Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Five Years After 9/11, Trail Cold For Bin Laden

Senior intelligence officials acknowledged in an NBC News report that the last time they knew with certainty where Osama Bin Laden was in real time was before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Has the trail to Bin Laden gone cold?

"I would have to say it probably has," said Robert Grenier, a former director of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center and a former CIA station chief in Islamabad, Pakistan. Grenier left the CIA in June.

It's a long road from the night of Sept. 11, when President Bush said, "The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts," and then over the following months repeated on several occasions that he wanted to bring Bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."

To be sure, Americans still want to see Bin Laden brought to justice. A June poll by USA Today/Gallup found that 86% of Americans said that it was somewhat, very or extremely important that Bin Laden be captured or killed, a number that had barely changed over the past two years.

***

The trail may only grow colder if an agreement signed last week to end unrest on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border winds up protecting Bin Laden, as some analysts suggest.

Former White House counterterrorism official, Richard Clarke, now a consultant for ABC News, told the Associated Press last week that the peace accord between the Pakistan government and pro-Taliban militants in that country meant that "the Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership have effectively carved out a sanctuary inside Pakistan."

Another factor not helping the search is that the CIA last year closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Bin Laden and his top lieutenants.

Michael Scheuer, a former senior CIA official who was the first head of the unit, known as Alec Station, said the move reflected the mistaken view within the agency that Bin Laden was no longer the threat he once was. "This will clearly denigrate our operations against Al Qaeda," he told the New York Times in July.

As JABBS noted at the time, the Bush Administration has, since 2002, gone from targeting Bin Laden to marginalizing him as just one person in the broad "war on terror." (For a timeline of quotes showing how the administration has changed the way it talks about Bin Laden, click here.)

As CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre noted in 2003: "They'd love to get him tomorrow, if they could. Since they can't, they're downplaying the role that he's playing."

11 Comments:

Anonymous whistle said...

On September 11, 2001 Bin Laden was in a well guarded hospital
....in Pakistan and the Bush administration knew this


If the CBS report by Dan Rather is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on September 10, 2001, courtesy of America's ally, he was in all likelihood still in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, when the attacks occurred. In all probability, his whereabouts were known to US officials on the morning of September 12, when Secretary of State Colin Powell initiated negotiations with Pakistan, with a view to arresting and extraditing bin Laden.

A recent Reuters report (11/13/03; scroll down) quoting Labeviere's book "Corridors of Terror" points to alleged "negotiations" between Osama bin Laden and the CIA, which took place two months prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks at the American Hospital in Dubai, UAE, while bin Laden was recovering from a kidney dialysis treatment

more

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO311A.html

11:28 AM  
Anonymous KansDem said...

Here's a rather complete timeline of before and after 9/11...
The Bushistas know where he is...period. They're lying when they say they don't.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html

11:29 AM  
Anonymous muesa said...

This shows the total incompetence of Bush-Cheney even at "war fighting" which is, allegedly, their strength. This exposes the "War on Terror" for what it is -- Cheney-Bush's War for Their Monied Backers.

11:32 AM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

Dick Cheney says on Meet the Press (10.7.07): “Look here’s the truth. We have the phone number to the Bin Ladens, the Saudis, Pakistan, et al, and we, the GOP, has a deal with them, we’ll let the Osama trail go cold, leave him alone - I mean he is a the son of a good friend and business partner of the President’s family - and they agreed not a attack us again. That’s why we know we don’t have to actually institute any of the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. We have a Memorandum of Understanding with the folks that fund and pull the puppet strings of these terrorist groups - so if the good people of the US don’t want to get hit again, errrr, they would be very wise to continue to vote Republican. Vote in a Democratic administration and… we… will… be attacked again, bigger than 9/11 from what I’ve been told. And that will be a particularly stressful time for Americans because a Democratic President will have to raise taxes significantly to help pay back all the money we borrowed from European, Chinese and Saudi families. So I strongly urge everyone to vote for the Frist/McCain ticket.” Would anyone be surprised?

1:18 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

whoop4467 said...
If you believe Clinton screwed up so badly because he knew exactly where OBL was and knew how to capture him but did nothing about it, then I want to know the answer to these questions.
1. If repuks are so brave, so smart, so knowledgeable about OBLs whereabouts since the Clinton staff briefed the incoming Bush staff, then why the hell did Bush not just go and capture OBL during the seven months between his swearing in and Sept 11,2001?? How long does it take to fly a few neo-cons to where-ever OBL was and just bring him back to the U.S.??
2. Clinton never had a military operation against OBL that you repuks have mentioned many times. Bush had one starting late in 2001 in Afghanistan with the sole purpose of capturing OBL. When he finally had OBL cornered in Tora Bora, Bush decided that at that moment Iraq ( who had un-tapped oil that we needed) was more of a threat than was OBL. So why with the greatest opportunity ( he had a military force and the support of many nations) to capture OBL did Bush go after the oil in Iraq?
3. If the capture of OBL is so easy, then why has'nt Bush done it in 5.5 years, especially since repuks think it is a cake-walk to do it and Clinton had, according to repuke accounts, two chances. If you really go and read "The 911 Commission Report", it debunked the idea that Clinton had an opportunity to capture OBL in Sudan, unless you believe in "beam me up Scotty". From all of the repuke post I have read, it is obvious few of them have read "The 911 Commission Report" The second one is a made up theory that no one agrees to except repuks that want to deflect blame from the fear mongering Busheys. As I said above, If clinton knew where OBL was,then repuks had to know as well or Clinton is much smarter than all the busheys put together!!
4. If according to the "path to 911" most of the FBI and CIA had all of the information about OBL during Clinton's tenure and there was supposedly a wall that prohibited the passing of info from deparment to department and it has supposedly been torn down by the this repuke administration, then why is OBL still free? Now the FBI and CIA is learning from this repuke administration how to play the blame game.
5. Which is more important, to find the real honest truth about 911 or a biased liberal version or a biased repuke version? The "Path to 911" is a biased reluke version that does no good for our nation. Make it truthfull where facts are known and agreed to and take out the bold face lies. Otherwise, It will continiue to spread hate and un-coorperation.
6. Why do repuks pretend to have all the moral principals on their side in a political debate, but then go and support a presentaion that has high fictional content on a subject that affects all Americans?? Me think it is because repuks like to have wars ( but only fight using words, not action) and not get along with anybody that does not accept their failed policies.

1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, let's have it posted on the front pages of main stream news tommorrow: a complete record of Bush and Cheney family investments in Bin Laden connected companies, as well as in Carlye Group and other firms largely connected to defense contractors.
(So add any similar info for Clinton as well for all I care).
Let's also have a complete lobbying record of these firms and which politicians they've appeared to have influenced.
Might this tell a truer story of why OBL runs free and why we are still fighting a devastating war in Iraq than all of Bush's phooney speeches combined?

10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

whoop
You wanted Bush to go after UBL without any provocation? I mean after all isn't that why Clinton didn't go after him?

FACT: Clinton didn't have a military operation against UBL because Clinton decimated the military.

FACT: Clinton had more than 2 chances and he blew them as he was getting blown.

FACT: There was no supposed wall, there was a wall. I know you don't like facts but that is a fact. When 2 agencies cant share information, the is indeed a wall between them.

I love the way you use the word repuke over and over. Can you debate without name calling or does it make you feel smarter?

If the Path to 9-11 was a biased republican version, what was Fahrenheit 9-11 and why weren't you condemning the lies in that movie.

The only false content I saw in Path to 9-11 was the terrorists looked more like white guys than muslims.

10:50 AM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

Muslims don't look like anything, Anonymous #2. Islam is a religion. "White" is an ethnicity.

As sharp as your King. An AWOL War President that sends our soldiers off on a "crusade" in a Middle East country without knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shias. Ouch.

1:13 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

nonymous said...

whoop
You wanted Bush to go after UBL without any provocation? I mean after all isn't that why Clinton didn't go after him?

Clinton had a Repuke Congress that accused him of wagging the dog whenever he wanted to do anything against the terrorist. Read "The 911 Commission Report". The things that happened during Clintons tenure was:
1. The '93 World Trade Center bombing( planned during Reagan/Bush I tenures) that happenned just after he took office - all have been arrested and or in jail.
2.Two embassy bombings in Africa - those have been captured and jailed.
3. The Cole bombing - happenned in late 2000 at the end of Clinton' terms - all have been captured and jailed.

If you read "The 911 Commmission Report" it states that the proof that OBL was involved was not avialble until late in Clinton's tenure. For you to find out more about what Clinton did I advise you to read the book.

If Bush can invade Iraq based upon lies, he could have done the same and gone after OBL because of all of the truths ( the Cole bombing being the most recent) about OBL and he was briefed about OBL by the Clinton staff. Do not get me wrong, I do believe that Clinton should have done more. But, you repuks fault him for everything and do not want to lay any blame upon Bush II. At the present time, Bush II says that OBL is not important and has no affect upon the overall terrorist picture. Besides, there is no proof that if Clinton had captured OBL would that have stopped 911 because it had been planned and was well on its way to completion.

FACT: Clinton didn't have a military operation against UBL because Clinton decimated the military.

Now this is a crock and you know it. After the military went to an all volunteer operation the troop count went way down. With much fewer troops, there was no need to have some equipment that was old and not enough troops to operate what was left. Clinton could not have done this anyway without the approval of the repuke congress. These are the same reasons that Rumsfeld is reducing bases and getting rid of equipment.

FACT: Clinton had more than 2 chances and he blew them as he was getting blown.

Please tell me what these were and give facts, not opinion. The only one mentioned in the 911 report was the Sudan one and it was debunked. This is one where you have been listening to way too much repuke lies and spin.

FACT: There was no supposed wall, there was a wall. I know you don't like facts but that is a fact. When 2 agencies cant share information, the is indeed a wall between them.

I will give you this one. Supposed was the wrong word. My point was that due to this wall during Clinton's tenure, it made it harder for Clinton to do his job. The walls existed long before he became president and things do not change in government unless something like 911 happens. My other point was that since the walls came down with Bush II it should have been easier for him to capture OBL.

I love the way you use the word repuke over and over. Can you debate without name calling or does it make you feel smarter?

No, it does not make me feel smarter. It is my disrespect for repuks because they are disrepectfull by using "lib-tards", saying we love the terrorist more than we love GWB, saying we are un-American for dissenting, etc etc. I can not speak for others, but I can honestly say I hate the terrorist much more than I hate GWB and I hate GWB a lot.


If the Path to 9-11 was a biased republican version, what was Fahrenheit 9-11 and why weren't you condemning the lies in that movie.

I have not watched or read the script of F/911. No one in my family has seen it either. It was made into a movie that people had to pay to see. From what I have heard and read about it there was common knowledge that there was lies in the movie. The overall impact to the total emotions of America was much less affected by F/911 than by the effects of September 11, 2001 and if you do not understand that then you are a repuke. September 11, 2001 was not a political event.

The only false content I saw in Path to 9-11 was the terrorists looked more like white guys than muslims.

Another proof that you are a miserable REPUKE!!

10:04 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

Anonymous said...

whoop
You wanted Bush to go after UBL without any provocation? I mean after all isn't that why Clinton didn't go after him?

FACT: Clinton didn't have a military operation against UBL because Clinton decimated the military.

FACT: Clinton had more than 2 chances and he blew them as he was getting blown.

FACT: There was no supposed wall, there was a wall. I know you don't like facts but that is a fact. When 2 agencies cant share information, the is indeed a wall between them.

I love the way you use the word repuke over and over. Can you debate without name calling or does it make you feel smarter?

If the Path to 9-11 was a biased republican version, what was Fahrenheit 9-11 and why weren't you condemning the lies in that movie.

The only false content I saw in Path to 9-11 was the terrorists looked more like white guys than muslims.


You nameless repuke, you never did answer the main question:

Why with all of the advantages behind GWB - 100% of the American people ( Clinton had every repuke fighting him the whole time) supporting him, the best military in the history of man-kind at the ready in Afghanistan, the whole worlds support ( except a few muslim nations), the overwhelming support of Congress, the walls tore down between the FBI and CIA- did he not capture OBL in 5 years, since you repuks think Clinton should have done it in eight years with little or no support?? You mis-understand me, I do not think Clinton is perfect or without some fault.

Also, please do not be a hippocrit( means a big fat liar) about this subject. The best thing for us as a nation in this debate is the truth. It is my opinion that you are are a REPUKE and you keep giving facts that prove it.


Congress

12:48 PM  
Anonymous Dave G said...

If the Path to 9-11 was a biased republican version, what was Fahrenheit 9-11 and why weren't you condemning the lies in that movie.

Please try to understand this. If this Path to 9/11 nonsense had been released in a movie theater, none of us would give a darn. We would have still been upset at the film's content and almost willfull disregard for the truth and desire to be as inaccurate as possible, but, again, it's in the theater, whatever. Just like Fahrenheit 9/11.

But this was put on the broadcast airwaves -- the free airwaves -- with notable, amazing distortions and outright falsehoods. It smacks of complete irresponsibility by the broadcaster by not allowing for it to be shown to the parties it was defaming, and I use that word deliberately, because it was a defamation.

That's the difference.

7:07 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares