Bush's Fault, Blah Blah Blah

Uncle Jimbo does not like to repeat himself especially when its so efffing simple to figure out on your own, IF, you take five minutes and think about it BUT he has graciously provided us with the facts on what happened in Tora Bora. You don't believe it? Thats your problem, not mine.

Afghanistan? Tora Bora?
Bush's fault forever
I grow bored of rehashing something we have been rehashing so long that the links to where I did an exhaustive analysis of it at Madison.com are no longer even active.

So Tora Bora, let me make this simple.

1. We invade A-Stan with small number of Spec Ops guys and partner w. Northern Alliance and in amazingly successful operation kick Taliban and al Qaeda asses.

2. Many of them die, some run to Paktia province, some (incl. bin Laden) run toward Pakistan and stop in highly-fortified Tora Bora.

3. We do the math and since Tora Bora is way the hell up high in the mountains figger out we would have a wicked time resupplying any troops we managed to get up there w/ our limited helicopter support and also they would be ambush bait for bad guys
who are real good at that.

4. So we decide to try the same thing that worked to kick their asses already. We partnered with local tribes to provide the manpower while we sent Spec Ops support and massive air power.

5. We push up there and even the Spec Ops guys have a helluva time because of the terrain. The local tribes more or less screw us and take the money but don't fight
much.

6. We still kills hundreds of Taliban and AQ but bin Laden slips off to become a ghost.

7. A talking point for the ignorant left, their enablers and military geniuses like F John Kerry (who served in Viet Nam) is born.

8. Rinse and repeat whenever the left needs a club to try and lose a war.

Next freakin' slide.

If you want to get back in the weeds on this again, Greyhawk is doing his usual
excellent job of journalizing.

Barack Obama’s Record of Poor Judgment

Once again, the folks at Family Security Matters have nailed it.

As an extreme liberal, Mr. Obama's priority is to weaken national security, not strengthen it. He wants face-to-face meetings with America's enemies but won't meet with Chris Wallace on the Fox News Network. He has pledged to withdraw troops fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq and would allow homosexuals in the military. That's his idea of enhancing national security.

Gregory D. Lee

Barack Obama and his supporters are fond of citing his opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq as an example of his superior judgment over his rival John McCain. To me, it's just the opposite, and illustrates how poorly Mr. Obama, as commander-in-chief, would handle national security matters.

Saddam Hussein ignored 16 United Nations resolutions demanding UN inspectors'
unfettered access of his facilities to locate and dismantle weapons of mass destruction. After a protracted cat-and-mouse game, Saddam finally kicked inspectors out and thumbed his nose at the world. How many more resolutions would Mr. Obama like to have seen before forcing Saddam's compliance? If you don't comply with our next resolution and let our inspectors back in the country, we're going to be really, really mad. We mean it this time, Mr. Saddam. At what point does the UN finally protect its credibility and enforce the provisions of its resolutions? Is Mr. Obama suggesting that finally enforcing the resolutions is an example of poor judgment.

And don't tell me President Bush manipulated intelligence and lied to Congress and the American people to justify military action because that is simply ludicrous. Such a lie would have required the complicity and cover up of the entire intelligence communities of the U.S., Great Britain, White House staffers and the U.S. military. Doesn't it stand to reason that at least one person from those organizations would have the integrity and moral fiber to blow the whistle on such a conspiracy?

U.S. and European intelligence agencies concluded that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and that he was most likely conducting covert operations to acquire nuclear weapons. That's pretty scary, especially in a post-9/11 world, since Saddam had a history of attacking his neighbors and using chemical weapons against his own people in northern Iraq. There was every reason to believe he had WMDs at his disposal and would use them against his enemies, namely the United States. President Bush's decisive action was required to not only protect the nation, but also maintain the U.N.'s flimsy credibility.