Frankly, I cannot come up with a single
reason that justifies cutting short the hunt for Bin Laden to run after
Saddam......


You honestly believe they stopped the search for Bin Laden? Don't you
remember all the reports where they thought they were closing in on him?
Talk about twisting! You must base what you believe is going on by what the
liberal press tells you. If you were on the inside and part of those seeking
Bin Laden you would not make such STUPID statements. Some of these post make
me laugh. The word "Blind" comes to mind.

They didn't stop, but they didn't go after him full time either. Instead of
100K+ troops in Iraq, how about 100K troops in Afganistan??? Now
if that had happened, I could say Bu**** was actually doing something.
We only have about 10K troops "looking for BL." And, that includes
trying to keep Afganistan stable. What a joke.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Frankly, I cannot come up with a single
reason that justifies cutting short the hunt for Bin Laden to run after
Saddam......


You honestly believe they stopped the search for Bin Laden? Don't you
remember all the reports where they thought they were closing in on him?
Talk about twisting! You must base what you believe is going on by what
the
liberal press tells you. If you were on the inside and part of those
seeking
Bin Laden you would not make such STUPID statements. Some of these post
make
me laugh. The word "Blind" comes to mind.

That's bull****, and everyone who has read your carping knows it. If the US
had 100k troops in Afghanistan, you'd be carping about readiness elsewhere,
Pakistan's rights, etc.

They didn't stop, but they didn't go after him full time either. Instead of
100K+ troops in Iraq, how about 100K troops in Afganistan??? Now
if that had happened, I could say Bu**** was actually doing something.
We only have about 10K troops "looking for BL." And, that includes
trying to keep Afganistan stable. What a joke.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Frankly, I cannot come up with a single
reason that justifies cutting short the hunt for Bin Laden to run after
Saddam......


You honestly believe they stopped the search for Bin Laden? Don't you
remember all the reports where they thought they were closing in on him?
Talk about twisting! You must base what you believe is going on by what
the
liberal press tells you. If you were on the inside and part of those
seeking
Bin Laden you would not make such STUPID statements. Some of these post
make
me laugh. The word "Blind" comes to mind.

They didn't stop, but they didn't go after him full time either. Instead
of
100K+ troops in Iraq, how about 100K troops in Afganistan??? Now
if that had happened, I could say Bu**** was actually doing something.
We only have about 10K troops "looking for BL." And, that includes
trying to keep Afganistan stable. What a joke.


Bush has 10,000 people looking for Bin Laden (one man) and you still want
more!!! Wow, you are pretty hard to please I would say.

I know you said they are also keeping Afghanistan stable, but they are
looking for ole Bin too.

FamilySailor wrote:
Bush has 10,000 people looking for Bin Laden (one man) and you still want
more!!! Wow, you are pretty hard to please I would say.

I know you said they are also keeping Afghanistan stable, but they are
looking for ole Bin too.

I see, the Army has it's troops multitasking now?

Most of the Army's approx 11,500 men in Afghanistan are assigned to keep
the Karzai gov't stable & in power; training the new Afghan national
army. Exactly how many are hunting for Osama Bin Laden is not clear
(funny how the Army likes to obfuscate these things) but it's probably
not more than 1500 and definitely not more than 3,000... that would be
over 25% of deployed strength.

An argument could be made that it is a job for the most elite units, not
mass numbers, but would more troops decrease the odds???

If Bush & Cheney had not gone on their little spree in Iraq, for reasons
they cannot seem to explain, there would be plenty of troops to hunt
OBL. As it is, we have to rely on Pakistan to do it. And you know they
are one of our biggest friends, right?!?

Sometimes the "logic" of you Bush/Cheney fans is really amazing.

DSK

Yeah, I do want more. I want what's appropriate to the threat. We had
100K+ in Iraq to catch one guy, someone who had nothing to do with
9/11 or WMDs.

Isn't that the point? They're unable to keep AG stable, because in part
there are not enough troops.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
They didn't stop, but they didn't go after him full time either. Instead
of
100K+ troops in Iraq, how about 100K troops in Afganistan??? Now
if that had happened, I could say Bu**** was actually doing something.
We only have about 10K troops "looking for BL." And, that includes
trying to keep Afganistan stable. What a joke.


Bush has 10,000 people looking for Bin Laden (one man) and you still want
more!!! Wow, you are pretty hard to please I would say.

I know you said they are also keeping Afghanistan stable, but they are
looking for ole Bin too.

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...

You honestly believe they stopped the search for Bin Laden? Don't you
remember all the reports where they thought they were closing in on him?
Talk about twisting! You must base what you believe is going on by what
the
liberal press tells you. If you were on the inside and part of those
seeking
Bin Laden you would not make such STUPID statements. Some of these post
make
me laugh. The word "Blind" comes to mind.

Do you really believe that Iraq hasn't distracted attention from the hunt
for Bin Laden?

The word "stupid" comes to mind..... so does the word "gullible" ..... along
with the phrase "two short planks".

Before the invasion of Iraq, we were told that Saddam had connections with
Bin Laden.

We now know that US administrations provided more support (financial and
technical) for Bin Laden than Iraq ever did.


Regards


Donal
--

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Frankly, I cannot come up with a single reason that justifies cutting
short the hunt for Bin Laden to run after
Saddam......


You honestly believe they stopped the search for Bin Laden? ....
...... If you were on the inside and part of those seeking
Bin Laden you would not make such STUPID statements.

You got the same grades in reading comprehention as Homer Simpson, eh? I
didn't say "stopped" I said "cut short" and if YOU were on the inside you'd
know that's exactly what happened - that "resources" who almost had O'Sammy
in hand were diverted to Iraq. Hmmm...??

You got the same grades in reading comprehention as Homer Simpson, eh?

DOHHHH!!!

I didn't say "stopped" I said "cut short" and if YOU were on the inside
you'd
know that's exactly what happened - that "resources" who almost had
O'Sammy
in hand were diverted to Iraq. Hmmm...??

Your right you said cut short. I guess it was cut down to only 10,000
soldiers according to Jonathan. 10,000 soldiers looking for ole Bin, or is
that O-bee-whan, use the force Luke. (I digress)

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:26:54 -0500, "FamilySailor" wrote:

You got the same grades in reading comprehention as Homer Simpson, eh?

DOHHHH!!!

I didn't say "stopped" I said "cut short" and if YOU were on the inside
you'd
know that's exactly what happened - that "resources" who almost had
O'Sammy
in hand were diverted to Iraq. Hmmm...??

Your right you said cut short. I guess it was cut down to only 10,000
soldiers according to Jonathan. 10,000 soldiers looking for ole Bin, or is
that O-bee-whan, use the force Luke. (I digress)

Which is fewer than the number of police officers in Manhattan, while
we sent 150,000 to get one man, Saddam, who had nothing to do with
9/11.

In case you have failed to notice, we haven't gotten bin Laden.