Apparently, the US government believes that is indeed Osama Bin Laden's voice on the recently released tape where the timing of its production is proved by the mention of recent events. As I said on the other board many times (and was disagreed with by just about everyone there), if Bin Laden had been killed and ANYONE knew about it even on his side, that information would have leaked out. Something like that is too big to have kept a secret. Thus, Sapling's little excursion into Afghanistan basically accomplished nothing other to stir up the hornet's nest even more. Oh, on a related note, has anyone else MARVELED at the ability of the US military to plan and potentially conduct MULTIPLE military operations with very little help from other nations at the same time. What is amazing is if you believed the con men in Congress and the military, the Clinton administration had weakened the military to where it was unprepared in manpower, equipment, etc. Now, Sapling, whose increased military spending could not have possible begun to take effect yet, is planning military operation after military operation simultaneously. Geez, you don't think the rightwing zealot politicians and people with a military bias ACTUALLY LIED do you? Nah, it couldn't be that.
Bush promised to get bin Laden. Bush promised to get bin Laden. He vowed "to bring him to justice or bring justice to him." That's why his approval numbers went to the high eighties. That was 414 days ago ...and counting
Bush I'm not a Bush hater but I don't understand why we don't have undercovers (or have been having) in that area of the country anyway. Where's the Jackal when we need him. Screw the military we need a good sniper to take out Bin Ladden. And the CIA to take out Hussein.
diehardLSUfan was right on his analysis The proper approach was clearly a surgical strike against a few key people. That is what Clinton attempted and came a lot darn closer to getting Bin Laden than Sapling ever did. Also, it didn't cost BILLIONS of dollars in a full blown military campaign, results in hundreds of civilian casualties in military mistakes, and become a public spectacle where it APPEARS like the US is waging war against a religion because every terrorist just happens to be of another religion, etc. Anyway, your approach is the one I advocated from day one for the above reasons. But then, you don't get the publicity and the political benefit for doing things the right way -- you only get that by demagoguing the issue in public and trying to revert to the old 80's elephant men strategy, "see the other party isn't as tough on enemies of the US as we are."