Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (688678)	6/30/2005 1:25:49 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

There us no excuse for not catching OBL after four years. I don't see how any excuse would be needed. We know he is alive and well. The evidence indicates that he probably is, particularly the alive part. Saying "we know", might be overstating the case. I'm sure the CIA knows where. Why are you sure? Even if one assumes that the CIA is superbly competent (and if they are why did 9/11 happen in the first place?), and you accept that GW Bush is the type of person who would order OBL not be captured for some minor political advantage (hardly a safe assumption). And you assume that such a secret policy in the middle of the open policy being a hunt for OBL could be both effective (despite the fact that many involved in the hunt would not know about it, and thus not follow it, otherwise it would not remain secret), and kept secret (no leaks getting out), even if you assume all of those unlikely things one on top of the other, it still doesn't provide any evidence, or argument, for the idea that the CIA actually knows where OBL is. (Unless you mean in a very general sense or in some large area, like the tribal areas on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border). There is simply no rational reason to be sure that the CIA knows where he is. Cheney and Porter Goss say they know, more or less. "More or less" could mean a lot less. What did they actually say? Please quote them, preferably with news site links where I can get the full context, and please provide links to the news story, not some biased analysis or spin. Grounds for impeachment of Bush-Cheney. Dereliction of duty as commanders in chief. Not succeeding in catching a fugitive terrorist is grounds of impeachment? What a silly idea. Tim