All that stuff you hear from democrats, and Obama himself, about Bush failing to get Bin Laden and taking his eye off the ball is total crap. Obama and democrats fought tooth and nail to rip Bush’s eyes off of Bin Laden. They did their damnedest to prevent Bush from getting Bin Laden.
George Bush was dealing with 3000 dead innocent Americans in the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor. He needed intel to work from. He needed information. He needed help.
Democrats stood behind Bush. They kneed him. They tripped him up. They opposed every single thing he did to keep the nation safe and find Osama Bin Laden.
Warrantless Wiretapping
Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 – Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.
Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible “dirty numbers” linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.
Democrats call for investigation of NSA wiretaps
Democratic House leaders called Sunday for an independent panel to investigate the legality of a program President Bush authorized that allows warrantless wiretaps on U.S. citizens, according to a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert.
“We believe that the President must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people, but that intelligence must be produced in a manner consistent with our Constitution and our laws, and in a manner that reflects our values as a nation,” the letter says.
Pelosi Statement on President Bush’s Authorization of National Security Agency’s Activities
“We all agree that the President must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people, but that intelligence must be produced in a manner consistent with the United States Constitution and our laws. The President’s statement today raises serious questions as to what the activities were and whether the activities were lawful.
“I was advised of President Bush’s decision to provide authority to the National Security Agency to conduct unspecified activities shortly after he made it and have been provided with updates on several occasions.
“The Bush Administration considered these briefings to be notification, not a request for approval. As is my practice whenever I am notified about such intelligence activities, I expressed my strong concerns during these briefings.”
Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell
“You have to keep a certain distance from that power to whom you have to speak the truth,” said Holt. “And that’s why it concerns me that when you talked about the lawyers who were working to prepare this legislation back in August, when you made some of the statements that you made, they clearly seem to be influenced by lawyers in power, in the White House, in the vice president’s office.”
Pol: Americans support Bush impeachment for wiretapping
By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge’s approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
Sen. Leahy tells Mukasey that his nomination is tied to subpoenas
Acknowledging the White House’s resistance to complying with Democratic subpoenas, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) told attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey on Wednesday that the executive-privilege fight is now his to resolve.
Leahy had indicated that Mukasey’s confirmation hearings could not begin until the Bush administration met at least some Democratic demands for documents on the U.S. attorney firings and the president’s warrantless wiretapping program. But in a letter to Mukasey released Wednesday, Leahy suggested that he would shift his focus from negotiating with the White House to negotiating with the nominee.
Committee targets White House, DOJ
The House Judiciary Committee has long been known as the site of some of the fiercest social policy battles on Capitol Hill. It has lived up to its reputation in the 110th Congress, with fights over immigration, wiretapping and the scope of executive power all boiling over at the committee.
Led by Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the Judiciary Committee has taken a sharp leftward turn since Democrats regained control of Congress, launching investigations into voter fraud, the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and other hot-button topics.
And, of course, Barack Obama August 2007
That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.
Barack Obama 12/27/07
They know that we must never negotiate out of fear, but that we must never fear to negotiate with our enemies ( ed note: you mean like Osama Bin Laden?) as well as our friends. They are ashamed of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and warrantless wiretaps and ambiguity on torture. They love their country and want its cherished values and ideals restored.
Obama Camp Says It: He’ll Support Filibuster Of Any Bill Containing Telecom Immunity
It’s official: Obama will back a filibuster of any Senate FISA legislation containing telecom immunity, his campaign has just told Election Central. The Obama campaign has just sent over the following statement from spokesman Bill Burton:
“To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”
Rendition
The Responsible Plan draws heavily from the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s report and from 17 bills that have been introduced in Congress; it would set a date to begin withdrawal, though it would rely on military advice for the pace of that redeployment. The plan’s broad reach promotes clean energy, a restoration of habeas corpus, a ban on torture and rendition, opposition to media consolidation, State Department reorganization, veterans care and a new GI Bill.
Learning from President Bush’s mistakes
The Bush administration opened several lines of attack against the rule of law and the integrity of an independent Justice Department. The scandals are so famous that they’ve been reduced to shorthand: Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, NSA, Attorneygate.
No matter what, these incidents will remain a blot on our nation’s history. But we can achieve a measure of closure and justice by pursuing legal accountability for anyone involved who broke the law. The initiation of proper legal proceedings — both investigations and prosecutions — simply cannot depend on whether the accused are powerful.
Rendition hearings video uploaded by Nancy Pelosi
Obama outlaws torture, rendition flights and secret jails run by CIA
PROPELLING the United States rapidly away from the Bush era, President Barack Obama yesterday banned torture and closed the CIA’s infamous “Black Site” prison network, the secret locations used to interrogate terror suspects.
The orders will also mean the end of so-called extraordinary-rendition flights, in which the CIA transported hundreds of bound-and-gagged suspects around the world, using airports including Prestwick for refuelling, so the detainees could be interrogated in “friendly” states that permit torture.
ICC Complaint filed against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tent, Rice, Gonzalez
Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, U.S.A. has filed a Complaint with the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) in The Hague against U.S. citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales (the “Accused”) for their criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary rendition” perpetrated upon about 100 human beings. This term is really their euphemism for the enforced disappearance of persons and their consequent torture. This criminal policy and practice by the Accused constitute Crimes against Humanity in violation of the Rome Statute establishing the I.C.C.
Enhanced Interrogation
CIA’s Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described
Harsh interrogation techniques authorized by top officials of the CIA have led to questionable confessions and the death of a detainee since the techniques were first authorized in mid-March 2002, ABC News has been told by former and current intelligence officers and supervisors.
Democrats must demand special prosecutor for torture
In other words, George Bush and Dick Cheney are lying. Is there any chance a bipartisan commission will reject these lies and demand the truth? No chance whatsoever, because the Republicans on the commission are guaranteed to remove every single word that suggests criminal or moral liability for Bush, Cheney, David Addington, and other high-level officials.
Will Bush officials ever be prosecuted for ‘enhanced interrogation’ program?
Meanwhile a new Senate report shows that top Bush administration officials approved the use of waterboarding as early as 2002 and 2003 – the harsh methods were approved by the likes of then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Attorney General John Ashcroft, CIA Director George Tenet, and Vice President Dick Cheney. Maybe that’s one reason we’re hearing so much from Cheney these days.
Up to Democrats to investigate Torture
Democrats criticized the Republican-controlled “rubber-stamp Congress,” which failed to provide adequate oversight of the Bush administration. Now that the Democratic Party has control of Congress, the onus is upon them to restore law and order, to investigate the use of torture and to demand prosecution of those who engaged in it.
About that torture:
Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
The former intelligence official familiar with the matter noted that Goss has given only one on-the-record interview on these CIA controversies since leaving the CIA director job. In the December 2007 interview, he said that Congressional leaders including Representatives Pelosi and Harman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), had been briefed on CIA waterboarding back in 2002. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” Goss told the Washington Post. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.”
Jane Harman claimed to object to waterboarding but…
The only forthright objection contained in Harman’s letter is to the CIA’s intention to destroy the videotape of Abu Zubaida’s waterboarding.
In which Nancy Pelosi tortures the truth
Nancy Pelosi has a tall tale regarding her purported ignorance of the enhanced interrogation techniques that President Obama and Pelosi’s fellow Democrats condemn as “torture.” Pelosi boldly denied she had been informed of the actual use of the techniques in the briefings she received as a ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. Huck Finn would have called Pelosi’s tale a “stretcher.” Here is Pelosi’s classic “stretcher” of April 23:
“In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel…opinions that they could be used.”
Scott Johnson concludes:
I think we can fairly draw at least one conclusion from this episode. The case of Nancy Pelosi provides the key to the “torture” controversy. It is a partisan charade. And it is a charade of a particularly disgusting kind. The Democrats’ “torture” charade is a case of low politics masquerading as high principle.
After Bush, or when a democrat became President.
Obama administration goes to bat for secrecy
For the second time this week, the Obama administration has gone to court in San Francisco to argue for secrecy in defending a terrorism policy crafted under George W. Bush – in this case, wiretapping that President Obama denounced as a candidate.
Obama Administration defends Bush warrantless wiretapping program
President Obama is maintaining the secrecy of a wiretapping program authorised by his predecessor, George W Bush, a Department of Justice lawyer told a San Francisco courtroom on Wednesday.
Rendition Case Under Bush Gets Obama Backing
The Obama administration backed the Bush administration’s arguments in a lawsuit involving the practice of seizing terror suspects abroad and sending them to third countries for questioning.
U.S. opposes “rendition” review
With Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan not taking part, the Obama Administration on Wednesday afternoon urged the Supreme Court not to hear a major test case challenging the once-secret program of “rendition” — that is, capture of terrorism suspects and transporting them to other countries, often for aggressive questioning and even torture. Solicitor General Kagan’s deputy, Neal K. Katyal, signed the new brief as “Acting Solicitor General.” It is unclear whether this was an indication that, while Kagan’s nomination to be a Justice is pending, she will opt to stay out of government cases. The new brief is here.
Obama Makes Indefinite Detention and Military Commissions His Own
While the order is new, most of the ideas [3] it contains are not. This is the third time such a board has been created for nearly the same purpose. Two similar processes to review detainee cases were in place during the Bush administration. Like its predecessors, the Obama administration’s review process will operate outside the courts and will be subject to no independent review. Also like the Bush White House, the Obama administration alone will choose all members of the review board and appoint a “personal representative” to advocate on behalf of the detainees.
The major difference is that the White House, sidestepping claims that detainees have a right to counsel, will allow them to hire private attorneys The order states that the government will not pay legal fees. While detainees will have access to some evidence against them, the government will choose what evidence to share. The process is meant to be more adversarial than it had been under the Bush administration. Detainees can submit their own evidence to the review board but will be permitted to call only those witnesses the government determines to be reasonable. It is unclear whether a detainee can dismiss his personal representative or how the lawyer and representative will work together. The order allows a detainee to make his case for release once every three years.
