CIA found Osama bin Laden in 2000: USA did Nothing

[MetalBoy]

Good article here.


The CIA had pictures. Why wasn’t the al-Qaida leader captured or killed?
By Lisa Myers
Senior investigative correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:01 p.m. ET March 16, 2004As the 9/11 commission investigates what Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush might have done to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, one piece of evidence the commission will examine is a videotape secretly recorded by a CIA plane high above Afghanistan. The tape shows a man believed to Osama bin Laden walking at a known al-Qaida camp.


The question for the 9/11 commission: If the CIA was able to get that close to bin Laden before 9/11, why wasn’t he captured or killed? The videotape has remained secret until now.

Over the next three nights, NBC News will present this incredible spy footage and reveal some of the difficult questions it has raised for the 9/11 commission.

In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing killed six people.

In 1998, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa killed 224.

Both were the work of al-Qaida and bin Laden, who in 1998 declared holy war on America, making him arguably the most wanted man in the world.

In 1998, President Clinton announced, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.”

NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.

Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.

Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden? NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. “You see a tall man…. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.”

Bin Laden is 6 foot 5. The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.

‘It’s dynamite. It’s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn’t happen every day.’


Another clue: The video was shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live. The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches secret U.S. intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.

“It’s dynamite. It’s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn’t happen every day.… I guess you could say we’ve done it once, and this is it,” Arkin added.

The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.


“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”

In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.

NBC News contacted the three top Clinton national security officials. None would do an on-camera interview. However, they vigorously defend their record and say they disrupted terrorist cells and made al-Qaida a top national security priority.

“We used military force, we used covert operations, we used all of the tools available to us because we realized what a serious threat this was,” said President Clinton’s former national security adviser James Steinberg.

One Clinton Cabinet official said, looking back, the military should have been more involved, “We did a lot, but we did not see the gathering storm that was out there.”

[SeanAshi]

Blame Bill Clinton

[Maverick77]

Would of been good....

but theres obviously a hell of a lot more to Al Qeada than just Bin Laden.

[Ratamacue]

Blame Bill Clinton

For fvck's sake, why is it that people feel to need to blame every single thing ever done wrong or not done at all on Bill Clinton? I don't like Blinton but dammit, he's not the only person to have ever ****ed up anything in foreign policy.

[usa320]

No, this was definately Bill Clinton's fault.

He had MANY (read: in excess of 5) opportunities where he could have DEFINATELY NETTED OSAMA. instances where they knew where he was, exactly. The CIA had plans drafted, the D teams were ready to go, and at the last minute Bill Clinton himself called up the CIA and told them to scrub the missions because he was afraid of the political fallout.

[mocking_loudly_died]

Blame Bill Clinton

For fvck's sake, why is it that people feel to need to blame every single thing ever done wrong or not done at all on Bill Clinton? I don't like Blinton but dammit, he's not the only person to have ever f*** up anything in foreign policy.

Cause it's easy and fun.

[Tane Angle]

Yeah, I'm no fan of Clinton, for this, for Somalia, Rwanda, not doing more for Scott Spiecher, etc. I don't even particularly care about the whole *** scandal bit so much as some of his policies. However, I do take issue with him being used as an example of all Democrats. Kerry is not Clinton. Just as Bush is no Abe Lincoln. Let's take each person one at a time, no?

While I agree with some of the other comments, I give props to Ratamacue for thinking for himself. Yeah, Clinton messed up bad. Let's blame him. But let's blame everyone equally, no scapegoats, ok?

I still want to know why we are not proactively preventing terrorism, particularly in terms of funding, refuge, and recruitment. We simply aren't doing it. Why not? Is it not better to prevent an attack from ever happening than to have to seek revenge?

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

[seruriermarshal]

Blame Bill Clinton

Yes , Blame Bill Clinton .

[Kilgor]

Blame clinton and liberal appeasement

[FallenAngel]

I still want to know why we are not proactively preventing terrorism, particularly in terms of funding, refuge, and recruitment. We simply aren't doing it. Why not? Is it not better to prevent an attack from ever happening than to have to seek revenge?

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

Simple answer- we don't have enough troops for that. Saudi money buys (bought?) a lot of terrorist material. Iran allows arms and people to freely join terrorist organizations and kicks out UN weapons inspectors. Egypt, Syria, Lebenon and Jordan all have terrorists living there. The Philipines/ Malaysia area is infested with terrorist.

Not to mention...

You have drug cartels in central/south America which cause de-facto civil wars with the established governments, Civil War and genocide in Africa, a psychopath for a leader of N. Korea.

Where do you start? Most of Europe (and the UN for that matter) is comfortable letting the rest of the world go to hell in a hand-basket as long as their asses are safe (there are exceptions). Russia has no economy and what little they have is tied up in Chechnya. The Indian and Pakistani armies don't trust eachother enough (yet) to cooperate.

Where do you start? :|

[MetalBoy]

We should start spheres of influence on the war on terror :D . America and Britain hunt down terrorists in the Mid East. Germany, France and the rest of Europe will fight terrorists in Africa. Spain and South American countries fight terrorists in central and South America. Australia and New Zealand fight terrorists in South East Asia.

[front]

"Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden."

"Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden."

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! The same clever chaps in suits(mod edit) who sold us the "WMD in Iraq" claims maybe?

Please.... if you decide to post this type of article on this board then at least give us the benefit of the doubt if we tend to not take it without a pinch of salt?

cheers

front

[TALOS]

"Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden."

"Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden."

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! The same ****s who sold us the "WMD in Iraq" claims maybe?

Please.... if you decide to post this type of article on this board then at least give us the benefit of the doubt if we tend to not take it without a pinch of salt?

cheers

front
Yes, but that goes both ways, pretty much anything said on these boards even if backed up could be taken with a grain of salt by the people who disagree.
Seems everyone just likes disagreeing

[Quon Sen Hutt]

Robert Torricelli intelligence reforms said to damage CIA

The Central Intelligence Agency's ability to gather intelligence in the Middle East has been injured by reforms triggered in 1995 by then-Rep. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.), members of the House Intelligence Committee said last week.

In the wake of disclosures by Torricelli that a Guatemalan colonel linked to the murder of an American was on the CIA payroll, the agency fired one-third of its informants - roughly 1,000 "assets" - and instituted new rules on the recruitment of sources.

Some of the assets were fired because of poor production, but others were fired for criminal activity that could have proved embarrassing to the United States if uncovered.

"The focus of Congress at the time was on Mr. Torricelli's actions and whether he had violated ethics rules, not on the CIA," said Rep. Larry Combest (R-Texas), who chaired the Intelligence Committee at the time.

Nonetheless, voters and editorial boards across the country were outraged, and President Clinton joined the fray, threatening to fire "on the spot" any CIA agent who had failed to pass along information about the colonel, Julio Roberto Alpirez.

"Sen. Torricelli feels it is imperative in a democracy for there to be some accountability within the intelligence community," spokeswoman Debra DeShong said. "The directive merely made certain that, if the United States were to engage in a relationship with someone who has committed human rights abuses, the decision would be made by a senior official."

After conducting a review of his agency's operations, Director of Central Intelligence John Deutch fired informants - including Middle Easterners - who had dirty hands and directed his field operatives to clear questionable recruits with Washington.

The so-called "agent scrub" has had a "dampening effect" on the agency's ability to gather intelligence in Afghanistan, Iran and other nations that sponsor terrorism, said Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Goss was quick to note that the extent of the damage is hard to measure, since "you don't know what you don't know."

The vice chairman of the committee, Rep. Douglas Bereuter (R-Neb.), explicitly linked current intelligence shortcomings to the reforms.

"I think you can trace it back to the Deutch guidelines," Bereuter said. "The Deutch guidelines had a devastating effect on intelligence gathering. They've had a chilling effect on the recruiting efforts of field agents. While the chiefs say that no [recruitment] request has ever been denied, it's very clear from talking to agents that they don't want to risk their reputation or promotability by promoting the recruitment of someone with dirty hands. And it is nigh impossible to penetrate these organizations unless we have people who have been involved with them."

Rep. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Defense, said that Deutch's reforms resulted from Torricelli's disclosures.

"The Guatemala revelations completely changed everything," Chambliss said. "They started a chain reaction that led directly to [the Deutch guidelines]."

Though Congress initially focused on Torricelli's actions, public opinion was strong enough to force several investigations into the matter.

"The pressure came from a lot of different sectors: from Congress, from the private sector, and from the intelligence community itself," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), who sits on the Intelligence Committee.

In the wake of the scandal, the station chief in Guatemala and the director of Latin American operations were fired, which critics say sent a message to operatives not to take recruitment risks.

Democrats on the Intelligence Committee weren't as quick to blame intelligence failures on guidelines intended to prevent human rights abuses.

"There is no one single thing they can point to and say, 'This has prevented us from recruiting,'" said Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.), emphasizing that the CIA shouldn't have carte blanche. "The guidelines do need to be changed. But we can't give informants a 'get out of jail free' card. They can't be able to say, 'Hey, I'm working for the CIA' and then get away with rape, pillage and murder."

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), ranking member on the Terrorism Subcommittee, wasn't sure whether intelligence gathering in the Middle East has been injured by the reforms.

"It's hard to say how it has been affected," Harman said. "The blame game is always a favorite around here. But the important thing is preventing [terrorist attacks] from happening again."

The CIA maintains that the guidelines haven't harmed recruiting, and Torricelli, now a senator, stands by the rules. But members of the Intelligence Committee plan to introduce legislation directing the CIA to rescind them.

"I was very much opposed to what Mr. Torricelli did," Combest said.

"Intelligence gathering is a nitty-gritty, dirty business, and you have to work with the kind of people you might not have over for dinner."

[front]

TALOS wrote:

"Yes, but that goes both ways, pretty much anything said on these boards even if backed up could be taken with a grain of salt by the people who disagree."

Most certainly.

However your argument is bankrupt if you say that anyone on this board had the power to send 150,000 odd soldiers off to war. Without a pinch of salt.

We did not. THEY did.

You see TALOS... I can write and write and write on this board... and no-one will die if I get it wrong.

But, in light of this thread and the argument I posed about the "intelligence analysts", they can write and write and write,.... and when they get it worng people do die.

And they have died.

So when I hear a few years later that "intelligence analysts" tell us that a "tall figure in flowing white robes" might have been 'bin Laden' then I'll prefer not to believe it. They've got it wrong up to this point. I'm not going to subscribe to a change-in-course right now... thanks. :-)

cheers

front

[LordHalbert]

Bill was more interested in chasing young interns with low self-esteem rather than Osama :lol:

[fantassin]

[quoteWe should start spheres of influence on the war on terror[/quote]

That has started long ago; look at what just happened in Chad when a band of moslem terrorist has just been destroyed. Do you really think that the French secret services (DGSE) looked on and remained idle...?

France is already playing that role in Africa and it started long before 9/11; it intensified when Khaddafi ordered a French DC10 to be blown out of the sky killing 189 in 1989 and has not stopped since.

[Tane Angle]

FallenAngel, true, but I'm not looking for the Marine Corps so much as the Peace Corps. I'm looking for humanitarian aid to avoid 1920s Germany-type situations. Hope is the antidote to terrorist recruiting. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[RomanS]

Clinton supported Chechen terrorists with money, satelite shots of Russian bases, and sponsored many of their operations during the first Chechen war.

After 9-11 George W.Bush recognized Clinton's Chechen freedom fighters as terrorists.

GO BUSH 04!

[usa320]

Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:34 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden."

"Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden."

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! The same ****s who sold us the "WMD in Iraq" claims maybe?



SEE FOR YOURSELF, You really good looking person ;) (Mod edit)



http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/03/17/predator.video/story.nbc.drone.video.laden.jpg

Thats him, the tall man in the white robes, surrounded by his hired goons...

Photo taken in 2000 at Tarnak farm in Afghanistan. Caught by a predator. Unfortunately, this is before predators were armed, so an airstrike wouldnt be able to hit the facility for some 7 hours... Its that that lead to the putting hellfires on predators. There was however a contingent of Afghan opposition fighters IN POSITION and READY to take down the farm, but because he FEARED colateral damage after the Chinese Embassy fiasco fallout, Clinton wouldnt give the go on the raid.

[Argyll]

Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:34 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden."

"Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden."

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! The same ****s who sold us the "WMD in Iraq" claims maybe?



SEE FOR YOURSELF, Ya Handsome devil you**Mod edit



http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/03/17/predator.video/story.nbc.drone.video.laden.jpg

Thats him, the tall man in the white robes, surrounded by his hired goons...

Photo taken in 2000 at Tarnak farm in Afghanistan. Caught by a predator. Unfortunately, this is before predators were armed, so an airstrike wouldnt be able to hit the facility for some 7 hours... Its that that lead to the putting hellfires on predators. There was however a contingent of Afghan opposition fighters IN POSITION and READY to take down the farm, but because he FEARED colateral damage after the Chinese Embassy fiasco fallout, Clinton wouldnt give the go on the raid.


I'd strongly suggest you edit the foul language !!!!

And how in the fok can you say for sure that is OBL............you can't

[scm77]

A tall man with a white robe and a long beard. Probably is Bin Laden, but that again it could be jesus.

[HELEX]

So just a simple Question: Was this Predator armed? Most of them are not... especially in year 2000...

Was there a US-Base near to start a Fighter? The country wasnt occupied at this time... They still had some old but working Airdefense systems... It would have been an act of war...

Was a ship in this area armed with Tomahawks? How long travels a Tomahawk to a target 500km or more away? Will he be there when it hits?

But blame Clinton... http://toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/cherrytree.htm

[ibstolidude]

So just a simple Question: Was this Predator armed? Most of them are not... especially in year 2000... Already been addressed. - however where other options available.

Was there a US-Base near to start a Fighter? actually yes likely the country wasnt occupied at this time... They still had some old but working Airdefense systems... yeah they were inept - very ineffective and avoidable It would have been an act of war... as opposed to invading afghanistan

Was a ship in this area armed with Tomahawks? wasn't there? and why only tomahawks? How long travels a Tomahawk to a target 500km or more away? Yes and actually th US possess the capability to launch from 600km to in excess of 2000km -more appropriate is what is the range of the predator? Will he be there when it hits?

But blame Clinton... http://toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/cherrytree.htm - no more so than you are willing to blame Bush for any things that goes wrong during his tenure...- you are so quick to blame Bush and so quick to defend Clinton - you are too biased to offer anything but opinion. I blame both - such is the life of a president

I would be inclind to question the validity of the video than anything

[George W. Bush]

Damn you Clinton!!! Because of you we are all paying now!

[Trigger]

Argyll wrote:

I'd strongly suggest you edit the foul language !!!!

front wrote:

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! The same ****s who sold us the "WMD in Iraq" claims maybe?

Hear, hear. p-)

[mocking_loudly_died]

If you need to say the *c* word, spell it like this: cnut.
:D

[Gordon]

Wasn't George Bush in power for around eight months before 9/11 (correct me if the dates are wrong). Anyway, can someone enlighten me as to all the anti-terrorist undertakings he sanctioned during this time. Sure Clinton had eight odd years to fight Al-Queada but if Bush is as great as many of you say he is how come he didn't take any action against Al-Queada before 9/11, he had access to the intelligence etc.

[HELEX]

Found this on CNN:


The possibility that the figure in the tape might have been bin Laden helped speed the decision to arm the Predator drone aircraft with "Hellfire" missiles, which can be fired by remote control, officials said.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials say CIA surveillance aircraft video that they think shows Osama bin Laden in 2000 was "highly classified," and that the CIA will investigate who leaked it to the media.



@ibstolidude

"wasn't there? and why only tomahawks?"

What other Missile is available with the needed range? Only Tomahawk...

"Yes and actually th US possess the capability to launch from 600km to in excess of 2000km"

It was a question about the time for the Missile to get there, and the old Missiles couldnt be updated with new target Data in Flight.

From CNN:


In 1998, President Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on suspected terrorist training camps in eastern in Afghanistan where intelligence suggested bin Laden might be. In the time it took for the cruise missiles to reach their target, officials say bin Laden moved to another location. That attack killed at least 21 Pakistanis, but missed bin Laden.


Look at a Map, from which Base the Fighter??? The Missile would have to fly over Pakistan or Iran....

Look at a ****ing map of this area!

They had no Option!!!

[Argyll]

Argyll wrote:

I'd strongly suggest you edit the foul language !!!!

front wrote:

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! The same ****s who sold us the "WMD in Iraq" claims maybe?

Hear, hear. p-)

the fact that it is in Capitals also pisses me off,why use the C word,when calling him a Prick has the same effect?

[usa320]

Bush was going to strike Afghanistan with or without 9-11...

The draft attack plan was on his desk that monday morning to be signed off on...and thats a fact.

9-11 merely upped the pace of the preperations.

As for that shot that had at bin Laden- the closest fighter aircraft were more than likely in the Persian Gulf or Kuwait...about 1,200 miles from the target. But seeing as they would have had to fly around Iran to avoid detection, the airplanes wouldnt be over target for probably 7 hours or so.

The carrier battle group was in the Persian gulf, so tomahawks too would have to pass over iran. And that wouldnt arrive on target for nearly 10-12 hours. And TLAMS are for use against STATIONARY targets. They wouldnt be able to target bin laden like a TV or Laser guided missile could.

Hellfires werent equipped onto Predators until 2001.

While options for an airstrike on him in this opportunity were out of the question, reports say that the CIA had operatives with Northern Alliance forces in position and waiting to attack the Tarnak farm compound, which would have caught bin laden, but again, bill clinton was to limp wristed to give the order.

[ibstolidude]

Found this on CNN:


The possibility that the figure in the tape might have been bin Laden helped speed the decision to arm the Predator drone aircraft with "Hellfire" missiles, which can be fired by remote control, officials said.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials say CIA surveillance aircraft video that they think shows Osama bin Laden in 2000 was "highly classified," and that the CIA will investigate who leaked it to the media.



@ibstolidude

"wasn't there? and why only tomahawks?"

What other Missile is available with the needed range? Only Tomahawk...

"Yes and actually th US possess the capability to launch from 600km to in excess of 2000km"

It was a question about the time for the Missile to get there, and the old Missiles couldnt be updated with new target Data in Flight.

From CNN:


In 1998, President Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on suspected terrorist training camps in eastern in Afghanistan where intelligence suggested bin Laden might be. In the time it took for the cruise missiles to reach their target, officials say bin Laden moved to another location. That attack killed at least 21 Pakistanis, but missed bin Laden.


Look at a Map, from which Base the Fighter??? The Missile would have to fly over Pakistan or Iran....

Look at a f*** map of this area!

They had no Option!!!
WOW your powers of deduction really do suck.

Try again looking at all the questions you posed including the ranges then look again at the range of the Predator.

Perhaps then you can figure out the situation....
- or perhaps he fact that I have worked in the stans could give me little clearer perception than your bias - ofcourse it also helped to have a little better knowledge of the predator UAV

[ibstolidude]

I never stated that the strikes should have happened or should not .... I simply called you on your horsecrap. Whether I agree or disagree with what Clinton should or should not have done is irrelevant.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/strike_back.htm
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/strike_back_n.htm


Well HOLY **** LOOK AT THAT...

hey was A-stan on the list...I'll be damned it was... we bombed it too.
Perhaps Tarnak is too far from Khost where the predominant number of previous targets were located - try a map. Hey I wonder how the missiles got there? Teleport? no - well damn they flew over Pakistan!

We must have been bombing the the terrorist camps in order to make room for the pipeline. - dolt.

Hey whats the predator's range again?

[Haiw]

I have totally no idea about the Predators range, but thinking it can't be incredibly far, I think you mean to say the Predator was launched from inside Afghanistan, and that US troops were in-country?

[TALOS]

Argyll wrote:

I'd strongly suggest you edit the foul language !!!!

front wrote:

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! The same ****s who sold us the "WMD in Iraq" claims maybe?

Hear, hear. p-)

the fact that it is in Capitals also pisses me off,why use the C word,when calling him a Prick has the same effect?
I think the point he was making Argyl is that you appear to only be interested in one person editing their language while the other is not edited.

[budanski]

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! The same clever chaps in suits(mod edit) who sold us the "WMD in Iraq" claims maybe?

The The WMD intelligence did not exclusively come from U.S. or the U.K. The intelligence were from UN inspections. The U.S. wasnt alone in believing there were WMD in Iraq. As I recalled, France and its axis of weasels signed onto Res. 1441. Indicating that Saddam had these weapons but were more reluctant on acting on its trading partner. What was turned in were fragmented documents of weapons but no mention of other WMD known to exist when the United Nations was booted out of Iraq in 1998.

The only thing that can be said for now is that the intelligence was bad. Even so, we are quick to jump to conclusions and say where are the WMDs? where are the WMDs? George Bush wasnt alone in believing in the intelligence given to him. With him were Clinton, Annan, Chirac, Schroeder, Putin, and everyone else in the world. The U.S., along with the U.K., were the only ones who felt a need to do something about it.

Also, its been almost 60 years since the end of WW2 and still we are now discovering Japanese WMD stockpiles buried in China. It took almost a decade to find out the fate of Adolf Hitler after WW2. Whether the Iraq War was justified or not in the eyes of the US critics, it still served Bush a win in the overall scheme of things in the War on Terrorism. Can you explain Libya's change of heart? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=703&e=4&u=/ap/20040315/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_libya_nuclear) You anti-war (anti-bush) zealots should be glad it was settled in a "bloodless" manner.

[usa320]

i Concur with budanski...

There was KNOWN AND TAGGED WMD, of which the position was known as of 2001. Yet as soon as the war began all of it suddenly disappears... Now if they destroyed it, why not just show that proof to the world or do what Libya did.

Im sorry, i remain confident that Iraq DID have stockpiles of Chemical agents as late as February of 2002. It is in that month that large truck convoys were seen leaving superphosphate plants north of baghdad and heading west. I am 100% positive that even if there werent stockpiles, Iraq still had the capacity to make chemical and biological weapons on EXTREMELY short notice, and had the ability to make nuclear weapons or at least radioactive weapons in months.

But that is only one reason that the war has brought us there. i think the human rights abuses and funding of terrorism was reason enough.


In regards to the range of the Predator, It has a range of 400nm and can loiter for quite a long time over target. But back in 2000 this was relatively new technology. Now they have a longer loiter time, better equipment and AGM-114's.

Now, the range of the predators is some 400 miles, so the predator which took that film must have been based in Either Pakistan or Iran, and i think we all known its highly unlikely that it came from Iran. It could have even come from a rought field strip in Afghanistan itself. The CIA by 2000 had somewhat of an extensive network in Afghanistan, which lead to the Turnak farm intelligence, and would have lead to the raid to catch bin laden had Clinton authorized it. But as far as i am concerned, the Predator more than likey came from pakistan. We more than likely had SF and recon assets in Pakistan at the time, but the nearest fighter planes were in Kuwait and the Persian Gulf. Quatar. Bahrain. Thousand miles away. The only practical way we could have made it there to bomb it in time would require F-117's to take off from Quatar and refuel somewhere over the strait of Hormuz, before flying over Iran, hitting their targets, refuelling over the Indian ocean and flying back. Flying around Iran would take many hours more.

We really shouldnt specualte any further in regards to this, as the video is still HIGHLY classified and should never have been released, and whoever leaked it is in deep ****.

[usa320]

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/strike_back.htm
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/strike_back_n.htm


This is true, but the attacks had little effect. They involved a number of TLAM's hitting terrorist camps in Sudan and Afghanistan. It wasnt until Bush got into office that true war plans were written to launch the attack on afghanistan that we saw.

[Tane Angle]

Crash the drone.

By the way, since no one since FallenAngel has replied, I take it that we are in agreement that we are not doing much to stem recruitment by terrorist groups in places like sub-Saharan Africa? If I'm just getting ignored, that's ok by me, just wondering.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[budanski]

Arent you used to being ignored by now? ;)

[usa320]

Crashing the drone would not only blow a few million bucks (though it would be worth it), but there were only a handful of these things around back then, and the chances of actually hitting the bastard arent that great.

[Maverick77]

We all know that if the predator came into position to fire its missles then the great holy warriors of Al Qeada would of destroyed it with RPG fire. God Willing

Al Qeada's response would be something along those lines.

[the_spec]

@Tane Angle:
I agree with you. I don't think that the solution to the terrorist problem is to go through the world and try to kill every terrorist, that only works in movies. Violence is a quick and easy way to handle things, but it might not pay off in the future. The next generation might has to deal with those who suffer from destruction by the US and allies right now.

[Gordon]

Bush was going to strike Afghanistan with or without 9-11...

The draft attack plan was on his desk that monday morning to be signed off on...and thats a fact.

9-11 merely upped the pace of the preperations.

You know this how; because actually you're his defence sectretary masquerading as usa320. It may well be the case that he did, but don't forget that you've been slagging off Clinton for not sending in Delta to capture Osama, or sending a tomahawk his way, did Bush not also have this chance in his first eight months of presidency? Maybe he didn't, maybe during that time the CIA never picked up a tall bloke wearing flowing white robes, surrounded by goons, on their predators .... I don't know.

As to the whole range of predators thing, does it matter, according to most of the people on this site, who blame Clinton for not killing Osama, they also bring in the fact that snatch teams were waiting on the sidelines to grab Osama on the word "go". Obviously Clinton didn't make use of this, but then why didn't Bush too?

We in general, bar a very few exceptions on this site, do not have any insight into the workings of government on this issue. As far as I see it Clinton had more chances to turn this around, but Bush must have had his chances too, pre 9/11; why do you not blame him also for not acting, surely he was privy to all the intelligence that Clinton was, and did not act on it.

Yes, the intelligence regarding Iraq was bad, I do not blame Bush, Blair or any other leaders involved for reacting to intelligence that turned out to be wrong. Leaders of countries are subject to what they are told, just like your average joe on the street, except they have a little more responsibility. I am saying, though, that if this intelligence on Al-Queada was so blatant to the Clinton Administration, surely it was blatant to the Bush administration, hence why did they not act on it earlier.

As for what Tane Angle has been saying about the lack of action to stem recruitment for terrorist groups: Personally I believe there has not been enough done, that the public knows about anyway. You do not have to have a war to achieve this and for all I know it has been going on and we do not know about it.

edit - for spelling, making it easier to read for y'all.

[Tane Angle]

I was half-kidding about the drone. p-)

But yes, I am sorry to say that Bush cut funding for AIDS assistance, including ***. ed., for Africa. This after he promised 15 billion dollars to fight AIDS in Africa in his State of the Union Address last year. AIDS destroys the social structure, Africa goes into chaos, nobody has hope, and without hope, people will listen to the first person to walk in the door offering them hope. Usually it's a Hitler or a Khomenei.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[budanski]

I was half-kidding about the drone. p-)

But yes, I am sorry to say that Bush cut funding for AIDS assistance, including ***. ed., for Africa. This after he promised 15 billion dollars to fight AIDS in Africa in his State of the Union Address last year. AIDS destroys the social structure, Africa goes into chaos, nobody has hope, and without hope, people will listen to the first person to walk in the door offering them hope. Usually it's a Hitler or a Khomenei.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Deja Vu?

We've seem to have returned to this issue again. Once again, blame Bush. The President proposes, Congress disposes (and funds). (http://www.dailytidings.com/2004/0121/012104b1.shtml)

Isnt one of the liberal talking points against Bush... blah blah blah defecit spending? I would think you'd all be for the end to "foreign welfare" (http://www.iht.com/articles/132161.html) if you guys really meant it.

I feel horrible for those suffering in Africa, but the wound is self inflicted. They're being infected by lifestyle, by choices, by ignorance. If Africa can not get people to understand this, especially after all these years of suffering, why should we subsidize a never ending problem?

First rule of liberalism:
You must believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding. Even though the AIDS virus is 100% preventable.