Here's the Fox link for the ones that don't believe anything but Fox news.
Only they say it was due to nothing but pure incompetence. While that is a good theory based on Bushs record, thats really too strange even for me to believe.
We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty — which is huge in the world of intelligence — that in August of 2007, bin Laden was in a convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on satellite. We were listening to his conversations. We had the world’s best hunters/killers — Seal Team 6 — nearby. We had the world class Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) coordinating with the CIA and other agencies. We had unmanned drones overhead with missiles on their wings; we had the best Air Force on the planet, begging to drop one on the terrorist. We had him in our sights; we had done it. Nice job again guys — now, pull the damn trigger.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304306,00.html
2007-10-25 06:53:52 · 21 answers · asked by Enigma 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
For those who don't know they were told to stand down by the Bush administration because there were innocents standing by. Does that sound reasonable to you in War? Thats what we are constantly told...that war is hell and people die.
2007-10-25 07:09:03 · update #1
Thanks FoxyGirl. Post 9-11 when 3000 innocents lost their lives. That compared to a handful on the ground with OBL but thats the excuse given.
2007-10-25 07:13:21 · update #2
Tim S I have no idea what you're talking about. The government already admitted they had him in their sights in Tora Bora years ago. The military was told to stand down because innocents were in the area and they couldn't get a clear shot on OBL without killing the others. Where were you at. This is old news and it didn't come from a blog. I am just pointing out that Fox news is now talking about it. Get a clue man. You're long winded but short on brains.
2007-10-25 15:05:59 · update #3
He is of more use to the administration alive, to be used as a tool to scare people.
2007-10-25 06:57:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 4⤋
If this turns out to be true it is obviously a major blunder.
I have long said that the rules of engagement are too restrictive. We should begin fighting our enemies as if we really wanted to win!
I hope the problem was not some concern about negative reporting, political condemnation and courts-martial in the event they were wrong. Already reports are coming back that our soldiers are "giving the enemy the benefit of the doubt" and risking injury or death rather than the kind of scrutiny and second-guessing Blackwater is currently experiencing.
We won't get everything 100% right. And it is unreasonable to protest our forces both when they are too aggressive and when they are too cautious. So I believe we should keep this in mind when the press goes into a frenzy about "friendly fire" or other honest mistakes. War is an inexact and brutal science.
I'm sure our troops are the best in the world, and are trying the hardest they can.
2007-10-25 07:36:12 · answer #2 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Col. Hunt is only one of the Fox News contributors. Fox News did not endorse his opinion, but accepted it as one opinion of the many they receive.
That said, President Clinton had several clear chances to apprehend or kill OBL prior to 9/11. He didn't or couldn't. International law applies. The U.S. can't just do anything they want in a foreign country without permission. We are not the world's police as badly as we may want to get a guy we have determined is a criminal.
You watch too many movies that make the U.S. military and covert organizations have more power and ability than they really have. They do not have the ability to know what each of us is doing at any time. There's no camera on everyone in the world. If someone wants to hide, like OBL, they can hide. Don't be so paranoid. It ain't hap'nin'.
If OBL crossed into Pakistan (say) during this reconnosance, any possible military action would have changed dramatically ... time would be required to arrange diplomacy for military action within the borders of Pakistan without starting a war with them, too, by international law.
This is not as simple as it appears. Col. Hunt knows that. I respect him and I pretty much think he knows the tune. He also knows that unauthorized military activity in a foreign country can have dramatic consequences. He's a military guy and wants to get the job done. I don't know what his diplomatic credentials are.
The question is, was OBL in Afghanistan when he was seen and was he in Pakistan by the time we could arrange to do anything about him.
The U.S. is not the all powerful, all knowing "god" we see in the movies. That's fantasy. We do not have the resources you see in the movies. What we do has to comply with international law. We can't just do anything we want anywhere in the world at our whim.
That Bush wants to keep OBL as a political incentive is absurd ... a conspiracy nut's imagination. Let's pass him on to a Democrat and see what happens, huh? It's nuts to think anyone wouldn't take OBL out in the blink of an eye if they could legally do it.
2007-10-25 08:15:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It was also revealed (for those who still want to blame Clinton-envy is an ugly monster) that those who said Clinton did not get him for the USS Cole bombing that there was no proof of ties until two months before Bush took office-sorry haters but OBL is a fatally flawed problem of the Bush regime..........
2007-10-26 04:45:01 · answer #4 · answered by liberalady 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Bin Laden family and Bush family seem to have a long relationship, very interesting if you look into it, it doesn't make the big media news.
2007-10-26 06:49:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The bin laden family is very close to the saudi royal family and the saudi royal family is very close to the bush family. GWB never had any intention of capturing osama.
2007-10-25 18:55:29 · answer #6 · answered by BOOM 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I have found that much of what is on Fox news is full of information pro and con. Even O'Reilly has said going into Iraq, in hindsight, was a mistake.
2007-10-25 07:07:42 · answer #7 · answered by rance42 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You think that's something, Bill O'Reilly admitted a few nights ago that he wish we hadn't ever went into Iraq. He hopes we win, but he said that it was a mistake to go. Now that's interesting.
2007-10-25 07:02:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
George W. Bush, 3-13-02
2007-10-25 07:09:00 · answer #9 · answered by tangerine 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
We can also blame Clinton too for passing the buck, but the towers were destroyed on Bush's watch not Clinton's.
2007-10-25 07:16:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Excellent piece; hadn't seen this, or heard of it. Thanks!
Sad that all of the apologists have to bring up Clinton (BOO!) to somehow excuse our Naked Emperor (again)...
2007-10-25 07:02:29 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