Likely to die of old age if the incompetent search for him continues
Secret report: Terror threat worst since 9/11 | Uk News | Telegraph — Curiously “dead or alive” Bush never mentions Bin-Laden anymore. Have we given up? Seems so. Or perhaps we need him alive to keep the public freaked out and voting Republican. Or maybe we don’t want him talking. You tell me.
Two years ago, western intelligence said that al-Qaeda was virtually a spent force, disrupted by counter-terrorist operations around the world.
In July 2005 the Pentagon obtained a letter written by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, stating that the organisation had lost many of its leaders and that it had virtually resigned itself to defeat in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda’s lines of communication, funding and structure had been severely damaged.
Dr Jonathan Eyal, the director of international security at the Royal United Services Institute, said that the al-Qaeda revival was down to the West’s inability to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and that wars in Afghanistan and Iraq made matters worse.
“This document clearly demonstrates a marked shift from the mood of western government only a year or two ago,” he said. “It is a clear admission that the organisation is re-emerging and the reasons are that none of al-Qaeda’s top leaders have been killed or captured.”
In this ludicrous story it seems that they even spent money on psychics to find the guy.
In a bizarre, albeit desperate, attempt to find Bin Laden, the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) spent £18,000 on psychics to find Osama Bin Laden.
The report was declassified under the Freedom of Information Act and says that the experiment, which was conducted in 2002, failed miserably with a big percentage of the psyhcics failing the tests.
It is claimed the ministry hoped positive results would allow it to use psychics to ‘remotely view’ Bin Laden’s base and also to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Daily Mail reported.
The MoD tried to recruit 12 ‘known’ psychics who advertised their abilities on the Internet, but when they all refused they were forced to use ‘novice’ volunteers.
Related link:
Meanwhile American Generals don’t think it’s important. I suppose Hitler and Stalin were not important wither.
Is he still alive? Did bin Laden die of an untreated lung complication? Has he been “seen” since the report of his death? Great…. here’s a chance for Heraldo Rivera to do some “investigative reporting” (oh brother).
Wow. The right-wingers are out on force on this one. It’s a sure sign somebody touched a nerve. Could it be because the Bushies have turned themselves into the most successful fund-raising and recruitment tool ever for al-Qaeda?
I saw bin Laden in a vision of my own. He was in a cousin’s palace in Saudi Arabia, laughing and drinking champagne with Dubya’s brother Jeb and Dick “Underground Hideout” Cheney.
#18, It is kinda funny how that happens. But, Bushie got caught lying and now the neo-cons can’t understand why those left of Attila are upset. Everyone I know wants bin Laden’s head. Everyone except Bush and his Bushettes.
Face it, Bush and Rumsfeld allowed bin Laden to escape. They could have put sufficient troops into Afghanistan but didn’t. Now, they blame Democrats for their failures. And couch it in terms that try to exonerate themselves.
Sorry Bushette, you lose. We want his head. The other we’ll just impeach.
23)
Bushette? Funny. Actually not wanting Bin Laden was something Clinton did. The Sudanese could have handed Bin Laden on a silver platter but Clinton turned it down. I don’t think Bush has had that opportunity, yet there’s a lot of venom against him.
I guess my seeing double standards exist is considered my being in favor of Bush or something…. I suppose from your perspective, if I’m not bashing the guy, then I’m not objective.
Actually I think most people have a completely unrealistic view of how quickly we can come up with a fugitive in a foreign country. I think most people who keep beating that hammer tend to be blinded by partisan politics.
It took the FBI 7 years to apprehend Eric Rudolph who was hiding in a forest with the aid of one person. Bin Laden has a lot more land and a lot more people helping him out. Yet, people seem to be blind to this fact for hatred with respect to Bush.
As for Bush lying. I’m all for calling him a liar because as much as I know this might disappoint you, I’m not a big fan of Bush either. I just happen to dislike him less than I do the previous administration.
If you’re as objective as I hope you’d be, you’d be calling the Democrats liars along with Bush. But you don’t. Fascinating. Oh well, I guess if one is not a liberal, one MUST be a conservative.
Too bad you liberals alienate others who are from a different perspective. In my case, Libertarian.
But I’m sort of perplexed… if you Libs want Bin Laden’s head, why all the belly aching with Lieberman? I thought Lieberman is trying to be tough on anti-terrorism. BTW, he’s been quite critical over the president’s approach to the war but somehow that’s not enough. You guys say you want a terrorist’s head, but quite honestly your actions speak differently which I believe is the whole reason why Lieberman is contemplating a shift to the Republicans, no?
#10
Yep, but they didn’t saw it coming.
#24,
Actually not wanting Bin Laden was something Clinton did
Actually, Clinton came closer to getting bin Laden then Bush ever did. Or did you forget how the Republicans claimed that trying to get bin Laden was just a ploy to stop the Republicans from tearing the country apart in 1998.
The Sudanese giving bin Laden’s head? Quit listening to Fox Spews. That never happened, except Fox Spews says it did.
I guess my seeing double standards exist is considered my being in favor of Bush or something
The double standard has come from the White House since 2001. Any time the Administration has been questioned they have been called traitors or catering to the enemy, or flip flopping. If you support what this Administration is doing or has done then you deserve the same condemnation they so rightly have heaped on themselves.
It took the FBI 7 years to apprehend Eric Rudolph who was hiding in a forest with the aid of one person. Bin Laden has a lot more land and a lot more people helping him out.
Rudolph killed one person and seriously injured several more. He was in a wilderness area living off the land. Bin Laden is responsible for killing over 3000 that we are aware of. He was hiding in a mountainous desert devoid of vegetation. His escape routes were reduced to a few unguarded passes.
The fact that the passes were unguarded is the crime. Because the Administration didn’t put enough men in the field. Instead, they relied upon the Afghanistan warlords and Pakistani Army to capture him.
If you’re as objective as I hope you’d be, you’d be calling the Democrats liars along with Bush.
That isn’t objectivity !!! That is just plain crap. Bush lied to get us into Iraq, depleting the availability to go after el Quaeda and the Taliban. Bush told us about weapons that didn’t exist all the while ignoring North Korea that was actually building up their weapons. Bush told us lies about how anyone in the White House that outed Valarie Plame would be dealt with. Bush lied when he told us he wasn’t authorizing illegal wiretaps. Bush lied when he told us Mission Accomplished.
The Democrats lied to us about, uummm, just wait, I’m thinking, well, they lied because Fox Spews said they lied.
Too bad you liberals alienate others who are from a different perspective. In my case, Libertarian.
Make me laugh. A self professed “Libertarian” is just another name for a selfish conservative. And if you have to tell us what your political persuasion is, you don’t know.
…why all the belly aching with Lieberman? I thought Lieberman is trying to be tough on anti-terrorism. BTW, he’s been quite critical over the president’s approach to the war but somehow that’s not enough.
I couldn’t care if Lieberman leaves the Democrats. He currently sits as an Independent. It seems to me that all the Republicans and “Libertarians” are the ones kicking up the fuss. In case you were unaware, the Democratic Party is purely voluntary. Anyone may join and, if a member, anyone may leave if the platform disagrees with them. I know the concept is repugnant to those in the Republican party.
26) Clinton “came closer” because he had a greater opportunity due to the Sudanese… that’s not Fox “spew”, that’s the military’s stance.
The double standards I am referring to are the Liberals insistance that ONLY Bush lied. These aren’t the Bush Administrations claims… I haven’t heard those… they’re my own. A lot of you Liberal Democrats saw the same stuff Bush did and came to the same conclusion Bush did…. Democrats didn’t change their stance until Howard Dean tried running for president and they saw how his stance helped him pull ahead of the other Democrats at least for a short while.
If you guys could draw the line in the sand and define what a lie is irregardless of what party a person is from then it would level the playing field to being objective. However, something tells me you don’t have any interest in objectivity. You would rather keep chanting the mantra that Bush lied and the Democrats who said the same thing didn’t.
Your answer about Eric Rudolph is a beautiful illustration of how you liberals would rather put fires out instead of preventing them. Although Rudolph’s victims are certainly less than 3000, he’s certainly affected more than 1 or 2 people. The potential damage he could have done seems trivial to you guys. BTW, although it took us 7 years to find Rudolph, we found him by sheer luck. Bottom line, insistance that a “manhunt” is a failure because we haven’t found a person by the end of Bush’s administration is laughable at best. It’s not realistic.
As for objectivity, I say again. Define what a lie is. Then apply it to everyone. Don’t cherry pick who the definition applies to. Don’t give your buddies a pass because you happen to agree with their new stance. Your double standards are a perfect example of how “subjective” you guys are.
Actually many Libertarians can be called “Classical Liberals”, which is why Liberals of today are called NeoLiberals.
Irregardless, on social matters NeoLiberals stand a greater chance of persuading Libertarians up to a point. On economic matters, Libertarians and NeoLiberals clash. The opposite is generally true when comparing a LIbertarian to a Conservative. We’re the best of both worlds. 
But I guess you validated what I seem to notice, if we’re not 100% with you, then we must be a conservative. LOL.
It’s fine that you “don’t care” if Lieberman is leaving, but the WHY Lieberman is leaving flies in the face of your assertion that Democrats truly want Bin Laden’s or other’s head. Your actions speak louder than your words. Lieberman was forced to sit as an independent due to his stance on national defense. No more, no less. Yet somehow you say that Democrats want to be tough onTerrorism? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
#27,
It’s fine that you “don’t care” if Lieberman is leaving, but the WHY Lieberman is leaving flies in the face of your assertion that Democrats truly want Bin Laden’s or other’s head.
What the eff does Lieberman have to do with the Democrat’s or my stand on terrorism? Lieberman is free to choose any course he wishes and NO ONE has any obligation to follow him. Lieberman chose to leave the Democratic Party after losing during a democratic process.
The rest of your post is just made up garbage. Mostly originating with Fox Spews and Republican talking points. Do yourself a favor and stop listening to Comedian Rush Limbaugh. He is a comedian, not a news source.
28) LOL.
You Say: “Sorry Bushette, you lose. We want his head. The other we’ll just impeach. ”
I respond: “But I’m sort of perplexed… if you Libs want Bin Laden’s head, why all the belly aching with Lieberman? I thought Lieberman is trying to be tough on anti-terrorism.”
You counter with: “What the eff does Lieberman have to do with the Democrat’s or my stand on terrorism? Lieberman is free to choose any course he wishes and NO ONE has any obligation to follow him. Lieberman chose to leave the Democratic Party after losing during a democratic process. ”
The fact is unless you disagree, Lieberman “lost” the Democratic ticket due to his stern stance against terrorism. He’s a fairly liberal guy except for national defense matters. You liberals say you want OBL’s head, but you oust the guy from your party over this one thing and then belly ache over him possibly joining the Republicans over national defense matters. You say one thing, but do another. He’s doing this move strictly because he believes the Democrats have little interest in this National Defense matter…. that’s “what the eff” Lieberman has to do with the Democrat’s and your view that the Democrat’s really want OBL’s head.
Rest of my post is made up garbage? LOL. Well unfortunately for me, I haven’t listened to Limbaugh in many years. I work in a place where radio signals are blocked (intentionally) and audio streaming is prohibited. My “made up garbage” comes from my prior military experices and continued military contact. But even so, I’m all ears on other’s viewpoints. As for Fox, I just got it back after not having it for the past 3+ years…. I’ve not had the time to watch TV.
When asked to define what a liar is, you avoid it all together (not surprisingly). You’d rather go on some rant as though I’m getting all my gouge from Fox & Limbaugh.
In either case, I don’t need a “comedian” like Limbaugh for entertainment since I have someone like you to take his place.
As I said before, if you want to call Bush a liar, I have no problem with that so long as you apply the same standards to EVERYONE who saw the same thing and came to the same conclusion. Afterall, it was our Congress who voted on military action, was it not? It seems you give your buddes the pass. I don’t care either way, but don’t cherry pick. Personally, I don’t think either side lied… however I think the Liberal Dems have changed their stance due to polling stats when Howard Dean came into the picture IMO.
In all honesty, I’m genuinely interested in your viewpoint and if you can be persuasive. What I get in response is generally ranting and not much else.
A NOBODY (can find bin laden)AND FAST!!!!I KNOW THE REASON YOU CANT FIND HIM . AND ITS NOT BECAUSE HE IS HIDING