I've been telling my wife for some months that I expect we'll get him around
August or September, at which point the Dems will claim there was some deep
dark plot to time the capture just before the election.

Which there may have been, but if he is apprehended, who cares about little
tweaks to the timing. It is not like michael moore's movie came out this
summer coincidentally.

On 13 Jul 2004 15:05:14 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:28:02 GMT, felton said:

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

I've been telling my wife for some months that I expect we'll get him around
August or September, at which point the Dems will claim there was some deep
dark plot to time the capture just before the election.

Better late than never. I did hear that the Bush administration is
now really turning up the heat on Pakistan to get some high level
Al-Qaeda terrorist prior to the election. Too bad that it took some
low approval ratings for this group to resume the war on terrorism,
but I guess they have their hands full in Iraq.

I know one thing...if I were an unusally tall Arab, I would keep a low
profile for the next few months...there are some desperate Republicans
looking for a trophy. Whether real or imagined makes little
difference to the party base.

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.

That's right. The Bu****s still don't really give a **** about capturing
him.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:18:13 GMT, felton said:

I did hear that the Bush administration is
now really turning up the heat on Pakistan to get some high level
Al-Qaeda terrorist prior to the election.

Don't believe everything you hear, Felton. Could be, but I suspect the
source of that information is some folks who are trying to build a
foundation for just the claim I said they'd be making when it happens. The
propaganda machines of both parties are extremely well-oiled.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

"Dave" wrote

I've been telling my wife for some months that I expect we'll get him
around
August or September, at which point the Dems will claim there was some
deep
dark plot to time the capture just before the election.

It'd certainly be in character. Reagan bribed Iran to keep the US Embassy
hostages in prison long enough to embarass Carter then illegally paid them
off with embargoed military goodies.

"Vito" said:
Reagan bribed Iran to keep the US Embassy
hostages in prison long enough to embarass Carter then illegally paid them
off with embargoed military goodies.


Dave wrote:
Look out for those black helicopters.

It's true, Reagan did negotiate with Iran to keep the hostages through
the 1980 election. It's been admitted by several Reagan cabinet members
and is mentioned in official Iran history (although you might note that
they don't seem to be proud of it).

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/a..._iraq_war1.php

DSK

Dave wrote:
Doug, that chestnut's been kicking around for 23 years and will probably be
kicking around for another 20 among the conspiracy theorists of the left.

That's funny... lightly dismiss it as "conspiracy theory of the left"
and then you don't have to face the truth.


... No
doubt in your circles it's regarded as gospel.

Not entirely. Most of my friends have a high regard for Reagan as
President; not tremendously distant from my view BTW.

... Nevertheless the best your
quoted source could say is "there is some evidence."

That's just one source which I picked because it was from Iran.
Different perspective. I have no idea what the politics of the writer of
that web essay are.

... Not exactly a ringing
solid conclusion.

Maybe if Reagan himself appeared to you in a vision and confirmed it,
you'd believe it? Maybe not.

In any event, you can believe in the Tooth Fairy and the purity and
innocence of your anointed politicians. It's easier than trying to
figure things out.

... In my business "some evidence" may get you to the jury but
it usually doesn't get you a verdict. Far less than "clear and convincing
evidence," or even the "preponderance of the evidence," let alone "beyond a
reasonable doubt."

In my business, I have to cope with a variety of problems, none of which
can be dismissed as conspiracy theory or leftist rhetoric. Precision
machinery does not respond to flattery and it doesn't care what your
theories are. It's either right or it's not. To troubleshoot complex
systems requires careful observation and consistent adherence to
principles. Nobody cares whether a given theory is "proven" as long as
the machine works properly in the end.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's hindpart what you believe. I never said I
could prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Reagan negotiated with
Iran to keep the hostages; I said it was consistent with everything else
I've observed. It fits, in other words. No hammer required... although
it might help in your case

DSK

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:03:50 -0400, DSK wrote:

Frankly, I don't give a rat's hindpart what you believe. I never said I
could prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Reagan negotiated with Iran
to keep the hostages; I said it was consistent with everything else I've
observed. It fits, in other words. No hammer required... although it might
help in your case

I strongly suspect that it did happen, but I would put more of the blame
on that spook Casey (and perhaps, Bush I), than Reagan. It is the one
event that pulls all the pieces together right up to, and including, this
Iraq mess. You are right about not being able to prove it, but one thing
is certain, the Congressional investigation was a sham. I'm sure you have
the x-files, but for those that haven't, an eye-opening read:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0591/9105011.htm

"Dave" wrote

Look out for those black helicopters.

Naw, there's one sitting less than a click away, but it ain't black, it's
charcoal grey.