Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says.
We had him before we let him get away.
A new Senate report is out that demonstrates unequivocally that US forces were in a position to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in late 2001, but made strategic battlefield choices that resulted in him and his men to slip away.
It's now late 2009 - eight years later - and we're about ready to send more forces to Afghanistan to do what we had the chance to do back then.
Abraham Lincoln struggled for most of the Civil War trying to find a good General to lead the army. Time after time his generals failed to take advantage of battlefield support and let the confederate army slip away. Eventually he found General Ulysses S. Grant, and although there were reports of heavy drinking on Grant's part, Lincoln explained that he liked the man because "he fights." Soon after Grant took over the North won the Civil War.
Is that what happened in Tora Bora? Or did the civilians (Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney) fail to give the right guidance? Or did they just get distracted by their plans already to invade Iraq?
The report is available in PDF here and also on the Senate Foreign Relations committee web page. A good summary article can be found in the Washington Post.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
email
print
Comments: 159
Everoyone around the world knows this, his family admits this, yet people keep believing the old media propaganda.
His "recent" pics show him healthy and he was quite ill. Required dialysis...
The govt. digs him up now and then, to instill more fear occasionally,
Not one of your conspiracy theories again, is it?
Benazir Bhutto SAID
Old and recent photo's of "Bin Laden". People are so naive.
I'm comfortable with reality. Perhaps you should do some more research.
Linda A. Nov 29, 2009, 6:38pm EST
Where is your research? I posted plenty info within a short time period. If you watched any of it, HIS OWN SONS say he is dead. Do you know if your father is dead or alive. Let's see your research instead of feeding of the ongoing "Bin Laden is going to come after us - again - again - again". Ohhh - the boogie man will get us if we don't (cough) get him first!
I think some of what Linda says is true even though I cannot prove it. I think bin Laden is dead. Bin Laden has to have dialysis to survive and if he was hiding out in caves how could he get the necessary treatment? maybe he has a battery operated machine that he straps on the back of his camel. I think bin Laden is just resurrected for propaganda whenever they need to scare the public into submission to increase military spending and additional troops for the pipeline war.
There is no credible evidence that bin Laden was ever on dialysis. People have lost track of what is rumor, what is propaganda, and what is reality. It's also probably a mistake that the guy has been living in a cave for 8 years (though he certainly was a Tora Bora). The border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan is mountainous, yes, but there are lots of villages that would protect him. He could be in a nice comfy bed every night, and could even be getting dialysis if he needs it as well. Or he could just have kidney stones.
The likelihood is far greater that he is still alive. The fact that there have been so many drone attacks in one region certainly suggests we think that is where he is. Getting him now is trickier than it was then. But I suppose we'll get the chance to find out soon.
IS Osama Bin Laden Already Dead?
I always laugh at people who assign "sides" when they don't have a clue what "side" the person has taken.
this is just another attempt by liberals to resurrect the Bush bogey-man to deflect their own present ineptitude.-
Explain how not capturing/killing bin Laden in December 2001 or in the 7+ years between then and January 2009 is "liberal ineptitude."
If you can't offer any actual though behind a comment, why comment? Bumper stickers are passe.
Which is why we're still in Afghanistan trying to deal with this mess.
I don't think Obama is planning to send troops "to prop up Karzai" as much as to stabilize the government. That may be asking too much and I'm interested in hearing how he presents the plan. Right now the central government in Afghanistan is pretty much sectional - it has Kabul more or less under control and that's about it. Afghanistan is even worse than Iraq with respect to tribal and sectional rule.
I'm hoping on Tuesday to hear about what steps we will take to transition the government to self-rule. We have to have a plan to get out. And it must include a way to keep the Taliban and/or al qaeda from walking back in and taking over.
We'll see.
All of those things were needed in Iraq, and Afghanistan is a tougher deal than Iraq ever was. So our answer has to be more than just sending in more troops.
So why do you all assume the reinforcements meant nothing? Is it that important to deride what happened that you ignore the obvious? It's clear that the surge was a signal (to both locals and hostiles) the US would do what it took to at least not lose militarily. It also added tactical flexibility that the increased US infantry numbers gave the theater commander to both seize and hold ground/patrol/attack the terrorists. The end result while not perfect sure wasn't the Vietnam predicted by some.
Actually, Charles, that's not true. The Anbar Awakening started long before Bush even started considering a surge in troops. Basically the local Sunni's got ticked off because al qaeda was killing more Sunni Muslims than Americans, so they agreed to fight against al qaeda instead of us. Of course, we paid them about $30 million a month, which helped. This started all long before the surge.
The surge of troops itself was almost exclusively in the Baghdad area, with only a few troops who were already in Anbar having their tours extended to keep them their longer. So all this "side choosing" was not because of any troops we added later.
So why do you all assume the reinforcements meant nothing?
I don't assume that; nor did I say that.
Is it that important to deride what happened that you ignore the obvious?
Obviously, it's not that obvious, because the cause and effect are reversed.
And I'm not deriding the surge, I'm putting it into context. The troop surge did not unilaterally accomplish what we saw in Iraq. Certainly it reinforced it and put more boots on the ground to help enforce it, but it did not lead to the changes that led to improved conditions. It was one piece of the puzzle, and arguably not the most critical piece. But clearly it was an important piece.
And the reason I brought it up at all is because Afghanistan is going to be harder. Just adding troops won't do it, as it didn't do it in Iraq. But in Iraq you could pretty much narrow it down to three groups opposing each other (Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurd). While there obviously was local warlords and tribal control, they did tend to follow their major grouping. No such luck in Afghanistan, which is controlled by hundreds of smaller tribal elements that never coalesced together, even under the Taliban. It won't be so easy to buy them off. I suspect the mission will be to find a path toward stability, even if that stability is sectional.
Part of the problem was that there was a wing of the Republican Party that hated the very concept of nation building. But invading Afghanistan without doing any nation building, that was not going to work. Afghanistan in 2002 was a shattered wreck of what was once a nation.
I agree. From his The World is Flat and Hot, Flat and Crowded I gained an appreciation for his worldliness. From this book I gained an appreciation for how connected and influential he really is.
We should not have gone and invaded Iraq. That was another mistake.
Another thing is the region was hostile to us... What should we of done, just charge full steam ahead and bomb the place and risk the chance of taking out innocent children and people? That would of went over real good ...
I am not a military expert but if any of you are on here....what would you of done? And if SLick Willie had taken him when HE HAD THE CHANCE, we wouldnt be having this discussion now....
The region of Tora Bora is pretty desolate. Just fighters, no families. So we could have done it. Now, of course, he's in villages with lots of women and children, kept there in part to serve as a shield. So getting him now is more difficult even if we know specifically where he is.
That said, I think if we had captured or killed bin Laden in December 2001, we wouldn't have been able to invade Iraq. As it was we had no legitimacy to do so, but with bin Laden still free the "war on terror" mantra was an effective driver.
That's probably true. And Clinton did shoot missiles into bin Laden's camp, but took too long and bin Laden had already left. When the USS Cole was hit it was during the transition after the election and before Bush took office, so Clinton wasn't in a position to really do anything then (I'm not sure we had a shot at bin Laden at that time anyway).
But there is a more fundamental consideration. Before 9/11, i.e., when Clinton was in office, bin Laden's operations hit American and non-American sites overseas. We have limited diplomatic ability to start shooting missiles or sending in troops into other countries sovereign space. But after 9/11, everyone pretty much opened their doors and let us go get them. We did that in Afghanistan and no one complained or had any real problem with it. We tried to stretch that welcome mat into covering an invasion of Iraq also, but that just wasn't credible and the reason why other countries refused to help. We destroyed the sympathy we had.
But the bottom line is that invading Afghanistan could never have been done before 9/11. And now that we also invaded Iraq on false pretenses, it will be impossible to have any substantive military action anywhere else unless there is an imminent, and documentable, threat.
repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02) The invasion of Iraq, if I recall correctly was exactly one week after that comment was made.
"I want justice," Bush said. "And there's an old poster out West… I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'"
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02) The invasion of Iraq, if I recall correctly was exactly one week after that comment was made.
The Iraq invasion started on March 20, 2003. So it was a year after Bush said that. But as I noted in another comment above, on November 21, 2001 Bush was already telling Rumsfeld and Franks to start planning for an Iraq invasion. Which is why we took our eye off of Tora Bora and got us 8 more years of this mess.
I think, that if we had left Hussain alone, he would have rehabilitated, and if we had kept after Bin Laden we would have had him BY MARCH OF 2003.
i did get the time line off by a year, It is called compression and it's easy to do, thanks for catching me. I hate it when I do it, but I have to accept my own humanity sometimes.
It's highly likely that we would have had bin Laden if we hadn't walked away. The report makes it clear that we had him pinned down in Tora Bora and we botched it by not putting in the right manpower. We had already started looking toward Iraq. Once he got into the border mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan he was protected by the locals, who even the Pakistani's don't have any control over. Now we have two volatile countries to deal with. And we have been since say, mid to late last year, shortly before the election. You could tell the strategy had changed, and Obama has continued and probably accelerated that strategy, plus added some actual diplomacy with Pakistan. We'll see what happens.
The Bush Cabinet knew, by February 2001, most of them earlier, that the administration was intent on invading Iraq.
Also, the coalition that went into Afghanistan with us, and is still there, DID NOT go into Iraq, and has never supported in any meaningful way the Iraq war. That little fact is rarely discussed. We have a powerful alliance in Afghanistan. Not so in Iraq.
The rest of the world, and much of the United States even then, did not see Iraq as a legitimate target, hence the lack of support for the Iraq invasion even though they had all supported (or at least kept quiet) about Afghanistan.
That pretty much destroyed the reputation of the US in much of the rest of the world. We turned into exactly what their propaganda had been telling them.
And now we need to rebuild that reputation, while at the same time cleaning up the left over messes. It's a tough job.
None of the left ever cared about that. So your views here are equally as invalid. It just goes to show how limited your thinking is.
Capturing Osama bin Laden has been an objective of the United States government since the presidency of Bill Clinton.[100] Shortly after the September 11 attacks it was revealed that President Clinton had signed a directive authorizing the CIA (and specifically their elite Special Activities Division) to apprehend bin Laden and bring him to the United States to stand trial after the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa; if taking bin Laden alive was deemed impossible, then deadly force was authorized.[101] On August 20, 1998, 66 cruise missiles launched by United States Navy ships in the Arabian Sea struck bin Laden's training camps near Khost in Afghanistan, narrowly missing him by a few hours.[102] In 1999 the CIA, together with Pakistani military intelligence, had prepared a team of approximately 60 Pakistani commandos to infiltrate Afghanistan to capture or kill bin Laden, but the plan was aborted by the 1999 Pakistani coup d'état;[102] in 2000, foreign operatives working on behalf of the CIA had fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a convoy of vehicles in which bin Laden was traveling through the mountains of Afghanistan, hitting one of the vehicles but not the one bin Laden was in.[101]
In 2000, prior to the September 11 attacks, Paul Bremer characterized the Clinton administration as "correctly focused on bin Laden", while Robert Oakley criticized their "obsession with Osama".[76]
From Snopes:
False.
From the CBS interview:
Rather: Mr. President, when the 9/11 attack occurred you were in Australia. What was the first thing you thought?
Clinton: Osama bin Laden did this. There were one or two other countries with intelligence services that might have been able to pull it off. But they wouldn't do it because if a country had done this to us, our retaliation against the country would have been grievous. But bin Laden had a network that was centered in Afghanistan and camps and caves.
President Clinton says he was "obsessed" with bin Laden during his time in office and denies he refused opportunities to capture the al Qaeda leader.
Clinton: To the best of my knowledge it is not true that we were ever offered him by the Sudanese even though they later claimed it. I think it's total bull. Mr. Absurabi, the head of the Sudanese government was a buddy of bin Laden's. They were business partners together. There was no way in the wide world this guy who was in business with bin Laden in Sudan was going to give him up to us.
Mr. Clinton says he did everything he could to catch bin Laden and to keep the focus on containing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons from North Korea – a threat he says we still face.
None of the left ever cared about that. So your views here are equally as invalid. It just goes to show how limited your thinking is.
Perhaps you should do some more research. Or change bloggers.
Hmmm AllAfrica News is a Blog too then? I think they would like to know that.
As usual, you're talking out your backside because you did not do your homework, just looked through liberal propaganda...
The other and perhaps critical aspect being ignored was availability of enough US infantry/rotary support and their suitability (training/equipment) for such terrain. Locals were available and it was believed in sufficient numbers to seal the trap on Osama. That it didn't work out was not incompetence or undue "political" interference but the fog of war or maybe even more simply, luck.
That is likely true, Charles. The report says as much, that Rumsfeld and high command decided to use the Northern Alliance to keep our troop presence down. Unfortunately, even the mid-level commanders were telling Franks, Rumsfeld and the President directly that the Northern Alliance were not up to the job. They tried to play it safe, which even at the time was seen as not following through on the opportunity.
The other and perhaps critical aspect being ignored was availability of enough US infantry/rotary support and their suitability (training/equipment) for such terrain.
That's a valid argument, and additional troops would have had to be transported. But there apparently was time to do that, the commanders asked for it, and the locals were deemed incapable and untrustworthy (which turned out to be the case). So I guess that is where the report differs from your interpretation. The commanders were saying that they would lose bin Laden if they relied on the locals. And they were saying that at the time, not in hindsight. This was a strategic decision made primarily higher up.
Virtually no one making these arguments knows a single about all that goes into even the smallest of military operations. You acknowledge the logistical limitations of the time which makes you a rare bird in the argument. Those commanders were making those comments which is true but they had few options otherwise despite them. Add to the fear of losses which remains to this day a driving force in US military decisions, there was little or no need of DC having to force the decision eventually made.
Always appreciate your comments, Charles.
We pay these guys to make decisions on our behalf. We are not privy to the run-up to the decisions, and it's a bit ridiculous to be second guessing them (either Clinton or Bush) after the fact.
But I'm not sure why this is even a point of discussion. For two reasons.
1) This article is about an official report indicating that we had the chance to capture or kill bin Laden at Tora Bora. We knew he was there, we were there, we just chose a strategy that was insufficient. In part because the upper decision-makers were already focused on the next war and not about finishing the one we were already in. The report is not a "tell all" book by a former CIA operative.
2) Clinton was pre-9/11, which means he was very limited in the preemptive action that could be taken. As would have been anyone else, including Bush up during the 9 months of his term leading up to 9/11. Once we were attacked on 9/11 we could have done pretty much anything we wanted to do to get bin Laden and nobody would flinch. Before 9/11 any invasion of Afghanistan would have been impossible and unsupportable.
Bottom line, on 9/11, the rules changed.
That's not what I recall reading / seeing, but I can't be sure unless I check the book out from the library again or see the special in reruns.
"1) This article is about an official report indicating that we had the chance to capture or kill bin Laden at Tora Bora. We knew he was there, we were there, we just chose a strategy that was insufficient."
First, I would say that this is a partisan report by one party on the committee, headed by a guy who lost to Bush. Second, I would say that Clinton had the chance to kill bin Laden (as already stipulated) and chose a strategy that was insufficient (not pulling the trigger). There is no difference.
"Clinton was pre-9/11, which means he was very limited in the preemptive action that could be taken."
That makes it even worse. One could hypothesize that no 9/11 would have occurred if Clinton had pulled the trigger when he had the chance. He was fully able to kill bin Laden if he had chosen to. He launched cruise missiles into Iraq, Kenya and Tanzania, so there is no reason to believe he couldn't launch them into Afghanistan as well. Wait, he did!! But he hit empty camps in the dead of night instead of hitting bin Laden when the CIA had him in their sights.
As I describe in my later comment below, the report is issued by the entire committee and both parties.
Second, I would say that Clinton had the chance to kill bin Laden (as already stipulated) and chose a strategy that was insufficient (not pulling the trigger). There is no difference.
There is a difference if Scheuer was speaking generally and not "had him in our sites." But again, I'm not really disagreeing with the general premise that Clinton didn't take his shot when he had his chances.
That makes it even worse. One could hypothesize that no 9/11 would have occurred if Clinton had pulled the trigger when he had the chance. He was fully able to kill bin Laden if he had chosen to. He launched cruise missiles into Iraq, Kenya and Tanzania, so there is no reason to believe he couldn't launch them into Afghanistan as well. Wait, he did!! But he hit empty camps in the dead of night instead of hitting bin Laden when the CIA had him in their sights.
That's a legitimate argument, to a point. One could use the same rationale against Bush for not taking the August 2001 and other reports more seriously. I don't think either is a very good argument though. Hypotheticals rarely are.
That's not what the Washington Post article you linked to says. It says the following: "Staff members for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Democratic majority prepared the report at the request of the chairman, Sen. John Kerry, as President Barack Obama prepares to boost U.S. troops in Afghanistan."
"There is a difference if Scheuer was speaking generally and not 'had him in our sites.'
Scheuer did in fact say "had him in our sights."
"That's a legitimate argument, to a point."
Thank you.
"One could use the same rationale against Bush for not taking the August 2001 and other reports more seriously."
Have you read them? I have and I'd like you to show me exactly where the August 2001 report or any of the other reports provided actionable intelligence that could have stopped 9/11. The problem is they didn't. They were written in generalities, saying bin Laden was determined to strike in the United States, may try to hijack aircraft and fly into buildings, etc.
What buildings? What airlines at what airports? What action would YOU have taken with those generalities? How do you protect all federal buildings having no idea which one of the tens of thousands might be hit? How do you change the airline procedures sufficiently without the entire public and congress going bananas because you are seriously inconveniencing them based on generalities?
Majority staff members always draft the reports. Perk of being the majority. But it was issued by the full committee, and Lugar did not provide a minority report, which he clearly would have done if he felt it was a hatchet job. I wouldn't rely on the WashPost for getting the nuances of committee work right.
That said, there is always some politics to any political organization, by definition.
Scheuer did in fact say "had him in our sights."
I'll defer to Scheuer, though his statement is still ambiguous and Scheuer has his own agenda as well. Clearly Clinton had a chance and didn't take it. But again the fact that it was pre-9/11 does make a difference.
Have you read them?
I actually agree with you completely. Without specific targets identified it is highly unlikely that Bush could have avoided 9/11, though certainly others have argued that point. Personally, I see no way in this universe that a sitting President of the US would intentionally not stop something that he was capable of stopping. As I've said elsewhere, everyone seems to have their favorite conspiracy theory.
And again it highlights the fact that the rules changed dramatically on 9/11.
Okay, but that does not equal concurrence from all committee members. As I said, I distinctly remember one of the GOPers saying they had more important issues to worry about than an 8 year old news story.
"I wouldn't rely on the WashPost for getting the nuances of committee work right."
You provided the link, my friend.
"I'll defer to Scheuer, though his statement is still ambiguous and Scheuer has his own agenda as well."
I've been trying for some time to figure out his agenda. He baffles me. He is equally critical of both parties and strikes me as the type who thinks we should be going hell bent and cleaning up the Middle East.
"But again the fact that it was pre-9/11 does make a difference."
I respectfully disagree. We had a known terrorist in our sights, a guy who had declared war on the United States and who was targeting Americans. Clinton had a duty to take him out and he failed.
"Personally, I see no way in this universe that a sitting President of the US would intentionally not stop something that he was capable of stopping."
Agreed.
"Sen. Richard G. Lugar, Indiana Republican, downplayed the report, telling CNN's 'State of the Union' that although it offered valid historical lessons, 'at the same time, it does serve as a convenient way for, perhaps, Democrats to say once again, there's another failing of the past administration.'"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/30/
report-bin-laden-within-reach-in-01/
Does having it drafted by the majority staff (which is always the case, with opportunity for input from all) make it any less true? If the minority disagreed they could have written a minority report.
You provided the link, my friend.
I provided the WashPost link for a general overview of the report. I also linked the actual report for anyone to read for the actual details. No one should rely solely on a reporter's newspaper story for an accurate interpretation.
I've been trying for some time to figure out his agenda. He baffles me. He is equally critical of both parties and strikes me as the type who thinks we should be going hell bent and cleaning up the Middle East.
He's just one person with his own attitudes and biases. Of course, he has a lot more insight into the behind the scenes goings-on, but in the end he wants to sell books.
I respectfully disagree. We had a known terrorist in our sights, a guy who had declared war on the United States and who was targeting Americans. Clinton had a duty to take him out and he failed.
I've already agreed on part of it, and am comfortable disagreeing on the rest.
Sen. Richard G. Lugar
Yes, like most politicians he's trying to have it both ways.
I would rephrase instead of talking degree of truthfulness. Having it drafted by the majority staff does not make it true at all. Nor does it make it false. It makes it a partisan report put together by one side. Nothing more, nothing less.
"If the minority disagreed they could have written a minority report."
Yes, they could have. Or they could have done as I already said and dismissed it out of hand as old news when more pressing matters were at hand.
"I also linked the actual report for anyone to read for the actual details."
Yes, but the report doesn't tell you who concurs and who does not concur. It merely tells you who is on the committee.
"No one should rely solely on a reporter's newspaper story for an accurate interpretation."
No one should provide a link if they are going to later dismiss that link as irrelevant.
"Of course, he has a lot more insight into the behind the scenes goings-on, but in the end he wants to sell books."
Yes, but it is his experience and former position that make his arguments compelling. Not many, if any, of the talking heads out there have been the director of the CIA's bin Laden unit.
"Yes, like most politicians he's trying to have it both ways."
I've found no evidence to support the notion that Lugar is on board with the report.
We may be splitting hairs here. Being true makes it true.
Yes, they could have. Or they could have done as I already said and dismissed it out of hand as old news when more pressing matters were at hand.
Yes, they could have dismissed it out of hand. In which case they probably wouldn't be on the news talking about how they dismissed it out of hand. Again, they are trying to have it both ways.
Yes, but the report doesn't tell you who concurs and who does not concur. It merely tells you who is on the committee.
Yes, and the committee issued the report. No dissenting opinion. No claims that anything in the report is not true. No one saying they don't agree with it. Do you need a roll call?
No one should provide a link if they are going to later dismiss that link as irrelevant.
I didn't dismiss it as irrelevant. If it were irrelevant I would not have provided it. But I'm not going to annotate the whole thing line by line and properly interpret the writing style for those who want to read something into it either.
Yes, but it is his experience and former position that make his arguments compelling.
Yes, they do make his arguments more compelling, but that doesn't mean they aren't still biased. He sees the world from his perspective, not Clintons or Bush's or others. He has right to his very informed opinion, but it is nonetheless still his opinion from his perspective.
I've found no evidence to support the notion that Lugar is on board with the report.
He's ranking minority member and didn't issue a minority report. And he likes publicity.
If it were true, that would be the case. But given the sources used to compile the report (and the notable exclusion of classified data), I'm not ready to concede that it is true.
"Yes, and the committee issued the report. No dissenting opinion."
As already discussed, no dissenting opinion because more pressing matters were at hand and it was dismissed rather than rehash an 8-year old story. That's not the same as concurrence.
"Do you need a roll call?"
Yes.
"I didn't dismiss it as irrelevant."
You certainly implied that it did not matter when you said "I provided the WashPost link for a general overview of the report. I also linked the actual report for anyone to read for the actual details. No one should rely solely on a reporter's newspaper story for an accurate interpretation."
So you provide the story from the Post, then tell us not to rely on it?
"Yes, they do make his arguments more compelling, but that doesn't mean they aren't still biased."
But biased toward what? Not toward Bush--he slams him pretty hard. Not toward Clinton--he slams him pretty hard. Not toward Republicans or Democrats--he slams both equally hard. So biased in what way? Biased toward what? Dismissing his claims as opinion discounts his personal experience given that he presents his claims as facts and not as "I think Clinton missed an opportunity," or "I think Bush blew it." His assessment is just as valid as the report prepared by majority party staffers.
"He's ranking minority member and didn't issue a minority report."
For good reason, as detailed above.
"And he likes publicity."
As opposed to Kerry?
Your concession is not necessary for it to be true. And no one disputes it's truth. There is, in fact, no question at all about its truth.
As already discussed, no dissenting opinion because more pressing matters were at hand and it was dismissed rather than rehash an 8-year old story. That's not the same as concurrence.
Really. And when has the Republican party failed to scream foul whenever they think the Democrats are being partisan (and vice-versa)? In fact, you yourself quoted Dick Lugar saying that "although it offered valid historical lessons, 'at the same time, it does serve as a convenient way for, perhaps, Democrats to say once again, there's another failing of the past administration.'" No dissent. No questioning the veracity of the report. Just the obligatory "the other side released it for political reasons."
You certainly implied that it did not matter when you said "I provided the WashPost link for a general overview of the report. I also linked the actual report for anyone to read for the actual details. No one should rely solely on a reporter's newspaper story for an accurate interpretation."
And somehow you got from my statement to me dismissing it as irrelevant? I'm guessing your bored and just playing word games now.
So you provide the story from the Post, then tell us not to rely on it?
Never said or implied that.
But biased toward what?
Ask him.
His assessment is just as valid as the report prepared by majority party staffers.
Umm, no.
For good reason, as detailed above.
You didn't detail a good reason at all.
As opposed to Kerry?
So if Kerry likes publicity, Lugar can't? Is there a shortage of it on the Hill? That explains why half the Hill is on TV every chance they can get...or holding rallies/press conferences/Beck book sales on the Mall.
How can you say that? Are you saying that everyone, literally, accepts this report as factual? I don't, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. That said, I also am not ready to concede that it's false. The bottom line, I think, is that we still don't know. It's a one-party report based on incomplete information. Now, if it had said it was a bipartisan effort in drafting the report, I might be a bit more swayed. Or if it had included classified data and then released an unclassified summary, I might be a bit more swayed. But what we're left with is a report prepared by one party, at the request of a chairman who hates Bush, based on incomplete data. That's hardly what I would call definitive.
"Really. And when has the Republican party failed to scream foul whenever they think the Democrats are being partisan (and vice-versa)?"
Apparently this time. I'm not making up that I saw one of the GOPers give that exact reason; I wish I could remember which one, but alas I cannot. You can accept or reject that as you wish.
"In fact, you yourself quoted Dick Lugar saying that "although it offered valid historical lessons, 'at the same time, it does serve as a convenient way for, perhaps, Democrats to say once again, there's another failing of the past administration.'"
He didn't specify what the lessons were. Perhaps the lesson was not to let the Afghans take the lead on truly important missions. Perhaps the lesson was that the commander on the ground gets the troops he asks for and is not overridden by the SecDef. Who knows? He didn't specify.
"No dissent."
The dissent is in characterizing the report as a shot at the previous administration.
"And somehow you got from my statement to me dismissing it as irrelevant?"
You certainly brushed it aside, or at least that's how it came across. Hence my response. It's not word games, but perception matters.
"Ask him."
I'm not saying he's biased. You are. Perhaps you should ask him, or provide your opinion on his biases.
"Umm, no."
Umm, yes. If anything his assessment is more credible, given that he was the director of the CIA's bin Laden unit. Which of the Senators on the committe have those kinds of credentials when it comes to the hunt for bin Laden?
"So if Kerry likes publicity, Lugar can't?"
No, the point is that you can't dismiss Lugar characterizing the report as a shot on the previous administration as publicity seeking. They all like publicity. It does not make for a reason to give an opinion / characterization of the report. Here's a thought: maybe he actually thinks the report is a shot at the previous administration.
Let me see. No one questions the truth of the report. Check.
Apparently this time. I'm not making up that I saw one of the GOPers give that exact reason; I wish I could remember which one, but alas I cannot. You can accept or reject that as you wish.
I never said that you made it up. I said that such a statement from politicians is perfunctory. They had their chance to say something officially, they didn't. You clearly wish they had. So call Dick Lugar or every member of the committee and poll them.
He didn't specify what the lessons were.
Perhaps you should ask him rather than trying to project on him your opinion of what he meant.
The dissent is in characterizing the report as a shot at the previous administration.
That's not dissent. It's political whining to cya with people who might have wanted to project onto him their opinions. Trying to have it both ways.
I'm not saying he's biased. You are. Perhaps you should ask him, or provide your opinion on his biases.
Of course he is biased. He is presenting from his perspective and trying to sell books. Past presidents present from their perspective and try to sell books. Sarah Palin presents from her perspective and tries to sell books. And I never said he was wrong, just that he was biased.
If anything his assessment is more credible, given that he was the director of the CIA's bin Laden unit.
No, if anything he has more insight into the CIA's view of bin Laden. He still applies his own perspective, which extends beyond the factual elements. Again, I never said he was not right, just that he sees it from his own perspective. It gives us insight on his perspective, but not on the perspective from Clinton or Bush's side. All perspectives are needed to see the full picture.
No, the point is that you can't dismiss Lugar characterizing the report as a shot on the previous administration as publicity seeking.
I didn't characterize Lugar's characterizing the report as publicity seeking. You've conveniently forgotten the main point, which was that as ranking minority member he had a chance - and an obligation - to write a dissenting report if he dissented. He did not. Nor in his interview did he suggest there was any dissent other than he felt there was some partisanship to issuing a report now.
The only reason to mention his publicity seeking is to emphasis that Lugar, like many on the Hill but he in particular, are not adverse to getting some airtime when they want it. If he had a dissent he would have made it clear he felt the report was inaccurate or biased. He didn't. He acknowledged it provided lessons that are relevant to the current situation, which even though he reminds us that the report covers events of 8 years ago, are still ongoing in part because we didn't get bin Laden 8 years ago.
You are free, of course, to your own opinions and beliefs, but you seem to be trying to project them on Lugar and others. Dick can speak for himself, and usually does. As do Kerry and most others on the Hill.
Okay. Self, do you question the truth of the report. Why yes I do. Am I no one? Look, I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but the truth is that unless you ask every person on the planet, you can't make a definitive statement claiming that NO ONE is questioning the report's truthfulness. Just because no one filed a dissenting a report it doesn't mean no one questions the report. It means no one filed a dissenting report, because, as that GOP Senator said, he had more pressing issues to worry about than an 8 year old news story.
"They had their chance to say something officially, they didn't. You clearly wish they had. So call Dick Lugar or every member of the committee and poll them."
They did have a chance, and chose not to because it was an 8 year old news story. That doesn't translate into concurrence or non-questioning. And personally, I don't care if they did or didn't. It doesn't change the underlying fact that this is a partisan report written by one party--there is no indication of GOP input much less agreement. As for polling the members, I didn't make the claim that the committee was in agreement. Such a poll would be required to support that position as well.
"Perhaps you should ask him rather than trying to project on him your opinion of what he meant."
Perhaps you should ask the GOPers rather than assuming their concurrence.
"That's not dissent."
It's certainly not agreement.
"Of course he is biased. He is presenting from his perspective and trying to sell books."
Kind of like how the Democratic staffers are presenting their perspective (after all, it was written by them alone) and trying to cast blame on a president of the opposing party.
"No, if anything he has more insight into the CIA's view of bin Laden."
It goes deeper than that. He was in charge of the unit that hunted bin Laden. Given that the report you cite is about hunting bin Laden and letting him escape, I'd say Scheuer's assessments are both relevant and credible.
"You've conveniently forgotten the main point, which was that as ranking minority member he had a chance - and an obligation - to write a dissenting report if he dissented."
There's no obligation to write a dissenting report.
"If he had a dissent he would have made it clear he felt the report was inaccurate or biased."
Not if he dismissed it as an old news story not worthy of the effort when he had more pressing issues to attend to.
You are free to do what you want. Which is why you're playing this game.
They did have a chance, and chose not to because it was an 8 year old news story.
Based on the perfunctory remark of the ranking member. And your decision to play this game. Even Lugar's comment didn't question the veracity of the report.
Perhaps you should ask the GOPers rather than assuming their concurrence.
They tacitly concur by issuing the report from the committee without providing dissent. Which is their obligation if they felt the report was in error.
It's certainly not agreement.
Tacitly, it is exactly that in this case.
Kind of like how the Democratic staffers are presenting their perspective (after all, it was written by them alone) and trying to cast blame on a president of the opposing party.
No, not at all. Clinton, Bush and other major players in Scheuer's book were not part of the committee that wrote the book. Other than the required CIA vetting to ensure no classified information was being revealed, they did not have a say, explicitly or implicitly, in what Scheuer wrote and could not correct errors or provide contextual insight. Contrarily, the committee report does give this opportunity. You act as if the majority staff write things and issue them for the committee without anyone else on the committee has any input. The minority party has staff also. And members. All of which have opportunity to comment and correct the draft prepared by the majority. And an obligation to have any report released accurate.
I'd say Scheuer's assessments are both relevant and credible.
You're repeating yourself. I've never suggested that his assessments are not relevant or credible, just that they are biased from his perspective. Just like your biased perspective insists on playing this game.
There's no obligation to write a dissenting report.
There is if you feel the report is in error. And even in Lugar's quote that suggests he thinks there is partisanship in the timing he admits that there are relevant lessons to be learned. He doesn't question the veracity of the report, just its timing.
Not if he dismissed it as an old news story not worthy of the effort when he had more pressing issues to attend to.
What can be more pressing than dissenting on a report if he felt it was false?
Actually, I have more pressing things to attend to than continuing this game.
It's not a game. It's merely calling you out for claiming that NO ONE disputes the report. It is impossible to make such a claim.
"Even Lugar's comment didn't question the veracity of the report."
Why would he entertain it at all of it was dismissed as old and irrelevant in the face of more pressing priorities?
"They tacitly concur by issuing the report from the committee without providing dissent."
You are assuming they concur.
"Which is their obligation if they felt the report was in error."
Again I ask, where is it stated in the Senate rules that those opposed to a report are obligated to issue a dissenting report?
"Clinton, Bush and other major players in Scheuer's book were not part of the committee that wrote the book."
That doesn't change the fact that it is a one-sided report prepared by only one party, with no input from the minority party. Do you really believe that if it had been prepared in a bipartisan fashion that the conclusions would have been the same?
"You act as if the majority staff write things and issue them for the committee without anyone else on the committee has any input."
Happens all the time. That's why it's specified that the report was prepared by the majority and not that the report was prepared by a bipartisan assembly of staffers.
"I've never suggested that his assessments are not relevant or credible, just that they are biased from his perspective. Just like your biased perspective insists on playing this game."
So bias and credibility go together? That explains your blanket acceptance of a report issued by one party.
"There is if you feel the report is in error."
Where is that stated in the Senate rules? Or is it that YOU think someone with an opposing view SHOULD issue a dissenting report?
"What can be more pressing than dissenting on a report if he felt it was false?"
Health care, the economy, unemployment, a troop surge to Afghanistan, cap and trade, etc.
The Wall Street Journal had an interesting take on this report:
"President Obama unveils his new Afghanistan strategy today, and in the nick of time Senator John Kerry has arrived with a report claiming that none of this would be necessary if former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had only deployed more troops eight years ago. Yes, he really said more troops."
"In a 43-page report issued yesterday by his Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Kerry says bin Laden and deputy Ayman Zawahiri were poised for capture at the Tora Bora cave complex in late 2001. But because of the 'unwillingness' of Mr. Rumsfeld and his generals 'to deploy the troops required to take advantage of solid intelligence and unique circumstances to kill or capture bin Laden,' the al Qaeda leaders escaped."
"But coming from Mr. Kerry, of all people, this criticism is nothing short of astonishing. In 2001, readers may recall, the Washington establishment that included Mr. Kerry was fretting about the danger in Afghanistan from committing too many troops. The New York Times made the 'quagmire' point explicitly in a famous page-one analysis, and Seymour Hersh fed the cliche at The New Yorker."
"On CNN with Larry King on Dec. 15, 2001, a viewer called in to say the U.S. should 'smoke [bin Laden] out' of the Tora Bora caves. Mr. Kerry responded: 'For the moment what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way.'
What's that? Did he really say that what we were doing at Tora Bora was the best way to protect our troops? He must have a short memory.
"The Rumsfeld-General Tommy Franks troop strategy may have missed bin Laden, but it reflected domestic political doubts about an extended Afghan campaign."
"Remarkably, Mr. Kerry is now repeating those same doubts about Mr. Obama's troop decision, saying that the 'Afghans must do the heavy lifting' and that he supports additional troops only for 'limited purposes' and wants the U.S. out within 'four to five years.' Adapting his legendary 2004 campaign locution, Mr. Kerry is now in favor of more troops after he was against them, but in any case not for very long."
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748703939404574567941741432788.html
Yes, it is your game, because you're intelligent enough to know the difference, and yet choose to make believe there isn't.
It's merely calling you out for claiming that NO ONE disputes the report. It is impossible to make such a claim.
NO ONE on the committee disputes the report. It is irrelevant what you think, just as it is irrelevant what I think.
Why would he entertain it at all of it was dismissed as old and irrelevant in the face of more pressing priorities?
So your position is that Dick Lugar and the rest of the Republican members of that committee don't care about the facts and/or raising issues if they don't think the facts are being presented accurately? That explains a lot about the party.
You are assuming they concur.
You are assuming they don't concur. The difference is my assumption is the logical conclusion of the members actually doing their jobs, whereas your assumption requires them to be slackers who refuse to honor their commitment to serve the people who elected them.
Again I ask, where is it stated in the Senate rules that those opposed to a report are obligated to issue a dissenting report?
Where does it say that dissenters can abdicate doing the job they were elected to do?
That doesn't change the fact that it is a one-sided report prepared by only one party, with no input from the minority party.
It's not a one-sided report prepared by only one party, it's a report drafted by the majority side that received concurrence through issuance. Which means either the minority party provided their input and agreed, provided no input and agreed, or disagreed and abdicated their responsibilities as an elected official.
Health care, the economy, unemployment, a troop surge to Afghanistan, cap and trade, etc.
All of which the Democratic members of the committee also have pressing. And don't forget that the Republicans have been insisting that they have not been given a chance to provide input on any of the major bills, which means they are sitting around kvetching and not actually being "pressed" by workload. In fact, you seem to be assuming that they are abdicating any responsibility of being an elected official and just partying off the taxpayers dime.
The Wall Street Journal had an interesting take on this report:
So what? So does the NY Times, LA Times, you, and others on Gather and elsewhere that are seeing the report through their own lenses. And none of them sits on the committee. And none of the committee, not one, has said that anything in the report is not factual. In fact, the ranking minority member, a guy not shy about speaking his mind, says we can learn some lessons from the report. The only negative thing he says is that he questions the timing. Not any fact, not its veracity, not anything other than the timing.
So given that you seem to think that the minority party isn't actually making any effort to do the jobs they were elected to do, and that the President has now outlined his plan for completing the job that the former administration largely ignored for 8 years, don't you think you can find something more important to do than whine how the Republican members on the committee don't concur with a report despite no evidence or logic to support that view?
You're smarter than this. Don't waste my time or yours.
Now you're changing your statement. Got it. Of course, without a roll call vote, and given there appears to be no GOP input to the preparation of the report, we don't know if that is true either.
"So your position is that Dick Lugar and the rest of the Republican members of that committee don't care about the facts...."
I'm saying that the Senate has a ton of stuff on its plate and an 8 year old news story that produces a political report is much lower on the priority list than healthcare, the economy, unemployment, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, etc.
"The difference is my assumption is the logical conclusion of the members actually doing their jobs...."
There's nothing logical about taking a partisan report prepared by one party without opposition input and claiming it as representative of an entire committee.
"Where does it say that dissenters can abdicate doing the job they were elected to do?"
I don't recall any of them being elected to produce reports.
"It's not a one-sided report prepared by only one party, it's a report drafted by the majority side that received concurrence through issuance."
If it was prepared by just the majority, it's one-sided.
"Which means either the minority party provided their input and agreed...."
There's no evidence of that.
"...provided no input and agreed...."
There's no evidence of that either.
"...or disagreed and abdicated their responsibilities as an elected official."
I'm still waiting for the Senate rule that says the minority has an obligation to produce a dissenting report. Absent that, the claim of abdication of responsibility is a hollow one.
"All of which the Democratic members of the committee also have pressing."
Not as pressing as an 8-year old story, or those issues would have been decided first.
"...which means they are sitting around kvetching...."
Not being given a chance means just that....the party in power has not given them the opportunity to participate. That's why Reid's bill was crafted behind closed doors and in his office. It sounds to me like they are sitting around waiting for Democrats to show some of that bipartisan spirit the President keeps talking about. You can't do much as the minority without the consent of the majority.
"So what?"
So it was an interesting take. No comments on Kerry's flip flop?
I didn't change my statement at all. Just tried to clarify it since you decided to reinterpret everything the way you want to see it rather than the way it is.
Of course, without a roll call vote, and given there appears to be no GOP input to the preparation of the report, we don't know if that is true either.
Not true at all. Your ignorance of the committee's deliberations and responsibilities does not mean they didn't follow through on their obligations as committee members. But then creating your straw man gives you the opportunity to argue against your own version of reality. Which in this case presumes that the minority members and their staffs and the committee's minority staff are lazy and abdicating their responsibilities as elected officials. That's a rather poorly constructed straw man.
Straw man to serve your own needs. Sorry, the minority party on the foreign relations committee has responsibilities. I'm sorry you think that waving their hands at other issues they also are not doing anything on is a legitimate use of their position.
Another straw man. What is not logical is your insistence that the minority party staff and members are so lazy that they wouldn't provide input. Furthermore, your straw man presumes that the minority party staff and members are dishonest and unpatriotic in that they would not question the veracity of the report if they felt it wasn't accurate. Your straw man also presumes that they continue to feel no obligation to be honest about doing their jobs, since none question the report.
Your view of the Republican party really isn't something I would expect them to be using in their campaign materials next year.
They are elected to do their jobs, which means standing up if they think a report to which they are obligated to contribute is not true. So unless you are accusing the entire minority party committee members and their staff of not doing anything on their jobs, you are admitting they did their job and didn't dissent.
I interpreted it literally, the way it was stated.
"Not true at all."
But it is true. There is no official record of the positions of the members, making the rest (both our opinions) speculation.
Another straw man. It was DRAFTED by the majority, as are all reports by committees. And then the minority reviews, comments, and if they feel changes are needed or something isn't correct, edits. And if they disagree with the findings of the report they get to write their own minority report.
It's called being responsible for your obligations, not sitting on your hands and doing nothing except whine. Or make up straw men.
Those responsibilities are cleared out in Senate rules. Producing dissenting reports is not one of them.
False. First off, there is no evidence against that or to support your contention that they abdicated their responsibilities. Secondly, it is their job to dissent if they dissent.
Not to mention that not one fact has been disputed.
Can you dispute any of the facts?
Ditto
I didn't insist that at all. In fact, I clearly stated that other priorities were more pressing. It has nothing to do with laziness.
Not hollow at all. Certainly not as hollow as presuming the elected minority members and their committee staff are lazy and incompetent.
Their jobs are to represent the people of their state. Please show me in the official job description or Senate rules where it says they have an obligation to produce a dissenting report.
You do recall that this is a committee report, right? With committee staff? In addition to the Senators' staffs?
Or do you think that the minority party can't do more than one thing at a time?
You don't seem to have a very high regard for the minority party.
You might as well have said "It was DRAFTED by one side...."
"And if they disagree with the findings of the report they get to write their own minority report."
Or they could dismiss it as an 8-year old story that is less important than healthcare, the economy, unemployment, a troop surge in Afghanistan, continued high levels of troops in Iraq, etc.
Poppycock. Another straw man that has grown tiresome.
Please show me in the Senate rules where it says that.
No.
Of course it is. You have claimed the minority has an obligation to produce a dissenting report, but have offered no evidence to prove that such an obligation exists.
Please show me where it says they don't. Or that they can be complicit in the release of erroneous reports by abdicating their responsibilities?
Can't have it both ways. Either they do their jobs or they don't.
It is.
I have in fact articulated that they are doing more than one thing (healthcare, the economy, the troop surge to Afghanistan, the withdrawal from Iraq, unemployment, etc.), all of which are more important and more pressing than an 8-year old story designed to take a shot at a previous administration.
"You don't seem to have a very high regard for the minority party."
I don't have a very high regard for either party.
Why not? Because it lends credence to the argument that this is politically motivated and partisan?
No you haven't. You've tossed it out as a straw man to excuse the fact that they didn't do their job. You also claim that the minority party "isn't being allowed" to do anything else, which means they are doing nothing.
No, because it's irrelevant.
Clearly. So are you sitting on your hands not doing anything but whine and reelecting the same guys over and over again?
Yes, and they do that by abdicating their responsibilities as elected officials. Good logic.
Here's the link to the Rules of the Senate, section regarding committee reports. In no place of this section does it specify an obligation to produce a dissenting report.
http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=RulesOfSenate.View&Rule_id=675da19f-37ac-41cd-a195-48b4a4ae16ab&CFID=26948094&CFTOKEN=43040148
Given that the responsibility to dissent does not exist, there can be no abdication of that responsibility.
Are you saying the minority is not working on those issues?
"...to excuse the fact that they didn't do their job."
As already established, it is not their job to dissent.
How so? Kerry clearly shifted his position for political purposes. It undermines the credibility of the report he commissioned.
Not at all. I'm actively working to elect independent candidates that best support my viewpoints.
Read the Senate rules. It's not their responsibility to dissent, therefore no abdication of that responsibility has occurred.