Anyway my Pakistani intelligence, I think you should go in and get the guy and you don't. Pussy stance is all I can say.
He killed so many Yanks and we vowed to get him. But we are afraid to step on toes to do it. BULLSHIT that even your mentality can't twist around.
Thanks for the chat. When you actually offer up how to go about getting him in this thread, instead of "we can't go there" it will be a much better conversation. Until then...................................
advocate war with pakistan all you want. I would rather bin laden sit in a cave then war with pakistan.
If Bin Laden really had kidney failure...he's as dead as it gets by now.
" ZAHN: I think we need to remind the viewers once again that the president of Pakistan talked about [bin Laden] importing two dialysis machines into Afghanistan. Of course, no one other than the president of Pakistan right now is confirming that [bin Laden] in fact needed dialysis.
GUPTA: That's right. And again, renal dialysis -- talking about hemodialysis -- is something that really is reserved for patients in end-stage renal failure. That means their kidneys have just completely shut down.
The most common cause of something like that would be something like diabetes and hypertension. Once that's happened, if you're separated from your dialysis machine -- and incidentally, dialysis machines require electricity, they're going to require clean water, they're going to require a sterile setting -- infection is a huge risk with that. If you don't have all those things and a functioning dialysis machine, it's unlikely that you'd survive beyond several days or a week at the most. "
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
If Bin Laden really had kidney failure...he's as dead as it gets by now.
" ZAHN: I think we need to remind the viewers once again that the president of Pakistan talked about [bin Laden] importing two dialysis machines into Afghanistan. Of course, no one other than the president of Pakistan right now is confirming that [bin Laden] in fact needed dialysis.
GUPTA: That's right. And again, renal dialysis -- talking about hemodialysis -- is something that really is reserved for patients in end-stage renal failure. That means their kidneys have just completely shut down.
The most common cause of something like that would be something like diabetes and hypertension. Once that's happened, if you're separated from your dialysis machine -- and incidentally, dialysis machines require electricity, they're going to require clean water, they're going to require a sterile setting -- infection is a huge risk with that. If you don't have all those things and a functioning dialysis machine, it's unlikely that you'd survive beyond several days or a week at the most. "
the more I have head about this and the more time that goes by, I'm starting to believe this too. but until a body is found, he is as good as alive. even if he's dead
again with these baseless personal attacks. is that all you got?
So are you denying propaganda exists then? Or do you feel it's not something goverments and people in power use anymore?
It wouldn't surprise me.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from 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. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.
"I want justice," Bush said. "And there's an old poster out West… I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'"
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from 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. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.
yeah, how do you go from 'bin laden; dead or alive' to 'meh, i don't really think about him'????
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
yeah, how do you go from 'bin laden; dead or alive' to 'meh, i don't really think about him'????
sounds to me its because he realizes the war on terrorism is much greater then one person. osama is still the most wanted man in america. dont act as if he is sitting in his time share in the Jamaica because bush says "i dont really think about him"
please stop wasting my time. you add nothing to this or any discussion.
So i take it from that answer that you don't think propaganda is used anymore, or certainly in this case.
Do some reading you may well learn something, then you will stop repeating what you were told like a mantra.
My personal thoughts are America is not looking for bin laden as he's best kept alive and out there somewhere to keep the "supposed" war on terror going so chumps like you will continue to say nothing as your tax dollars are spent on war and your civil liberties stripped away.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
My personal thoughts are America is not looking for bin laden
we are looking for him. but currently we cant go into pakistan where he most likely is. so we partol the border of afganhistan and use predator drones from the sky
as he's best kept alive and out there somewhere to keep the "supposed" war on terror going so chumps like you will continue to say nothing as your tax dollars are spent on war and your civil liberties stripped away.
war on terror will not end with bin ladens capture. and my civil liberties are not being stripped away. if I feel they are, I will certainly voice my opinion. got it?
war on terror will end end with bin ladens capture.
Now that's just plain silly. Like Bush said, Bin Laden has very little to do with it any more. He played his cards, he did his part, he isn't much use to Bush anymore.
Bush, through his own actions, has got a whole new slough of Al Quaida recruits to call terrorists.
The Bush administration violated two federal laws through part of its publicity campaign to promote changes in Medicare......The General Accounting Office concluded that the Department of Health and Human Services illegally spent federal money on what amounted to covert propaganda by producing videos about the Medicare changes that were made to look like news reports. Portions of the videos, which have been aired by 40 television stations around the country, do not make it clear that the announcers were paid by HHS and were not real reporters.
or
WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 - The Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said on Thursday that the Bush administration violated federal law by producing and distributing television news segments about the effects of drug use among young people.
The accountability office said the videos "constitute covert propaganda".....
50 False News Stories By Bush Propaganda Machine
A Strategy of Lies: How the White House Fed the Public a Steady Diet of Falsehoods
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Now that's just plain silly. Like Bush said, Bin Laden has very little to do with it any more. He played his cards, he did his part, he isn't much use to Bush anymore.
Bush, through his own actions, has got a whole new slough of Al Quaida recruits to call terrorists.
whoops my mistake. typo. I meant to say will not end.
we are looking for him. but currently we cant go into pakistan where he most likely is. so we partol the border of afganhistan and use predator drones from the sky
war on terror will not end with bin ladens capture. and my civil liberties are not being stripped away. if I feel they are, I will certainly voice my opinion. got it?
Did you by chance mean patrol?
Also read Kabongs post propaganda is used, so stop being angry because i'm challanging your narow views.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
I did.. but you knew exactly what I meant right. but you felt the need to point it out anyway?
So why can't you answer the question on propaganda? It does after all exist.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
but currently we cant go into pakistan where he most likely is.
i still think this is naive to believe this, especailyl considering the military funding we currently provide that could be easily taken away. you do know jlew you can change your stance or opinion when provided with overwhelming evidence contrary to your beliefs. we invade and occupy afhganistan and iraq but we wont go into tribal areas of pakistan :rolleyes:
and my civil liberties are not being stripped away. if I feel they are, I will certainly voice my opinion. got it?
then you better start fucking yelling. because they most ceratinly have been stripped away. what the hell do you think has been going on for the last 6 years? and if you do not agree please let me know and i will overwhelm you with supporting documentation that you will not be able to deny.
i still think this is naive to believe this, especailyl considering the military funding we currently provide that could be easily taken away. you do know jlew you can change your stance or opinion when provided with overwhelming evidence contrary to your beliefs. we invade and occupy afhganistan and iraq but we wont go into tribal areas of pakistan :rolleyes:
why is it so hard to believe that we can not go into pakistan. what overwhelming evidence is there that should make me change my stance? "because we did it in afgantistan and Iraq, we can do it in pakistan" ? because we have a huge military budget? sorry, you'll have to do better then that.
here are my reasons why we can not go in
- we can not prove osama is in pakistan.
- you, me, GWB, almost all americans, international community, pakistan do not want us to go into pakistan
- GWB has said osama isn't all that important. destroying the al qaeda network is.
-currently our military is stretched too thin.
- going into pakistan would be considered an act of war by pakistan. do I need to get into the problems with this? talk about upsetting a hornets nest.
while I struggle with the funding we give them, I do not like the alternative. musaraf says he is our ally. they have arrested many high level terrorists. is he my buddy? no. do I trust him? fuck no. but whats the alternative? some radical sheik with his finger on the trigger of some nukes. no thanks. alienating pakistan will only make a bad situation worse.
ithen you better start fucking yelling. because they most ceratinly have been stripped away. what the hell do you think has been going on for the last 6 years? and if you do not agree please let me know and i will overwhelm you with supporting documentation that you will not be able to deny.
i'm sure you can. but none has affected my life. i'm just as free now as I was 10 years ago. certain laws may be tougher and the government might have more power but none is directed towards taking my freedoms away.
why is it so hard to believe that we can not go into pakistan. what overwhelming evidence is there that should make me change my stance? "because we did it in afgantistan and Iraq, we can do it in pakistan" ? because we have a huge military budget? sorry, you'll have to do better then that.
here are my reasons why we can not go in
- we can not prove osama is in pakistan.
- you, me, GWB, almost all americans, international community, pakistan do not want us to go into pakistan
- GWB has said osama isn't all that important. destroying the al qaeda network is.
-currently our military is stretched too thin.
- going into pakistan would be considered an act of war by pakistan. do I need to get into the problems with this? talk about upsetting a hornets nest.
while I struggle with the funding we give them, I do not like the alternative. musaraf says he is our ally. they have arrested many high level terrorists. is he my buddy? no. do I trust him? fuck no. but whats the alternative? some radical sheik with his finger on the trigger of some nukes. no thanks. alienating pakistan will only make a bad situation worse.
i'm sure you can. but none has affected my life. i'm just as free now as I was 10 years ago. certain laws may be tougher and the government might have more power but none is directed towards taking my freedoms away.
- i just thought finding the guy who you say masterminded the death of close to 3,000 ppl would be high on your list...but then, this administration has never been about accountability, has it??
-this from the country (pakistan) that was selling nuke secrets and technology to pretty much anyone???
-this from the country (pakistan) who, according to the wall street journal, the head of the ISI (their CIA) wired mohammed atta a couple thousand bucks a week or so before 9/11????
-this from the country (pakistan) who bribed the 9/11 commission to keep their names out of their report?????
- this from the country (pakistan) who won't even distribute the matchbooks our taxdollars paid for w/ reward information on usama that just sits in their crates in pakistan b/c they don't want to give them out??????
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
- i just thought finding the guy who you say masterminded the death of close to 3,000 ppl would be high on your list...but then, this administration has never been about accountability, has it??
-this from the country (pakistan) that was selling nuke secrets and technology to pretty much anyone???
-this from the country (pakistan) who, according to the wall street journal, the head of the ISI (their CIA) wired mohammed atta a couple thousand bucks a week or so before 9/11????
-this from the country (pakistan) who bribed the 9/11 commission to keep their names out of their report?????
- this from the country (pakistan) who won't even distribute the matchbooks our taxdollars paid for w/ reward information on usama that just sits in their crates in pakistan b/c they don't want to give them out??????
ok pakistan is a bad bad country. no one is debating that. whats your suggestion? go to war with them? ok lets go.
would you support president bush if he invaded pakistan? if no, why?
ok pakistan is a bad bad country. no one is debating that. whats your suggestion? go to war with them? ok lets go.
would you support president bush if he invaded pakistan? if no, why?
you keep goin to that war thing. no one is suggesting we invade pakistan. the bottom line is if we wanted osama, and he is in pakistan, then we would extract him, or force pakistan to extract him. it would not require an invasion, IMO. he is one person, reduced to riding horses and hiding in caves if you believe the "official" story. one helicopter and one special forces team could get him in no time flat. or of course the pakistan govt could to the same and hand him over.
capturing osama does not require war. and you know it. just face the facts dude, this administration does not want him captured so they can continue free reign under the title "war on terror"
i'm sure you can. but none has affected my life. i'm just as free now as I was 10 years ago. certain laws may be tougher and the government might have more power but none is directed towards taking my freedoms away.
and i could provide the info not because i am some know it all, but i can provide it because it has been front page since 9/12/01.
and just because it hasnt affect YOU does not mean yoiur freedoms have not been stolen from you. bacuase they most certainly have been stolen. i thought a guy like you would value your rights, and OTHERS rights more than that.
- i just thought finding the guy who you say masterminded the death of close to 3,000 ppl would be high on your list...but then, this administration has never been about accountability, has it??
-this from the country (pakistan) that was selling nuke secrets and technology to pretty much anyone???
-this from the country (pakistan) who, according to the wall street journal, the head of the ISI (their CIA) wired mohammed atta a couple thousand bucks a week or so before 9/11????
-this from the country (pakistan) who bribed the 9/11 commission to keep their names out of their report?????
- this from the country (pakistan) who won't even distribute the matchbooks our taxdollars paid for w/ reward information on usama that just sits in their crates in pakistan b/c they don't want to give them out??????
You and others here are pointing out exactly why we attacked Iraq instead of countries "that posed a threat".
Sure, it would be nice to have invaded and reformed Saudi Arabia - the country who holds the most responsibility for 9/11. But they hold too much influence in the world due to their oil supplies - and we could not justify an invasion, especially given the international criticism that would have arose.
Sure, it would be nice to invade and reform Pakistan, but they have nuclear weapons - and it isn't worth the gamble if they would use them or not to stave off an invading army. This is why we can't go in there as it is now.
Sure, it would be nice to invade and overthrow the theocracy in Iran - but too many citizens are already dissafected with their government that soft pressure is a much better method than straight invasion.
Iraq and Afghanistan are the only two major nations that had illegitimate leaders, whom the general population hated. They were the only two countries that the US had a legitimate case against for invasion and reform.
you keep goin to that war thing. no one is suggesting we invade pakistan. the bottom line is if we wanted osama, and he is in pakistan, then we would extract him, or force pakistan to extract him. it would not require an invasion, IMO. he is one person, reduced to riding horses and hiding in caves if you believe the "official" story. one helicopter and one special forces team could get him in no time flat. or of course the pakistan govt could to the same and hand him over.
you watch too many movies. one helicopter? one team? wow, you really know nothing of the area in question.
capturing osama does not require war. and you know it. just face the facts dude, this administration does not want him captured so they can continue free reign under the title "war on terror"
face what facts? you have only provided your opinion. want to hear a fact? we can not prove osama is there. so you dont believe pakistan would treat it as an act of war? you are ok with risking a country like pakistan being our all out enemy? a country with nukes? and a very tense situation to the east? not me.
secondly, how do we prove osama is there? and you keep avoiding my other question. would you support prsident bush sending in troops to pakistan if we had proof osama is there?
you would be the first one making a thread counting the dead soliders and how stupid bush is for sending troops into such a volatile area. and no support from the international community.
You and others here are pointing out exactly why we attacked Iraq instead of countries "that posed a threat".
Sure, it would be nice to have invaded and reformed Saudi Arabia - the country who holds the most responsibility for 9/11. But they hold too much influence in the world due to their oil supplies - and we could not justify an invasion, especially given the international criticism that would have arose.
Sure, it would be nice to invade and reform Pakistan, but they have nuclear weapons - and it isn't worth the gamble if they would use them or not to stave off an invading army. This is why we can't go in there as it is now.
Sure, it would be nice to invade and overthrow the theocracy in Iran - but too many citizens are already dissafected with their government that soft pressure is a much better method than straight invasion.
Iraq and Afghanistan are the only two major nations that had illegitimate leaders, whom the general population hated. They were the only two countries that the US had a legitimate case against for invasion and reform.
International criticism from whom exactly? All the countries who felt your hurt and would have been right behind you if you went into the country who spawned most if not all the culprits from 911. And to boot probably funded most of it? You have got to be kidding me!
See you and some of the other people seem to think that there needs to be a war with Pakistan. No! You just need to go through them to get to those mystical tribal regions that some people seem to think are untouchable. I suppose they might put up a bigger struggle then Saddam's army?
And finally, I think that N. Korea would have been ahead of Iraq and Afgan but they actually have an army and may not have been the cake walk that the American public is keen on seeing. I suppose that the N. Korean people are too hungry to tell the States they want change as I remember hearing coming out of Iraq and Afgan before you went in.
and i could provide the info not because i am some know it all, but i can provide it because it has been front page since 9/12/01.
and just because it hasnt affect YOU does not mean yoiur freedoms have not been stolen from you. bacuase they most certainly have been stolen. i thought a guy like you would value your rights, and OTHERS rights more than that.
I very much so value my rights and the rights of all americans. I do not value the rights of terrorists or their sympathizers, which is what the laws are designed to go after. until then, its much ado about nothing
Comments
thats been on tv??
"Warning....Osama bin Laden hiding in boot"
So funny
" ZAHN: I think we need to remind the viewers once again that the president of Pakistan talked about [bin Laden] importing two dialysis machines into Afghanistan. Of course, no one other than the president of Pakistan right now is confirming that [bin Laden] in fact needed dialysis.
GUPTA: That's right. And again, renal dialysis -- talking about hemodialysis -- is something that really is reserved for patients in end-stage renal failure. That means their kidneys have just completely shut down.
The most common cause of something like that would be something like diabetes and hypertension. Once that's happened, if you're separated from your dialysis machine -- and incidentally, dialysis machines require electricity, they're going to require clean water, they're going to require a sterile setting -- infection is a huge risk with that. If you don't have all those things and a functioning dialysis machine, it's unlikely that you'd survive beyond several days or a week at the most. "
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/01/19/gen.musharraf.binladen.1.19/index.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/01/21/gupta.otsc/index.html
did he have kidney disease?
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/kidney.htm
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
So are you denying propaganda exists then? Or do you feel it's not something goverments and people in power use anymore?
It wouldn't surprise me.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from 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. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.
compared to his earlier statements:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/bush.powell.terrorism/
"I want justice," Bush said. "And there's an old poster out West… I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'"
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
something wrong with what he said?
yeah, how do you go from 'bin laden; dead or alive' to 'meh, i don't really think about him'????
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
So i take it from that answer that you don't think propaganda is used anymore, or certainly in this case.
Do some reading you may well learn something, then you will stop repeating what you were told like a mantra.
My personal thoughts are America is not looking for bin laden as he's best kept alive and out there somewhere to keep the "supposed" war on terror going so chumps like you will continue to say nothing as your tax dollars are spent on war and your civil liberties stripped away.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
we are looking for him. but currently we cant go into pakistan where he most likely is. so we partol the border of afganhistan and use predator drones from the sky
war on terror will not end with bin ladens capture. and my civil liberties are not being stripped away. if I feel they are, I will certainly voice my opinion. got it?
Now that's just plain silly. Like Bush said, Bin Laden has very little to do with it any more. He played his cards, he did his part, he isn't much use to Bush anymore.
Bush, through his own actions, has got a whole new slough of Al Quaida recruits to call terrorists.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aQaO48XF6TI4&refer=top_world_news
Bush Administration Broke Propaganda Rules, GAO Says
or
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41077-2004May19.html
GAO Says HHS Broke Laws With Medicare Videos
The Bush administration violated two federal laws through part of its publicity campaign to promote changes in Medicare......The General Accounting Office concluded that the Department of Health and Human Services illegally spent federal money on what amounted to covert propaganda by producing videos about the Medicare changes that were made to look like news reports. Portions of the videos, which have been aired by 40 television stations around the country, do not make it clear that the announcers were paid by HHS and were not real reporters.
or
WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 - The Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said on Thursday that the Bush administration violated federal law by producing and distributing television news segments about the effects of drug use among young people.
The accountability office said the videos "constitute covert propaganda".....
or
http://www.rense.com/general44/50.htm
50 False News Stories By Bush Propaganda Machine
A Strategy of Lies: How the White House Fed the Public a Steady Diet of Falsehoods
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Did you by chance mean patrol?
Also read Kabongs post propaganda is used, so stop being angry because i'm challanging your narow views.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
So why can't you answer the question on propaganda? It does after all exist.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
then you better start fucking yelling. because they most ceratinly have been stripped away. what the hell do you think has been going on for the last 6 years? and if you do not agree please let me know and i will overwhelm you with supporting documentation that you will not be able to deny.
here are my reasons why we can not go in
- we can not prove osama is in pakistan.
- you, me, GWB, almost all americans, international community, pakistan do not want us to go into pakistan
- GWB has said osama isn't all that important. destroying the al qaeda network is.
-currently our military is stretched too thin.
- going into pakistan would be considered an act of war by pakistan. do I need to get into the problems with this? talk about upsetting a hornets nest.
while I struggle with the funding we give them, I do not like the alternative. musaraf says he is our ally. they have arrested many high level terrorists. is he my buddy? no. do I trust him? fuck no. but whats the alternative? some radical sheik with his finger on the trigger of some nukes. no thanks. alienating pakistan will only make a bad situation worse.
regardless Bush has said if we can prove osama is there, he will send in troops http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2470098
do you agree or disagree with that stance?
i'm sure you can. but none has affected my life. i'm just as free now as I was 10 years ago. certain laws may be tougher and the government might have more power but none is directed towards taking my freedoms away.
- i just thought finding the guy who you say masterminded the death of close to 3,000 ppl would be high on your list...but then, this administration has never been about accountability, has it??
-this from the country (pakistan) that was selling nuke secrets and technology to pretty much anyone???
-this from the country (pakistan) who, according to the wall street journal, the head of the ISI (their CIA) wired mohammed atta a couple thousand bucks a week or so before 9/11????
-this from the country (pakistan) who bribed the 9/11 commission to keep their names out of their report?????
- this from the country (pakistan) who won't even distribute the matchbooks our taxdollars paid for w/ reward information on usama that just sits in their crates in pakistan b/c they don't want to give them out??????
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
ok pakistan is a bad bad country. no one is debating that. whats your suggestion? go to war with them? ok lets go.
would you support president bush if he invaded pakistan? if no, why?
you keep goin to that war thing. no one is suggesting we invade pakistan. the bottom line is if we wanted osama, and he is in pakistan, then we would extract him, or force pakistan to extract him. it would not require an invasion, IMO. he is one person, reduced to riding horses and hiding in caves if you believe the "official" story. one helicopter and one special forces team could get him in no time flat. or of course the pakistan govt could to the same and hand him over.
capturing osama does not require war. and you know it. just face the facts dude, this administration does not want him captured so they can continue free reign under the title "war on terror"
its fucking obvious
and i could provide the info not because i am some know it all, but i can provide it because it has been front page since 9/12/01.
and just because it hasnt affect YOU does not mean yoiur freedoms have not been stolen from you. bacuase they most certainly have been stolen. i thought a guy like you would value your rights, and OTHERS rights more than that.
You and others here are pointing out exactly why we attacked Iraq instead of countries "that posed a threat".
Sure, it would be nice to have invaded and reformed Saudi Arabia - the country who holds the most responsibility for 9/11. But they hold too much influence in the world due to their oil supplies - and we could not justify an invasion, especially given the international criticism that would have arose.
Sure, it would be nice to invade and reform Pakistan, but they have nuclear weapons - and it isn't worth the gamble if they would use them or not to stave off an invading army. This is why we can't go in there as it is now.
Sure, it would be nice to invade and overthrow the theocracy in Iran - but too many citizens are already dissafected with their government that soft pressure is a much better method than straight invasion.
Iraq and Afghanistan are the only two major nations that had illegitimate leaders, whom the general population hated. They were the only two countries that the US had a legitimate case against for invasion and reform.
face what facts? you have only provided your opinion. want to hear a fact? we can not prove osama is there. so you dont believe pakistan would treat it as an act of war? you are ok with risking a country like pakistan being our all out enemy? a country with nukes? and a very tense situation to the east? not me.
secondly, how do we prove osama is there? and you keep avoiding my other question. would you support prsident bush sending in troops to pakistan if we had proof osama is there?
you would be the first one making a thread counting the dead soliders and how stupid bush is for sending troops into such a volatile area. and no support from the international community.
International criticism from whom exactly? All the countries who felt your hurt and would have been right behind you if you went into the country who spawned most if not all the culprits from 911. And to boot probably funded most of it? You have got to be kidding me!
See you and some of the other people seem to think that there needs to be a war with Pakistan. No! You just need to go through them to get to those mystical tribal regions that some people seem to think are untouchable. I suppose they might put up a bigger struggle then Saddam's army?
And finally, I think that N. Korea would have been ahead of Iraq and Afgan but they actually have an army and may not have been the cake walk that the American public is keen on seeing. I suppose that the N. Korean people are too hungry to tell the States they want change as I remember hearing coming out of Iraq and Afgan before you went in.
Illegitimate leaders. I like that.