Saturday, June 25, 2005

Note to Cheney: To Capture Bin Laden, Close Doesn't Count

Q Let's talk about Porter Goss, the CIA Director. He says he has an excellent idea where Osama bin Laden is hiding out. Do you?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: We've got a pretty good idea of a general area that he's in, but I -- I don't have the street address.

Q What is the general area?

CHENEY: I don't talk -- I don't -- I don't --

Q It's been widely reported to be somewhere along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

CHENEY: I don't talk about intelligence matters like that.

Q But it's -- but it's not Iran because some -- like --

CHENEY: I'm -- I --

Q -- well, the vice chairman of the House Armed Services --

CHENEY: Wolf, I don't talk about -- I don't talk about classified information.

Q So you don't want to get into that?

CHENEY: Correct.

Q Osama bin Laden. But any assessment of -- is he going to be found soon, not so soon, any idea

CHENEY: What, do you expect me to say three weeks from next Tuesday? (Laughter.)

-- From June 23 interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer


Blogger Michael said...

Here's a question you didn't think of, Wolf: Is this government's failure to locate and kill the man who is thumbing his nose at us after murdering thousands due to a lack of ability by current Administration or a lack of trying by the current Administration?

Maybe Cheney care to shift the blame onto our soldiers? Or maybe he'll take responsibility for his own failure to do the most basic job of any government.

I'm betting we'll never know, because I'm betting he'll never be asked that question by any "journalist"? Well, I'd like to know what the f***ing answer is, and I'm not laughing.

6:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe, just maybe, it is not from a lack of ability or a lack of trying. But, heavens, that might offend your liberal sensibilities.

1:18 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

anonymous, put down your kool-aid for a minute and address my liberal logic; I don't give a monkey's what you think about my sensibilities. What do you propose the answer to the question is: "can't" or "won't"?

Naturally I don't expect anonymous to be capable of forming a thought that isn't on the Republican Talking Points, so I'll give my own answer: "Won't" isn't worth considering. I'll assume our government actually does want to catch bin laden.

That leaves "can't" and the obvious next question is why can't our government catch bin laden?

As I implied in my previous post I don't believe it is from lack of skill or motivation from our soldiers. After all they managed to haul Sadaam out of his burrow in fairly good time. But maybe anonymous would like to disagree? Would he like to argue that the donkey-riding Osama and his dialysis machine are just too darn elusive for the best of our soldiers and intelligence operatives to catch?

I, on the other hand, would like to hear, for once, the Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld company take responsibility for the strategic failures in leadership that they have consistently demonstarted for the last FOUR YEARS during which they have failed to bring Osama to justice for what he did to thousands of innocent American men, women and children.

I don't know what anonymous will say he thinks the reason is. Maybe he doesn't think it's important. If so I would ask that he please address his explaination for that to the parents, husbands, wives, children and friends of those who were brutally blown-up, burned and murdered on 9/11. I'm sure they would like to know what the officail Republican Talking Point is on this particular subject.

6:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The dissident lays out his liberal so called logic, an oxymoron if there ever was one, by offering two false choices, ignorning the other possibilities.

You speak of me "drinking the kool aid" but apparently fail to recognize that even if that were true, it is also a reflection of the standard left wing mentality toward everything being Bush's fault.

Have you considered the fact that trying to locate one individual in an area with the terrain where he is suspected to be, aided by local rebels, is not quite as simple as locating Saddam?

Just because the task has yet to be completed does not mean we can't, or we won't. It often times just means it has not yet happened.

10:14 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

It's too hard? It's those damned "local rebels"? It's the tehw-able terrain?!!!

So you say "can't" - in FOUR YEARS the strongest, smartest, most technologically advanced, most motivated military force, backed by the richest nation in the entire history of this planet can't kill Osama? Maybe someday! Prob'ly pretty soon!

Since when did it become the role of Republicans to cry about how "hard" applying overwhelming military force is?

Here's a mental experiment to help you pull your blinders off. What would have happened if President Bush stood up on September 2001 and instead of urging Americans to "pray" and "keep shopping" had rallied every adult American and mobilised every foreign country sympathetic to our task?

Hell, I'd be in Tora Bora myself, and if I could get my young son to hold a M16, he'd be next to me. Wouldn't you? I suspect we could have easily put twenty angry, armed men on the ground for every living soul in Afganistan.

But that didn't happen did it?