President Obama said tonight that the “torture memos” do not show that intelligence obtained using harsh interrogation techniques could not have been discovered through alternate methods.
From Ace:
1. 2003: Enhanced Interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad Results in the Nom De Guerre of bin Ladin’s Courier.
2. 2004: Enhanced Interrogation of al-Qahtani Confirms the Nom De Geure of bin Ladin’s Courier.
3. 2006 (?): Enhanced Interrogation of an Al Qaeda Captured in Iraq, Ghul, Produces the Real Name of the Courier.
4. 2006-2009: NSA Begins Furiously Intercepting Any And All Communications Made By Anyone “al-Kuwaiti” Has Ever Known.
5. Then in the middle of last year, the courier had a telephone conversation with someone who was being monitored by U.S. intelligence, according to an American official, who like others interviewed for this story spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive operation. The courier was located somewhere away from bin Laden’s hideout when he had the discussion, but it was enough to help intelligence officials locate and watch him.
6. 2011: Surveying Abbottabad, We Grow Confident We’ve Found Bin Ladin’s Hideout.
Obama frequently says that Bush took his eye off the ball:
Well, I think– I talked frequently during this campaign that we took our eye off the ball when we invaded Iraq.
Ghul (#3 above) was captured in Iraq.
The torture didn’t work. Except it did.
The hunt for Osama bin Laden was helped over the years by information from prisoners, including at Guantanamo Bay, US officials say, while arguing that criticized interrogation techniques yielded no specific clues.
“The intelligence was acquired over the last nine years or so. And there was some painstaking work done by some very, very dedicated analysts,” John Brennan, the top White House counter-terrorism adviser, told CNN.
“There was no one single piece of information that was an ‘ah-ha’ moment that led us to Abbottabad,” the Pakistani city where bin Laden was killed in a raid by US special forces.
“It was acquired over time. There was a lot of information from a lot of different sources including some people in detention.”
“Over the last nine years”
“It was acquired over time.”
“..including some people in detention.”
The bulls**t hasn’t stopped yet.
Senate Intelligence Chair: Information That Led To Bin Laden’s Killing Did Not Come From Torture
Today, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) rejected these assertions. She was asked by a reporter whether the intelligence that led to the killing was the result of waterboarding and other harsh treatment of detainees. She responded: We are in the process of a big study on the detention and interrogation of the detainees on the Intelligence Committee. The Republicans have pulled out of the study. So this has been carried out by the Democratic staff essentially. They have gone through more than 3 million emails, cables, pieces of paper looking for this. To date, the answer to your question is no. Nothing has been found to indicate this came out of Guantanamo.
There’s a fly in that soup. No one was waterboarded at Guantanamo
Current and former U.S. officials say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden’s most trusted aides. The CIA got similar information from Mohammed’s successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both were subjected to harsh interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Poland and Romania.
The waterboarding KSM got persuaded KSM to become compliant with more conventional interrogation methods.
When KSM was captured, he was resistant to any form of interrogation, conventional or otherwise. As our colleague Marc Thiessen learned in writing Courting Disaster, KSM’s resistance was “superhuman.” It was only after being subjected to waterboarding and other enhanced measures that he became compliant, and from that point forward, cooperated with more conventional techniques. As one of the CIA interrogators told Marc, “If we had not had these techniques, we would have gotten zero from him.” So enhanced interrogation methods played an integral role in all of the intelligence collected from him.
Or you could read it for yourself.
Barack Obama’s embrace of virtually all of George Bush’s policies is complete vindication of Bush.
Democrats began their war on George Bush not long after the fires of 9-11 were being put out and they concentrated their war on Bush far more earnestly than they sought Osama Bin Laden. Had they sought to assist Bush, had they stopped distracting Bush, or had they stopped hamstringing Bush at every opportunity and simply gotten out of the way Bush would almost certainly have gotten to Bin Laden before Obama.
But then, maybe that was the plan all along.
Dr John
Please do not let up on your posting.
We need to keep up the pressure on these hypocrites and not let anyone forget their two-faced lies and criminal intent.
They are counting on the short attention span of voters and the continuing spinning, lies, cover ups, and misrepresenting of news by the MSM.
I am with you: Why you’re an idiot to believe anything Barack Obama says [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces .
Anyone who has watched/listened to obama, and his administration, the last two days and used any brain cells to think about it, knows he is lying, and is the world’s foremost hypocrite.
Our military is awesome, and anyone who thinks they are immoral, or unethical, does not know any of them.
The self-serving mendacious actions of prog-socialist party since 9/11 has inserted venomous poison inside this country, making us all even to this day ill from its effects. Damn these shameless vermin for what they have done.
Pingback: Down the Memory Hole — Laura Curtis
Dr.John,
Again, this sounds a lot like sour grapes. This could easily have come from DU or Daily KOS. Let’s take the high road, Dr.
@Ivan:
I think it speaks for itself, Ivan.
Good job, Dr. J. Thanks for putting all that together in one place.
