 he didn't have cruise missile within range to fire a single shot.

You tell me what you think about 'executing Bush'. Has he committed a capital crime in the U.S.? You tell me.

Nor did he take any other substantial action or fire a single rocket at Bin Laden, who was still in Afghanistan. How do we know that? He fled to Waziristan before we invaded Afghanistan - observed by U.S. Special Forces and the CIA, who begged Washington for help to no avail. So, "we'll get him Dead or Alive" Bin Laden got away.

While Thiessen perhaps would have been called unAmerican during the Bush administration, the poor civilian to militant kill ratios wouldn't be tolerated by the DR left either.

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2010-02-13 10:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Where were you for the last 7 years?

We put up with plenty of civilians casualties. Something on the order of 100,000 - 600,000 dead Iraqi civilians.

If we are smart we'll claim we killed them and waterboard them at our leisure and then action the intell we gather. Just saying...

If we are SMART we will not torture ANYONE.

The people doing the waterboarding are incompetent low level civilians.

Placing moral considerations to the side for a moment, individuals who have been around intelligence for any amount of time, who develop any level of expertise KNOW that torture results in false and phony information.

Bush LET Bin Laden get away. Imagine if they'd only given Berntsen and the Special Forces the help they wanted...

I see comments like this on drudge over and over again... For the last ten years...

The notion that the Government would Let Ben Laden get away Intentionally is nothing more than Partisan Bull Shit.

There always has to be a conspiracy when it comes to politics.

The answer to why Bin laden got away is probably pretty simple. The powers that be at the time may have felt that they were walking into a trap...

We took most of Afghanistan in nothing flat...

The fact that Bin Laded seemed cornered in Tora Bora may have seemed too good to be true.

Imagine for a moment if we had sent 5000 troops in and half were killed by a bio weapon... I can imagine a general in a room somewhere saying "Hold on... This is way too easy" Thus, in that type of situation they may have hesitated.

At the time it was being reported that Al-Qaeda had all sorts of things of this type at their disposal. It was simply not known for sure what they had..

Donald Rumsfeld was on the news with really detailed pictures of Al-Qaeda caves that turned out to not be true.

I am no Rumsfeld fan... But the idea that they sat down and had elaborate pictures drawn up of caves that really didn't exist to fool the American people for some reason is again Partisan Bullshit. Obviously there was an intelligence problem at the CIA. They must have thought the intelligence was correct to some extent.

There where a couple of very elaborate caves though. I saw a picture of a night time bomb strike on one that had flames shooting out of holes that were hundreds of feet apart. the entire side of the mountain had entrances to the one cave and Flames and gasses were blasted out of every one of the entrances. So it was huge and it was destroyed totally.

Then when you read the accounts of the special forces guys on the ground, The team lead states that "I saw a Large group of Al-Qaeda including a very tall man enter a cave and called in an air strike which destroyed the cave." He does state that he thought that at that time they may have killed Bin Laden...

The fact that they waited months to check it out bothers the shit out of me though. Again this may be attributed to the fact that they feared that Bio weapons were present.

So, you're accusing a CIA officer and Special Forces who were there of lying? A 9/11 Commission member is lying? A Senate Report can't be as right as you are?

You guys think typing long dribbles of posts or plugging your ears and going "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!!" will change facts. Fools.

The bottom line is we had Bin Laden in our sights. We knew exactly where he was. He walked out of Afghanistan when our own CIA and Special Forces were rebuffed by our own government. The Bush WH needed a boogieman or they would have killed him and Zawahiri right then and there. Period.

On another note...

I read yesterday that the Homeland security department will be monitoring this site during the Olympic Games... Well anyway... They had a picture of Big Sis smiling and waving to some crowd someplace...

Now I am no fashion expert mind you. But Sombody Please take this woman to a store on Park Avenue in NYC and buy the woman a God Damn Business Suite!

Every time I see her she looks like she is wearing an old smock in a 1970's LSD Laced Art class that she bought at Schlock Lot Schmocks R Us. Either that or she picked our garbage in 1981 after my mom threw out all of her Fugly stuff!

Thank You!

The bottom line is we had Bin Laden in our sights.

You are right. He's been "in our sights" several time since the first WTC bombing in 1993. I see a failure of two administrations for not pulling the trigger.

Any day now I expect to see the Home Land Security Chief trotting around in my moms old Leopard Pattern Pants and a Bee Hive Whig

When I see her walking in Video in the Red and Green Suits she looks like an Ocean Buoy bobbing up and down.

It's Washington babe.... Black Pin Stripes with maybe a red scarf might get you some frigging respect.

Nuff Said!

It would appear that Americanunity is somewhat of a Wing Nut

Na. I read factually reported info. Try it!

Obama's Killing Too Many Terrorists

This is the kind of tortured reasoning that is so representative of the anti Obama crowd that makes it difficult to take them seriously.

The Bush WH needed a boogieman or they would have killed him and Zawahiri right then and there. Period.

Just like I said... Wing Nut...

he claims to have read all of these reports and stuff...

Then he makes partisan Remarks anyway....

Well there Americanunity I guess you are a hard core anti Bush establishment type..

Do tell me what official report you read that clearly states the following.. The Bush WH needed a boogieman

You claim to state facts... I would love to see a report that states Bush needed a Boogieman..

#55 | Posted by goatman

Clinton took over 60 shots. Bush 0 until after 9/11.

"The White House would have acted, but ``we depended upon what the CIA director brought to us," Berger said. ``There was never an occasion after August [1998] where [CIA director George] Tenet came to us and said, `We have a good shot.' If there was, we would have taken it. We were not afraid to shoot at this guy."

The administrations' actions suggested that Clinton was far more concerned than Bush about the threat bin Laden and Al Qaeda posed before Sept. 11.

Gary Hart , a Democrat and former senator from Colorado who co-chaired a government commission that studied threats to national security in the late 1990s, told the Globe that his commission concluded terrorism was a grave threat to national security ``because of testimony we received from the Clinton administration."

``The principal force in convincing us came from the White House itself," Hart said. ``They were trying to deal with Al Qaeda and bin Laden in Afghanistan and elsewhere."

But the incoming Bush administration made it clear that bin Laden was not a priority, Hart said. By ignoring the warnings -- and shunning assessments from experienced analysts such as Clarke -- it was partially Bush's own fault that he didn't have as many chances as Clinton to get bin Laden before Sept. 11, Hart said.

``That is not going to stimulate a lot of CIA proposals to get bin Laden if the people at the White House don't seem to care about it," Hart said.

Others in the Clinton White House said there was widespread frustration about the inability to locate bin Laden after the 1998 missile strikes failed.

``We kept ships offshore, we had the cruise missiles," said Daniel Benjamin , a member of Clinton's National Security Council and author of ``The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Blueprint for Getting it Right."

``Three times we were on the verge of firing," he said, ``but we did not have the corroborating intelligence. At least twice, Clinton went to the Joint [Chiefs of Staff] and said, `Give me options.' "

Benjamin also noted that Clinton launched a program to arm spy drones in Afghanistan during his last year in office, but the ``Bush administration didn't get it up until after 9/11."

In comparing Clinton's record with that of Bush, Benjamin concluded: ``The difference is between a group that was pushing hard to find the opportunities to get bin Laden or improve their chances, and a team that was talking about a whole new approach but was not pushing very hard."

www.boston.com

Clinton took over 60 shots.

I think we need better marksmen in the white house. *grin*

#61 | Posted by themaniscoming

Jesus could return with the skies parting and a heavenly host of angels singing, but if you thought he were a Democrat you'd deny it.

Investigations have been done, reports written. Right wingers are only going to believe what suits their agenda and nothing more - even if it's been verified several times from several sources and written in black and white where anyone can read it.

Berntsen was hardly the only government official in Tora Bora who witnessed and reported the same thing. The Senate Report wasn't based on one man's account alone.

Also Americanunity is there a report on why President Clinton didn't kill Bin Laden when they were Staring right at him on camera from above in 1999 or 98?

Sandy Burger states that they had no actionable intelligence to do so...

You buy that?

But Bush is Evil... I get it...

Actionable intelligence would have been everyone and their mother in Washington DC knowing Full Well that the 1993 bombing of the world trade center was financed by Bin laden... It all came out in the terror trials of the Sheik in NYC and was all over the news.

I find it shocking that partisan people like you claim Bush is bad but except the Burger explanation as to why they didn't kill Bin Laden when they had the best shot at him anyone has ever had...

Maybe the reality of that situation is that President Bill Clinton was too busy eating a Pizza while stuffing Cigars in Lewinskies Vagina at that very moment and simply didn't want to be disturbed....

Then mysteriously One year later they type up a report for the Bush Administration stating Bin Laden seeks to attack America... Actionable intelligence.... So in the one year we are supposed to believe that they developed all this intel after they failed to pull the trigger?

Okay...... I got it now....

Then in 2002, Sandy Burger is caught stuffing classified documents in his pants and socks to hide the fact that they could have and should have killed Bin Laden.

So you see talking to you is a dead end.. You are a Poluted Partisan Hack.... Just a waste of time.

Gary heart told the Globe?????? That is not an OFFICIAL REPORT....

You see little man... You can tell the press anything you want..... you cant tell a hearing anything you want because you get arrested for not telling the truth...

Stop giving us examples from the press....

Show us an official report from any government on the planet that states GUSH NEEDED A BOOGIEMAN.....

Gary heart told the globe.... Mister Monkey Business himself...

Then in 2002, Sandy Burger is caught stuffing classified documents in his pants and socks to hide the fact that they could have and should have killed Bin Laden.

At least rinse off a statement like that after pulling it out of your ... The documents had to do with plans to thwart a millennium attack.

Your motto should be: 'Avrah KaDabara' - "I create as I speak"

The Senate Report wasn't based on one man's account alone.

Does the Senate Report state that Bush needed a Boogieman?

No it doesn't does it..

So you are making partisan Comments..... Just a Partisan Hack...

I am Not A republican or a right winger either.... I am an Independent because I know that Both political parties in Washington Suck, Money grabbing crooks the whole lot of them.

Have a nice day Partisan Hack Boy.

I love the way Partisan people cherry pick stuff..

The documents had to do with plans to thwart a millennium attack.

The document ALSO CONTAINED "It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil."

He was attempting to erase any trace of knowledge of actionable intelligence prior to testifying that there was no actionable intelligence to kill bin Laden when they had the chance..... Go read the docs he took putz... They have info in them from as far back as 1993!!!!!

Move the goalposts. You TiVo the stadium after the Super Bowl?

Bush didn't take a single shot at Bin Laden before 9/11. Then he declared we'd get Bin Laden "Dead or Alive" six days after 9/11. We knew where he was in Tora Bora. He was spotted by the CIA and Special Forces who pleaded for air strikes and more Special Forces to cut him off and kill/capture Bin Laden. WH: "No". Then, just a few years later Bush states "I don't think about him much, really".

Draw your own conclusions. A logical mind would say Bush didn't care about killing Bin Laden. America's learned to never expect logic from the right wing, who should be in the pretzel making business for twisting facts as they see fit to suit their talking points.

Your a BRAINWASHED PARTISAN HACK BOY!!!!!!!!!!

So you have no official report stating that BUSH NEEDED A BOOGIEMAN... Hack BOY!

have a nice day...

The press got just what they wanted out of you.... Your brain has been manipulated to the extent where you have no concept of reality.

This is one guys attitude. I as a conservative have no problem with killing actual terrorist or those who aid them. I don't care who gets the credit for it. Just fucking do it!

Kill 'em all, let Allah sort 'em out.

Hope they've enough virgins "up there" but I'm wondering when the math will hit those suicide bombers over the head one day. "Hmmmm....72 to 1, but with so many of us, are we getting recycled virgins?" I mean, we ARE supposed to recycle aren't we?

But seriously, we do give up significant intelligence opportunities if we kill 'em before we get a chance to threaten them with bacon and BBQ ribs.

"Hope they've enough virgins "up there"

what happens when the muslim terrorist finds out the soul has no peepee, what good are the virgins to a soul with no peepee.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable