Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 238

• 0%

  ADAGUY3 months ago

  Regarding the headline,

  "Pakistan refuses to allow U.S. to search for Bin Laden"

  When did we start looking for him?

  Reply

  78 Replies

  • 0%

    Midnyte3 months ago

    That was my immediate thought also.

    Reply

    6 Replies

    • 0%

      capecoralM3 months ago

      Osama bin Laden is dead. The news first came from sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan almost six months ago: the fugitive died in December [2001] and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan. Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, echoed the information. The remnants of Osama's gang, however, have mostly stayed silent, either to keep Osama's ghost alive or because they have no means of communication.

      December [2001] he's looking pretty terrible.

      http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • 0%

        UnusualSuspect3 months ago

        Cape...

        Well, tell Bush then, please...

        Reply
      • 0%

        MRCOFFEECAKE3 months ago

        Yeah, ok..So those videos of him discussing the Madrid bombings and other timely events like the bodies being dragged into the streets in Fallujah in May 2004 were all from the grave..Righhhhttt!!

        Do you believe in the tooth fairy too???

        Cause I've never seen the tooth fairy, but I've seen BinLaden on film 7-8 times since your alleged death.

        Not even a nice try!..I'm sure someone will believe you.

        (maybe your psychiatrist IF he's a Republican)

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          capecoralM3 months ago

          I guess the official from the Taleban and the reporter from Egypt has a Republican psychiatrist.

          Translation of Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper:

          al-Wafd, Wednesday, December 26, 2001 Vol 15 No 4633

          News of Bin Laden's Death

          and Funeral 10 days ago

          Islamabad -

          A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa'da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa'da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            MRCOFFEECAKE3 months ago

            Ok, so he died over 6 years ago and they quietly acknowledged it, but continued pumping out videos pretending he was alive???..Riiiigght!

            Wanna buy a bridge?

            Reply
      • 0%

        Tcaros3 months ago

        Bin Laden was funded by the CIA ealier in Afghanistan. He infiltrated to the top of the Al Qaeda. Who knows maybe he still worked for them?

        After the 9/11 attacks he dissappeared. Attorney General Ashcroft speeded the "much" needed Patriot Act through which abridged Americans 4th Amendment rights. President Bush authorized a "secret" domestic eavesdropping program.

        The war in Iraq got rid of Saddam Hussein and made alot of people rich. Bush say's he's no longer looking for the mastermind.

        Do you see what really happened Cappecolla?

        Reply
  • 0%

    Justice4All3 months ago

    We didn't look for Bin Laden because the Bush regime did not want to find him. There would have been no way to sell this war to the American public if Bin Laden had been captured.

    Reply

    7 Replies

    • 0%

      Teech3 months ago

      Bin Laden was Dumbya's ticket to Iraq, his blank check to loot the American treasury, his seed bank to sow fear and terror in America. Bin Laden is the best thing Bush has going for him, and Bush is the best thing national terrorism has ever had going for it.

      Catch Bin Laden? And kill the goose that continues to lay golden eggs for the Neocons. Never happen on this watch. No profit in it for Repukes.

      Besides, Dumbya couldn't catch flies in a sh!thouse

      Reply
    • 0%

      ADAGUY3 months ago

      Nooooooooo!, Say it ain't so! The republikins' would never mislead us like that, damn that Goopy!

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • 0%

        FSU92grad3 months ago

        How do you know we're not looking for him, adalefty?

        Cause YOU say so? LOL!

        Here's an idea, maybe Bush and his evil cronies should call you and announce any top secret mission that we have goin on behind the scenes because you are "all wise" and we are not worthy...

        What a niccumpoop...

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 0%

          FSU92grad3 months ago

          Oh and adacrap...

          How long did it take to find the unabomber...You know Ted Kaczynski? Yea, that guy? Try 15 years...AND he lived here in the United States, mind you...

          You libs want something yesterday and I double-dog-dare you to go look for OBL yourself in the 3 million acres of dessert and caves...

          Please knock yourself out...Maybe if we're lucky, you find yourself a nice Buuka over there and a good Kurd woman to take care of your fat a$$....Only thing is your liberal commentary would not be tolerated as much over there...But then again, you didn't need that head of yours anyway...

          Head's up !

          LMAO !!!

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            MRCOFFEECAKE3 months ago

            You really enjoy picking fights, don't you?

