Bush hunts for bin Laden - or not?

Back on June 15, 2008, timesonline.co.uk, reported that prezident Bush has asked the help of the British special forces "in a final attempt to capture Osama bin Laden before he leaves the White House." According to timesonline, which cited US and British intelligence sources, the hunt for bin Laden is underway.

"The Special Boat Service (SBS) and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment have been taking part in the US-led operations to capture Bin Lade in the wild frontier region of northern Pakistan. It is the first time they have operated across the Afghan border on a regular basis."

Supposedly the Pakistani government has approved this military operation, which "involves the use of Predator and Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles fitted with Hellfire missiles that can be used to take out specific terrorist targets."

These drones were said to have been used in an attack on an empty house earlier in June. Maybe this was the same attack which Pakistan claims killed 11 of its troops?

No one seems to know for sure where bin Laden is holed up, but "some analysts believe he is in the Bajaur tribal zone in northwest Pakistan.

"A Pentagon source said US forces were rolling up Al-Qaeda's network in Pakistan in the hope of pushing Bin Laden towards the Afghan border, where the US military and bombers with guided missiles were lying in wait."


But something is very wrong. First of all, it seems Pakistan is not all that happy with this "hunt" for bin Laden. Timesonline also said, somewhat contradictorily, "The step-up in military activity has increased tensions between Pakistan and the US."

Not only that, but on June 30, 2008 ABC News put out a story indicating that nothing has happened as yet because of inter-agency infighting.

"The Pentagon has drafted a secret plan that would send U.S. special forces into the wild tribal regions of Pakistan to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, but the White House has balked at giving the mission a green light, The New York Times reported today.

...

"Although the special forces attack plan was devised six months ago, infighting among U.S. intelligence agencies and among White House offices have blocked it from being implemented, the Times reported."


So, what's going on? Is the hunt on or is it not? Did the timesonline give out phony information or report phony information back on June 15?

In March of 2007, ABC News reported that the CIA was "rushing" resources into the Middle East to find bin Laden. What's that about?

Even weirder is the comment by White House Press Secretary Dana Perino in a briefing on June 30, 2008. She responded to The New York Times story by saying,

"The president has been looking for Osama bin Laden since September 12th. That effort has never let up. And we are dealing with very dangerous terrain, difficult physical environment, very secretive people hiding in caves, an enemy that respects no uniform, respects no civilians, just absolutely wants destruction."

September 12th? Of what year? All of that is bullshit, of course, and says nothing whatsoever. It's a diversion.


So, is the hunt for bin Laden indeed underway? It appears not. It appears stalled. Maybe timesonline misunderstood its sources. Or maybe the quoted "intelligence" sources are providing "disinformation," or perhaps it's a game of CYA.


You will remember, I'm sure, that the CIA offered various intelligence reports through the summer of 2001 that al-Qaeda (bin Laden) planned to strike at the United States soon! Perhaps one of the most perfidious of Bush's actions was to simply ignore those reports. He, along with Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and other nogoodnicks, did not want to hear about bin Laden for they had their own agenda -- the Iraqi oil fields! (We must also remember that not only are Bush and Cheney tied directly to the oil industry, but so is Rice!)

Bush said in the months and years following 9/11 that bin Laden wasn't important; Iraq was important. Iraq, said Bush and company, over and over again, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, had WMD with which to attack American interests, indeed perhaps the United States itself. Bush and company made it clear that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. (Way too many people still believe that lie today!)

Richard Clark commenting on Bush's lack of interest in bin Laden, said, in 2004:

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo--wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back (sic) in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceeding eight years."

In April of 2001, Clarke was finally authorized to meet with certain officials about his "urgent" request. These officials were "second in command in each relevant department." He met, for example, with Paul Wolfowitz, representing the Pentagon. Clark tells the story:

"I began by saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'"

Clarke is very critical of Bush because he ignored the al Qaeda threat, in spite of repeated warnings, in the spring and summer of 2001. Clarke says "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

Perhaps that's why, when Bush was finally told of the 9/11 attacks, he simply sat and stared moronically into space for seven full minutes.

The frosting on this particular piece of cake is the question put to Condi Rice by Ben-Veniste regarding the President's Daily Brief of August 6:

"Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

Rice responded: "I believe the title was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

(Much of the above has come from an article by Josh Orton on mydd.com.)


Just to rub salt in the wound, two years ago Think Progress told the story of how Fred Barnes, editor of the Weekly Standard, appeared on Fox News to talk about a meeting he had with Bush in the Oval Office. According to Barnes "bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism." Bush told Barnes that "capturing bin Laden is 'not a top priority use of American resources.'"


It would seem appropriate considering the Bush brain to go after bin Laden now, almost eight years too late. Bush's reputation is in the toilet, and in coming years the history books will have to try to explain how the American people could elect such a moron twice. Bush needs someway to try to wipe off some of the blood on his hands and believes capturing bin Laden would do that.

But somebody is lying. Is the hunt on or not? Are British special forces at this moment cooperating with American forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan to hunt down and "capture or kill" bin Laden?

Is the Bush administration so badly screwed up that it cannot mount, what would seem, at least in terms of planning and strategy, an uncomplicated search and destroy mission?

The "joke's on us!" Happy Fourth of July!