(May 4, 2011 at 9:22 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Void, Void, Void,
Let me remind you of a few facts:
Oh, a "few facts" right? Not just a bullet point list or anything right? Wait...
Quote:1. When 9/11 happened, Bush wanted to pin it on Saddam.
Not relevant. Bush using 9/11 as an excuse to enforce his will is another issue, it has fuck all to do with my point. Governments always use tragedy as an excuse to tighten their grip and extend their authority, this is no different.
Quote:2. When he couldn't, he went into Afghanistan slowly and with the minimum effort.
Minimum effort? Declaring war on a sovereign nation because of it's associations with a terrorist group constitutes minimum effort? Well fuck me, I'd hate to think what you consider 'maximum effort'.
Quote:3. When he still cornered Bin Laden at Tora Bora, he let our Afghan proxies try to catch him.
1. The did not know that bin laden was there, they believed it to be the case but this was never confirmed.
2. They did not just leave it to the anti-Taliban militia, it was orchestrated and backed by US and British special forces.
3. It was a meager 2 months after 9/11.
4. It was not Bush who called the ceasefire.
Quote:4. After Bin Laden got away, Bush declared he didn't care about him.
That's because he's not that important... Even Pelosi admitted as much, until there was political gain to be made from exaggerating the importance that is.
Quote:5. Bush then lied the nation into a war with Iraq, distracting our attention away from Afghanistan.
Red Herring. Osama was most likely already in Pakistan, renewed efforts in Afghanistan are not relevant.
Quote:6. Al Qaida was given the opportunity to regroup by our distraction and then take advantage of chaos in Iraq.
Red Herring #2
Quote:7. Bush officially gave up on finding Bin Laden in 2005
Complete BS, they closed an office that had been dealing with it, he was not worth the resources. Osama's role in 'terrorism' was not as important as before, thus dedicating an office to hunting him was a waste of time - That is at least how the CIA at the time put it.
"Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals."
"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washin...intel.html
Quote:8. Obama declared as a candidate that he would take action in Pakistan if he had intel on Bin Laden. Conservatives howled about how stupid that move would be
You think that if someone had told bush "Hey, Osama's in this bunker over here" he wouldn't have done anything? They simply did not have the intelligence when Bush was in office to make that kind of move.
And Obama did not say that "I'll step up the effort", he said that if he has intelligence he will act.
Big.Fucking.Deal
Quote:And now they want an equal share of the credit?
My point was that neither of them deserve fuck all credit, equal or not, compared to the boots on the ground, the CIA assets and other operatives, the team who trawled through intelligence reports line by line and all the other people who had a substantial role in tracking him down. Obama did fuck all relative to the decade long intelligence effort. It wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference who was in office, anyone who had solid intel would have acted.
.
