Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on June 25, 2003, 10:00:48 AM
-
Reports on TV this morning that we had Bin Laden in our sights many times between January 2001 and up to 1 week before 9-11, but we failed to act due to turmoil over who should take the shot - CIA or the Pentagon.
:rolleyes:
-
Like in the 90's?
-
Unfair criticism of Bush and Clinton.
Hindsight towards this type of catastrophe should produce lessons learned and not blame.
We seem to be pullin the trigger currently though....eh MT?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
but we failed to act due to turmoil over who should take the shot - CIA or the Pentagon.
:rolleyes:
can you imagine the outrage if the CIA would have "assasinated" Bin-laden prior to Sept. 11th?
-Sik
-
The reports I heard had three sightings in 2000, and none in 2001.
What are they facts, man, the facts?
Please post links, etc.
-
Facts?
I'm just waiting for all those "Clinton caused 9-11" guys to come streaming out of their cracks in the wall.
(I promise to catch and release though)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
(I promise to catch and release though)
ROTFLOL!
-
I read that the SAS had Bin Laden cornered at one point in Afghanistan but were pulled from taking him out because the Pentagon deemed such a move to be 'too dangerous'. Probably only partly true.
Alhough, Bin Laden is more valuable alive to an administration built around a war on terrorism. He gives them something to focus on, like the USSR.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Facts . . .
"Clinton caused 9-11"
See, even MT agrees!
I am practicing to be a NYT reporter!:D
-
midnight Target: Reports on TV this morning that we had Bin Laden in our sights many times between January 2001 and up to 1 week before 9-11, but we failed to act due to turmoil over who should take the shot - CIA or the Pentagon.
And forgo the the benefits of War on Terror, invasion or Iraq, abrigement of that pesky Constitution?
Didn't you read the PNAC September 2000 report by the people who later become Bush' neo-con advisers that wished for a "Pearl Harbor" event to precipitate the desired changes in the world?
The Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/)
"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," September 2000. A Report of the Project for the New American Century. (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - like new Pearl Harbor.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - like new Pearl Harbor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
miko
Where, dear Miko, does that quote say that the PNAC, and by implicaiton, W's "neo-conservative advisers", wished for a new pearl harbor. Plain language interpretation reveals that quote as a factual statement that the transformation discussed will be a long one unless a cataclysmic event speeds things up. It in no way implies a desire for a new cataclysmic event without reading into it some very unsupporteable and nefarious motivation.
While I will give you the benefit of the doubt and suppose that you are loath to say that the "neo-conservative advisers" planned the catalysmic event, you're clear implicaiton is that those advisers know about 9/11 and did nothing to prevent it
Trouble is, I don't recall any reports of black helicopters flying around the WTC or Pentagon or Pennsylvania on 9/11.
-
The Clinton haters posted that Bill messed up not taking out Usama when he had the chance , now the Bush fanatics arent giving equal treatment?:}
:eek:
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I read that the SAS had Bin Laden cornered at one point in Afghanistan but were pulled from taking him out because the Pentagon deemed such a move to be 'too dangerous'. Probably only partly true.
Alhough, Bin Laden is more valuable alive to an administration built around a war on terrorism. He gives them something to focus on, like the USSR.
if theyre talkin after 11SEP01 then its not true at all. not an ounce of truth in that story. think about it for a sec. theyve got him cornered but its "too dangerous" to take him out? did they leave all their comms gear with the whiskey and beer and marshmallows back by the fire? :) didnt couldnt wouldnt have happened.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Reports on TV this morning that we had Bin Laden in our sights many times between January 2001 and up to 1 week before 9-11, but we failed to act due to turmoil over who should take the shot - CIA or the Pentagon.
:rolleyes:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90318,00.html
it's not that simple midnight, here is the link.
-
Didn't you read the PNAC September 2000 report by the people who later become Bush' neo-con advisers that wished for a "Pearl Harbor" event to precipitate the desired changes in the world?
Well golly! Who hasn't!
-
clinton did not have a chance to "take out" binladen, the sudan was kicking binladen out and asked the USA if they wanted custody, clinton said no.
-
Originally posted by john9001
..., clinton said no.
as OBL didn't have anything slick wanted - cigar humpin interns or drugs
-
clinton authorized ops to go after obl.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
clinton authorized ops to go after obl.
