Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This can't be true -- Bin Laden could get off free?!?!?!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This can't be true -- Bin Laden could get off free?!?!?!

    From today's Daily News....


    Wanted: Dead or alive or to have a 'peaceful life' in Pakistan
    Five years after our nation was attacked, the terrorist danger remains. We're a nation at war -- and America and her allies are fighting this war with relentless determination across the world. Together with our coalition partners, we've removed terrorist sanctuaries, disrupted their finances, killed and captured key operatives, broken up terrorist cells in America and other nations, and stopped new attacks before they're carried out. We're on the offense against the terrorists on every battlefront -- and we'll accept nothing less than complete victory.
    -- George W. Bush, Sept. 5, 2006.

    Meanwhile, back in the reality-based world...

    Osama bin Laden, America's most wanted man, will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a "peaceful life," Pakistani officials tell ABC News.

    The surprising announcement comes as Pakistani army officials announced they were pulling their troops out of the North Waziristan region as part of a "peace deal" with the Taliban.

    If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden "would not be taken into custody," Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, "as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen."
    -- ABC News, Sept. 5, 2006.


    If this story is true -- and we have a lot of respect for ABC's Brian Ross -- then the White House has some explaining to do. The funny (well, OK, not 'ha ha' funny) part is that we understand that geopolitics is a messy business, and sometimes a seemingly black-and-white solution to a problem will hurt America down the road.

    And for most of our lifetime, American policy has usually been to look the other way with Pakistan, regardless of whether it was invading India or building nuclear weapons or backing the Taliban. Now, we happen to think that harboring the guy behind the 9/11 attacks that killed more than 2,900 people is the last straw, and beyond the pale, but the voices of realpolitick would argue that sometimes to prevent those dominoes from falling in the region you need to back some bad people.

    The president could probably get some advice on that from his own father, who decided in 1991 that it was better to leave a very bad guy -- Saddam Hussein -- than to do the politically popular and expedient job of toppling him, because that would have destabilized the region, increasing the power of Iran and the Shiite movement.

    Of course, nowadays every two-bit radio host and political blowhard will tell you that invading Iraq in 2003 was the right thing to do, negative consequences be damned, because we got rid of a bad guy. What's more, the only military move of the Bush II era that most Americans agree upon was the 2002 invasion of Afghanistan -- because Afghanistan was harboring Osama bin Laden. So, if you believe that, as most of us do, and if you believe in invading Iraq, as most right-wingers, do, don't you have to now invade Pakistan, the nation that is harboring bin Laden, the even badder guy than Saddam Hussein.

    Our head is spinning...is yours?
    Official Driver of the Eagles Bandwagon!!!
    Bleedin' Green since birth!

    "Do not regret growing older. It is a privilege denied to many." - Mike Willey

    ”Enjoy The Ride!!!” - Bob Marcus

  • #2
    Saddam is just as bad if not worse than Bin Laden, but that doesn't change the fact that we need to figure out how to change Pakistan's mind whether that be through force or negotiations.
    Whatcha Gonna Do Brother, When the Eagles run wild on you?

    Comment

    Working...
    X