Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Officials said that both American and foreign intelligence services had collected evidence leading them to conclude that at least one of the camps in Pakistan might be training operatives capable of striking Western targets. A particular concern is that the camps are frequented by British citizens of Pakistani descent who travel to Pakistan on British passports."
First off, I have to wonder how accurate this story is, given the fact that this administration has been known to pass inaccurate tips to the New York Times. (We know this from the Scooter Libby trial and from Judith Miller's testimony. When they have an agenda, it's best to tell the NYT.)
However, if the story is true, what are we doing in Afghanistan to prevent Al Qaeda from reorganizing? And why haven't we caught Osama bin Laden?
"Officials said that both American and foreign intelligence services had collected evidence leading them to conclude that at least one of the camps in Pakistan might be training operatives capable of striking Western targets. A particular concern is that the camps are frequented by British citizens of Pakistani descent who travel to Pakistan on British passports."
First off, I have to wonder how accurate this story is, given the fact that this administration has been known to pass inaccurate tips to the New York Times. (We know this from the Scooter Libby trial and from Judith Miller's testimony. When they have an agenda, it's best to tell the NYT.)
However, if the story is true, what are we doing in Afghanistan to prevent Al Qaeda from reorganizing? And why haven't we caught Osama bin Laden?
You'll notice that this story references camps in Pakistan, a country we are prohibited from entering. We do need to pressure Masharif to allow to hunt for OBL and his ilk.
This is from another story in the NYT today -- the story about the attack on the American base that killed 2 and wounded 17:
"American and Iraqi officials said their was little doubt that Sunni militants, most likely Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, was responsible for the attack. There were no reports of how many militants were killed."
Sunnis are backed by Saudi Arabia, not Iran.
I've started to pay more attention to who the attackers are in these stories since Bush keeps claiming Iran is behind a lot of the attacks but Iran is backing the Shiites, not the Sunnis.
Many of the 9/11 hijackers were also from Saudi Arabia.
It appears to me that we value our friendship (and oil) with Saudi Arabia more than we value American lives...??? I find this quite perplexing.
"Officials said that both American and foreign intelligence services had collected evidence leading them to conclude that at least one of the camps in Pakistan might be training operatives capable of striking Western targets. A particular concern is that the camps are frequented by British citizens of Pakistani descent who travel to Pakistan on British passports."
First off, I have to wonder how accurate this story is, given the fact that this administration has been known to pass inaccurate tips to the New York Times. (We know this from the Scooter Libby trial and from Judith Miller's testimony. When they have an agenda, it's best to tell the NYT.)
However, if the story is true, what are we doing in Afghanistan to prevent Al Qaeda from reorganizing? And why haven't we caught Osama bin Laden?
There you have it, Conservative Cheerleaders everywhere. The sum of the results of your "war on terror". Congratulations. Own it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
