Third Party & Independents Archives

Osama Unit Disbanded

President Bush said we will hunt Osama down and bring him to justice. Why was the unit set up to do just that disbanded?

A CIA unit in which the main job was to hunt Osama Bin Laden, Alec Station, has been abolished.

It appears that Osama and his buddy, Ayman, have done their job.
They have succeeded in creating numerous offshoots of their al-Qaida terrorist group and no longer need to be 'hands-on'.
A video and/or audio tape once in awhile seems to be enough to keep the ideology they adhere to alive and well.
Could this have anything to do with the decision to shut down Alec Station?

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) has written Negroponte to request that the unit be immediately re-opened. Find letter here: 'The Raw Story'
From his letter:
"There is no question that since 9/11, al Qaeda has morphed into a global terrorist movement that transcends any one individual. The decision to divert resources from the crucial fight against bin Laden and al Qaeda to wage war on Iraq has made the task of eradicating this increasingly diffuse threat more difficult. We now face a long, difficult and multi-faceted struggle against global terrorism and the hateful ideology that inspires it."

If this unit was re-assigned last year, why did it take you until 7/6/06, Mr. Kerry, to send this all important letter? Have you been on vacation? We were already in 'a long, difficult and multi-faceted struggle against global terrorism and the hateful ideology that inspires it.'. Are you just now realizing that?
Why weren't you all over the Clinton administration about this?
'Osama bin Laden: missed opportunities'
"The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst."

Not prepared?? Track someone without being prepared to finish the job? What kind of sense does that make?

From 'Guardian Unlimited' :
""Al-Qaida used to be a large hierarchical organisation, and five years out from 9/11 you have an organisation where many senior leaders, facilitators, and planners have been captured and killed, but you have a growing number of groups and individuals who have been inspired by al-Qaida and act independently of al-Qaida," the intelligence official said.

CIA officials insisted today that the hunt for al-Qaida's founder continued. "Tracking and gathering intelligence about Bin Laden, Zawahiri ... remains a high priority for the CIA and the intelligence community," one official said."

So...while we wait for someone inside Bin Laden's circle of friends and allies to change their ideology and decide they would rather have the reward money than run with the al-Qaida crowd...

Bush says -from 'The Washington Post':
""We got a lot of assets looking for Osama bin Laden," he said at a news conference at the Museum of Science and Industry.

"It's a matter of time, unless we stop looking. And we're not going to stop looking so long as I'm the president -- not only for Osama bin Laden, but anybody else who plots and plans attacks against the United States of America," Bush said."

'Osama bin Laden: missed opportunities'

"Daniel Benjamin, a member of President Clinton's counter-terrorism team, charges the Bush administration moved too slowly getting armed Predators ready and did not send unarmed Predators back to look for bin Laden."

And:
"Part of the problem, everyone agrees, is bureaucratic infighting between the CIA and the Pentagon over who would pay and who would be blamed if something went wrong."

Now this sounds more like our government.

Get him Mr. Bush. Soon.

Posted by Dawn at July 7, 2006 9:00 PM
Comments
Comment #165623

Don’t you remember Bush saying he just wasn’t worried about Osama? That’s why.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 7, 2006 9:05 PM
Comment #165626

“Don’t you remember Bush saying he just wasn’t worried about Osama? That’s why.”

Posted by: womanmarine at July 7, 2006 09:05 PM


That makes two Presidents in a row. Shall we try for three?

Posted by: dawn at July 7, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #165652


Dawn: If it takes draging Clinton in to the here and now to get you to admit that Bush isn’t interested in bringing Bin Laden to justice, i’ll take it.

Posted by: jlw at July 7, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #165655

This isn’t North Korea. The world as we know it did not begin with the Bush administration.

Posted by: dawn at July 7, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #165675

Just a technical note, the first paragraph reads:

President Bush said we will hunt Osama down and bring him to justice. So why was the unit set up to do just that disbanded?

The second sentence doesn’t make sense. I don’t know if this is the proper forum to discuss this kind of issue, but I just thought I’d bring it up.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at July 7, 2006 11:55 PM
Comment #165719

Alex, makes sense to me. Perhaps the punctuation, in the form of commas and the is missing, but it’s meaning is clear enough.

Why was the unit, which was set up to hunt Osama down and bring him to justice, disbanded?

Is that more clear?

I don’t know if you watched te recent piece by Frontline, regarding the hunt for Osama and the intrenal struggle between the CIA and Cheney and Rumsfeld, but it seems clear to me that the Bush administration has decided the CIA is not a yessir organization and doesn’t want the military to be trumped by the CIA like they were in Afghanistan. With the military intelligence firmly under their control, this administration now has carte blanche in creating their own factoids. I just hope this doesn’t mean we’ve had a silent coup.

Posted by: gergle at July 8, 2006 6:20 AM
Comment #165751

Thanks gergle.
I had them in, took them out, moved them around…made sense to me any way I had it.

Posted by: dawn at July 8, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #165783

Dawn:

This isn’t meant to be critical, and although I understood what you meant, improper grammar looks sloppy, especailly on the front page.

Gergle had a good suggestion, but the first paragraph doesn’t look like it was changed.

And Gergle, “clear enough” still isn’t correct. For the sake of professionalism, we shouldn’t accept “clear enough.”

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at July 8, 2006 12:15 PM
Comment #165792

Alex,

‘This isn’t meant to be critical, and although I understood what you meant,…’

It is not your position to correct my grammar. Doing it in a public thread is not very professional.
If it will settle your nerves, I will make a change.

Posted by: dawn at July 8, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #165812

Has anyone on this thread considered that this may be a ruse put out into the MSM to make him slow down his mobilization?

I’m sure our forces are very much still on the hunt and Osama isn’t falling for it but it is worth a shot. Perhaps we’ll atleast get Zawahiri with it.

Posted by: In Italix at July 8, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #165844

It was a stupid move to close this office. It sends a message to the world that we don’t care about bin Laden.

Why Bush would want to do such a thing is beyond my comprehension.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at July 8, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #165859

Dawn,

Please post in the red and not green column as you usually do when you post liberal flamebait?

So Bush closes the agency that is pursuing Osama and you start bitching about… Clinton and Kerry? Clinton tried to bomb Osama during the Monica Lewinsky affair, while he was extrememly unpopular, and came within a “hair’s breath” of killing him. I don’t recall Bush coming that close, despite having the support of all of American and much of the world. Clinton understood the real threat Osama posed well before most of the world, and, unfortunately Bush, who stopped having meetings with his security advisors on terrorism after coming to office.

We keep going over the same ground again and again in these posts. So…. Here’s the question. Do you support YOUR PRESIDENT BUSH closing this agency or not?

Posted by: Max at July 8, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #165867

‘Please post in the red and not green column as you usually do when you post liberal flamebait?’
Posted by: Max at July 8, 2006 03:29 PM


Did you manage to get past the first section?

When did Bill and John become ‘liberals’?

Posted by: dawn at July 8, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #165943

If Bin Laden is captured then it’s a major blow to the republicans fear-based agenda. Think about it. As long as people believe bin Laden is out there on the loose, planning another 9/11, they can be scared into accepting whatever measures the right passes in the name of national security. Not so if there’s a perception that the war on terror has been won.

I don’t know if this is true, I’m not normally into conspiracy theories, but at times I wonder consider Bush has been responsible for bin laden getting away numerous times.

Posted by: mark at July 8, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #165946
It is not your position to correct my grammar. Doing it in a public thread is not very professional.

Dawn:

I asked if this was the proper forum to discuss this sort of problem, and nobody spoke up…so I assumed it was ok.

And for future reference, as a peer it is my duty to help better the writing of a fellow writer. Maybe the avenue in which I expressed my position was improper, but the action itself was most definitely not. But, since you apparently don’t want to be corrected, I’ll resist from offering my insight next time.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at July 8, 2006 6:49 PM
Comment #165956

Thanks Alex. Really.
Have you looked left recently? :)

Dawn

Mark,

Let’s hope not.

Posted by: dawn at July 8, 2006 7:02 PM
Comment #166022

Dawn:

I try not to.
:)

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at July 8, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #166049

Dawn said: “This isn’t North Korea. The world as we know it did not begin with the Bush administration.”

But the public’s demand for bringing OBL to justice DID begin in Bush’s administration after 9/11. Bush’s actions appear to say, ‘public be damned’.

My mama taught me to know people by their actions not their words. In this case, Bush’s words and actions seem consistent. OBL is not a priority for him, and the public’s demand is just noise now that Bush doesn’t need them for reelection.

The bin Laden family are friends with the Bush family, they are part of OPEC, and our country, according to Bush’s hand holding and kissing relationship with the House of Saud, all give good reasons why Bush would not want to kill or arrest Osama bin Laden.

How would your relationship with your dear friends hold up if you killed your friend’s son, cousin, or brother? Given the inexplicable nature of why the most powerful nation on earth has not secured justice from the head perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks, these reasons stand as sound as any ever given.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 9, 2006 3:16 AM
Comment #166051

Max, it is not your place to tell our writers in which column they may post. Dawn has left the red column to write as an independent voter, making this column the appropriate column for her writings.

We have a few libertarian writers in this column who are not predisposed to support liberal perspectives on a number of issues. This 3rd Party/Independent’s column is precisely for writers who do not subscribe to the party or party philosophy of either the red or blue column. Green’s tend to have more liberal views on some issues and Libertarians tend to have more conservative views on some issues.

This is still the appropriate column for their views if they are not voting party ticket or supporting the parties in either of the other two columns, regardless of their liberal or conservative or centrist leanings.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at July 9, 2006 3:34 AM
Comment #166545

Dawn
I agree with Italix in that this is probably just a way of putting the search under the radar. Besides, who knows what the media will leak and compromise next.
Keep up the great work.

Max
Would you please tell us about the “hairs breath” of killing obl?
And if you really believe clinton knew about the real threat obl was, please explain the links Dawn provided.

Mark
If your not normally into conspiracies, then dont refer to a Republican fear-based agenda unless you can prove that it exists and can prove that it is Republicans alone who conduct such things.

Posted by: kctim at July 11, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #166580

kctim, the media doesn’t leak. The media reports. People working for Bush and the Congress leak.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 11, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #166581

kctim said: “and can prove that it is Republicans alone who conduct such things.”

By this logic we should not convict any murderer because we can’t convict every murderer. Sorry, this logic is faulty in the extreme. Just because Democrats have done wrong in the past is no justification for not exposing Republican wrong in the present. C’mon…

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 11, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #166587

David
Faulty in the extreme? Please tell me which sounds better to you:
50+ million voters defending and excusing their side for doing wrong and only calling for justice when its the other side responsible?
OR
100+ million voters calling for total responsiblity and accountability for all?

As long as people keep ignoring and excusing the corruption within their own party, nothing will ever change.

Posted by: kctim at July 11, 2006 3:18 PM
Post a comment