Kerry : Tora Bora reference

[Pollwatch99]

I thought it was a real slap at our miltary leaders

[The Duke]

The reason we didn't send in our own people was

1. The Afghans knew the terrain better, since they live there, and it would have been unnecessarily hazardous to our soldiers to send them into heinous terrain when we didn't even have good maps of the area.

2. We lacked the capability to deploy large numbers of troops rapidly, we had neither the airlift capacity nor the regional bases that are needed to do what Kerry talked about doing.

[Pollwatch99]

The reason we didn't send in our own people was

1. The Afghans knew the terrain better, since they live there, and it would have been unnecessarily hazardous to our soldiers to send them into heinous terrain when we didn't even have good maps of the area.

2. We lacked the capability to deploy large numbers of troops rapidly, we had neither the airlift capacity nor the regional bases that are needed to do what Kerry talked about doing.

Tommy Franks on CNN after the debate said we never got confirmation where Bin Laden was.  He had many reports that he was in other locations.  Amazing Kerry can repeat such an irresponsible charge in a Presidental campaign

[pollwatch99-a]

It is amazing to me, that out of the first 14 votes, 35% actually believe that our miltary leaders and the President failed to do everything possible to get Bin Laden.  

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Wasn't "Tora Bora" one of the Pacific Theater battles of WWII?

[Blue Rectangle]

Wasn't "Tora Bora" one of the Pacific Theater battles of WWII?

Are you thinking of "Tora! Tora! Tora!"?

Kerry criticism is that we relied too much on native troops in Afghanistan and too little on native troops in Iraq.  If we had gone into Afghanistan with a hundred thousand troops we would have turned the whole country against us and we would be fighting an insurgency similar to the situation in Iraq, but we may have caught bin Laden.  Bush made the right decision.  Unfortunately, this strategy in Iraq was not possible due to the fact that Iraq had a actual military.

Kerry greatly oversimplifies the situation to score political points, but what else is new?  He gains with his base by making that charge, but I doubt it affects the swing voters much.  Most voters believe Bush's policy in Afghanistan has been good.

[Donovan]

Well, I voted in favor of Kerry. Here is why I think he is correct.

Your arguments are weak and you base them on distortions of the facts at the time.

First, the reason we don't know for fact that Bin Laudin was in the area at the time was because Bush did not allow US Troops to pursue the enemy. He wanted to wait, which allowed the Taliban to escape.

Second, it didn't matter if Bin Laudin was there or not. Is was confirmed that nearly 1000 enemy troops that helped and planned in the destruction of  the World Trade Center and were harboring those that helped kill 3,000+ US citizens were in the area. If that isn't enough reason enough to go in for a kill, what is?

Third, the reports of Bin Laudin being in the Tora Bora region were creditable enough to be considered the MOST likely location of Bin Laudin.

Fourth, we should have attacked all areas believed to be harboring Bin Laudin with US Troops to make sure he was dead.

Finally, if the CURRENT tactics are so GOOD, why are most of our troops entangled in another irrelevant war, and how come Bin Laudin is sitting in Pakistan laughing at us, most likely plotting against the US again more than 3 years later?

Face it, Bush messed up. He gave Bin Laudin a 6-week head start, gave all of the Bin Laudins in the US a first class flight back home to Saudi Arabia losing invaluable intelligence, and this has made the US incapable of capturing Bin Laudin.

Any competent President would have captured and/or killed Bin Laudin within a year's time or put forth the entire military to do so. Now we may never get Bin Laudin.

The slap in the face is that Bush didn't allow our troops to do their job, and the Bush is not intelligent enough to capture Bin Laudin.

Bush should be fired for a job poorly done.

[The Duke]

Someone deleted one of my posts.  I must have been too insulting.  Oh well, lets see if any more get deleted for the insults.

First, the reason we don't know for fact that Bin Laudin was in the area at the time was because Bush did not allow US Troops to pursue the enemy. He wanted to wait, which allowed the Taliban to escape.

Bush didn't make those tactical decisions, Tommy Franks did.

Why would Franks not rush US heavy infantry into Tora Bora?  Could it be because the US did not have adequate maps of the area and what experience they did have in the region told them that even good maps might be inadequate for navigation?  Might it just be smarter to hand the job to local troops who are present in greater number and have firsthand knowledge of the terrain?

Second, it didn't matter if Bin Laudin was there or not. Is was confirmed that nearly 1000 enemy troops that helped and planned in the destruction of  the World Trade Center and were harboring those that helped kill 3,000+ US citizens were in the area. If that isn't enough reason enough to go in for a kill, what is?

Hence we sent in tribal allies supported by US airpower to root them out.

Third, the reports of Bin Laudin being in the Tora Bora region were creditable enough to be considered the MOST likely location of Bin Laudin.

Hence we sent in tribal allies supported by US airpower to root them out.

However, Kerry didn't say, "It was likely that UBL was at Tora Bora."  He said he knows for sure that UBL was at Tora Bora, which is simply wrong.  We have no conclusive evidence of his whereabouts now or then.

Fourth, we should have attacked all areas believed to be harboring Bin Laudin with US Troops to make sure he was dead.

With limited forces present, due to airlift constraints as I said, they have to prioritized.  This puts a higher standard on what intelligence is actionable than what exists in a place where we have more troops.

Finally, if the CURRENT tactics are so GOOD, why are most of our troops entangled in another irrelevant war, and how come Bin Laudin is sitting in Pakistan laughing at us, most likely plotting against the US again more than 3 years later?

This is not a question of tactics, but of strategy.

I am quite happy to justify the Iraq invasion with hard evidence of Iraq support for terrorist attacks against the US and American citizens abroad.

US military commanders have been quite consistent in their view of whether heavy divisions (the primary force type in Iraq right now) would be of utility in Afghanistan.  There verdict is that the impact would be negligible, even in massed numbers.

UBL's whereabouts are not known, nor is it known if he is alive.  My guess is that he is not.

Face it, Bush messed up. He gave Bin Laudin a 6-week head start, gave all of the Bin Laudins in the US a first class flight back home to Saudi Arabia losing invaluable intelligence, and this has made the US incapable of capturing Bin Laudin.

What six-week head start?  We began the attack on Afghanistan 26 days after 9/11.  The speed of our response is unprecedented in world history.  Never has a force responded so successfully to a threat so quickly when that threat was so far away.

The Saudi flights were approved by the FBI and the head of the counter terrorism center, Dick Clarke, not the President or an political appointee at the White House.  There was no Saudi that we wanted to interview that we didn't get to interview.

Any competent President would have captured and/or killed Bin Laudin within a year's time or put forth the entire military to do so. Now we may never get Bin Laudin.

Would you have said the same about Hitler?  Hirohito?  Mussolini?  Jeferson Davis?

I can see it now, at a George McClellan rally.

"If Lincoln were competent we'd control the whole of the confederacy by now."

The slap in the face is that Bush didn't allow our troops to do their job, and the Bush is not intelligent enough to capture Bin Laudin..

It is a slap in the face that you feel entitled to talk to me.

[Pollwatch99]

Well folks.  I'm truly amazed.  Yes, I'm a republican but
I've voted demcratic from time to time( all levels from Senator, Governor, and President).   The concept that any US president and any one of our miltary leaders  would not fully pursue the mass murder of 3,000 Americans and would outsource to Afgan work lords is sickening  

For the poster who said that this was the likely location of Bin Laden and was credible enough, my answer is to who?  Michael Moore.  I'll stand with Tommy Franks

Now enough of the past.  Let's get to brass tacks on the implications of Kerry's whining that the troops shouldn't be IRAQ but should be pursuing Bin Laden in Afganistan.
Piure Lawyer talk and here is why.  What are you going to do with the troops?  Invade Pakistan to get somebody hiding in a cave and isolated from the world?   What are the ramifications of this action?  Musharaff is not in the strongest position and the border region in Pakistan is loaded with ISLAMIC fundamentilists who have twice tried to kill him.  What's the ramification of that?  Nuclear weapons in the hand of ISLAMIC fundamentilists.  Brilliant idea Kerry.  Do I believe Kerry is that stupid?   No way, he is much too smart to do that.  

So is he not going to do that, why say it?  ASK YOURSELF THAT QUESTION VERY, VERY HARD.  The answer is he will say what he needs to win the election.

 

[Blue Rectangle]

Face it, Bush messed up. He gave Bin Laudin a 6-week head start, gave all of the Bin Laudins in the US a first class flight back home to Saudi Arabia losing invaluable intelligence, and this has made the US incapable of capturing Bin Laudin.

The claim that Osama bin Ladin's family had knowledge of his whereabouts is not only completely false, but smacks of racism.  No member of the previous administration or this administration and no former or current member of US intelligence or law enforcement has claimed that bin Ladin family members had "invaluable intelligence", so where are you getting this information?  Michael Moore?  Members of his family have lived in the U.S. for years and were cooperative after the repeated al Qaida attacks of the 90s.  Unfortunately, their cooperation did not make up for the fact that they knew nothing.

Any competent President would have captured and/or killed Bin Laudin within a year's time or put forth the entire military to do so. Now we may never get Bin Laudin.

Speaking of repeated al Qaida attacks in the 90s, how "competent" was Clinton when he passed up, on four separate occasions, chances to capture or kill bin Ladin?  Not only did Clinton not "put forth the entire military" he did not put a single person on the ground.  All he did was launch a completely ineffective missile strike after the embassy bombings.  After the bombing of the Cole he chose to do absolutely nothing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Kerry criticism is that we relied too much on native troops in Afghanistan and too little on native troops in Iraq.  

Actually, we relied too much on native troops in Iraq.  Our war plans assumed that significant segments of the Iraqi Army would defect and that we could use those troops to keep the peace, much as the Allies relied upon Japanese Imperial trroops to keep the peace after the Japanese surrender in WWII until we could get Allied troops into Japanese occupied territory.  The problem is the two situations were completely different.  The Japanese Army had high morale and remained a cohesive force even after the surrender by the Emperor, whereas the Iraqis we were counting upon were supposed to be magically demoralized enough to surrender against their "Emperor's" wishes, while at the same time be motivated enough to keep the peace.  How credible an idea was this to be basing our war plans upon it?  The looting and chaos that followed the invasion was predictable given our lack of troops, and the failure of the Iraqi Army to do as we counted upon.  In both Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush has proven himself unable to wait until we had the necessary forces to do the job properly in place.  Had W been president in WW2, the Allied landing at Normandy in 1943 would have failed, because unlike FDR who was persuaded that we needed to wait, Bush has no patience.

[freedomburns]

Wasn't "Tora Bora" one of the Pacific Theater battles of WWII?

You may be thinking of the island of Bora Bora, off the coast of Tahiti in the middle of the Pacific.

[Donovan]

Face it, Bush messed up. He gave Bin Laudin a 6-week head start, gave all of the Bin Laudins in the US a first class flight back home to Saudi Arabia losing invaluable intelligence, and this has made the US incapable of capturing Bin Laudin.

The claim that Osama bin Ladin's family had knowledge of his whereabouts is not only completely false, but smacks of racism.  No member of the previous administration or this administration and no former or current member of US intelligence or law enforcement has claimed that bin Ladin family members had "invaluable intelligence", so where are you getting this information?  Michael Moore?  Members of his family have lived in the U.S. for years and were cooperative after the repeated al Qaida attacks of the 90s.  Unfortunately, their cooperation did not make up for the fact that they knew nothing.

Any competent President would have captured and/or killed Bin Laudin within a year's time or put forth the entire military to do so. Now we may never get Bin Laudin.

Speaking of repeated al Qaida attacks in the 90s, how "competent" was Clinton when he passed up, on four separate occasions, chances to capture or kill bin Ladin?  Not only did Clinton not "put forth the entire military" he did not put a single person on the ground.  All he did was launch a completely ineffective missile strike after the embassy bombings.  After the bombing of the Cole he chose to do absolutely nothing.

[Donovan]

Ok, so it not justified holding the family members of a person that just killed 3000 + Americans to ask them some questions? But hey, it is perfectly logical to detain 1,000s of Middle Easterners in the United States that have no known connection with Bin Laudin?

HELLO! Do you know any Middle Easterners? If you did, you would know that many were taken in the middle of the night away from their families, many still detained, with NO evidence against them other than being a Middle Easterner.  Many not even given trials, and if gone to trial, found innocent but still kept for other trumped up charges.

There is one guy in my city that they took away, has been found not guilty and they still have him locked up for over a year not able to see his family. A conservative federal judge declared innocent.

There are 1,000s of these stories all over the US.

You would think that Bush would have the Common sense to at least ask the Bin Laudins some questions about their loved one. To say that they know NOTHING that could be of value to capture is farfetched, but rather pointless now since Bush let them go.

In addition, since when has Bush cared about the rights of anybody? Shall we visit the prisons in Iraq?
Bush is failure. He has failed on everything, from the war in Iraq, the economy, immigration, education, loose nukes, capturing Bin Laudin, peace talks with North Korea and Iran, you name it. He is a complete failure and embarrassment to the country!

[ATFFL]

Donovan, could you link me to those thousands of stories?

I know several Arab Americans and some Arabs living here on visas.  One of them is currently back in Jordan visiting his family.  The only one who had any contact with the government, outside of the routine stuff for a visa, went in voluntarily.

[J. J.]

HELLO! Do you know any Middle Easterners? If you did, you would know that many were taken in the middle of the night away from their families, many still detained, with NO evidence against them other than being a Middle Easterner.  Many not even given trials, and if gone to trial, found innocent but still kept for other trumped up charges.

There is one guy in my city that they took away, has been found not guilty and they still have him locked up for over a year not able to see his family. A conservative federal judge declared innocent.

There are 1,000s of these stories all over the US.

1.  I have several friends who are Muslim, some that are Arab, some that are both.  No, I have not seen that.

2.  On 9/11/01, between 9:00 and 10:00 AM, I was just under 3.5 miles from the Pentagon (gallently eating breakfast at Micky D's).  I returned to my hotel, the Hilton, which overlooked the Pentagon, four miles away, and left a message on her answering machine that I was okay.  Her last name was Lakhdari; he husband was visiting relatives in Algeria at the time.  Neither I, nor either of them, were ever contacted by law enforcement, though law enforcement stationed snipers on the roof of the Hilton that night and I had to show ID to enter the building later in the day.  

Your post confict with reality.

[Donovan]

Tredrick,

I am not going to provide you with 1000 links. But I am happen to list a few for you and you can research it yourself further. I am surprised though that you have not heard about this going on. It is one of the major reasons why the majority of the socially conservative Muslim population has switched from supporting Republicans to supporting Democrats.

http://www.argonaut.uidaho.edu/archives/022503/arrest.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071555/
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0114-03.htm
http://www.pww.org/article/view/2594/1/128/
http://www.detnews.com/2003/specialreport/0311/04/a06-314448.htm
http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-2/457/457_07_Detentions.shtml
http://www.profilesininjustice.com/newsstory.asp?id=76
http://www.uusc.org/news/terdetain013102.html
http://middleeastinfo.org/article4598.html
http://www.islamonline.net/english/news/2002-03/10/article56.shtml

[J. J.]

Tredrick,

I am not going to provide you with 1000 links. But I am happen to list a few for you and you can research it yourself further. I am surprised though that you have not heard about this going on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071555/

http://www.islamonline.net/english/news/2002-03/10/article56.shtml

I took a look at the two links cited (The Socialist Workers Party organ wasn't exactly mainstream before 9/11 either).  Both cite visa violations as the reason for many if not most of the arrests.  Arresting someone for violating the law, and deporting them after due process, isn't exactly police state stuff.

The two that I looked at were from 2002.

[J. J.]

BTW, I realize that there are many Democrats/Kerry supporters out there with legitimate and rational opposition to Bush Administration policies, and with a firm grasp of reality.

You may have to put up with loony left, but we have the right wingnuts as well.

[Donovan]

JJ,

Don't you find it odd that they only enforce the 100+ restrictions of Visa's on Arab vistors, and only after 2001? Funny, how that is.

If you bothered to even read Visa restrictions you find out that about 99% of them violate at least one of them. So enforcing the law was never the issue. We have about 2-3 million illegal immigrants roaming the streets of Southwestern States.

It is obvious if you know any of these Arabs in the US that it is all BS. Many of Visa violations are also later to be found not in violation. I know that was the case in many of them.

The reason they charge with violation of the Visa is because you cannot argue against them in court, INS has total control.

[The Duke]

JJ,

Don't you find it odd that they only enforce the 100+ restrictions of Visa's on Arab vistors, and only after 2001? Funny, how that is.

If you bothered to even read Visa restrictions you find out that about 99% of them violate at least one of them. So enforcing the law was never the issue. We have about 2-3 million illegal immigrants roaming the streets of Southwestern States.

It is obvious if you know any of these Arabs in the US that it is all BS. Many of Visa violations are also later to be found not in violation. I know that was the case in many of them.

The reason they charge with violation of the Visa is because you cannot argue against them in court, INS has total control.

1. Just because you don't arrest every VISA violator doesn't mean you shouldn't or can't arrest some of them.

2. A finding that no violation of immigration laws has taken place only entitles the defendant to relase, not the right to never be detained.

[Donovan]

1. Just because you don't arrest every VISA violator doesn't mean you shouldn't or can't arrest some of them.

2. A finding that no violation of immigration laws has taken place only entitles the defendant to relase, not the right to never be detained.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did I state that you shouldn't arrest some of them if they broke the law? No, I did not. Only enforcing laws against one group of people and not another on the basis or ethnic background is still discrimination. Further, how are you enforcing the law if all of the people you arrest are found not guilty of breaking any laws?

I guess all those Arab deserve to be seperated from their families for year or more because they decided to be Arab in a bigoted land.

You be seperated from your family for a year in tiny 8X10 cell with no windows, after being as law abiding as you can, Mr. Ford, then come back to me and tell me how it was all justified.

[ATFFL]

Donovan,

Why are all those links 2 years old if this is an ongoing issue?

A violation of your visa is a crime.  That it was ignored until after 9-11 does not mean it should continue to be ignored.  THey did not violate no laws, they overstayed their visas, which is a crime.

The INS was a joke and reforming it, and enforcing its rules, have become a much higher priority than it was on 9-10-2001.

Do you have stories of Arabs ho did not commit a visa violation being detained?

[The Duke]

1. Just because you don't arrest every VISA violator doesn't mean you shouldn't or can't arrest some of them.

2. A finding that no violation of immigration laws has taken place only entitles the defendant to relase, not the right to never be detained.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did I state that you shouldn't arrest some of them if they broke the law? No, I did not. Only enforcing laws against one group of people and not another on the basis or ethnic background is still discrimination. Further, how are you enforcing the law if all of the people you arrest are found not guilty of breaking any laws?

I guess all those Arab deserve to be seperated from their families for year or more because they decided to be Arab in a bigoted land.

You be seperated from your family for a year in tiny 8X10 cell with no windows, after being as law abiding as you can, Mr. Ford, then come back to me and tell me how it was all justified.

They weren't law biding citizens, they were in violation of their Visas.

[Donovan]

OK, guys, I am trying to get you down here with me on the planet Earth.

First, they DID NOT violate the Visa in most cases, such as in the first link. I know the lawyers and studied the case. The Government SAID they violated the Visas. A quick reality check will tell you that what the government says is true, and what really is true are not always the same. They LIED about the fact that they violated the Visa, so that they could hold them in the cell until they could come up with some other charge.

Second, if they violated the VISA, FINE, send them back. But don't keep them locked up for 1-2 years bringing up charge after charge after charge against them that keeps getting knocked down by juries and judges because they have no merit, all the while the taxpayer is paying for this.

Third, if you are going to start enforcing every detail and minor nuances regulation of a VISA you need to do it evenly across the board.

Fourth, it is not a CRIME to violate the terms of VISA. It is simply a violation of an agreement between the INS and the person who obtained the VISA. If a student with a Visa changes a class in college from English 543 to 521 because of a changed degree requirement and they forget to contact immigration services, this is not a crime and harms nobody.

Finally, what is a crime is that the Federal Government uses Racial Profiling. What is also a crime is to detain someone for 1-2 years without a trial. What is a crime is to use your authority to arrest and detail a large group of people on the basis of race with full knowledge that they have not committed a crime. What is a crime is to slander a member of the community and call them a terrorist when they have no connection to terrorism.
What is a crime is to have three little boys screaming in the middle of the night waking the whole community because the Government wanted to scare the Arab population by stealing their Daddy in the middle of the night who had done no wrong.

Saying they were in violation of their VISA, which they weren't, even if true, doesn't justify the violation of due process of the law. In other words, just because someone breaks the speed limit by 5 MPH doesn't justify detaining a person for 1-2 years, in a tiny cell with no windows, and keeping them from a lawyer, their family, and practicing their religion.

You have messed up since of Justice Mr. Ford and Tredrick, and need to reconsider what is wrong with the idea of just enforcing the law on a Minority of people while letting all the White people break the law all they want, and to an even greater extent. Until you can figure that one out it is not worth the time debating with either of you. It is clear you stand for bigotry and ignorance and ignore what America is suppose to be about, and why the Constitution is in place.

You don't want to believe, or take the time to realize, that the government harassed a great of Arabs and Arab Americans in the wake of 9/11. You think that the government is 100% honest, and everything they tell you is 100% the unwavering truth. I too wish that was the case. But I don't need to go far to know that is not the reality in which we live.