America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Yes, it is all about packaging some form of reality to fit a predefined political agenda. Obama can multi-task. Bush could not multi-task.

Obama = greatness

While it is logical and factual that both statements can be true, the analysis made by so many military analysts and others over the years has shown that the amount of assets needed to fight the war in Iraq were much more than the administration had thought they would be. Remember they said it would be a 'cakewalk' and fired the general who said it would require 300-500k troops.

This along with closing the unit specifically charged with hunting down bin Laden and folding it into 'regional' matters and the downplaying of bin Laden's importance by the President and other administration officials and the focus on 'mushroom clouds' from Saddam make it clear that the focus and priorities had shifted from what was initially a 'dead or alive' scenario to 'we better win in Iraq' mission.

So while I'm sure Bush would have loved to 'git' bin Laden, it was no longer the biggest issue in the region.

You mean it's like when people say water-boarding caught bin Laden?

While I am fairly certain that no amount of evidence will convince the righties here, I give more:

The historians say resistance to providing more robust resources to Afghanistan had three sources in the White House and the Pentagon.

First, President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had criticized using the military for peacekeeping and reconstruction in the Balkans during the 1990s. As a result, “nation building” carried a derogatory connotation for many senior military officials, even though American forces were being asked to fill gaping voids in the Afghan government after the Taliban’s fall.

Second, military planners were concerned about Afghanistan’s long history of resisting foreign invaders and wanted to avoid the appearance of being occupiers. But the historians argue that this concern was based partly on an “incomplete” understanding of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan.

Third, the invasion of Iraq was siphoning away resources. After the invasion started in March 2003, the history says, the United States clearly “had a very limited ability to increase its forces” in Afghanistan.

The history provides a detailed retelling of the battle of Tora Bora, the cave-riddled insurgent redoubt on the Pakistan border where American forces thought they had trapped Osama bin Laden in December 2001. But Mr. bin Laden apparently escaped into Pakistan along with hundreds of Qaeda fighters.

The historians call Tora Bora “a lost opportunity” to capture or kill Mr. bin Laden. But they concluded that even with more troops, the American and Afghan forces probably could not have sealed the rugged border. And they deemed the battle a partial success because it “dealt a severe blow to those Taliban and Al Qaeda elements that remained active in Afghanistan.”

The history also recounts well-known battles like Operation Anaconda, in eastern Afghanistan in spring 2002. The history ends in the fall of 2005, when many American officials still felt optimistic about Afghanistan’s future. Postponed parliamentary elections were held that fall, but Taliban attacks were also on the rise.

“It was clear that the struggle to secure a stable and prosperous future for Afghanistan was not yet won,” the history concludes.

The historians say resistance to providing more robust resources to Afghanistan had three sources in the White House and the Pentagon.

http://documents.nytimes.com/a-different-kind-of-war#p=1

An actual study published by the Combat Studies Institute at Forth Levenworth.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday that it is too soon to say whether Obama will authorize more troops for Afghanistan, and that McChrystal's report has not yet reached the president's desk. Still, he asserted, for years the war had been neglected.

"I think there's broad agreement that for many years, our effort in Afghanistan has been under-resourced politically, militarily, economically," Gibbs said. He called the mounting U.S. casualties and other problems in Afghanistan a consequence of the Bush administration's strategy there.

Gates said McChrystal's upcoming "resource recommendations" will be carefully examined, but he noted that "there are larger issues" to be considered.

"I have expressed some concerns in the past about the size of the American footprint, the size of the foreign military footprint in Afghanistan," Gates said on a trip to Fort Worth. "And, clearly, I want to address those issues. And we will have to look at the availability of forces; we'll have to look at costs. There are a lot of different things that we'll have to look at, once we get his recommendations, before we make any recommendations to the president."

In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Mullen said it might not be possible to fill requests from McChrystal for new troops.

If the demand for troops in Afghanistan goes up and is not offset by reductions in Iraq, it would delay the ability of the Army and Marine Corps to give heavily deployed ground troops more time at home between combat tours.

"That's a huge concern that I have," Mullen said in the interview. He noted that the concern was shared by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, as well as by other service chiefs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083101100.html

One could argue that there never was a reason for more resources in Afghanistan and Obama sending more resources was a mistake.

Bin Laden was in Pakistan.

Who cares about the Taliban....that is nation building. I thought we were after Bin Laden.

The increased drone attacks and increased use of special forces to take out al Qaeda and other terrorist threats was aimed at getting bin Laden and other high value targets all over the world, including Pakistan and that is all neat information but as it turns out Bin Laden had been living in a million dollar house in Pakistan for many years including the entire span of the Obama administration.

Bush sucked. he was really REALLY bad. but he was a dog on a bone on the terrorism issue. maybe too much so. I think we overreacted. I could fault him for that. but faulting him the other direction is pretty stupid and not genuine.

Iraq is an issue folks try to tie to that (and Bush deserves it to an extent because he tied it to terrorism, wmd, yellow cake etc). He really botched that one. His admin lied and spun and spun. He sucks. But I will never doubt his integrity and his efforts on the terrorism issue. He was on it and wanted it done. A bit caveleir maybe. I think the lefties are making a big mistake trying to manfacture this picture. The last time I saw this sort of mistake is when an admin was trying to manufacture a picture very different than the one painted by Hans Blix.

TW, this is all part of operation
"Same as it ever was"......

Yeah, I guess you are looking for Bush to actually say "I'm not looking for bin Laden as hard as I used to". But he only said "I don't know where he [Osama Bin Laden] is. I — I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

And all evidence shows the resources were diverted, even statements from Generals.

I also said I was certain the Bush administration would have LOVED to get bin Laden, it was just made much more difficult for them to do so because they had to 'go to war with the army they have, not the army they want'.

So all these things put together isn't enough to draw a conclusion, it's just so damn vague.

I see this dude smoking a cigarette, throw it in a wastebasket full of paper as he said "I hate this place". At that point I walked away to get a fire extinguisher, but couldn't find one fast enough and by time I got back the entire room was on fire. I didn't actually see the fire break out, and I didn't actually hear the guy say that he was going to burn the place down, so I really can't be sure how that fire broke out. Too many empty steps that are so vague no one can piece it together. It's a mystery.

[quote=FuzzNJ]Yeah, I guess you are looking for Bush to actually say "I'm not looking for bin Laden as hard as I used to". But he only said "I don't know where he [Osama Bin Laden] is. I — I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."


Any arsepipe would know he was saying OBL was a subset of the entire picture. To take it to the extreme you and your like do is simply silly.

honestly Fuzz.... you beleive what you want to beleive. I've actually seen you make some credible arguments against some of the groupthink in here. But if you really beleive this line of BS than you are what you seem to want to argue with. A mind numbed partisan cliche.

And you can continue to discount the overwhelming evidence of how the previous administration changed priorities because of the Iraq invasion. I choose not to. It was a bad decision for a number of reasons, not the least of which, it hindered the 'war on terror'.

During that time we had troops both publicly and quietly all over the world. You're still stuck on the idea that the USA only had the ability to operate in Afghanistan or Iraq but not both. (That thinking actually goes contrary to the strategy of the US armed forces. Our military is not a one war military and has not been since WW2)


...but it fits your agenda.

No it is not part of some master genius plan. (I would never share that on CBid) It is just another day in the life of American us versus them politics created by us globalists to keep you peasants occupied. It works 98.2% of the time.

Just remember....your side is correct, the other side are idiots and almost as dangerous as terrorists.

Life is good.

Yeah, an impartial, take no sides person you certainly are. Quite obvious. You are just above all of it. We are all in awe.

It is just your wacky opinion as needed to suit your political agenda. No big deal, it is what you're supposed to do. We probably ran out of resources while we attacked Iraq. Good thing the Russians didn't hit us and find out all our bases were empty.

You probably should put it up for a poll.....

Is Le HockeyDad right wing, left wing, centrist, none of the above, or globalist who manipulates both parties.


Because you're a controlled partisan hack, you see me as right wing. (and everyone else as well.) You are supposed to. That is your role.

Le Hockey Dad is French.
The only important thing is being on the winning side.

Fortunately it doesn't matter how you see me. You may see me however you like and clearly you must have not been paying attention when I am arguing with conservatives. That's OK, you still have a role.

Maybe I'll play Democrat for a week and excite you.

Um no. I despise Bush. It pains me to give any credit to him. I just think its assinine to think he somehow took his foot of the gas pedal on the terrorism issue. He just didn't. It is nonsense. He did try to minimize the fact he hadn't gotten OBL yet. I wish he had. But the dude had a woodie for the terrorists. The other nonsense you want to attach to him somehow losing interest is just silly.

I don't think he bumped the war on terror down on the priority list. It was always a top priority. Still is. He did bump Iraq up (a mistake in my opinion) and I think he actually viewed it as part of the war on terror. I don't think he ever bumped going after OBL down although he did try to publicly minimize his "failure"

His efforts going after terrorists should never be minimized and it is happening in the media. And Obama did not ride in on a white horse and get the job done. Thats just not reality to me.

Bush started it, was like a dog on a bone and Obama kept it going leading to closing hte deal. Both should be commended.

Bush should be ripped on just about everything else though.

Exaggerating your points by saying 'white horse' is silly. I've tried really hard not to exaggerate, I know just for the mere reason there is disagreement on the issue I will be accused of it, but I never insinuated that Obama was some kind of hero on a white horse.

I think we are talking past each other here now. By bumping up Iraq and diverting much needed resources to that war, he was forced to downplay and downgrade the actual physical processes needed to find bin Laden specifically.

I've explained my position to death and I think it's clear.

But this can not be denied. Unfortunately since he can not see his own p e n i s he has had to resort to a life of smokin others

First, Bush never "took his eye off the ball" when it came to Afghanistan. People seem to forget that there was a whole chorus of people whining about how we need to hand it over to an "international authority" after the invasion for "peacekeeping" purposes. One of those in the chorus, if I recall correctly, was John Kerry.

So we handed over to NATO.

And, like most European nations do, they f**ked it up. So we're back there again.

Afghanistan, post-invasion was administered by NATO. Period.

Second, I find it funny that the dimwits here thing that Iraq was a "distraction." They have been a LONG TIME sponsor of terrorism - since the 1970s. They have been long-time hosts for the likes of Abu Abbas, Carlos the Jackal, and Abu Nidal. Plus, they had an extensive global spy network - perhaps one of the most extensive in the Middle East.

Not to mention their ties to the first World Trade Center bombing.

Not to mention the fact that they've bombed one of our ships pre-1991.

Not to mention the fact that these guys gassed their own people, and had an extensive chemical weapons infrastructure.

Now imagine Saddam Hussein, who often used the philosophy of "the enemy of my enemy is also my friend," hooking up with the likes of Iran or even Al Qaeda. Plus his penchant with blood fueds, which is common in the Middle East. What you have is not only another well-organized incubator for new al Qaeda cells, but a means by which they could expand their operational tactics.

Bush was criticized for not "connecting the dots." Now idiots like Fuzz are criticizing him the connecting the "wrong" dots. Well, the fact is that Bush indeed connected the correct dots. A major player in terrorism was taken out, and we've bled off umbelievable amounts of men and resources from Al Qaeda and Iran in post-invasion Iraq. No one denies any of this.

Well, except the Fuzzes of the world.

Anyone who thinks that Iraq was not a threat to the US is profoundly ignorant in ways that the term can hardly describe.

Our success in Iraq also got Libya to stand down. In fact, old Momar went pleading to the West to not invade after we captured Saddam. So we got two for the price of one.

I suggest all of you Iraq War crybabies watch the interview of Condi Rice on Last Gasp with Lawrence O'Donnel, and watch how she dismantles the man over War in Iraq on his own show (not that this is all that hard because Lawrence is a socialist and a mental-defective by default). Mabe then you'll begin to realize what schmucks you are...

Whole lotta lies and information in that post. Condi was also on CNN and stated "RICE: Oh, it was a top priority. We wanted to get Osama Bin Laden every single day. And there was a unit at the - the agency that worked on nothing else. "

Another lie by omission since the administration closed the department, as noted here on this thread.

Iraq was not behind the first trade center bombing, that claim has been dismissed by all intelligence agencies and is only still being talked about by some right wing conspiracy nut woman who the Bush administration was using to sell the war. Can't remember her name atm.

Touting what Iraq did in the 80's to justify invading the country in 2003 is really stupid and there is still arguments as to whether or not Saddamm gassed the Kurds (not his own people, but countrymen forced on Iraq by the West when they created borders) or if it was Iran during their long war. Still, chemical weapons were used, in 1988.

Even if, IF Saddam had chemical weapons, he had no way of delivering them to kill Americans, and if he had them we would have found them and/or he would have used them as we invaded.

"the enemy of my enemy is my friend' is pretty much our foreign policy for the last century at least. It is why we gave Iraq weapons and support for years because they were Iran's enemy. So to say Iraq and Iran were hooking up is a joke. Never happened, just as the Al-Qaeda 'hook up' never happened. But you did say 'imagine' so you only meant that as a 'scare' tactic, just like the Bush administration did?

I saw that interview with Condi. She wouldn't even entertain the idea of looking back knowing what we know now, nor look at the situation based on what the detractors at the time were saying. She would only comment on what information the administration was pushing and how they interpreted it at the time. From that prism, of course their steps look perfect, because they set up the parameters. Not how the world works.

Hindsight is usually 20/20, but in this case Condi is blind as a bat.