Pakistan Gives Bin Laden Free Pass

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I'd really like to hear what conservative Bush supporters have to say about this turn of events. I can think of very few things that make me madder than this, especially considering the paragraph I have bolded below.

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

Pakistan Gives Bin Laden Free Pass

September 06, 2006 6:10 AM
Brian Ross Reports:

Osama bin Laden, America's most wanted man, will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a "peaceful life," Pakistani officials tell ABC News.

The surprising announcement comes as Pakistani army officials announced they were pulling their troops out of the North Waziristan region as part of a "peace deal" with the Taliban.

If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden "would not be taken into custody," Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, "as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen."

Bin Laden is believed to be hiding somewhere in the tribal areas of Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border, but U.S. officials say his precise location is unknown.

In addition to the pullout of Pakistani troops, the "peace agreement" between Pakistan and the Taliban also provides for the Pakistani army to return captured Taliban weapons and prisoners.

"What this means is that the Taliban and al Qaeda leadership have effectively carved out a sanctuary inside Pakistan," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism director.

The agreement was signed on the same day President Bush said the United States was working with its allies "to deny terrorists the enclaves they seek to establish in ungoverned areas across the world."

The Pakistani Army had gone into Waziristan, under heavy pressure from the United States, but faced a series of humiliating defeats at the hands of the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters.

"They're throwing the towel," said Alexis Debat, who is a Senior Fellow at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant. "They're giving al Qaeda and the Taliban a blank check and saying essentially make yourselves at home in the tribal areas," Debat said.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Wayne,

This is your cue!

Let's talk about how Clinton could have had him 'on a silver platter' at least 17 times. Including once when they passed each other on Pennsylvania Ave that one time.
 

gjn23

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 20, 2002
9,319
45
48
54
So. Cal
Wayne,

This is your cue!

Let's talk about how Clinton could have had him 'on a silver platter' at least 17 times. Including once when they passed each other on Pennsylvania Ave that one time.

i heard monica was giving bin laden the reach around when she went down on bubba in the oval office??
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
Let's see....Bin Laden in Pakistan, Pakistan is nuclear. So what's all this stuff about Iran again? Where's Raymond's machine guns when you need em, damnit?
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
Bush is full of crap

Bush is full of crap

He's going around talking about how safer America is. 8 US soldiers have died since Sunday in Iraq, how safe were they? 10,000 illegals cross the US border everyday but you don't hear Bush talk about that. Just think if Iran had said they were letting Bin Laden stay in their country, we would be at war tomorrow. How dumb do you have to be to be a Repub and follow this guy?
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Yes we better suck up good with India. WE may need them to handle Pakistan who at best is double faced and always has been.
 

SixFive

bonswa
Forum Member
Mar 12, 2001
18,750
256
83
54
BG, KY, USA
bush supporters? I don't think there are any on this site?? :shrug: :com: I feel like I've clicked on the forums at DU (www.democraticunderground.com) when I visit this politics forum.

Chadman, how can the USA control what a backwards lot of misguided muslims do or agreements/resolutions they make? Yeah, we're working with Pakistan as opposed to fighting them, but unless we go in and overthrow them, they're going to do what's best for them and their brethren. That's not what I want (another front). Pakistan worries me very little. The Indians will keep them in check, and if they are nuclear and want to use that capability, they'll fire on Bombay much sooner than they will New York.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
bush supporters? I don't think there are any on this site?? :shrug: :com: I feel like I've clicked on the forums at DU (www.democraticunderground.com) when I visit this politics forum.

Chadman, how can the USA control what a backwards lot of misguided muslims do or agreements/resolutions they make? Yeah, we're working with Pakistan as opposed to fighting them, but unless we go in and overthrow them, they're going to do what's best for them and their brethren. That's not what I want (another front). Pakistan worries me very little. The Indians will keep them in check, and if they are nuclear and want to use that capability, they'll fire on Bombay much sooner than they will New York.

Clint, please.

There is balance here, overall. At least as far as ideology goes.

Bush has managed to piss almost everybody off, no matter the side.

You mentioned that there are few Bush supporters on this site.

I'd like to ask, what exactly do you think that he supports that you support. I mean national issues.

His 'trademark' idiotic occupation of Iraq is a disaster. Maybe you don't think so, and if not, i'd be really interested in your reasoning.

When I say 'trademark', I mean 'legacy.'

His whole presidency will correctly be judged on how Iraq turns out. What do you think about how Iraq will turn out?

He had some great ideas about a limited privatization of SS. Not many on either side really wanted to touch that one.

The death tax repeal? Another great idea. Again, nobody on either side wanted to push it.

The republicans have the House, the Senate and the White House.

There will be no immigration bill proferred until at least next year and i'll die of shock if it happens then. Point being, the congress decided they can't get it done in three weeks at which point they recess for three months. :rolleyes:

Maybe you get frustrated by a few of the more left-leaning members here (probably Stevie and Chad and Hammer), but the overall tone in this area is not lopsided.
 

SixFive

bonswa
Forum Member
Mar 12, 2001
18,750
256
83
54
BG, KY, USA
kosar, I just don't see what the title article does to discredit bush? Like he can control these dogs and their policy?? whoopty-chit, the Pakistanis are protecting bin-laden. That's Bush's fault?? Is it news that he's been hiding out in Pakistan in a freaking cave??

Iraq I'm still not convinced wasn't a just cause, but like you, I'll agree this admin gives not 2 chits about any Iraqi civilians that were under the thumb of Saddaam (nor do I or anybody on this website). I think the reason for being there has changed, and to me, that is very troubling. If the reason we're there is to free the Iraqis, I would have much rather gone in and freed an African non-muslim nation as I think they would be more appreciative. I've seen 2 vehicles in the last month with spare tire covers that either had pictures or names of soldiers, something like, "Our son, John Smith 1985-2005 Freedom isn't free" you know something like that. One of the 2 had our "sons" and 2 names. Breaks my heart. I still have a hope we're there for the right reason.

As far as his legacy, it will obviously be 911 and his response to it. What else could it be? You mentioned a few good things about him. I would add his unwavering stand (not flip-flopping is always good to me whether I agree with it or not) on stem cell research. I also like expanding oil exploration in the states and his willingness to stand up to the environmentalist wacko idiots. He's also a hunter and outdoorsman, and I like that. He's also pro-life which I agree with. I'll probably be laughed off the site for these views, but that's how I feel.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,507
189
63
Bowling Green Ky
Yep Matt Is hard to pass up--tough to rationlize Clinton supporters coming down on Pakistan.

Logic would make me seriously doubt they would not take care of UBL since he orchestrated hits on the pres there--and why would they capture and use "persuasive tactics" to get info out of Alquada top dog on airlines debecle few weeks back?
Be thankful he was catured there and not on U.S. soil where ACLU and liberals would be defending his rights as terrorist--we'd still be trying to get info out of him--which brings me to the carping on CIA out of country holdings. Damn shame we have to do this to side step ACLU/Liberals defense of terrorist--and fathom for a moment if they were in charge--How much info do you think they would have got out of 911 mastermind by now and how many of the top dogs nabbed as result of his "aggressive questioning" out of country would still be clicking their heels and high fiving.I shudder at the thought.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
DTB those CIA prisoners would have good info for about 6 months maybe a year. I would guess then there out of the loop. So they belong in a military prison I would think. Or just like WW II they just fade away. AS for BIN And BUSH. He needs to make up his mind. Either Bin is important or he is not. And the mix flip flop on this is confusing.
AS for ACLU I like most think most of the time there useless. But the one time most of us may need them to help protect our liberties. Well everyone will be happy there around. I mean if congress wants to keep ducking there job.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Let me get this straight, Six Five. You don't think it's disturbing that our President can't (or won't) do anything about Pakistan entering into essentially a peace treaty with The Taliban, and essentially allowing Bin Laden to do exactly what Bush said the US was going to put a stop to in his political stump speeches two days ago - maintain a safe, protected haven in which to conduct terroristic activities?

This deal is ok with you Bush supporters, and you guys claim to care about the war on terror? Protecting US interests abroad...fight them over there, not here, blah blah fricking blah?!?!?

We blow into Iraq without giving a rats ass what anyone else in the world thinks and we can't make some statements or exact some pressure on Pakistan and that two-faced leader?!?!

My God, what has this come to? You guys have ZERO credibility on these matters now, in my opinion.

And Dogs...even IF - I repeat IF, because I don't agree with you on this - Clinton did allow Bin Laden to go free, does that mean Bush should continue to do so?
 

SixFive

bonswa
Forum Member
Mar 12, 2001
18,750
256
83
54
BG, KY, USA
Let me get this straight, Six Five. You don't think it's disturbing that our President can't (or won't) do anything about Pakistan entering into essentially a peace treaty with The Taliban, and essentially allowing Bin Laden to do exactly what Bush said the US was going to put a stop to in his political stump speeches two days ago - maintain a safe, protected haven in which to conduct terroristic activities?

This deal is ok with you Bush supporters, and you guys claim to care about the war on terror? Protecting US interests abroad...fight them over there, not here, blah blah fricking blah?!?!?


you sir have reading comprehension problems. WTF do you want him to do about it?? How is it Bush's fault what the Pakistanis do?? Should we invade Pakistan next?? Is that what you want?? Please answer that and quit attacking. I'll call a spade a spade, and I've had quite a few posts on this website where I didn't like things GWB has done. I'm not an ardent supporter of his, and I think he has many faults. I supported going into Iraq to get the WMDs. Any other reason for being there, like I posted earlier, is disturbing to me. I think you're lumping me in with a group of people where I don't belong. GL!
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I don't pretend to know what options would in fact be available to Bush in this situation. I do know that his choice to pull troops, machinery and intelligence from Afghanistan and the Pakistan area could not have possibly helped in the attempts to find Bin Laden. I would assume that had we stayed focused on the job at hand in trying to find Bin Laden (the guy who actually killed our people) instead of some manufactured, trumped up terror threat in Iraq that there might be a good chance that we could have him in hand by now.

How is it Bush's fault that the Pakistani's signed a peace accord with the Taliban? Hmm, interesting question. Maybe he hasn't made it clear to the good General there that either you're with us or against us. Do you find it acceptable that they are now in an agreement with known and publicized terrorists (the Taliban) when they are supposed to be helping us find Bin Laden? Don't you think it would be appropriate for Bush to publicly make a statement chastizing them, at the very least? How about putting some financial pressure on them? How about the threat of military pressure, since they are now essentially not a concern for The Taliban? By this agreement, they are essentially harboring terrorists, aren't they? I think I know what the answer would be if it were Al Gore or Bill Clinton in the White House. Bush made up this bed, and this situation, and now he is letting this go? Makes no sense.

What else could he do? He could pull some of the troops out of Iraq (now that their military and police have reportedly officially taken over in that country) and send them into Afghanistan to help fight the escalating insurgency in that country, which is considered to be a part time haunt of Bin Ladens. According to his own intelligence, as a matter of fact. Instead of 20,000 troops trying to hunt hundreds of square miles, he could have 200,000 there, effectively sealing off the border and half of Bin Laden's area. He could put pressure of Pakistan to step up - NOT BACK OFF - in their attempts to find Bin Laden since they would have a better chance of finding him with his options narrowing.

What a point. What could the leader of the free world do when Pakistan agrees to leave the Taliban alone? He could do whatever the Hell he wanted to do, much like he does with everyone else. Military option, invading Pakistan? Well, if they are harboring terrorists, why not? It's your game...you guys made the rules. Why stop now?
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I shouldn't have said "you guys" made up the rules. That wasn't appropriate. Bush and HIS guys made up the rules. Sorry.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top