            The una-bomber

            A) was not hiding in caves where Romans could easily find Jews 3,000 years ago, but the "greatest nation" in the world can't

            B) wasn't making videos and sending them to taunt his searchers

            C) wasn't followed around by 500-600 men at a time

            D) Wasn't 6'6" and on dyalisis..

            E) we never had a picture of the una-bomber

            Get the difference from your brilliant comparison?

            To want to catch BinLaden is not liberal, it is pro-American..

            To defend anyone's inability to catch him is anti-American.

            Whose side are you on??

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              FSU92grad3 months ago

              F.) Clinton didn't kill him when he had a chance and now it's Bush's fault...

              LOL!!!

              Not picking a fight, liberal...Just pointing out that a man that was sending bombs in the mail to people for 15 friggin years with the best intelligence in the world, with him living in our own land...A land we're pretty friggin' familiar with, took us 15 years to get him AND if it hadn't had been for his brother who recognized his manifesto, he still might be doing it today..The FBI couldn't find him...So, if you want to blame someone blame the intelligence agencies...or pick up an airline ticket and go look for him yourself...Until them shut your pie hole...You libs love to make it look so easy to find someone but you really have no clue...much like most of the stuff that comes out of your liberal mouth...

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                MRCOFFEECAKE3 months ago

                I'm not a liberal..or a conservative, but a lot closer to conservative (unless not being bothered by gays living together castigates me as a permanent liberal).

                But you are a name calling fight picking bully, aren't you?

                I'll stand on my comment, bully..Comparing an unknown fugitive to a world wide known video making terrorist is dumb.

                You love to arrogantly remind the world how we're the "greatest nation in the world", led by a president who said "we'll get him dead or alive".Why don't you start expecting a little more from that "greatest nation"?

                "GREATNESS" isn't supposed to come with excuses!

                (and name calling to all those who actually do want us to become great again).

                If Clinton had killed him, you thoughtless

                self-proclaimed conservatives, who wouldn't know a real conservative if they were sleeping with you would be forever blaming EVERY ensuing terrorist act on Clinton for picking a fight. Wouldn't you? Be honest for once.

                Reply
  • 0%

    Justice4All3 months ago

    Then theres Bush's decision to move troops from Iraq to Afghanastan. Brilliant. Pull out of a war he started based on lies just in time to capture Bin Laden before the election.

    If the US wanted to capture Bin Laden they would have done it by now.

    Reply

    56 Replies

    • 0%

      Endoscopy3 months ago

      There is the Liberal lie again. Bush lied. It is so easy to disprove it that they should know it is a lie but they have told it so often that they now believe it.

      Didn't look???

      How about that Navy Seal team that went in and all but one of them was killed?

      Why do you people love to lie?

      Reply

      34 Replies

      • 0%

        dissent3 months ago

        bush: "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

        http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03...

        Reply

        6 Replies

        • 0%

          splitrch3 months ago

          Speaking of liars - Bush tops the list. In fact it's the only thing he is not Bush-League at.

          Reply

          5 Replies

          • 0%

            Endoscopy3 months ago

            When Liberals call Bush a liar it is over the reason that we went to war with Iraq. No WMD's

            The Clinton Administration, congress, our intelligence agencies, other world leaders, their intelligence agencies, the Bush administration, same intelligence agencies, and same congress all said the same thing.

            Part of being a liar is knowing what you are saying is not true.

            So how did he convince all of those mentioned above BEFORE he was president of that lie?

            You libs give me a pain.

            Reply

            4 Replies

            • 0%

              Teech3 months ago

              Pain?

              Let's repeat the chimpster's exact words for the Repukes and Neocons who STILL have trouble with them.

              Bush: "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

              http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03...

              So, I guess this is some liberal plot to falsify information or to distort what President Bush, the idiot of all time, actually said?

              It is also a fact that Dumbya was just as concerned about warnings of a 9/11 type disaster which might possibly have been averted. The village idiot from Crawford has been derelict in each, every, and all duties of a President.

              Being a world-wide laughing stock is one thing, his willful bankrupting of a nation is quite another. Mission Accomplished.

              Reply
            • 0%

              miklkit3 months ago

              Here is a short list of links to your liar in chief.

              http://liesofbush.com/

              http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/ira...

              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488667/...

              http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/17987

              Reply
            • 0%

              MRCOFFEECAKE3 months ago

              No Bush is a "LIAR" about Scooter, about Gonzales, about his AWOL status and cocaine status when he was drafted, about the new medicare plan, about his efforts to lowere gas prices when just last December he was asked at a press conference about $4.00 gas and he said "really, I hadn't heard that"...

              When we talk about him regarding the WMD's he's an "F'n LYING

              SOB"..there's a difference...get your facts straight!

              Reply
            • 0%

              splitrch3 months ago

              How so/

              ? Ialways thought that a lack of brains meant no headaches.

              Reply
      • 0%

        wtagg3 months ago

        Could you respond to dissent's evidence? Someone appears to, at the very least, playing very liberally with the truth. Not that surprising from a liberal administration, is it?

        Could you provide documentation about the alleged seal team? It seems to me that a seal team, who I believe would be an almost gimme with their skill level, losing all but one man would indicate either that it is an urban myth or another situation of bad intel or sabotage.

        How can intel be so bad, so often?

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          Endoscopy3 months ago

          Correction it was close to the Pakistan border in Afghanistan.

          http://www.crushingchris.com/blog/?tag=seal-tea...

          Reply

          4 Replies

          • 0%

            ADAGUY3 months ago

            "it was close to the Pakistan border in Afghanistan"

            Sounds like a good reason to go into Iraq!

            Reply
          • 0%

            miklkit3 months ago

            That action was in 2005 and had nothing to do with OBL.

            Reply
          • 0%

            MRCOFFEECAKE3 months ago

            Oh well, then at least he tried. What is this the first grade?

            Reply
          • 0%

            wtagg3 months ago

            So, aside from the misdirection your faux pas provided to the discussion, I really find the decision-making of the seal team very questionable. It seems reasonable that the herders could have easily been detained until the goals of the team were fulfilled. Releasing them seems utterly stupid, something that Luttrell seems to agree with.

            No disputing the bravery of these men once engaged, but I'm not sure a democratic vote was the best course of action within a seal team. Releasing the herders was a mistake. They should have hog-tied them until the mission was over, then release them if they felt killing them was outside the ROE.

            Ironically, your contribution to this discussion really has nothing to do with it. This is how misinformation is delivered and believed. You've taken a true story and attempted to give it importance and context where it has none.

            Reply
      • 0%

        bubba23 months ago

        Bush did lie.

        TWO Senate investigations - by the REPUBLICAN controlled Senate - in 2005 and 2006 proved that all the reasons used to invade Iraq were FALSE.

        Two recent Pentagon reports also prove that all the reasons used to invade Iraq were FALSE.

        You DENY it so often that you have convinced only YOURSELF that you should not believe it.

        Reply

        7 Replies

        • 0%

          Endoscopy3 months ago

          There you go. You keep forgetting that to lie the person must know what they are saying is false. In any case with the yellow cake that was recently found there have been over 2000 other pieces of WMD ordinance recovered. They have been slowly been found a few at a time. Of course the Liberal MSM will not report this.

          Why??

          Reply

          6 Replies

          • 0%

            bubba23 months ago

            Where is your proof of all that "WMD" that has been found in Iraq??

            NONE of the stuff rediscovered in Iraq had any resemblance to "WMD". It was all determined to be at least 15 or more years old and UNUSABLE.

            Bush and Cheney DID know that what they were saying was false because they saw the real intelligence - they just didn't LIKE the real intelligence because it didn't fit their agenda.

            The "data" that they published to Congress and the public was THEIR version of "intelligence" and not the actual data.

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 0%

              Endoscopy3 months ago

              LOL

              It worked on the Kurds.

              Uranium ore is a prerequisite for WMD's.

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                miklkit3 months ago

                You should read the 2003 SotU address. There are hard numbers bandied about. Also something about yellow cake in Africa. Can you say Plame?

                http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01...

                http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/07/19/che...

                Reply
              • 0%

                MRCOFFEECAKE3 months ago

                Gee it's too bad we didn't have you around as an expert, you seem to know more than anyone. Or is it a case of yopu just pulling out any crap you can as a master apologist??

                Hmmm..I wonder.

                Reply
          • 0%

            MRCOFFEECAKE3 months ago

            Well thank you for sharing your very secretive news facts.

            QUICK..WAKE UP..YOU'RE DREAMIN!!

            Don't you know that Bush is the "perfect" President IN YOUR SLEEP? That is why you believe that "Mission was accomplished" through "shock and awe" and we dared them to "Bring it on" when in FACT our troops are still dying.

            That is because "Iraqui oil will pay for their stabilization"

            when in reality it costs US taxpayers $3billion/week.

            Those weren't lies, there really are parades for us in Iraq.

            (when they drag dead American bodies out and burn them)

            WAKE UP!!

            Reply
          • 0%

            raza93 months ago

            Coalition forces have found mainly degraded artillery shells. On June 21, 2006, United States Senator Rick Santorum claimed that "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons." According to the Washington Post, he was referring to 500 such shells "that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988." That night, "intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion." The shells had been uncovered and reported on in 2004.

            While various leftover weapons components from the 1980s and 1990s have been found, most weapons inspectors now believe that Iraq's chemical weapons program did indeed cease production after 1991.

            Reply
      • 0%

        Justice4All3 months ago

        Just because the facts do not support what you want to believe does not make everything a liberal lie.

        Why do you love to lie?

        Reply

        8 Replies

        • 0%

          Endoscopy3 months ago

          The big lie that liberals love to tout is Bush lied. Why do you REFUSE to keep in mind that the most of the worlds governments were saying the same "lie". Almost the whole congress under both Clinton and Bush were saying the same thing. But only Bush lied.

          Lying means you know what you are saying is false. Everyone was saying it but only Bush lied.

          And you wonder why I say liberals love to lie?

          Reply

          7 Replies

          • 0%

            pcknowledge3 months ago

            Bush did lie. Did you listen to Hans Blix's statements, and what he said prior to Bush's invasion into Iraq? Blix, and the other Weapons Inspectors said there was no evidence Saddam has the capability to produce WMD's. They inspected every little area in Iraq over a time period of many months.

            Reply
          • 0%

            bubba23 months ago

            Who is "everyone"?

            And you cannot drag the Clinton administration into it, because Bush's plans for Iraq happened long after Clinton was gone - such intelligence would be obsolete.

            Congress was saying what Bush said because Congress - like the rest of us and the rest of the world - had NO access to the ACTUAL intelligence which did NOT support any of Bush's reasons to invade Iraq.

            Bush DID lie because he DID know that everything he was saying was false.

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 0%

              Endoscopy3 months ago

              You mean he convinced the Clinton administration and all of the people in the world about that before he became president and everybody kept on saying the lie he told them after he became president. You ignore what was happening to Hans Blix. He was being given the run around and given a little rope here and there to keep him believing they would in the end cooperate. There was evidence of trucks taking something out of places a short time before he would arrive at the places.

              You want it to be a lie so you keep saying it is one. That does not make it so.

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                bubba23 months ago

                You do NOT want to admit Bush and his cronies lied, so you say it isn't so. But your saying it isn't so doesn't make it NOT so.

                IAEA inspectors were IN Iraq in March 2003 and WERE making progress. Bush told them to get out anyway and wouldn't listen to them.

                There was NO evidence of any "weapons" being trucked out of Iraq before the invasion. There have been a few so-called "stories" of that but NONE of them have ever been substantiated and NO evidence has ever been produced to support those 'accusations'.

                Reply
              • 0%

                bubba23 months ago

                Per raza9 (below) --

                Former CIA officials have stated that the White House knew before the invasion that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, but had decided to attack Iraq and continue to use the WMD story as a false pretext for launching the war (Sydney Morning Herald, April 22, 2006)

                Paul R. Pillar, a 28-year veteran of the CIA, holds that intelligence was "misused to justify decisions already made".

                Alleged links between Iraq and al-Qaeda were called into question during the lead up to the war, and were largely discredited by an October 21, 2004 report from U.S. Senator Carl Levin, which was later corroborated by an April 2006 report from the Defense Department's inspector general. These reports further alleged that Bush Administration officials, manipulated evidence to support links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

                Reply
          • 0%

            MRCOFFEECAKE3 months ago

            Now you're not just an apologist, you're a REVISIONIST.

            MOST of the world's governments were AGAINST us going into Iraq... Remember now??

            (unless you include Ghana, Botswana, Estonia, Poland, the UK,

            Spain, Aruba and the rest of the pathetic "coalition of the willing")..Oh yeah, is Spain there now??

            How many troops does Canada and new Zealand have there??

            Give it up already, you're sounding more pathetic with each word.

            Reply
          • 0%

            raza93 months ago

            Former CIA officials have stated that the White House knew before the invasion that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, but had decided to attack Iraq and continue to use the WMD story as a false pretext for launching the war (Sydney Morning Herald, April 22, 2006)

            Paul R. Pillar, a 28-year veteran of the CIA, holds that intelligence was "misused to justify decisions already made".

            Alleged links between Iraq and al-Qaeda were called into question during the lead up to the war, and were largely discredited by an October 21, 2004 report from U.S. Senator Carl Levin, which was later corroborated by an April 2006 report from the Defense Department's inspector general. These reports further alleged that Bush Administration officials, manipulated evidence to support links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

            Reply
      • 0%

        MRCOFFEECAKE3 months ago

        Why do you love to defend failure?

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          splitrch2 months, 4 weeks ago

          For Bush and his supporters failure is just another species of success. Repackage the mess, pound the message long enough and some morons will believe it.

          Reply
      • 0%

        raza93 months ago

        The evidence proving that the Iraq war was based on misinformation is plentiful. Two of the arguments used to justify the invasion of Iraq â;; the capability to produce and/or the possession of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda â;; have been found to be incorrect according to all subsequent official reports.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          raza93 months ago

          I meant to post the link for the above post

          http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85...

          Foreign Affairs - Intelligence, Policy,and the War in Iraq - Paul R. Pillar

          Reply
    • 0%

      jordan113 months ago

      Then theres Bush's decision to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan>>>>

      Why not? He moved troops from Afghanistan to Iraq a while back. Now Afghanistan is seeing more troop deaths than Iraq, as well as the deaths of Nato troops there. Afghanistan is sliding backwards. It has never been given the attention it should have. What a damn mess!

      Reply

      12 Replies

      • 0%

        pcknowledge3 months ago

        "Afghanistan is sliding backwards."

        Afghanistan has always been ruled by the Taliban, since the Soviets invaded the country. Afghanistan is neither sliding backwards nor moving forward. It's a war ravaged country located strategically in the Middle East. The Soviets and our government have always wanted to control the country. Our government build pipelines through Afghanistan. They will continue to fight our presence on their land, and there is no forseable end to it.

        Reply

        11 Replies

        • 0%

          jordan113 months ago

          When I said 'sliding backwards' I meant in terms of our handle on the terrorist situation. But thanks for the history lesson.

          Reply

          10 Replies

          • 0%

            pcknowledge3 months ago

            We never had a handle on the situation in Afghanistan. We shouldn't be interfering on their land in the first place. Our interference on their land is the root of all the problems we have been having with them.

            Reply

            9 Replies

            • 0%

              jordan113 months ago

              We were right to go to Afghanistan. We were wrong to move troops from there to Iraq.

              Reply

              8 Replies

              • 0%

                pcknowledge3 months ago

                We didn't accomplish anything in Afghanistan. And with the approach we have taken, we never will. Unless you count the few poppy fields we were able to secure.

                Reply

                7 Replies

                • 0%

                  doggammit3 months ago

                  I'm with you on this one pc. Afghanistan is all about pipeline and associatd geo-politics pure and simple. The rest is window dressing... and of course the Taliban didn't help their own cause any by violently imposing their tribal culture on Buddhists and other sects. That made it easy to label them a rogue state. So, almost overnight, they went from "freedom fighters" to "terrorists" as soon as the opportunity presented itself. On the whole, however, once the Russians retreated Afghanistan became a power vacuum for someone else to fill. That someone was us. Our invasion came on the heals of failed negotiations with Taliban leaders over oil issues. We asked for more than they were prepared to give. Apparently the terms were ludicrously one-sided - so, as with iraq, one must wonder at the opportunistic nature of our invasion there. As for OBL - at the time he offered a perfect excuse - though his reprise of the mythical bogeyman tales most of the untold tale, IMHO.

                  Reply

                  4 Replies

                  • 0%

                    Dionys3 months ago

                    "The rest is window dressing... and of course the Taliban didn't help their own cause any by violently imposing their tribal culture on Buddhists and other sects."

                    Tribal culture has always been a part of Afghanistan, including to the Buddhists and buddhist kingdoms in that area. The Taliban didn't violently impose their culture on Buddhists. Buddhists and Buddhism saw a sharp decline in the 16th century CE, far before the 'Taliban' had much influence, due to the influence of Islam.

                    The problem is that the US handed over 'control' to the warlords in Afghanistan and the warlords were (and are)basically big thugs who will sell out to whomever has the most money or power.

                    The other problem is that we keep ping-ponging troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and back again depending on where our 'strategies' are failing. Instead of picking one war or implementing a draft to cover the needed troop numbers.

                    Reply

                    1 Reply

                    • 0%

                      doggammit3 months ago

                      Agreed.. That's a better summation about the Taliban in relation to Budhism and other warlord tribal cultures than I gave Dionys. The Taliban targeted old icons - huge statues of Buddha left over from a previous age... an indication of their intolerance but nonetheless part of a tit for tat that is ages old and now splintered into a series of ever-evolving factions. Guns, money and power are the true religion of various groups operating all over that general territory. In some ways that sounds a lot like us. Incidentally, the history of the Silk Road is on my mind these days... As for troops being in Afghanistan - I can't accept any reason for that other than oil politics and the way we baited the Taliban at the negotiating table. OBL is a veritable Carmen San Diego. He could be living in Peru for all we know -and may not even be alive at all. For various reasons his capture would amount to a meaningless symbolic gesture and certain parallels could be drawn between OBL and Saddam.

                      Reply
                  • 0%

                    pcknowledge3 months ago

                    Our government doesn't give a damn if Afghanistan is ruled by the Taliban, the civilians, men, women, children or no-one. President's like Reagan just wanted to make sure they do business with us, & allow for the continued building of pipelines through Afghanistan into their neighbors. The Taliban won't play along with any foreigners, and the Soviets and Presidents like Reagan and Bush invade Afghanistan. The Taliban fight back. And history continues to repeat itself. They don't want to work with any foreigners. Our government wants them to work with us on our terms. How will we ever win on this issue?

                    Reply

                    1 Reply

                    • 0%

                      doggammit3 months ago

                      The Taliban and all the tribes of that area are old "horse traders" - willing to work with anyone if the terms and conditions appear equitable and fair. Neither Russia or America offered fair trade conditions - at least not mutually agreeable ones - so, in a way this is Saddam and Iraq redux - but on a smaller scale. We will simply have to learn that "take it or leave it" ultimatums and subsequent military pressure tactics are ******erproductive - maybe good for short term gain - but not much else. Build a pipeline today under the pall of those terms and watch it explode tomorrow. Not a recipe for stable flow of oil - but certainly a means of creating inflated blow back due to the added cost of defense and continual repair. The futility factor, the cost to the American taxpayer and military remains and open wound. Surely this outcome could have been predicted in advance... and probably was...

                      Reply
                • 0%

                  jordan113 months ago

                  We didn't accomplish anything in Afghanistan.>>>>

                  Cause all our resources were in Iraq.

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  MRCOFFEECAKE3 months ago

                  We went to Afghanistan because the entire world was with us in that endeavor because the Taliban defiantly refused to stop harboring the mastermind behind 9/11. We were attacked by BinLaden and we should have given pour best effort in Afghanistan, which we clearly did not. It is for all of those facts that we are still stuck in Afghanistan, have not found BinLaden and are indeed sliding backwards. We have been led by a half-assed idiot and he has done nothing properly.

                  The American taxpayers and military are continuing to pay for his bufoonery.

                  Reply
    • 0%

      Klarissa3 months ago

      so you want to make a martyr out of bin Laden - better that he dies of natural causes.

      Reply

      7 Replies

      • 0%

        bubba23 months ago

        HUH???

        Reply
      • 100%

        Sabretooth3 months ago

        "so you want to make a martyr out of bin Laden - better that he dies of natural causes."

        So now you do not want to fight the war on terrorism and hold those whom plotted 911 responsible? Geez i wish you bloody people could make up your minds before you kill thousands and displace millions. I would not let you run a hotdog stand let along the world's most powerful military.

        Reply
      • 0%

        CRYMTYPHON3 months ago

        So, Klarissa, you want to boil puppies in their mother's milk?

        No, you probably don't.

        And those who want to catch Bin Laden don't want to make him a martyr. They want to delete him from the list of people plotting against our country.

        In theory, so does Bush.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          miklkit3 months ago

          Maybe in theory, but apparently not in practice.

          Reply
      • 0%

        bigG3 months ago

        I certainly would love to make sure that he dies, naturally. And preferably very painfully.

        Do people of your ilk always like to see criminals go scott free until they die of "natural causes?"

        To hell with all of that "martyr" bs. He should be hunted down like a rabid animal and disposed of very painfully and

        with great humiliation for his participation in 9/11, along with all of those who are with him or protecting him.

        Reply
      • 0%

        MRCOFFEECAKE3 months ago

        It took you 6 1/2 years to come up with that crap?

        No, let's build him a monument..You can't be serious!

        Reply
      • 0%

        hamy3 months ago

        But Bush is propping up the government in Pakistan. Why wouldn't he pressure them to let us in to look?

        Because if Bin Laden is caught, the American people will get their balls back and stand up to him. Just like the drug war, it must be unwinnable to keep the public distracted.

        Reply
  • 0%

    mark-stevens3 months ago

    Bin Lauden is their Christ not Hitler. What happened when the Romans took out Christ?

    If the same president we have now had been in office December 7 1941. Instead of attacking Japan we would have gone into Iraq!!

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      MRCOFFEECAKE3 months ago

      THAT is a very convenient excuse..Did I mention pathetic?

      Lay off the sauce when you speak to us, ok??

      Reply
  • 100%

    Teech3 months ago

    Dumbya the Great Chickensh!t.

    He'll invade where he can get the most loot, make the most profit for his cronies and big campaign donors, cause the most chaos, and do the most damage to America. Count on the village idiot from Crawford to send troops where Bin Laden is NOT.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      Endoscopy3 months ago

      Teech

      The great ad hominem attacker.

      Reply

  • Luis-CiferComment removed: User banned.

  • Luis-CiferComment removed: User banned.
• 0%

  nikkibabe3 months ago

  This is no news. From Day 1, the main project for Bush and his bunch of crooks, it was oil in Iraq that they were after.

  I don't blame Pakistan. Taliban is part of their ISI and ISI is part of Taliban. Osama is part of Taliban in Pakistan.

  Would US allow Colombian army to Florida to go after ruthless drug lords and murderers? No way.

  Reply

  8 Replies

  • 0%

    PsychoHosebeast3 months ago

    So, what regular poster's sock puppet are you, anyway?

    Reply

    4 Replies

    • 0%

      PsychoHosebeast3 months ago

      It appears the truth is hard to take for some...

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        bubba23 months ago

        Seems like that would be you, since you don't believe that Bush and his cronies lied and that it really has been about the oil.

        TWO Senate investigations - by the REPUBLICAN controlled Senate - in 2005 and 2006 proved that all the reasons used to invade Iraq were FALSE.

        Two recent Pentagon reports also prove that all the reasons used to invade Iraq were FALSE.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          doggammit3 months ago

          nikki's parallel approach is spot on... The discrepancies have been sorted out repeatedly by independent journalists and no doubt any number of think tank outfits all over the world. They aren't fooled - even if little is said publicly (a number of good diplomatic and $$$ reasons for this) and we should not be fooled about the pipeline projects both Russia and the US had and still have in store for Afghanistan and adjacent states. Had Cheney not kept his energy policy secret, the facts would have spoken more loudly much earlier. Now they are a skeleton hanging in a lot of closets. But even bleached bones can speak if you know how to rattle them and when it comes to oil and energy politics, an almost unlimited number of skeletons are the only keys that fit the series of locks placed over the great tombs of silence. Sometimes a deafening silence speaks louder than words...

          Reply
    • 0%

      gamahuche3 months ago

      He/she/it only has 1 friend and that is AG.

      Went to town on RFE's Considerable Sounds thread in a BIG negative way, especially for someone who has only been around 3 weeks.

      http://music.propeller.com/story/2008/07/14/con...

      Quite a busy little beaver..

      Reply
  • 0%

    Global_Warmer3 months ago

    there are some real idiots on Propeller. You, with out a doubt, have got to be the queen.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      gamahuche3 months ago

      Is this a battle between competitors for as title?

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%