Bin Laden capture outsourced

[liberalmoron]

So, here is just one question I would like to hear someone respond to......

Is there a defense out there against the outsourcing of the Bin Laden attempted capture in the mountains of Tora Bora?

The only real response I can find to this is that "bringing down Bin Laden will not stop Al Qaeda"

Now, while this statement holds truth to it, wouldn't it have been a good idea to capture Bin Laden? Maybe it wouldn't have stopped terrorism all together, but it would have been a great step....and if it had happened I am sure the Bush campaign would be waving it around as a reason for reelection.

So, I ask as a question to the people on this board, are you wiling to admit that this was a mistake, or is there a legitimate response to the idea that letting Bin Laden go was a good idea?

[Matter]

OK, let's ask somebody who knows more about the situation than Kerry, me, you and most people...combined:

www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php

{excerpted}

On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we “outsourced” the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator’s understanding of events doesn’t square with reality.

First, take Mr. Kerry’s contention that we “had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden” and that “we had him surrounded.” We don’t know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.

Second, we did not “outsource” military action. We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is where Afghan mujahedeen holed up for years, keeping alive their resistance to the Soviet Union. Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels.

Third, the Afghans weren’t left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help - as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never “took his eye off the ball” when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist cells are operating in some 60 countries, and the United States, in coordination with dozens of allies, is waging this war on many fronts.

Do you agree that Tommy Franks is slightly more informed on the subject than John Kerry?

[liberalmoron]

Well, the source seems reliable, and of course there is the question of whether Bin Laden was in there or not (which can never be confirmed or denied), but even reading in between what Tommy Franks said, I still feel that President Bush did take his eye off the ball, and messed up in this situation. I'm sorry, I feel that the capture should have been the focal point of the war in Afghanistan, and that if a President Kerry or President Gore pulled the same move, the conservatives on this board would be screaming to high holy heaven.

[MO]

We still don't even know if he's buried under ten thousand pounds of rock in Tora Bora.

Clinton let him go three times. Clinton got in the middle of a civil war (without UN approval) on behalf of the side with connections to Bin Laden. The same terrorist (KLA) group that is giving money to the sKerry campaign.

Don't drink the media kool aid.

[Matter]

liberalmoron said:

Well, the source seems reliable, and of course there is the question of whether Bin Laden was in there or not (which can never be confirmed or denied), but even reading in between what Tommy Franks said, I still feel that President Bush did take his eye off the ball, and messed up in this situation.

You think Tommy Franks is a reliable source? You think John Kerry or John Edwards is more reliable?

I've got to see this answer.

I'm sorry, I feel that the capture should have been the focal point of the war in Afghanistan, and that if a President Kerry or President Gore pulled the same move, the conservatives on this board would be screaming to high holy heaven.

Hmmm, soooo you're still going to second-guess a fellow that has been there, done a fantastic job and has made a career of doing this?

No, you won't find me castigating our troops. I'm a veteran. I can tell you here and now that when President Clinton held office (I find him less than honorable in character)......I never secondg-guessed the troops, the leaders or even bad-mouthed President Clinton when he sent our troops somewhere.

Why?

Because the president gets his information from our military and if he made a decision to do something, I supported it 100% Those are my troops defending my country.