Yeppers, but Dubya wouldn't until the you know what hit the you know what.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Yeppers, but Dubya wouldn't until the you know what hit the you know what.
thats not true. i think you know it isnt true also. :) from what ive heard from guys who went on to work at high levels the 11SEP01 attacks took place before "transition" was complete. the new admin was still getting "brought up to speed" on all the details on all the evil dudes in the world. the cic dont make the call unless the advisors who have "been in the mud" advise that the call can and should be made. this is good. when this doesnt happen you get the bay of pigs. all politics aside if any cic gets briefied by the intel guys that evil dude x is out to hurt america and we can have a swipe at him i dont think any cic would say "no". carter was pretty mellow but he sent the boys in after the hostages. a good call doomed by bad luck.
-
MT,
I'm afraid anonymous is right, at least in large part. And, you know that I know. I got there on 9/18.
That said, I for one want much more aggressive but more focused direct action. But, that's just me.
:D
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
MT,
I'm afraid anonymous is right, at least in large part. And, you know that I know. I got there on 9/18.
That said, I for one want much more aggressive but more focused direct action. But, that's just me.
:D
got where on 9/18?
-
Of course I know that you know that he knows. What you don't know is that I knew he knew that I knew that you knew.
Now where did I leave that tackle box?
-
Originally posted by anonymous
got where on 9/18?
Won't say on this BBS and/or to anyone named "anonymous."
Heck, you might be Jayson Blair!!!!!!:D
-
.
NM
-
Man...I shoulda voted for Gore.
BTW....what's it like livin in a perfect world?
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
Won't say on this BBS and/or to anyone named "anonymous."
Heck, you might be Jayson Blair!!!!!!:D
how could you ever be so low to call someone youve never met a "reporter"? :) im the anti reporter. im in the armed forces. im the guy that always makes sure to verify "we still cant shoot reporters, can we?". :) i was asking if you were in afghanistan on 9/18.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
.
NM
TY MT
-
Originally posted by anonymous
how could you ever be so low to call someone youve never met a "reporter"? :) im the anti reporter. im in the armed forces. im the guy that always makes sure to verify "we still cant shoot reporters, can we?". :)
I like that! :D
-
it was somethin like a year after the amphib landings in somalia before some of the guys saw the news footage. if you remember a force recon officer staring at a couple of reporters like hes sure hes in the middle of some freaky bad dream. answering a couple of questions but you can see on his face his brain is still trying to process "am i really talking to reporters that are following my guys as they try to stash the boat?". i know that guy. he took alot of **** for a long time from guys that knew him. especially over the answer when the reporter asks if they can FOLLOW HIS PATROL as they go otb and with that same "is this really happening to me? why lord, why? was it that virgin hm i desecrated on the ship last tuesday night?" and he looks at the reporter and says "uhm, no". he really got razzed. "can't avoid a news crew during a night infil" and "lookout those cnn guys are DEADLY once the sun goes down i hope we never have to mess with them". so i dont like reporters. he doesnt either. :)
-
Heh republicans complained that Clinton *attempted* to deal with Bin Laden. Have some here short memory?
'In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
A little later of course, he was accused of not doing enough. Heh, a rock and a hard place.
And now it turns out there was a shot under Dubya's administration.
What I am trying to say; they both did their best given the circumstances. It gets very complicated when politics are involved and it cannot just be settled like we settle disputes in everyday life. Give both dudes some slack there.
-
I'm still having a hard time remembering all the Republican congressional outrage during the Clinton administration over his lack of more serious action concerning Bin Ladin. The calls to invade Afghanistan and get his bellybutton once and for all, or to kill him at all costs.
I can't even remember it being a campaign issue other than, as I recall, a general Republican desire to reduce foreign entanglements.
I don't recall any popular groundswell of anti Bin Ladin activity after either the first WTC attack or the Cole incident. Most, Republican and Democrats alike, politicians or useless "Web marketing professionals" seemed rather preoccupied with the "New Economy" and their Worldcom and Enron shares.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to start pointing finger now?
Charon
-
Pretty much agreed Charon, except I heard lots of talk of Clinton trying to create a sitation so that the attention would go from the Monica Lewinsky deal.
Definitely right about the fingerpointing.