• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Senate Report: Bin Laden was "within our grasps"; OR "nice job Bush/Rumsfield"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Senate report: Bin Laden was ‘within our grasp’
Review could be seen as warning against opponents of a troop surge now

WASHINGTON - 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.

The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man. Bin Laden's escape laid the foundation for today's reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says.

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.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

The Massachusetts senator and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate has long argued the Bush administration missed a chance to get the al-Qaida leader and top deputies when they were holed up in the forbidding mountainous area of eastern Afghanistan only three months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Aimed at foes of surge?
Although limited to a review of military operations eight years old, the report could also be read as a cautionary note for those resisting an increased troop presence there now.

More pointedly, it seeks to affix a measure of blame for the state of the war today on military leaders under former president George W. Bush, specifically Donald H. Rumsfeld as defense secretary and his top military commander, Tommy Franks.

"Removing the al-Qaida leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat," the report says. "But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide. The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism."

The report states categorically that bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora when the U.S. had the means to mount a rapid assault with several thousand troops at least. It says that a review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants "removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora."

Fewer than 100 U.S. commandos
On or about Dec. 16, 2001, bin Laden and bodyguards "walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan's unregulated tribal area," where he is still believed to be based, the report says.

Instead of a massive attack, fewer than 100 U.S. commandos, working with Afghan militias, tried to capitalize on air strikes and track down their prey.

"The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the Marine Corps and the Army, was kept on the sidelines," the report said.

At the time, Rumsfeld expressed concern that a large U.S. troop presence might fuel a backlash and he and some others said the evidence was not conclusive about bin Laden's location.
 
Although there has always been talk that they screwed up, to see it confirmed infuriates me.
The entire time Bush/Rumsfield and the rest of the administration kept screaming from the hills how it is all about Bin Laden (as to why we are there) and they just let the man walk out and then go and basically try to defame Clinton for not pulling the trigger on Bin Laden the chances that he had to do so. Meanwhile, we are now on the cusp of having thousands more of our young men and women travel to fight a war that most of the country doesn't know if it's worth fighting any longer. Seems like every day, more information is shown just how royally the Bush administration screwed this country over.
 

TxdoHawk

Member
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.

Funny how that works, eh? I'm sure that if this same report was prepared by Republicans, it'd be praising the path taken by Bush. Forgive me if I'm just a little bit skeptical of any report coming from the pen of a politician, Democrat Republican or otherwise. Show me a report gathered by a politically neutral source and I might be more interested, but fat chance of that happening.
 
TxdoHawk said:
Funny how that works, eh? I'm sure that if this same report was prepared by Republicans, it'd be praising the path taken by Bush. Forgive me if I'm just a little bit skeptical of any report coming from the pen of a politician, Democrat Republican or otherwise.

The problem is (if I am wrong, please correct me) this report doesn't support a huge increase in troops as Obama supposedly has agreed to. If anything, it argues for a smaller number of special forces rather than a huge uptake of thousands.
 
LovingSteam said:
Although there has always been talk that they screwed up, to see it confirmed infuriates me.
The entire time Bush/Rumsfield and the rest of the administration kept screaming from the hills how it is all about Bin Laden (as to why we are there) and they just let the man walk out and then go and basically try to defame Clinton for not pulling the trigger on Bin Laden the chances that he had to do so. Meanwhile, we are now on the cusp of having thousands more of our young men and women travel to fight a war that most of the country doesn't know if it's worth fighting any longer. Seems like every day, more information is shown just how royally the Bush administration screwed this country over.
no no no the obama administration screwed the country over and now we need to put a stop to everything they try to pass and then put the republicans in power to fix it
 
LovingSteam said:
The problem is (if I am wrong, please correct me) this report doesn't support a huge increase in troops as Obama supposedly has agreed to. If anything, it argues for a smaller number of special forces rather than a huge uptake of thousands.

Ah, so there IS a motive for the "report".
 

SimleuqiR

Member
CharlieDigital said:
I'm not a big conspiracy theorist, but I do believe that they wanted to keep him as a bogeyman.

mission-accomplished.png
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
TxdoHawk said:
Funny how that works, eh? I'm sure that if this same report was prepared by Republicans, it'd be praising the path taken by Bush. Forgive me if I'm just a little bit skeptical of any report coming from the pen of a politician, Democrat Republican or otherwise. Show me a report gathered by a politically neutral source and I might be more interested, but fat chance of that happening.
Um, it's pretty well known from political and non-political sources that we screwed up.

It is KNOWN that we had osama bin laden sourrnounded in afghanistan, and that we let him escape into pakistan.


This is the first official confirmation from the government, but that doesn't invalidate what was already known because it happened to come from a different administration.

Get your head out of the read team vs. blue team gutter.
 

Dead Man

Member
teruterubozu said:
Ah, so there IS a motive for the "report".
What? Of course there is. Did you read it? It argues against Obama's position on severa things, but it's 'hurr durr libural propygandy'?
 
teruterubozu said:
Yeah, which is if we did this, this and that we would have got him. OK.

It isn't too complicated. The Bush administration HAD HIM, they let him go because they supposedly didn't want to inflame the people. The Bush administration said it was about Bin Laden, that we would capture him dead or alive, etc. . . and then they just let him walk out.
I don't care if Hitler himself was the author of this report. If the information is correct, who cares what the source is. Even a broken clock is right two times a day.
 

Dead Man

Member
LovingSteam said:
It isn't too complicated. The Bush administration HAD HIM, they let him go because they supposedly didn't want to inflame the people. The Bush administration said it was about Bin Laden, that we would capture him dead or alive, etc. . . and then they just let him walk out.
I don't care if Hitler himself was the author of this report. If the information is correct, who cares what the source is. Even a broken clock is right two times a day.
May not mean what you think it does...
 
idahoblue said:
May not mean what you think it does...

I understand how it is commonly used.

I am using it in the context that the author of the report can have a motive, he/she can be an idiot, doesn't mean the information is incorrect.
 

Dead Man

Member
LovingSteam said:
I am using it in the context that the author of the report can have a motive, he/she can be an idiot, doesn't mean the information is incorrect.
Yes, I agree with you, and if there were no historicity to the statement I wouldn't have said anything. Carry on.
 
Besides Saddam and Noriega, we basically suck at capturing our enemies (and it's debatable that we even "caught" Saddam). A grain of salt is how I take this report.
 

Dead Man

Member
teruterubozu said:
Besides Saddam and Noriega, we basically suck at capturing our enemies (and it's debatable that we even "caught" Saddam). A grain of salt is how I take this report.
It read like you dismissed it out of hand due to the source...
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Why was Saddam our "enemy", again? Last I checked, he was simply an oppressive dictator, not someone planning attacks against the US or its allies.
 
GaimeGuy said:
Why was Saddam our "enemy", again? Last I checked, he was simply an oppressive dictator, not someone planning attacks against the US or its allies.


they took the plans for the death star
 

Chichikov

Member
CharlieDigital said:
I'm not a big conspiracy theorist, but I do believe that they wanted to keep him as a bogeyman.
Not that the US hadn't done such things before, but catching Bin Laden would not only been the biggest PR victory ever, it could've been the gift the keep on giving.
Just time his court appearances (and eventually execution) to coincide with elections/big legislative push, it's the political "I win" button.

This is good old fashioned incompetence.
The trademark of the Bush administration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom