Honda Motorcycles - FireBlades.org banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,983 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137209,00.html

In the campaign’s final days, Kerry continues to claim that Bush “outsourced” the job of going after bin Laden in Tora Bora (search) to Afghan warlords. But the Democrat’s charge rankles not only retired Gen. Tommy Franks, a strong Bush supporter on the campaign trail, but also Army special forces soldiers who say they searched for bin Laden in Tora Bora’s treacherous mountains.

“It was wrong to outsource the job of capturing them [bin Laden and his lieutenants] to Afghan warlords who a week earlier were fighting against us, instead of using the best-trained troops in the world who wanted to avenge America for what happened in New York and Pennsylvania and Washington,” Kerry said Saturday at a rally in Appleton, Wis.

“It was wrong to divert our forces from Afghanistan so that we could rush to war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace,” he said.

Bush casts Kerry’s comments as a blow to those in the military.

“This is an unjustified and harsh criticism of our military commanders in the field,” Bush said at a campaign stop in Greeley, Colo. “This is the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking."

The back-and-forth echoed familiar themes throughout the presidential campaign but it took on new importance after the bin Laden videotape appeared Friday. In it, bin Laden took responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and spoke to the American people when he said the nation’s security was in their hands.

Franks, the military commander who led U.S. forces in Afghanistan (search) and Iraq and who after he left the Army spoke at the Republican National Convention to support Bush’s re-election, says Kerry is wrong.

“The Afghans weren't left to do the job alone,” Franks wrote in a New York Times op-ed. “Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help — as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters.”

Franks also took aim at one of Kerry’s main arguments — that Bush erred in going to war with Iraq because it took resources away from Afghanistan and the War on Terror.

“Neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. When we started Operation Iraqi Freedom we had about 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, and by the time we finished major combat operations in Iraq last May we had more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan,” Franks wrote.

Several Army special forces soldiers who served in Afghanistan told FOX News that numerous teams were deployed to the Tora Bora area to root out bin Laden and his allies. Plus, they said that Kerry was ignoring their contributions in battle.

“If you want to win a war in someone else’s backyard, you have to use locals who know the area,” one soldier told FOX News.

Another soldier told FOX News that Kerry’s promise to increase the size of the special forces was an empty one.

"He also has no idea on what it takes to double [the number of troops in] special forces. I spent 13 years in special forces and we have been trying to do just that. The only way that special forces can be doubled is to drop the qualification standards. If that happens then we all loose. The quality will be zero,” the soldier said.

On Sunday, Kerry said that if elected, the American people would see a “flurry of activity and leadership with respect to our national security interests that they’ve never seen.”

But when asked in an interview with The Associated Press to explain how he would capture bin Laden and how he would get out of the war in Iraq, the Massachusetts senator declined to go into specifics. All he would say is “I will get other people to the table.”

Surrogates for the two presidential campaigns attempted to put the bin Laden tape into a political context over the weekend. Not surprisingly, Bush aides said the tape helped Kerry while Kerry officials said it aided Bush.

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said that bin Laden made the tape to help Kerry get elected.

"Usama bin Laden would not give out a video report 72 hours before the election unless he wanted to influence it,” Thompson, a former Republican governor from Wisconsin, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in an interview.

Bin Laden "knows that John Kerry will not be a persistent individual that is after him, that is going to be out to destroy him, like he is out to destroy America," Thompson said. "We need to make sure that America is safe."

But Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said he doubted the tape would have much of an effect but if it did, Bush would get the advantage.

“It's just another reminder of the fact that we're at war and we're fighting terrorists, and that's the only card that the president has in his hand,” Rendell, a Democrat, said on “FOX News Sunday.” “But it's obvious to me that bin Laden is trying to help George Bush, because George Bush is the best recruiter that Al Qaeda has.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,390 Posts
"Usama bin Laden would not give out a video report 72 hours before the election unless he wanted to influence it,” Thompson, a former Republican governor from Wisconsin, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in an interview.

No shit. I wonder how many people realize this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,250 Posts
ccwilli3 said:
anyone else find it a bit perplexing that Kerry wasn't awarded his honorable discharge until 2001? :huh:
Or the fact that he has yet to sign standard form 180.
:thumbd:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,900 Posts
luvtolean said:
"Usama bin Laden would not give out a video report 72 hours before the election unless he wanted to influence it,” Thompson, a former Republican governor from Wisconsin, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in an interview.

No shit. I wonder how many people realize this?
You mean, how many DON'T realize this. Come on, it's pretty obvious even to normal everyday citizens.

“Neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. When we started Operation Iraqi Freedom we had about 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, and by the time we finished major combat operations in Iraq last May we had more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan,” Franks wrote.

So, we had 9,500 at the start of the Afghan/BinLaden search and a year and a half later we now have 10,000? Did I read this right? And this is supposed to back up that we've not neglected the search for the real person responsible for the 9/11 attacks in Afghanistan versus Iraq by increasing troops from 9500 to 10,000? 500 troops versus what 100,000 troops?

...and Kerry, he, he, he spits in our soldier's faces... :rolleyes: whatever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,983 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
so you are assuming that 10,000 is not enough? It was enough to overthrow the Taliban and for them to elect a new president democratically... But its not enough to find someone that is no longer in said country?

Do you even know anyone that has served honorably in any of this? :huh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
Last time I checked, it was the job of a Green Berets to recruit indigenous forces, train them in military tactics, and use them to prosecute missions that would be otherwise intractable for conventional forces. That sounds like outsourcing to me. Was that the right tactic for the Afghan engagement in Tora Bora? If your measuring stick is success, then no, it wasn't. If it were a graded thing, you might give them a B- or a C+ for what they did accomplish.

Maybe we should have sent in the super-ultra-elite-can't-talk-about-it-bionic-with-plasma-blasters-and-powered-armor special force to get him.

If Kerry's rebuke of the generalship, which is what this is (soldiers, like the rest of us, are really only capable of doing tasks that they are trained to do... and then only to the level of the available resources), chaps some grunts, then maybe they need to start including baby powder in MREs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,811 Posts
Guys/gals, give it up! Man, I'm so glad tomorrow is 11/2! No matter who wins, we can at least give up arguing politics for awhile. That said, I pray to God that bush is booted in the ass with a sharp, steel tipped boot! :eyebrows:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,390 Posts
Bacchus said:
Guys/gals, give it up! Man, I'm so glad tomorrow is 11/2! No matter who wins, we can at least give up arguing politics for awhile. That said, I pray to God that bush is booted in the ass with a sharp, steel tipped boot! :eyebrows:

Oh bullshit. Every Bush hater out there said he wasn't elected last time and wouldn't quit. This election will end up in court no matter who "wins" and how. The most interesting would be a dead tie in the electoral college where the House pics (Dubya wins). Speaking of which (the electoral college), why in the HELL do the criminals in DC get 3 votes!?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,390 Posts
:rotfl: :rotfl:

Edit: We were talking about this at lunch today and a friend of mine, who's a political junky, claimed that if they'd counted the votes how the Republicans argued they should be, Gore would've taken it. And if they did it how the Dems wanted, Bush would win. Dunno if it's true, but he's hardly ever wrong on stuff like this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,531 Posts
That is true to a point. There were multiple recounts done, and Bush won every single one. However, had they taken the extreme ends of how the dems only wanted certain ballots from certain counties counted, including none of the overseas military ballots, and the reps bringing in certain other counties, the recounts would have ended up +- ~200 votes for the opposite party. Pretty funny.
As it was, counting all the ballots legally cast from every precinct, Bush won every time.
And the dems still cry about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000

For those of you not to familiar witht the wikipedia its an amazing wealth of knowledge. Completely bipartisan. This has some interesting facts.

Let the calls of "wikipedia is some left wing blah blah blah" commence.

Im not commenting on who is right or wrong, just trying to dig up whatever I can on the subject.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,098 Posts
Election Paradox
In a very close election involving more than two candidates, it is possible to invent scenarios in which any candidate could have won. The only way to avoid the election paradox is to decide how votes are counted and how the winner is decided before the election is held. The 2000 Presidential Election demonstrated this paradox. It took the Supreme Court to decide the winner of Florida.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top