“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Shocking, simply shocking, Kerry Report: Osama bin Laden was within reach of US troops in Afghanistan



It is obvious that the US missed capturing bin Laden at Tora Bora. It is also obvious that this report , by the most amazing of coincidences, appears the weekend before Obama makes his big move in Afghanistan, eight years after the deed.

The architect of the report is John Kerry, a man who has no credibility whatsoever. If Ted Kennedy was the "lion of the senate" then John Kerry is the "liar of the senate."

The entire purpose of the timing and the report is to give cover to Obama, and allow Obama to once again claim it is all the fault of George W. Bush.

It can be argued with equal vehemence that Bill Clinton had many more opportunities to kill Osama, before 911 ever started.

There is no evidence that US air and ground troops, available at the time, would have captured or killed Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora. Kerry has no more proof that we would have found bin Laden than Kerry could prove he was in Cambodia, which he also has claimed, and was not.

At the time of Tora Bora, there was cause and reason to use tactical nuclear weapons, but no guarantee that they would have 100% guaranteed success. Neither Clinton, Bush, Obama and certainly not John Kerry would have ever made that call.



I have personal experience with the testimony of John Kerry on the contra affair. During the Contra Hearings, John Kerry misrepresented facts and lied. He ruined reputations and caused loyal Americans to lose their personal fortunes.

Kerry is not a serious man. He is a serious politician and an opportunist. Take the report for what it is, not much more than a political document from a documented liar.

_____________________________

Published: 10:00AM GMT 29 Nov 2009
Telegraph

Osama bin Laden was within reach of US troops in Afghanistan when military leaders made the decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report has said.

The document says the failure to kill or capture the al-Qaeda leader in the mountains of Tora Bora in Afghanistan at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences.

Bin Laden's escape laid the foundation for the reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Democratic majority prepared the report at the request of the chairman, Sen John Kerry, as President Barack Obama prepares to boost U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Mr Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, has long argued the Bush administration missed a chance to get the al-Qaeda leader and top deputies when they were holed up in the forbidding mountainous area of eastern Afghanistan only three months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The report puts part of the blame for the state of the war today on military leaders under former President George W Bush, specifically Donald Rumsfeld as defence secretary and his top military commander, Tommy Franks.
"Removing the al-Qaeda leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat," the report said. "But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide.

"The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism."

The report states categorically that bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora when the U.S. had the means to mount a rapid assault with several thousand troops at least.

It says that a review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants "removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora."

On or about Dec 16, 2001, Bin Laden and bodyguards "walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan's unregulated tribal area," where he is still believed to be based, the report says.

Instead of a massive attack, fewer than 100 US commandos, working with Afghan militias, tried to capitalise on air strikes and track down their prey.

"The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the Marine Corps and the Army, was kept on the sidelines," the report said.

At the time, Mr Rumsfeld expressed concern that a large US troop presence might fuel a backlash and he and some others said the evidence was not conclusive about bin Laden's location.


28 comments:

  1. The essence of that Telegraph report about the contents of the Senate report has been discussed, here at the EB and before that the BC, since it happened.

    Tommy Franks screwed the pooch, at Tora Bora.

    There were MANY military options available, less severe than tactical nukes, that could have made a major difference.

    A battalion of Rangers, used as a blocking force, 'tween the mountain redoubt and the border, comes first to mind. It was what was requested by the US operatives on site. The request was denied, specifically by General Franks, if his version of the story is to be believed. Not by Donald Rumsfeld or Dick "five deferment" Cheney or even GW Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have argued and believe that the US could have and should have used tactical nuclear weapons at Tora Bora and all the other al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. The reasoning and justification being military, political and economic.

    Their use at that moment, would give pause to any government, contemplating support for any terrorist organization bent on attacking US soil.

    It would have saved tens of thousands of lives and vast sums of money, but it would not have guaranteed the death of bin Laden at US hands.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Son, then 17, was told @ work, we had no viable option in 'stan.
    I replied, sure we do, and suggested nukes.
    Shocked his young, innoncent self.
    Probly relegated me to the Paleos in his mind at the moment.
    Too easy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's a known fact that Kerry is a political hack so the question is; "What is he hacking for?"

    The Telegraph quotes: "Removing the al-Qaeda leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat," the report said. "But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide.

    "The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism."


    So, does the Obama administration propose to "finish the job"? Will Obama make it his grail to get Osama bin Laden or is this simply the finger pointing of the immature? It seems to me that maturity involves forgiving the errors of our forebears and accepting responsiblity for our present situations. Obama, all too often exhibits the immature trait.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "It seems to me that maturity involves forgiving the errors of our forebears and accepting responsiblity for our present situations"
    ---
    Sorry, Obamareality involves constantly damning the errors of our forebears, and accepting no responsibility whatsoever for our present reality.

    ReplyDelete
  7. here's some afternoon delight for you

    I heard this yesterday afternoon and it's been in my head ever since. An oldie but a goodie. Enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Deuce: I have argued and believe that the US could have and should have used tactical nuclear weapons at Tora Bora and all the other al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan

    The threat of dropping the bomb brought Daddy Kim to the negotiating table in 1953. Somewhere between Eisenhower and Johnson, nuclear weapons became taboo, no longer really part of America's tool set. I suspect it was the Cuban Missile Crisis that traumatized everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  9. MLD: here's some afternoon delight for you

    That's a very kind offer, MeLoDy, but I've already broken in Miss F.

    ReplyDelete
  10. All politicians are scum. They are in most cases, incompetent scum. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld fit in that category. Franks was totally unqualified to fight the war in afghanistan. He, and his staff were too stupid, or filled with hubris, to admit they didn't know what they were doing, and find someone who did.

    Kerry's a piece of shit, but the report tells a large part of the truth. They're all fucking scum.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well Rufus, if we already let the horses escape the barn at Tora Bora, why are we still in Afghanistan trying to close the barn door and not out in the Pakistan pasture rounding them up? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The U.N., and "Korea" ushered in a "head up your ass" mindset, and our leaders, and military have had it ever since. We haven't had a General since Patton that was fit for anything more than a "trench warfare" standoff.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Miss F, is a very lucky lady, T.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Because, the politicians can't decide which is better, "politically," T - to let the Taliban use our troops for target practice, or to bring them home.

    To "fight to win" in afghanistan would require a Massive investment. Just the number of helicopters, alone, would cause the entire establishment to throw up their lunch.

    Easier to send Marines out to outposts in remote valley floors, and wait for them to die, unreinforced, and "unsupported" by artillery, or air.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It can be argued with equal vehemence that Bill Clinton had many more opportunities to kill Osama, before 911 ever started.


    fixed that for you..

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thanks, I corrected the post.

    ReplyDelete
  17. So, does the Obama administration propose to "finish the job"?

    - anon

    I believe it was Leslie Gelb who said that this is supposed to be
    the theme of the president's Tuesday speech: We're going to finish what we started.

    The devil's in the details, of course, and not in the speech.

    A surge starts out in Afghanistan at the very low end infrastructure-wise - unlike Iraq, into which we had already at the time of the surge dumped a massive development/redevelopment effort of which, along with preexisting infrastructure, we were able to take advantage.

    After all these years, this is still more like a surge on the moon. Just doesn't take as long to get there.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The "Surge" in Iraq got lucky. It bought a little time, and emboldened the "Tribes" to "Awaken."

    If they don't have a similar "awakening" plan in the works in afghanistan, this "surge" might as well be on the moon.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 34,000 man "surge" in a badlands the size of TEXAS. Gimmee a fuckin break.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If they don't have a similar "awakening" plan in the works in afghanistan, this "surge" might as well be on the moon.

    Sun Nov 29, 01:04:00 PM EST

    We've been through various "awakenings" in Afghanistan. The problem has been that an early policy of disarmament coupled with a lack of sustained physical security resulted in our friends getting picked off.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hey great post. Thought I'm not sure I agree with you 100%. Keep em coming. Are you interested in having anyone guest post opposing views?

    ReplyDelete