This story seems long overdue:
On the videotape obtained by the CIA, bin Laden is seen confidently instructing his party how to dig holes in the ground to lie in undetected at night. A bomb dropped by a U.S. aircraft can be seen exploding in the distance. “We were there last night,” bin Laden says without much concern in his voice. He was in or headed toward Pakistan, counterterrorism officials think.
That was December 2001. Only two months later, Bush decided to pull out most of the special operations troops and their CIA counterparts in the paramilitary division that were leading the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for war in Iraq, said Flynt L. Leverett, then an expert on the Middle East at the National Security Council.
“I was appalled when I learned about it,” said Leverett, who has become an outspoken critic of the administration’s counterterrorism policy. “I don’t know of anyone who thought it was a good idea. It’s very likely that bin Laden would be dead or in American custody if we hadn’t done that.”
Several officers confirmed that the number of special operations troops was reduced in March 2002.
The whole story is rather sad. The fact that Bush basically delcared that he does not care about Osama bin Laden anymore, and backed his words up with unequivocal deeds, and somehow got away with it is the single biggest reason why I think the Democrats could blow it in November. Would a Democratic president get away with that? He would be hanged by now.
SomeCallMeTim
I don’t quite understand why you use the words “Democrats could blow it.” Are you saying that Democrats were too incompetent to make easy hay of it, and that level incompetence bodes not well for the fall?
Tulkinghorn
If a Democrat had done what Bush has done since 9/11, there would have been several impeachment proceedings begun by now.
The republicans are being held to a much lower standard, by Congress, by the press, by the public.
F. Authorati
The fat lady has sung. Musharraf has written the Bush administration off. What worries me is that there are probably some nuts in the admin who might be thinking he could have an ‘accident’ and we’d put in a more compliant replacement. Maybe Chalabi is available.
How any Republican can tolerate Osama being free is beyond my comprehension. If Gore had won, and Osama was still free in Nov. 2004, I could never imagine myself voting for him.
Jess
Sadly, mythology always seems to trump reality, and as we all “know”, Dems are weak on defense and liberals love OBL.
craigie
Yeah, by all those liberal media we keep hearing about.
The Other Steve
Iran giving up nuclear ambitions?
So says EU diplomats.
Quick, someone tell Bush and Cheney so they can get out on TV and declare Iran the second coming of the Mongol Horde so we can kill this diplomatic effort.
aaron
Does anyone have any reason to think that large numbers of special operations forces in Afghanistan would have been much use once bin Laden and his crew were known to be in Pakistan?
Larry
And how things have changed. The president used the name “Osama Bin Laden” 17 times in a speech on Monday, I think. So he cares about him now, or says he does.
Nikki
Kinda hard for anyone to make hay of it when the press is in the pocket of the party in charge.
Tsulagi
When special ops forces, CIA agents and contractors first went into AF they were under CIA direction. They took the initial lead as they already had plans developed during the Clinton admin for that type of operation. Their ROE were simply “kill or be killed.” As aggressive as you get in order to get the job done. Kill bin Laden, kill al Qaeda. They entered the country moving fast and well.
In the meantime, Rumsfeld was slow in getting additional forces to the area while Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of their PNAC choir boys fought for their far more important battle: Control. As they won that battle with the help of the retarded dipshit who was busy farting with new aides, the mission changed. Well before Tora Bora, the ROE were changed to containment. Plus they began siphoning big money and resources for what was their little blue pill: Iraq and their glorious dream of Pax Americana.
You go to war with the leaders you have, not the leaders you wished you had. And we have the stupidest, most incompetent fucks on the planet. They didn’t want to get bin Laden then. If they had they might not have been able to sell Iraq to the public. Plus Bushy wouldn’t have gotten to play wartime president for as long as he has. No photo ops in fight suits.
These days bin Laden has got to be more of a believer than ever. Allah has provided him with Bush and the rest of the retardocon leadership. Maybe in appreciation he’ll release another video just days before the elections to say BOO! Stay the course. Works for him.
p.lukasiak
Does anyone have any reason to think that large numbers of special operations forces in Afghanistan would have been much use once bin Laden and his crew were known to be in Pakistan?
well, you make it sound like bin Laden wasn’t at Tora Bora when the additional US forces were requested. You have a future writing propaganda movies for wingnut Xtian groups who want to take over Hollywood.
But to answer your question “Yes, they would have been of use.” Musharraf at that point was kissing the USA’s ass, because of Pakistan’s previous support of the Taliban. He would simply have ignored US Special Forces acting in “hot pursuit” of bin Laden (and its not as if the Pakistani government actually controlled the area in question at that time..or now.)
rachel
From the same article:
(My emphasis)
It looks to me like Bush is hoping to pull Osama out of a hat for an October surprise, but OBL isn’t cooperating.
Zifnab
I believe we had permission to be off the shore of Pakistan while mounting the invasion effort. Back in ’03 Musharruf was our bitch. But Bush hasn’t put one iota of pressure on the guy since we “Misson Accomplished” in Afganistan and it doesn’t look like he’s going to put forward any more pressure despite Pakistan’s warm and fuzzy feelings towards the Taliban again.
Aaron Adams
The Case for Capturing Osama bin Laden
Richard Bottoms
I am sick to death of hearing about how badly we Democrats handle our affairs. That we approach our issues without stooping to use of Teri Schiavo, or fag bashing, and outright lying delights me no end.
You sound like an abused wife beaten down so long you have begun to think YOU are the problem.
Screw George Bush and the entire lot of them. And double over for any nitwit who thinks McCain is any different.
The mantra is: There are no good Republicans, there are no bad Democrats. None.
So when you stop crapping your pants and helping the other side, I suggest you haul out your wallet and put up or shutup. Back our guys to the hilt.
Richard Bottoms
Like he said.
Mark-NC
Bush called off the search for bin Laden – and we have pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia.
Did Bush cut a deal?
Zifnab
Ask the ISI (Pakistani secret service), who had a very significant hand in funding 911.
Tom Murphy
clearly there are people that don’t want the 9/11 motives known.
ABC’s movie just lied saying that bin laden said the attacks would continue “until you convert to Islam”
this movie is very ugly propaganda
what bin Laden has said has been crystal clear.
“We swore that America wouldn’t live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel’s interest above its own people’s interest. America won’t get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel.” -Osama bin Laden, October 2001
“… the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries.” -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003
No one should be suppressing the facts.
What motivated the 9/11 hijackers?
The video shows the 9/11 Commission Hearing where the question “What motivated them to do it?” was finally asked. See FBI Special Agent Fitzgerald explain the motive. This testimony was kept out of the 9/11 Commission Report and no recommendation was given to address the main motive for the 9/11 attacks.
aaron
The article says the extra troops were pulled out two months after December of 2001. Is it your contention that bin Laden was still in Afghanistan then?
And no, simply invading Pakistan territory in large numbers wasn’t the piece of cake you’re implying. And if you’re complaining about lack of forces, large numbers must be what you’re talking about.
Once-ler
No, it wouldn’t have been a piece of cake. But it would have made a lot more sense than invading Iraq.
Salty Party Snax
The most relevant cite any of you will see regarding ABC’s 9-11 infomercial:
http://tinyurl.com/tanu
Salty Party Snax
The most relevant cite any of you will see regarding ABC’s 9-11 infomercial:
http://tinyurl.com/tanu
Zifnab
Did we mention how Democrats are soft on terrorism and defense?
Jon H
“The republicans are being held to a much lower standard, by Congress, by the press, by the public.”
There’s this idea among the pundits that Bush can’t possibly be impeached, apparently because the GOP tried to impeach the last President. It’s like if Bush were impeached, that would just be gauche, like if Bush and Clinton wore the same dress to a party.
Jess
Thanks, Salty–I would just love to plaster that article all over the windshields of every car sporting a Bush/Cheney sticker. Maybe I will.
Pb
Yeoutch. Any bets on how long *this* story was kept under wraps? Before the election, perchance? Liberal media my ass.
Salty Party Snax
Osama Bin Missing?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EX7lcQVOKnw
Salty Party Snax
Slate: The Out-Of-Towner
While Bush Vacationed, 9/11 Warnings Went Unheard
http://www.slate.com/id/2098861/
The Other Steve
I heard Kookie Roberts this morning on MPR talking about this. My God, she really came off as a Republican partisan. What she said was no different than say Tony Blankely.
And she’s supposed to be either non-partisan or a Democrat considering who you talk to.
Mr Furious
Nice work, Snax. those are good links.
Jay
Would a Democratic president get away with that? He would be hanged by now.
Considering President Clinton had 8-10 chances to take bin Laden out and left with Democrats and liberals thinking he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, I don’t see that scenario coming true.
John S.
Damn! Excellent find, there. Now where is MacStupid to eat his “nobody accused Clinton of wagging the dog” bullshit? Because when Trent Lott and Orrin Hatch pooh poohed Clinton’s urgency for counter-terrorism and call it a “phony issue”, that clearly shows that nobody who was important in the GOP had that sort of mindset.
Bombadil
Jeebus, Jay, please read Salty’s link. Then take some time to read the 9/11 Commission Report, rathter than the ABC?Marvel Comics version of it.
Salty Party Snax
Jay – You need to look at it this way. Today is the 5th anniversary of 9-11. In those 5 years George W. Bush has spent half a trillion dollars, embroiled us in two wars, and has overseen military operations that have resulted in 2,700 of our people being killed with another 20,000 wounded.
Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are still at large and still killing Americans.
Now I can undertand why GOP partisans would need to blame someone else for the disgraceful military ineptittude shown by this administration. But sometimes failure really is failure, and screaming over and over again that “Billy did it!” just isn’t going to cut it.
Tim F.
Um, der. Maybe something that happened after Clinton left office had some effect on the urgency of catching or killing bin Laden. Just a thought.
Salty Party Snax
Article that details Clinton admin efforts to fight terrorism.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083006j.shtml
The Other Steve
From a water cooler perspective.
ABC’s partisan docudrama flopped. Nobody watched it.
Otto Man
So Clinton should be blamed for not knowing what Osama would eventually do.
But Bush should be given a free pass for letting 9/11 happen and then not doing a thing to capture the people who did it.
Is that about right, Jay?
And “8-10 chances” to get OBL? Any proof of that? (Any proof that doesn’t come from the fevered imaginations of ABC?)
Bombadil
And since it happened after he left office and the Republicans finally realized the urgency, they should not be going back and assigning blame to Clinton when they were the ones doing the obstructing.
Der, indeed.
Otto Man
ABC’s partisan docudrama flopped. Nobody watched it.
I’d be interested to see the Nielsons, but I’ve got to think that’s true just from a scheduling point of view. It was up against the Manning Bowl, the Fox Sunday premieres of “Simpsons” and “Family Guy,” and the debut of the new season of “The Wire” on HBO.
If people were looking for dramatic fiction, they probably would’ve chosen that over “The Pathological Lies to 9/11.”
p.lukasiak
like a said earlier…you should be writing propaganda. What was pulled out of Afghanistan were not “extra troops” like they were some surplus personnel sitting around playing cards all day, but special forces and CIA operatives who were involved in the hunt for bin Laden (and wiping up remnants of the Taliban). Officially they were “in Afghanistan”, but insofar as we are talking about Special Forces and (especially) CIA operatives, the idea that they would restrict their search to the geographic confines of Afghanistan is quite ridiculous.
Once again, we see you gift for propaganda. No one said anything about “invading Pakistan in large numbers” — we are talking about special forces/CIA operational capabilities to determine bin Laden’s whereabouts. An attack to take out bin Laden would not require that cruise missiles make a trip of well over 1000 miles from the Indian Ocean to bin Laden’s hideout, we had military forces in Afghanistan that could have missiles exploding in minute in the border area of Pakistan where bin Laden was suspected of hiding.
p.lukasiak
I’d be interested to see the Nielsons…
Nielsen does not (officially) report ratings on non-sponsored programs.
Larry
That would be my expected outcome. I tried to watch it and found it so god-awful that I turned it off. I mean, it was just wretched … no matter what you might think of the “historical” or “political” aspects of it.
I would be surprised if anyone watches the succeeding episodes.
slickdpdx
Couldn’t this be retitled “Osama in hiding” and be as accurate?
John S.
Not really, given that the very notion of a particualrly large man (by Arab standards) on dialysis successfully ‘hiding’ for five years is somewhat ridiculous. As Bush has said, “I don’t really think about him much anymore”, ergo the correct conclusion is that he has been forgotten.
slickdpdx
I should have gone for “Osama bin Hiding.”
Osama on the run is a significant achievement, whether you or Tim wishes to acknowledge it or not.
MAX HATS
Thanks, Slick. A lot of people forget that the president has done a fantastic job, provided we keep our standards low enough.
Larry
I can’t see that his situation today is that much different from what it was on Sept 10, 2001.
Other than getting him to relocate, we basically ignored him for four years, and then revived him this week in political speeches, so as to remind people how scary he is in case ignoring him for four years had made them forget.
It’s an odd political year, because instead of politicians showing us pictures of their families, they are showing us pictures of Osama Bin Laden.
slickdpdx
“Other than getting him to relocate”…Do I need say more? Whatever happened to no news is good news?
Is Osama still a threat that Bush has failed to contain or is he merely Bush’s bogeyman? At least be consistent.
“Basically ignored” is a gross overstatement. American efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere have not been confined to “getting Saddam.”
What was your position on Somalian intervention in the nineties? What was your pre-invasion opinion about intervening in Afghanistan?
There are legitimate and reasonable criticisms of Bush administration efforts. A lack of action (post 9-11-01) is not one of them.
Larry
Whatever your answer to that was on 9-10-01, it would be roughly the same situation today. No news is just no news.
Due respect, it is the president, and not I, who has not been consistent.
I think I’ll stick with my characterization. We’ve ignored Bin Laden in favor of focussing on a country that had nothing to do with 911.
Somalia is not a valid comparison. Afghanistan was necessary but we dropped the ball … a bigger war seemed more important.
A lack of useful action and long-term positives certainly is, and it’s why the Republicans are in serious jeopardy of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory right now.
slickdpdx
Dropped the ball in Afghanistan? What else should have been done? I don’t think there is good evidence that more military personnel in Afghanistan = better results.
John S.
I think there is good evidence that less military personnel in Afghanistan = lousy results. Clearly, allowing the Taliban to slowly return to power was not what we were going for.
But keep telling yourself that Afghanistan went according to plan and we did everything there that we possibly could have, slick. Whatever gets you through the day.
slickdpdx
How do you know that a stronger military presence wouldn’t lead to greater “occupier” problems and local resentment? I don’t think its so obvious. Allowing the Taliban to return to power? Hasn’t happened in Afghanistan at large, I hope it doesn’t. But its also a convenient ellipsis of the fact that the Taliban was removed from power.
I acknowledge the criticisms, but it seems you are determined to ignore any positive efforts by comparing them to perfect and imaginary policies and results. If you must compare, I think past efforts are more useful.
lard lad
Slick, you (and everyone else) should read this article about Afghanistan, and the enormous blunders and lapses of good judgment made by this administration that have made our Afghan campaign the mess it currently is. Because, with all due respect, this idea of yours that we’ve done as much good for Afghanistan as we had in us to do just won’t wash.
Pb
That’s true, why, look at what we’ve done for Afghanistan’s economy–the opium trade is booming now! Also, think of all those countries we *didn’t* destabilize, all those people that we *didn’t* bomb, all those places where we *didn’t* create breeding grounds for terrorists!
DougJ
Better that he’s making videos over there than attacking us over here.
Who cares, though — he’s not in Iraq and that is the central front in the war on terror. And we keep killing his number twos, one by one. Isn’t that enough?
Pb
Iraq, Iran, and Syria — the central fronts in the war on not catching Osama bin Laden.
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the UAE, and Yemen — our friends!
Lebanon — Hezbollah is in Lebanon. One of the hijackers was from Lebanon. Better leave this one to Israel!
North Korea — So he’s got the bomb. So he’s crazy. So what. He’ll probably nuke Japan first anyhow.
slickdpdx
One thing I’ve learned from reading BJ – the world would be a virtual utopia if a few of the commenters were in charge. When are y’all running?
John S.
slick-
Isn’t that the awful truth? I mean, I have little doubt that BJ commenters would fuck things up as much as the Bush administration. We can’t run for without your support, though.
Kindly send me a check for 12 million dollars, and I’ll head straight for Washington DC.
slickdpdx
Sorry. Campaign finance laws restrict me from making that donation. Also, the criminal law restricts me from making that donation as I am about twelve million short at the bank…