“All that stuff you hear from democrats, and Obama himself, about Bush failing to get Bin Laden and taking his eye off the ball is total crap. Obama and democrats fought tooth and nail to rip Bush’s eyes off of Bin Laden. They did their damnedest to prevent Bush from getting Bin Laden.”
Did democrats get the way when Osama bin Laden was at Tora Bora?
Great post Dr. J!
You remember the Bush White House’s Tora Bora screw up, don’t you? The one where they let bin Laden get away after Hank Crumpton warned Bush and Cheney it was going to happen? It has all documented since then.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200608210006
@Ironman: Do you have anything from a real website you’d like to offer other than from George Soros?
Ironman
One article from Soros’ attack dogs will not alleviate eight years of Democrat sabotage.
Pingback: Post Bin Laden Derangement Syndrome | The Pink Flamingo
This post is a joke. They distracted Bush from finding Bin Laden? Yet somehow Bush wasn’t distracted from invading Iraq and killing Saddam. Nice fantasy world you live in!
@LYK:
Iraq was supported by democrats until it wasn’t popular any longer.
And FYI: Bush didn’t kill Saddam.
DR J. Poor poor mistreated W. Break out the crying towels.
@rich wheeler:
Rich, W would be the last one to ask for a crying towel, in contrast to Obama who wallows in self-pity at every opportunity.
DR.J. Havn’t seen crying from BHO or W. Crying towel is for you.I say both deserve credit for successful raid and let’s move on.
@rich wheeler: Keep it Up, Towel Boy. See if You can throw the Race Card into this while You are at it. You could Politicize the Gettysburg Address if given a day or two. Do You recon that Lincoln got a bounce from that Victory.
Now go check the Polls and predict which horse will win the Kentucky Derby and what State Acorn registered the horse to Vote in.
Thank Obama for the proposed 1.6% Pay Raise for the Military while You’re at it. As less than 3% of Americans by Number currently Serve it won’t hurt anyone of import. The last Bush Admin pay raise was 3.6%.
ot2 You claim to be an indie but you never sound like one to me.
Exit question for all “Is it worse to throw the race card or actually be a racist”
@rich wheeler: I am an Independent because Foolish/Blind Partisanship is not something that I respect. I reckon that You get it. By the way the US Participation in the Libyan Free Fire Exercise needs Congressional approval or it should be halted and US Forces should stand down from that adventure. The Rule is 60 Days. Something about a Law as I recall.
NATO desires that US Forces fly more Missions because We have a Defense Budget and they don’t. Try to explain that to them. Something about a Law requiring Consultation with Congress and Funding is in the way. Imagine that?
What about the three Memo-gates? In each instance (D)emocrat communications were leaked that illustrated their intent to abuse their authority to undermine America for political gain. They were, 1) Senate intelligence committee (D)emocrats bragging how they would vote ‘For’ the war then undermine it with politicized criticisms in hearings, 2) how Senate judicial committee (D)emocrats discussing methods to block Bush judicial appointments, 3) Senate judicial committee (D)emocrats talking about spiking Bush Hispanic appointees to the Bench to allow them to continue to play the LaRaza card.
When the MainStreamMedia refuses to report that (D)emocrats, including Presidential candidates, are racist, obstructionists intent on causing American casualties both in the field and among innocent civilians at home for political purposes they share the blame for those crimes.
@rich wheeler: The Race Card is like fixing bayonets because You are out of Ammunition. Being a Racist is despicable and inexcusable. Throwing the Race Card when there is no Racism involved is foolish. Supporting Incompetence for Partisan reasons is All of the Above.
There are better than 900,000 Pending VA Claims unresolved as of this moment. Report progress on that front as the Guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue could change that. Veterans of the last few Wars that went Undeclared but there were Casualties. Some are still waiting for Compensation/Treatment. Where is Your outrage on that?
Oh, OK no polls for that? Not enough Glitz on that?
@DrJohn, #9:
You might try the United States Senate report of the bipartisan Committee on Foreign Relations, dated November 30, 2009.
@rich wheeler:
It is wrong for either, and no level of wrongness can be, nor should be, attributed to one over the other. To be a racist, one must factor in a person’s race as a primary concern when passing judgment upon someone. Throwing the “race card” amounts to the same thing. Placing a person’s race, as primary concern, when passing judgment upon someone. Both are despicable, racist acts, and wrong. Just a thought.
BTW, I also consider myself an Independent, as many of us conservatives here, do. Conservative philosophy is not solely the domain of one party, or another, just as liberalism isn’t practiced by only people from a single party. And Independent does not mean Moderate. It simply implies that one does not follow political party stances on issues, but is concerned more with the basic philosophical ideology, and makes decisions on which politician to support based on that.
@DANEgerus:
Any links?
I’m coming down in the middle here. Drj has done a nice roundup of just *some*, and certainly not all, of the roadblocks that the lib/progs have put up in the quest for intel. And that’s not only on UBL, since he’s been a neutered eunuch for years now. There is no arguing that current events history.
I will also say that I’ll be highly surprised if I see any changes of heart or rhetoric, despite this admin’s enjoyment of the benefits of the past admin’s policies…. those which they abhorred and demonized daily for years.
On the other hand, I totally disagree that this means Bush would have located UBL any sooner than he was found anyway. Pure speculation. The intel was in place using EITs, and the connecting of the dots took years… plus some lucky breaks. In fact, it was an error by the courier, leaving his cell phone powered up as he approached the compound, instead of his usual powering down, that gave us the location.
Would that have happened any sooner? Absurd to even suggest such a thing unless you’re a desperate clairvoyant on late night TV infomercial. Who on earth would know that?
That final intel was to be had, and not hindered by any of the above events. Not even the NSA wiretapping. It was foreign to foreign cell communication, and unaffected by the NSA wiretap controversy.
What can be said is that the original information – leading to the ultimate result – would never have been uncovered, starting the chain of events, were the lib/progs in charge. That is entirely different than claiming Bush could have had UBL any sooner than he was.
@MataHarley:
Agreed. No amount of armchair quarterbacking on that will ever result in making it truth that if not for the liberals, that Bush would have had UBL during his presidency, just as no amount of armchair quarterbacking will eve make it the truth that the policies set into place by Bush are not what ultimately resulted in UBL being killed. Credit goes to Bush, his admin, and the people in place under him, during his presidency, for putting in the framework that led to this action. And credit goes to Obama, his admin, and the people in place under him, during his presidency, for continuing on, within that framework of policies, that led to this action. Credit given where credit is due. No more. No less.
@Greg: OK, Greg, here’s one for you.
Al-Qa’eda plan bloody mountain ambush
Apparently the Russians didn’t do well at Tora Bora either.
And another from Tommy Franks to John F’n Kerry
War of Words
As I Served under Gen. Franks, I respect his judgement. The “Christmas in Cambodia” Dude not so much.
After Kerry’s latest Marriage I started buying Hunt’s Ketchup. No need to patronize a Liar.
@DrJohn, #27:
The error was failure to use U.S. ground troops to block the limited escape routes into Pakistan. There was no need for U.S. troops to mount an assault on the mountain strongholds.
Instead, we relied on Pakistan to seal the border–in return for the promise of a billion dollars in military aid. The result was what CIA and military advisors had warned of: Osama bin Laden walked out of the trap and disappeared into Pakistan, along with 600 of his fighters and most of the leadership cadre.
Whatever you might think about Kerry, that’s what happened. Whatever might be said about hindsight, people were ignored who had accurate foresight.
Sounds like you’ve spent too much time dwelling over John Kerry’s whiny report about how we lost UBL at Tora Bora, Greg. Kerry insisted we had “ample” troops and fire power to do this. Franks had his own reasons to disagree. I’m not qualified enough to go back and criticize the commanders for their particular decisions then, and I daresay neither are you. But here’s what I do know…
Terrain? Extremely difficult, and unfamiliar to our military. This is not our back yard. Lots of caves, tunnels, passes, and lots of ambush potential at every crevice and chasm. Frankly, lots of troops make for a larger target, and easier to detect. And exactly “what exits” into Pakistan should they post themselves? First of all, it’s so entwined with the Pakistani NW border, it may have been our troops were encroaching on their territory. Secondly, you surely don’t think there’s only a few freeways with a border check leading out of those mountains, do you?
Another reality, it was Hekmatayr who led UBL and buds into those mountains, and out… You may, or may not know your history from the Afghan-Russian war, but the US was backing Gulbuddin Hekmatyar… not the Taliban, as so many mistakenly believe. The Taliban did not exist and rise until later, with the help of Bhutto (as an Afghan protective force) and against Hekmatyar and his brutal fundamentalist regime. Point in fact, Hekmatyar and the Taliban father, Mullah Omar, were sworn enemies. Hekmatyar even tried to convince Omar that they should unite to fight the US…. Omar refused.
My point? UBL had guides who knew every crevice, every trail, and every cave of those mountains like the back of his hand. I respect Franks for assessing the situation, and weighing the success vs potential casualties under those circumstances. As far as Kerry? Armchair general, lifetime politician with a political agenda. He couldn’t lead a pack of girl scout troops out of Central Park. I suggest you start reading more of Franks’ perspective as a commander to widen your perspective.
@Greg:
That also might have been exactly what Al Qaida wanted. Having said that, I think it was wise to exclude informing the Pakistanis of the Bin Laden Assassination Op. I think the ISI tipped Bin Laden off in 98 and in 2001.
@MataHarley, #30:
Kerry, the “armchair general”, didn’t invent all of this on the occasion of his presidential bid. The important facts should have been known at the time all of this was occurring. That a serious error had been made was apparent almost immediately.
From The Telegraph, February 23, 2002:
There are only two main passes leading out of the mountains of Tora Bora into Pakistan.
Let’s not forget the Rockefeller memo which spelled out the plan to politicize the war on terror.
Dr. J- You should have heard Mike Mukasey speak at the ABA last week. He was livid about the crap that this present Administration threw at him, with their unsupported and political “reports” about Homeland Security, and which castigated the anti terror efforts and strides made by the Bush Administration as “outside the bounds of the law.” The Administration lied to him, repeatedly, the documents that were sent to the press had been discredited, and the report that he was supposed to have final say on went out without his review, deliberately. He properly scolded the ABA for siding with the Administration for political reasons, after every effort to determine the legality of the Gitmo actions was made. It was an eye-opener.
“PROPELLING the United States rapidly away from the Bush era, President Barack Obama yesterday banned torture…”
No, he did not ban torture. Torture was already illegal. What he did do was to dumb down the definition of torture, to include things that have been used in training of US military.
Ironic, since without that dumbed down “torture” we never would have obtained the intelligence in 2007 that led us to binLaden.
Main passes. There were more for smaller groups. All Ideal for Ambushes. Thanks Anyway Greg. I was there with the 75th Ranger Regiment and pursuit uphill to/through those passes was only for those with a Death Wish. The Paks let them across the border like Boy Scouts walking little old ladies across the street.
Kerry was not There or in Cambodia either.
Have You seen the Kush? Not You either, EH?
Citing Kerry was Your First Blunder. Continuing to Cite Him completely diminishes the credibility of your comments.
Ditto, OT…. the obvious comes better from you than from me. “only two exits, indeed”….
Hey! Usama! Let’s take the main road, dude!
Pakistan being obvious…. duh. Wonder how long it took the Telegraph to figure that out? sigh
Many years ago my dad had a friend over who grew up in the Soviet Union.
This guy had served in Afghanistan.
He said, they had so many paths into Pakistan through the Tora Bora area that each was designated by a different spice name.
So there was a ”tumeric” path, a “cumin” path, a “pepper” path and so on and so on.
These were apparently Soviet code names for each path, not official names.
@MataHarley: Mata, Rule #1 You never get spanked for telling the Truth.
Rule #2 You will get spanked for “Errors of Omission” or Obfuscation.
(Ask Jana. She has gone spank free for years. So have I as a matter of fact. )
Pingback: Moonlight Swim-5 May 11 | adeliemanchot
@little dickie wheeler: You said:
Um, playing the race card, which you are wont to do, IS being racist…
@Old Trooper 2, #37:
Maybe I should have cited Sean D. Naylor or Gary Bernsten instead.
Anticsrocks #41 Your response to my exit question is fallacious.If I accuse someone of being a racist that makes me a racist? If party accused feels I am wrong I should be called on it and a debate can ensue. If I accuse someone of being a rapist am I a rapist? Show the DNA.
Most all agree racism a terrible flaw.To deny it exists or simply dismiss it is cowardly.
@Nan G, #39:
There’s an old Soviet detail map at the very end of this document showing the passes south of Tora Bora into Pakistan: Mt Barkirdasar, Spin Kairaigkhai Pass, Shaykh Huseine Kandak Pass, Mt. Spin Ghar. Condiments might be easier to remember. This 3D map of the area shows the southern passes and how rugged the area is.
@Old Trooper 2: I dunno, OT2. You were there but Greg has maps!
I guess he wins.
/sarc
@Greg: Nope. You could Cite Me but it would not help Your case.
Besides I already have a book deal that will not treat Rumsfeld kindly or the US State Department that trusted Pakistan and got second hand Info from the Pak ISI that provided safe haven for the Bad Guys.
I will be retired at the end of the Month and will not be subject to recall. However the Tale You are peddling here is flawed. Our Allied Afghan Troops were previously employed as Smugglers and knew the Kush like the back of their hand. The Afghan National Product was Opium for Centuries. Smugglers got it to Market for Generations. They knew every nook and cranny and strongly advised against Fights there. After review of Digital Recon images I concurred with their advice. As these were also Commerce Routes the opportunity to kill innocent Civilians/Merchants was Huge. As We were the only Folks wearing Uniforms or Blue Force Tracker sensors, it could not be a deemed a Free Fire Zone where anyone in transit was a Bad Guy.
I have My credible sources and You have opinions from Others. Quit while You are ahead.
@DrJohn: Maps are keen. Satellite Digital Imagery is keener. I trusted My Calibrated Eyesight. 20/10 vision and Binoculars. That is very rugged terrain and chock full of choke points that make excellent Ambush positions. No Thanks. Troops in Body Armor with Weapons, Water, Ammunition and Full Rucksacks make very easy slow moving targets.
The passes are goat paths, not two lane blacktop. There are not just two or three. The Paks did not block or secure Their Border. There lies the Fault.
@Greg: Nan, Of course You know how well the Russians fared.
@little dickie wheeler: To play the race card when there is no racism involved is, in itself a racist act.
Defined enough for ya?
@anticsrocks:
That is a simplified statement of the comment I made in #22. I wonder if he saw that?
John Galt #22 and #50 anticsrocks #41 and #49 see my #43.
J.G As usual well thought out and constructive commentary.
Antic Not so much.As usual.I would certainly agree it is absolutely wrong to accuse someone of being a rapist, a racist or a communist if you know it to be false,
@johngalt: Looks like he did see it, and in his own little way I think that might have been a mea culpa….though I doubt it.
Memogate Intelligence Committee Links
Memogate
And Here
And Here
An al Qaeda statement confirming bin Laden’s death…
The text of the release is here, in Reuters.
I guess the confirmation is worth having to briefly put up with the sentiments.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Ben Franklin.
I for one have never supported the Bush “warrentless wiretaps”, because I consider them to be a clear violation of the our Forth Amendment rights just as the TSA searches are. Just because it is someone from your party of choice (whatever that might be,) doesn’t mean it’s harmless nor constitutional. I don’t give a damn what political party supports the watering down of, “temporary suspension” of, or outright violation of our Constitutional rights, I don’t trust either of them, as they both rely on incrementalism to slowly take away our rights. Nor do I completely trust the politically appointed Supreme to interpret our rights as the founders would. Just as Democrats tend to go after the Second Amendment for “the good of society,” Republicans tend to have no problem with enforcement agencies violating the Four Amendment “only to keep us safe”.
@Ditto: You are against our government listening in or intercepting messages originating outside the US and emanating from terrorist organizations?
@ anticsrocks.
There is no US Constitutional jurisdiction in foreign nations, if you want to tap a phone in a foreign nation, you follow their laws.
As with organized crime syndicates, Government agencies should have little problem getting a RICO warrant to listen in on terrorist organization or their known agents. Remember that a wiretap warrant is specific to the target’s own devices. If they get a telephone call from a telemarketer, it doesn’t mean that the telemarketer is now a suspect or involved with the terrorist.
As for “wireless transmissions see Section 705 of the Communications Act or other Federal statutes
Law enforcement agencies continually seek more free reign to violate the Fourth Amendment. Many Republicans support this mindset because they think that enforcement agencies and Prosecutors should be given the benefit of doubt. There have been many cases of Prosecutors and enforcement agencies trying to bypass or go around the law. That is why the courts are so important, to halt such violations and to throw out unconstitutional violations of the 4th Amendment.
@Ditto: I hear what you are saying about the 4th amendment. In this day and age of rapid telecommunications, obtaining a warrant to intercept a communication of foreign origin would be pointlessly too late.
When I call my Uncle in Des Moines, my other Uncle, Uncle Sam cares not. When I accept a call from a known terrorist agency from another country, then Uncle Sam is obviously correct to listen in. September 11, 2001 was important in so many ways, among which was the fact that we need to learn from our mistakes.
@ anticsrocks.
Placing a wiretap on the telephone of a US citizen’s phone requires a warrant. Failure to obtain a warrant means that the wiretap is illegal, Period. If said person is a known member of a criminal organization, then a warrant can be applied for. (Undeniably a terrorist group that has violated US or international laws, is a criminal organization, and the RICO Act applies.) The Supreme Court has held in the past that some portions of the Bill of Rights also protect aliens, I suspect that they would require a warrant in such cases.
(Anticsrocks):
There’s no history of urgent investigations held up by overzealous privacy concerns. As late as 2009, only 11 requests out of 28774 have been rejected. Warrants requested under FISA can be approved in a matter of hours, and the statute allows the government in emergency situations to put a wiretap in place immediately and then seek court approval later, within 72 hours. 1952, the Supreme Court considered Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, and flatly rejected the president’s assertion of unilateral domestic authority during wartime. While intercepting the enemy’s communications on the battlefield may well be an incident of the war power, wiretapping hundreds of people inside the United States who are not known to be members of al-Qaida in no way qualifies as an incidental wartime authority. The slippery slope of your argument is the continual and incremental moving of where the stopping point is for Big Brother’s violation of our 4th Amendment rights.
Distinction must be made on WHO is being wiretapped. If a NSA spook taps and listens in on a terrorist’s international line (re: through a wrong number) to a Chukee Cheeze Pizza Imporium, it may make for interesting conversation, but it will probably be insufficient evidence to conclude an actual terrorist “connection” with the pizza parlor. Now, if the person being called is on the do not fly list, there should be no FISA problem with granting the wiretap of the phone.
The World Court might have a very different opinion on this matter, considering the CIA, NSA and others have been spying on the world’s communications for decades. (Including the wiretapping phone lines at the United Nations.) Although, beyond the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights, I don’t thienk I’ve heard of them giving a waver for terrorists.
More:
NSAWatch
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
US evesdropping via ECHELON
Dr. John, I know I am late to this conversation but you forgot a few things.
One, we were tracking ObL via his cell phone. But somehow, it “leaked” out that was what we were doing. Who leaked that information? Some think it was none other than Jay Rockefeller (D) who was trying to do what he could to stop Bush from wire tapping PERIOD. Also, let’s not forget the three traitorous Congressmen that traveled to Iraq, under the pretest to child on orphanages, to warn Saddam that Bush had plans to invade Iraq. Third, we were tracking the money, a process that also just seemed to find its way into the editor’s office at the NY Times.
The Democrats, who now want to act like they are hawks who are only interested in protecting Americans, did everything they could to thwart President Bush in his efforts to catch ObL and kill the terrorists. Odd, that now Obama is taking credit for actually using Bush’s tactics. And the Democrats are still shoving their heads up Obama’s ass while people question the 16 hours delay because Obama wanted to “sleep on it.”
You people who decry tracking phone calls of terrorists overseas are nuts.
There is a law requiring FISA permission to wiretap Americans CITIZENS. What is it about ObL not being an American CITIZEN you can’t seem to understand?
listen, Bush-haters, for those of you whom think Bush let UBL escape, YOU LIE! Even though Bush pulled troops out of Afghanstan, He did leave a large group of Soldiers over there along with other NATO Soldiers. You damn liberals and Bush-haters think Bush just totally forgot about the Afghanstan war all this time. He didn’t forget about the Afghanstan war, Yall azzes forgot about the Afghanstan war because yall was to busy drinking the left-wing liberal media kool-aid and eating peanut butter sandwhiches………..Bush was too busy bashing the fuk out of KSM head and the GITMO couriers behind closed doors while yall was crying about civil liberties and chit……man, I remember the Bush years as if it was yesterday, I be damn, every got damn time the Bush folks did somethink, the fuking NYTimes printed in the paper….for example, the NSA Wiretapping, remember that libs……how can yall forget that part….in the death of UBL, its been reported that a single phone call led to UBL front door (BUSH NSA WIRETAPPING) remember libs/bushhaters, remember libs/bushhaters said Bush was listening in on people phone calls…………Ya got Ya answer boo boo, that single (NSA WIRETAPPING) phone called led the American Soldiers straight UBL front door……..Bush is still my CIC, no doubt, baby.
@retire05:
It was Thomas Tamm. The Thomas Tamm who is not getting charged by Eric Holder because Tamm’s actions were harmful to Bush so that makes them OK.
It’s a recurring theme.
Pingback: Spiking The Football Ten Yards Outside The End-Zone « Blog de KingShamus
@Ditto: As retire05 said so well, foreign nationals calling INTO America are not American citizens.
@ Anticerocks “…foreign nationals calling INTO America are not American citizens. ”
Agreed, and as such our Constitution doesn’t apply towards foreign nationals in foreign nations. If you check back on the controversy of the Bush Wiretaps it included the NSA tapping, eavesdropping on & recording the phone lines of US Citizens and not just on calls coming in from “terrorists overseas”. My ire is not just about the government evesdropping on phone calls. agencies of the government are continually trying to expand their power and abilities to spy on Americans. Pretending that it’s only about fighting terrorism is “BS” meant to placate the public. There is a concentrated effort to water down and erode our 4th Amendment rights by enforcement zealots who are either: Paranoids who consider any of their fellow Americans are “potential criminals or enemies”. Or power hungry bureaucrats who want to expand their agency’s reach and authority to Orwellian extremes.
I consider every one of our Constitutional rights as important as the other, and I’m getting fed up with Republicans who are too blinded by their fear of terrorists to understand that they are being played. We are being slowly morphed into a police state, and some of you don’t care so long as you think it wont be a communist one. They seem absolutely clueless, not realizing that the expansions of reach and powers granted today to ferret out terrorists, can tomorrow become SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) and can quickly and easily be turn into tactics to use against any citizen they desire to target?
Pull your heads out of, …the sand, and look at just a little of what’s going on:
2003
2003
2007
2009
2011
2011
2011
2011
Remember when George W. Bush was accused of spying on Americans by listening in to phone calls made to terrorists overseas? Well, now President Obama wants to spy on you! Let’s see if Russ Feingold again leads a charge against this! Obama wants to change the “Cookie Rules” and even ACLU is upset about this stunt!
10 Ways We Are Being Tracked, Traced, and Databased: Are technological advances infringing on our right to privacy?
As I’ve said many times. I don’t trust either party when it comes to our Constitutional rights, and just because it’s officials “you trust” today, doesn’t mean you will be able to trust them tomorrow. Data mining is the perfect tool to create damaging dossiers on political opponents, or to discredit people a party wants to silence, and these systems are rife to be misused to destroy an individual.
Pingback: There really are only two liberals worthy of respect [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces
Living in California, and putting up with both Pelosi and Boxer, it makes sense that they use all the political
bull to cover up their incompetence for their Democratic support. It makes sense to lie about the truth when the truth is so obvious that enough lies will convince the morons who vote for them that the Democrats really understand the depth of terror and anti American positions of the Islamic world. Read the Koran (Quarn, Korran?) and try to understand a book written in 600 AD by radicals who only wanted to lop of the heads of non-Muslims. Pelosi is supposedly a Catholic. If she stuck her head out, I would be more than grateful for the Islamists to do the head lopping of hers. Of course, the air in the head may make it a difficult target to lop?
@Doc Dave
Keeping their noses up in the air offers a clear target to the radical jihadists.
Incidentally, I’ve read the Koran comprehensively cover to cover in an effort to understand. It’s ironic that far left atheists are totally clueless to the fact that Muslim extremists hate them even more than they do Christians and Jews (who are at least considered “people of The Book”).