Bush failed at chance to kill Osama Bin Laden

[Thorgrim]

French special forces had Osama bin Laden in their sights twice about three years ago but their U.S. superiors never ordered them to fire.

"In 2003 and 2004 we had bin Laden in our sights. The sniper said 'I have bin Laden'," an anonymous French soldier is quoted as saying.

Razavi said the soldier told them it took roughly two hours for the request to reach the U.S. officers who could authorize it but the anonymous man is also quoted in the documentary as saying: "There was a hesitation in command."

Razavi told Reuters several sources told them the sightings were six months apart and they declined to be more specific.

Afghans questioned in the documentary said they believed the United States was not interested in finding bin Laden, despite the $25 million price Washington has placed on his head.


French troops had bin Laden in sights: documentary - Yahoo! News

Of course the French Military is denying it, despite what some people may think, they are our close allies and have sent French men to their deaths in Afghanistan to defend America and still have about 2,000 French soldiers in Afghanistan

I see no reason to doubt the soldiers

Bush could have clearly put in a request or order to all Nato forces that if they ever spot bin Laden, to kill him on sight, but they still had the basic "check with your superiors before the shot" rule

It seems as though they weren't really concerned with killing OBL...why should they?

I imagine they figured his power base was destroyed and his future impact would be minimal, and he served as a useful political object to use to win elections...and if he was to be caught, it would have to be by Americans, not foreign snipers

Pretty cold morals, but I guess they are politically justified, I mean if the French had killed OBL before 2004, would those tapes really have scared voters and gotten Bush the 60,000 votes he needed in Ohio?

[Stoner]

Ah, a documentary. Must be true. After all, documentaries can't be chalked full of lies, right? I'm certain everything said in Michael Moore's fictions, errrrrrrrr documentaries, is completely true.

My bullshit detector immediately went off when I saw your link. Then I get to the most important part of this dribble...

"The French military, however, said that the incidents never happened and the report was "erroneous information."

Whoops. Guess that part was irrelevant.

Will be interesting to see, nonetheless.

[Thorgrim]

I didn't say documentaries were gospel
I already addressed the issue of the FM denying the incident

[RMNIXON]

Welcome back!


Don't we need to understand Osama and why he is angry at us?


What would Jimmy Carter have done?


And what happened to all those conspiracies that we had Osama and would only reveal the fact just before November 2004? I guess we just trade one unfounded paranoid set of politcal conspiracy garbage for another? Fantasy Conjecture about Underhanded Republican motive is obviously the best standard of proof in these cases.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Welcome back!


Don't we need to understand Osama and why he is angry at us?


What would Jimmy Carter have done?


And what happened to all those conspiracies that we had Osama and would only reveal the fact just before November 2004? I guess we just trade one unfounded paranoid set of politcal conspiracy garbage for another? Fantasy Conjecture about Underhanded Republican motive is obviously the best standard of proof in these cases.

those "conspiracy theories" were just nervous democrats, no one published a paper and no one of repute in dem circles made any serious claim

Remember, right up until election day, many Democrats were thinking we were only going to pick up barely 15 or fall just short, and then lose MD and only pickup PA and OH...a +1 senate move

After being defeated for over a decade, and then faultering so badly in 2002 and 2004, some people had it wired that Democrats couldn't win so they looked for excuses before people even started voting

We need to understand Al-Qaeda, we don't need to understand a particular member, or even 90% of its members, we can kill them at will

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

And what happened to all those conspiracies that we had Osama and would only reveal the fact just before November 2004?

Liberal conspiracy theories change as the wind blows. They change their conspiracy theories to fit the current political landscape.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Liberal conspiracy theories change as the wind blows. They change their conspiracy theories to fit the current political landscape.

What about all those people Clinton had killed, or how Ken Starr cleared Clinton of dozens charges besides Monica? Or the conservative conspiracy theory about how the Ozone was a fraud?

To your direct point, you have no evidence, I laid out several examples

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Pretty cold morals, but I guess they are politically justified, I mean if the French had killed OBL before 2004, would those tapes really have scared voters and gotten Bush the 60,000 votes he needed in Ohio?

I don't see Stoner posting anything like that?

You did so you should be required by debate to defend it. He has no obligation to defend every Right-Wing conspiracy unless he believes it.

And his screen name is Stoner!

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

And his screen name is Stoner!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Stoner