Cia Gives Up - Bin Laden Escapes

[Brian Gillingham 0]

Did you hear what the CIA just released? The fact that they stopped looking for Bin Laden late last year. Pick your source of news article from this google news search.

They stopped looking for Bin Laden? Isn't he really the terrorist? I want for my tax dollars to get that guy and make him pay. I don't want my tax dollars to keep pouring into this hopeless Iraqi conflict - it is a stupid conflict that has nothing to do with the initial terrorist attacks - and nobody ever proved that Iraq was going to attack America in any way.

 

I really feel that the direction is bad (must have been Cheney doing the aiming). Americans are getting sick of these amazing revelations - like the CIA unit giving up hunting down Bin Laden.... it is just pathetic.

 

I already think that I know what is going to happen before the 2006 elections in the US... We will begin to withdraw troops from Iraq. Democrats will be happy, Republicans will be weary of the plan. Time will pass - more withdrawals. At some time before the elections, (or this may be reserved for the 2008 elections... President may be more important that the house seats that are in 2006) either some terrorist attack will (be allowed) to take place on American soil or in Iraq - killing many (enough to make the people completely support the "fight back" direction)... the parties guilty of the act will be quickly traced back to Iraq... Many will argue that haste in this matter is potentially dangerous - pointing to the lead up to the Iraq war. Some democrats will start to support republican candidates. Election day, victory for Republicans! - rinse and repeat - rinse and repeat - ....

[Sinari 0]

Do you even know what you are talking about? There is no election in 2006, hint hint... The next election is in 2008 and the president is and will always be more important than house or senate seats, duh, it's the natural order of the universe... Republicans will always support republicans and so forth. If I didn't know better, I think that you should just relax and look around, our nation isn't changing that much, it's just the people in it who seem to be having more problems as of late.

[Brian Gillingham 0]

Do you even know what you are talking about? There is no election in 2006, hint hint... The next election is in 2008 and the president is and will always be more important than house or senate seats, duh, it's the natural order of the universe... Republicans will always support republicans and so forth. If I didn't know better, I think that you should just relax and look around, our nation isn't changing that much, it's just the people in it who seem to be having more problems as of late.

 

How wrong you are. The election in 2006 may be more important historically than the 2000 and 2004. If the house (of cards) collapses, Bush is gonzo - and you probably know that. I think that this year it is especially important to vote - and it would be nice if we could put Impeachment on the ballots (how to) - instead of gay marriage.

 

You speak in absolutes. There is no such thing as 100% in many claims such as "Republicans will always support republicans". This is simply not true. You'd really like it if everybody stopped complaining about the Republicans in general, eh?

 

They stopped looking for Bin Laden? Isn't he really the terrorist?

[Chez 0]

man, we were never after bin laden. It was just bush wanting another damn texan war. bush had hsi panties in a bunch and went all over the middle east on his own stupid jihad. buck fush!

[ghostrider 0]

and it would be nice if we could put Impeachment on the ballots

If I remember correctly from History class the president can only be impeached by the Senate or House Of Representatives, not by the public.

[Brian Gillingham 0]

If I remember correctly from History class the president can only be impeached by the Senate or House Of Representatives, not by the public.

 

Who hires / fires those members of Senate and the House members on a periodic basis? If you answered, the people decide who represents them in the House or Senate, you're correct.

 

This is the reason that the elections in 2006 are so important - if we elect enough who support impeaching the power-monger Bush and hold his administration to scrutiny as well, the PEOPLE decide who gets impeached. This is especially true if the people make their voices heard. You have a direct channel to your senator - whose job it is to listen to you (to some degree).

 

So, there you have it - how the people can impeach the president. That's not even the topic here, but I felt compelled to include it in the thread rather than a potentially rude PM.

 

The sad truth about house / senate elections is the rate of incumbancy. Little interest is privately invested in the whole process, most wind up voting for the current guy - regardless. Donations are even hard to come by for challengers to incumbants. The usual exception of the money issue is when a seat is completely up for grabs - that's usually a well funded race because the people usually have no preconceptions of either candidate.

[Tetraca 0]

The guy doesn't need to be captured. He's just a disbanded figurehead. Right now he's probably suffering worse in Pakistani wild than any prison could muster up, and that is a fate worse than a slow death by lethal injection.

[Brian Gillingham 0]

The guy doesn't need to be captured. He's just a disbanded figurehead. Right now he's probably suffering worse in Pakistani wild than any prison could muster up, and that is a fate worse than a slow death by lethal injection.

I don't agree completely, because I feel that he must still have followers - no?

All of this on a day when North Korea launches multiple missles - capable of carrying WMD to the USA. Hmmmm.... and we focused on Iraq? Here's Cheney again "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." - 26 Aug 2002

[no9t9 0]

bush never had any intention of capturing bin laden. If he really wanted bin laden, bush would not have waited so long to go into afghanistan. Bush put more effort into getting sadaam than he did bin laden. And sadaam never really did anything to justify all the attention that he got. let's face it bush and his administration don't know what the hell they are doing. they never did. all they know how to do is make everyone else in the world angry at them.even their "friends" like the brits hate the USA. a recent survey from the uk showed that like 80 or 90% of brits think bush is a moron and americans are all crude, rude, and are basically idiots.How sad that americans have had their reputation soiled by the actions of one retard.

[matto 0]

Heh. Some War on Terror. It's all BS...

[brainless 0]

ok, I'm not sure whether I should laugh or cry at this story:

After "top terrorist" and "al-Q'aeda in Iraq"-"leader" (yes, I put all of the quotation marks in there on purpose because I guess it'd look stupid putting these in quote-tags) al-Zarqawi has been killed by the US military (or so they claim), a video message has been published in which a guy named Abu Hamza al-Muhajir AKA Sharif Hazaa AKA Abu Ayub al-Masri has been named Zarqawi's successor.
On the Iraqi Government's list of 41 most-wanted persons [1], he is number 30.

According to this [2] al-Jazeera article based on an egyptian newspaper's article, Mamduh Ismail, a lawyer who is known for defending islamist groups, said he had met Sharif Hazaa in a prison in Cairo where he has already been held for seven years. The US military does not want to comment on this yet...

...this leaves some room for speculations on the "al-Q'aeda in Iraq"'s background: It his somewhat unlikely that a terrorist organisation names someone whom they could not contact or not contact to talk about terrorist stuff for obvious reasons for seven years their leader. But what if the "terrorist"'s knowledge is on the same level as that of US intelligence?

[1] http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

[2] http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

[HoRuS 0]

I think they never were after Bin Laden in the first place. Why would they go after one of their own, Bin Laden was a CIA agent and a friend of the Bush family. I think that bs in Afghanistan was just some cover so they could build their oiltransport from Iraq to the US. Maybe we should wake up and look at the world during the night, because there are too many things wich happen when we sleep. (figurly speaking)

Edited July 9, 2006 by HoRuS (see edit history)