So what did happen? Our international allies were handled with all the finesse of a drunken cowboy. We gave the UN every reason to join the fight against us. We divided our own nation against itself by turning 9/11 into a political wedge issue. We let the only opportunity to seize the attention, sympathy and momentum of the world drift away. In short we lacked effective leadership.

Every single hour that goes by during which Osama takes on the USA and survives, makes him a greater hero and inspiration to those "local rebels" - our failure to kill him has made him politically stronger to every terrorist psycho who idolizes him.

How much further will you go to deny Bush's failures? Will you next be arguing that it is good that we let Osama run free for FOUR YEARS? You imply there is some kind of conspiracy to "blame bush", well, I'd like to know who the hell else is in charge of this country. If Bush can't lead then who's fault is it? Oh, yeah, it's Clinton's fault, I forgot.

12:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is what happens when you put chickenhawks in charge during wartime. Maybe Bush-Cheney-Rove are in need of some good liberal therapy?

3:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your responses simply show how incredibly un-serious you are about this, and how you simply wish to spew DU/Kos/Atrios talking points, while trying to score political points.

Statements like yours are exactly why the majority of Americans do not trust the liberals to execute the war on terror. You approach this as a simple law enforcement manhunt, while the clear headed people know and understand that this is a war against those that would do us harm. You would have us believe that the war on terror would be over and successful once Bin Laden is captured or killed. Many would argue that is simply one of many victories in the ongoing war against terror.

Maybe that is too nuanced for the people that are blinded by their hatred for President Bush and Republicans.

4:40 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Wrong, above commenter.

Most Democrats supported attacking Afghanistan, getting rid of the Taliban, dismantling Al Qaeda and caputring Osama.

We assumed, wrongly, that when President Bush stood on the WTC rubble and said he would bring those who did this to justice, that he shared this vision.

Instead, the Taliban still exists, Al Qaeds not only exists but is continuing to thrive as a terror organization, Osama is still at large, and we are stuck in Iraq -- a country that had no ties to 9/11, no substantial ties to Al Qaeda, and was essentially contained as a terror state.

Now, maybe you can't deal with that. Maybe you are satisfied because Al Qaeda hasn't attacked us again on our shores. Maybe the fact that terror attacks are on the rise worldwide (2004 vs. 2003) and against our troops in Iraq (2004 vs. 2003) doesn't phase you.

Maybe you haven't been reading the stream of reports about Department of Homeland Security wasting money, in-house fighting, or failure to do simple things like buy equipment that can detect depleted uranium at ports, or sharp metal objects at airports. Maybe you don't care that the Homeland Security Inspector General is bothered by the department's wasteful spending and inability to protect the homeland.

Or maybe you haven't read about, or maybe you don't care, about how your Republican leadership, following the lead of Bush, won't pass simple guidelines to ensure that our nation's chemical and nuclear plants are sufficiently guarded -- because of the added costs associated to these regulations. Instead, we are giving the industries free reign to protect their plants at their own pace -- and they have done nothing. Even after a recent story came out in the MSM about foreigners using fake id's to enter a nuclear plant, there has been no outrage, no relection, no changes planned. It's as bad as Disney re-opening its ride in Florida after a four-year-old died. Scrape away the body and turn a profit, I guess.

Conservatives don't want to deal with the details, because they might get scared. It's easier to say: "Bush Good, Me Safe."

5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's obvious that some commenters above are still confused about why we are at war. It's actually very simple, follow along: planes, hijackers, burning people jumping from big buildings. Remember?

Try to focus here: the Taliban are (yes still) in Afganistan and western Pakistan, not Iraq. Repeat that until you can keep it in your heads.

5:54 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

Anonymous said "... the majority of Americans do not trust the liberals to execute the war on terror."

I don't rember anybody from the Liberal Party running in the last election for Commander-In-Chief, but I think I see where your straining to go with this: Bush won the election so shut-up and agree, right?

Wow, that tired line must be getting boring to even you by now. But let me break a small fact to you, it isn't even true anymore.

According to a recent poll taken June 20-22:

56% of Americans said they don't approve of the way the Bush administration has conducted the war in Iraq, while only 41% approve.

Oh dear. Now what's your excuse?

6:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not only that, but the people who did this to us were almost all Saudi, financed by Iran, and led by a man who had taken refuge in Afghanistan.

And yet, we've got the bulk of our forces in Iraq.

What's wrong with this picture?

P.S. If we next attack Syria, that still doesn't answer the above question.

6:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Profoundly unserious, huh ?

8:05 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares