Zell told us that "Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending." That was a load of BS, of course. But in Bush's world Pakistan now decides how we pursue the man that killed 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11. With the election over Pakistan is now getting back to it's real role of supporting Bin Ladin by putting restrictions on searching tribal areas. According to the New York Times, "As a result of the restrictions, American military and intelligence personnel in Afghanistan are no longer really hunting for Mr. bin Laden, an intelligence official said."
What a joke. Bush never cared about 9/11. He never cared about the 3,000 people that died. He was never serious about hunting bin Ladin. Kerry had it nailed in the debates. Bush gave up on bin Ladin right away after 9/11. He is a liar and his minions, blind by the faith, refuse to see his ignorance, arrogance and incompetence for what it is.
He used 9/11 as a pretense to invade Iraq, erode our civil liberties, and attempt to turn the economy into a average person crushing neo-con dreamland.
Posted by jherr at December 16, 2004 10:52 AMI'm confused. You say that Pakistan has now put restrictions on the search for bin Laden in their country. You also say that the personnel in Afghanistan are no longer really hunting for him either. To me, it implies a cause and effect that I don't quite understand.
Posted by: eigga49 at December 17, 2004 07:39 AMWe can't use U.S. troops to find bin Ladin because he is hiding in Pakistan and the Pakistanis won't let us hunt him there. And they won't hunt him for us anymore. Let me see, Bush said something about that, oh, yeah, right after 9/11:
"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."
I guess that doesn't apply to Pakistan, where bin Ladin is hanging out as a free man, where they won't go after him, and neither can we.
Posted by: jherr at December 17, 2004 08:58 AMand what does that have to do with Afghanistan?
Posted by: eigga49 at December 17, 2004 12:24 PMI'm not sure I understand your point. Afghanistan and Pakistan are next to each other. They share a border. A porous border. A border that al Qaeda operatives use to move around. We are in Afghanistan and we hold the border against Pakistan as they searched the tribal areas. That way if Osama fled towards Afghanistan we could get him.
We have never been able to operate in Pakistan directly. We have left the search of the tribal areas to the Pakistanis. In particular the White House asked the Pakistanis to deliver an al Qaeda operative during the DNC convention. They did. But it didn't get good coverage in the media. They also had them step up the hunt during the last couple of weeks of the election. But now that the election is over Pakistan has gone back to what it wants to do, which is to shelter Osama, who is loved by their population.
Posted by: jherr at December 17, 2004 01:33 PMI get all that. I get that the Pakistanis don't want to help in the "search" for bin Laden--and, like you say, they never have really wanted to search.
What I didn't understand is what does the article you quoted said that personnel in Afghanistan are no longer searching. If, as you say, he is in Pakistan, they've not been searching for him for quite some time. If the quote had reference personnel in Pakistan, it would have made sense in the context to which you were making the statement. However, speaking of Pakistan and their disinterest in providing information and/or help regarding bin Laden and a posting in the Times about the same said search in Afghanistan in the same text leads a reader to infer that there is a connection--to which there apparently is none. Or is the connection that we have given up entirely even watching the borders now?
I think the point is that there is no reason for us to continue the search if the Pakistani's won't help. There is no compelling reason for bin Ladin (or Laden) to come out and give himself up in Afghanistan. Pakistan is doing nicely giving him safe harbor.
Posted by: jherr at December 17, 2004 03:21 PMThanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)