Yes, one could make that argument, but the increase of troops in Afghanistan was requested by the military to fight back the resurgent Taliban. 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.

FuzzNJ wrote:

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.

HockeyDad wrote:

I see a bunch of words but nothing that says Bush somehow lessoned his desire or intent to go after terrorists. Revisionist nonsense and really not very sound logic. Change will continue and resources will be reallocated. people with differing agendas will disagree on the best approaches....

but if anyone really beleives the neuvo left mantra that somehow Bush became disinterested in terrorism and the Big O was a fired up terrorist go getter than they are a complete political hack or idiot. I'll say it again... Bush was obsessed with the boogieman. He didn't all of a sudden become unobsessed. This is a manufactured storyline with very little truth.

The same nonsense happens pointed at the big o on other issues. Complete nonsense is spewed as fact with correlations drawn that just don't exist. If you beleive this nonsense Fuzz then you have the same credibility as the birthers. nonsense

teedubbya wrote:

The United States cares about the Taliban because they harbored Al Qaeda. If they control Afghanistan, they could do so again.

"in Pakistan for many years including the entire span of the Obama administration."

Now that is freakin' hilarious right there from someone accusing me of being blinded by partisanship. The entire span, 2 years. Reports say he'd been there 5, so that's 3 years he was there during the Bush administration. And most wanted for over 7 years of the Bush administration. lmfao

FuzzNJ wrote:

You call it hilarious but then fully agree with it.

The entire span = 2 years. Fact

Many years = some number greater than 2 years. 5 years would qualify. Fact.


You just hate it when it is done to you and your agenda but it is so simple. Yes, you are blinded by partisanship.

HockeyDad wrote:

[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.

teedubbya wrote:

lmao, and you chose to phrase it the way you did out of purely fair and balanced reasons. Give me a break.

FuzzNJ wrote:

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'.

FuzzNJ wrote:

No I did not. I phrased it for purely manipulative purposes just to show you how easy it is done. You eat this stuff for breakfast and regurgitate it as fact. Just like you did in the first post.

You are blinded and manipulated by political ideology. (not that there's anything wrong with that)

HockeyDad wrote:

Ah, all part of your master genius plan. Super genius you. Go on with your bad self.

FuzzNJ wrote:

You're still stuck on the idea that the USA only had the ability to operate in Afghanistan or Iraq but not both.

HockeyDad wrote:

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.

HockeyDad wrote:

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

FuzzNJ wrote:

One, I did not say we can only operate in one of those countries. I said resources were diverted and Afghanistan fell down on the priority list.

And two, I guess you're right. It's all just my whacky opinion. All those links and quotes from Generals and the report from the Army itself who say otherwise don't exist.

FuzzNJ wrote:

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.

HockeyDad wrote: