The Ostroy Report

The Ostroy Report is a fresh, aggressive voice for Democrats and a watchdog of the GOP/Tea Party. We support President Obama and the Democratic agenda and seek to preserve the Senate majority while taking back the House. But we're also not afraid to criticize the left when necessary.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

So Much for "We'll Get bin Laden Dead or Alive"


For the past ten years the C.I.A.'s "Alec Station" unit's sole purpose was to hunt, track down and kill or capture Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants. But in a story first broken by NPR this week, the Busheviks late last year closed the operation, reassigning agents to other divisions. While agency officials dismiss claims that the closure weakens the United States' effort to find Al Qaeda's leaders, others voice serious concern. Michael Scheuer, a former senior C.I.A. official and the first head of the division, said the move reflected a view within the agency that the threat from bin Laden had subsided, and warned that that view was mistaken. "This will clearly denigrate our operations against Al Qaeda," he said. "These days at the agency, bin Laden and Al Qaeda appear to be treated merely as first among equals."

What we do know is that President Bush's tough talk was just that.Talk. Remember this promise?: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." (Sept 13, 2001). Or, we'll find bin Laden "dead or alive." And,"we're gonna smoke 'em out." But these John Wayne-isms quickly turned into 2002's limp "I just don't spend that much time on him...to be honest with you. I truly am not that concerned about him." And now the closing of the Alec Station unit is another chapter in the Book of Bush Lies. There are many reasons why the Bush neocons' ill-fated war in Iraq is unjust and a colossal failure. But the most unfortunate consequence is how it's diverted precious military, intelligence and financial resources away from the war against our real enemy, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

24 Comments:

  • At 10:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    too bad Bill didn't get him when he was offered to us (twice).

    - Feb 26, 1993 - World Trade Center bombed. Clinton response: nothing - law enforcement issue
    - Oct 3, 1993 - 18 American soldiers killed in Somalia (Black Hawk Down). Clinton response: withdrawal
    - Jan 1995 - Ramzi Yousef accidentally blows up his apartment while mixing chemicals to blow up 12 US commercial airliners in a day or rage. Uncovered in the remains showed "project bojinka" which involved ramming a commercial airliner into the pentagon. Clinton response: nothing
    - Nov 13, 1995: 5 US soldiers killed in Riyadh car bombing. Clinton response: nothing
    - Mar 8, 1996: Clinton refuses offer to turn over OBL because "he had no committed any crimes against the US" (yet)
    - June 25, 1996: Khobar Towers bombed, killing 19 US soldiers. Clinton response: nada
    - Feb 23, 1998: OBL holds press conference to declare war against the US.
    - Aug 7, 1998: OBL organizes Kenya and Tanzania bombings. Clinton response, "we will use all the means at our disposal to...blah blah blah"
    - Aug 20, 1998: Clinton bombs Sudan Aspirin Factory
    - June 1999: Sandy Berger blocks proposal to attack OBL at a terrorist camp because "if he responds, we're blamed".
    - Oct 12, 2000: OBL kills 17 US sailors in USS Cole attack.

     
  • At 11:39 AM, Anonymous Rarl Kove said…

    Too bad George Bush decided to do nothing when he was warned in August of 2001 that Osama Bin Laden was planning attacks in the US.
    Well, Bush didn't do nothing, he spent the next month clearing brush on one of his many vacations.

     
  • At 12:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Blame it on Clinton! Ha, ha, ha.

    You just can't admit that the president you voted for is a failure, can you?

     
  • At 12:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Too bad George Bush decided to do nothing when he was warned in August of 2001 that Osama Bin Laden was planning attacks in the US"

    What should Bush have done in August 2001 to stop the impending attack? NSA Wiretaps? Racial Profiling at the airports? Illegal immigration status arrests? Arrests without a crime?

    What steps would the left have approved of?

    To bad Clinton ignored the 1999 "Able Danger" program.

    Able Danger was a classified military intelligence program under the command of the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM). It was created as a result of a directive from the Joint Chiefs of Staff in early October 1999 by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hugh Shelton, to develop an Information Operations Campaign Plan against transnational terrorism, "specifically al-Qaeda." According to statements by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and confirmed by four others, Able Danger had identified the September 11, 2001 attack leader Mohamed Atta, and three of the 9/11 plot's other 19 hijackers, as possible members of an al Qaeda cell linked to the '93 World Trade Center Attacks.

     
  • At 2:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Well, I see "Larry" is back and too frightened or ashamed to use that "identification" again.

     
  • At 4:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Anonymous said...
    Well, I see "Larry" is back and too frightened or ashamed to use that "identification" again."

    Huh? who are you? what are you afraid of?

     
  • At 6:02 PM, Anonymous karena said…

    I'm beside myself on this one. It is so obvious that Bush cares nothing about catching OBL, and why anyone would waste their precious time criticizing Bill Clinton when 9/11 took place on Bush's watch and Bush let OBL slip through his fingers AFTER 9/11 is beyond me. It is time that the media start questioning and questioning hard what the Sam Hill is going on. Sure, the MSM stands to make plenty of dough off of war profits, but they won't make any money off of another attack. They need to do their part as watchdog to try to prevent another. They need to hammer Bush for disbanding the Alec Station.

     
  • At 6:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    About 20 days into the first 100 of W's first term a report was circulated that OBL had been musing about using commercial jets as weapons. It still confuses me; why has this little issue not been in the public arena, and why did no one start looking at who was taking flying lessons? This would not have violated anyone’s rights, and would have gone a long way toward making me feel like this president was doing more on 9/11 than planning a war on Iraq. I really don't understand why it is important to look at any other than this one point. I also don't know where the WMD are, and why are six military bases still being built by Halliburton subsidiaries. Why does GM have an ethanol fleet of vehicles and marketing already to go within days of W announcing his new ethanol imitative? It is all a mystery to me. Perhaps I don't have the intellectual stones to stand with the petty few that wish to divert attention from the present to prop up a petty, petulant, brat of a president. But I am sure that there is nothing good about the 800% increase in Halliburton stock in the last 6+ years. I suppose it is just a coincidence that NSA just bought the world’s largest fastest data storage and retrieval system (SAN). It only surprises me that W's cronies did not convince everyone that we should have just attacked IRAQ in the first place.

     
  • At 8:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The reason the resources are not being spent on finding and killing OBL is that he is dead. No verified video recording exists of him alive since Tora Bora. The only very weak evidence was the one where he was supposedly laughing about duping the 9/11 high-jackers. Anyone with a reasonably good ability to recognize faces could see that this was not OBL. Everything else has been audio that sounds like OBL to some. It serves the jihadists and the bushevick very well to keep this bogeyman alive.

     
  • At 10:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Let's see. Alec Station was formed 10 years ago. That would make it under the Clinton admin. that some say was the root of all evil.
    Now, Bush has disbanded the very unit assigned to find OBL. Either OBL is very dead or he is on the payroll.

    Bush gets into political hot water=OBL makes a threatening statement. Last one, to be exact, was Bush in trouble for delving into bank records and oh, OBL comes out with a statement. HMMM?

    Einstein is dead also, so it doesn't take much to figure this out.

    OBL is a diversionary tactic to keep those dumb enough to buy it on Orange alert.

     
  • At 10:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Anonymous said...
    About 20 days into the first 100 of W's first term a report was circulated that OBL had been musing about using commercial jets as weapons. It still confuses me; why has this little issue not been in the public arena, and why did no one start looking at who was taking flying lessons?"


    Easy. The reason MSM and the 'public arena' are ignoring this is because this was first discovered in January 1995 under Al Qaeda code name "project bojinka". This would pin the blame on the Clinton administration, thus falling outside the MSM Bush-Bashing template.

    On top of this, flying lessons were investigated. The "Able Danger" program pin-pointed Mohammad Atta and 4 other 9/11 terrorists in October 1999, but Sandy "pants" Berger forced the FBI to ignore the terrorists - also pointing blame on the Clinton Administration and falling outside the MSM Bush-Bashing template.

    To add insult to injury, Jamie Gorelick's unnecessary "wall" preventing the CIA and FBI to share information helped hide terrorists.

     
  • At 11:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This still does not explain why, what is it 16 individuals, that were taking flying lessons during the W administration, and only wanted to learn to fly but not to take off or land were allowed to blast through the cracks. This information about airplanes was available to W, why if he is so forthright and with it, did this issue that as you seem to allege: are all of Clinton’s mistakes; not get addressed in the first 100 days and not an attempt to immediately rewrite most of the touchy feely parts of the Bill of Rights, pack the courts, and of course there is the fact that most of these types of changes can not be carried out by a President unless there is a declared war. If I were more cynical, I would suggest that in the footsteps of the father goes the son. Let’s not forget the types of events GHWB is associated with: Bay of Pigs, Kennedy assassinations 1 and 2, and Watergate.

    Why would anyone trust this guy!

     
  • At 12:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Don't trust any politician - ever.

    What actions would the left have approved of Bush doing that would have stopped 9/11?

    Only the terrorists are responsible for 9/11. Bush had 7 months to stop it. Clinton had 8 years.

     
  • At 12:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The reason nothing was done to stop 9/11 is because the excessive government secrecy ("need to know") system originally created to hide the Manhattan project. This antiquated system does not allow for free flow of information. The 9/11 commission concluded that the attacks would have been either cancelled or postponed if Moussoui's arrest and his flight training had been publicized. While some few secrets, like exactly how to build WMD's and launch them make sense to keep under wraps. All other intelligence should be open source like Linux. This is how to beat terrorism.
    Regarding the faux Osama tapes, take a look at this slightly ridiculous site. It does compare actual pix of Osama vs. the fakes that have been propagated since his death:


    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html

     
  • At 1:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "What actions would the left have approved of Bush doing that would have stopped 9/11?"
    and earlier "What steps would the left have approved of?".

    You are repeating yourself. Do you do that alot?

    Of course if this the most secretive executive since Nixon made real information available to the left or the right, congress might get to weigh in before things become a crises. Then again it is most likely the goal of the NEW-CONS to keep things in crises to obscure the real goal: Finacial, Political, Religious, and Physical Inslavement of the World!
    He,He

     
  • At 3:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    forget Bush - what steps would the left have approved anyone of doing that would have stopped 9/11?

     
  • At 4:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Wow! You are a redundant little sucker aren’t you? What was it that the GOP did during the last campaign, Flip-FLop, Flip-Flop, ,,,,,. It seems the GOP are not the only broken record playing a tune.

    The left has no problem if information is found in giving a warrant to investigate unusual or suspicious behavior. Then again I don't know how far left you want to go, there is a huge majority of people that are not very far from the center, in either direction, just saying left and meaning far left, only means that there is only a far right, and not a near to center right, or some kind of you know bell shaped curve. I will admit that the curve seems a bit skewed to the right lately, but I think that you'll find that there are many on the LEFT that would have no problem with seeking out and destroying enemy targets as long as they are informed of their existence, and importance, but really; the answer is that as long as the warrants were granted and the paperwork done the left would have no problem jailing individuals that it deemed guilty of a conspiracy to attack the US (I know I would have no problem jailing Karl Rove). At the very least simply arresting, temporarily detaining, and deporting these individuals would have stopped this one incident. I am not a far flung left of center type, but I do believe that the Government has an obligation to take the minimum action and then deal with the consequences.

    Like the man said why don’t we know the status of the OBL investigation.
    One more question, why do you seem to only respond in bullet points and single sentences; English language got your tongue?

     
  • At 4:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    First of all anonymous, get your facts straight. For the first World Trade Center bombing, Clinton's actual response was to track down the terrorists over the next couple of years, leaving them to rot in jail after catching them. For the Blackhawk Down, Clinton should have withdrawn when he received new information. You might want to call him a flip-flopper, but if he hadn't then the United States would still be stuck there.
    Project Bojinka: There's no evidence that this actually existed.
    Riyadh car bombing: Clinton ordered the CIA to work with the Saudis to catch the terrorists, who were beheaded. What more do you want?
    Clinton refusing the offer to take in Bin Laden: Again, no actual evidence.
    The Kohbar Towers: and Clinton did not except to order the bombers to be hunted down and they were beheaded. You happy?
    The Embassy bombings: Again, the perpetrators captured and now imprisoned for life.
    Sudan aspirin factory: This actually was a mistake but then again us Liberals never claimed that our leaders were infallible demi-gods, unlike the Republicans (I know no Republicans actually claim that, but they act like it.)
    OBL's terror camp was bombed, and only a freak coincidence prevented him from being there as the bombs fell on top of it.
    The USS Cole attack: The Clinton administration did look into it, and still had an investigation ongoing when George Bushy was appointed President by his father's pals on the Supreme Court. Bush then ignored a memo outlining the "imminent threat". Maybe, just maybe, if Al Gore was in office like he should have been, then maybe the horrible attacks of Sept. 11 would not have happened, through either one of these two ways: Checking out reports from flight schools in the Southwest about guys who only wanted to learn how to fly a plane, not to land or take off. Or, if that failed, he could have ordered fighter jets to patrol the skies around Manhattan and the Pentagon with orders to shoot down any jet that was far off course and heading towards one of them. (Remember the August 6 memo named the Trade Towers and the Pentagon as the suspected targets.)

     
  • At 5:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Do you actually believe you would approve of a President ordering fighter jets to shoot down any jet that was far off course after the August 6th, 2001 memo? How long would you allow this to go on? Just think about the number of senators, pilots-in-training, and others who have innocently flown into the no-fly zone over Washington D.C. AFTER 9/11. That is a lot of murder of innocent Americans you're suggesting. I have a hard time believing you'd accept this action prior to 9/11, although it sounds great in hindsight.

    After WTC93, Clinton's administration arrested four followers of Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and closed the case. The 'mastermind' (Ramzi Ahmed Yousef) was a nephew of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and a direct link to Al Qaeda and OBL. Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals used in the bombing, was allowed to escape the US and exist in the safety of Baghdad. There's plenty of proof that Clinton's law enforcement exercise was not the appropriate response.

    Saudi Arabian authorities arrested four Saudi nationals whom they claim confessed to the Riyadh bombings, but U.S. officials were denied permission to see or question the suspects before they were convicted and beheaded in May 1996. There's no more evidence that the guilty were killed than there is of your suggestion that project bojinka may never have existed. Clinton should have pressured the Saudis to allow U.S. officials to question these suspects, but he didn’t push hard enough.

    Your denial that Clinton was never offered Osama Bin Laden by Sudan is ridiculous. I've heard the audio of Clinton explaining that he did not take OBL because he believed there was not enough evidence to hold him. If I can find it, I'm sure you can too.
    Even the September 11th Commission details at least 4 different occassions in which Sandy Berger and the Clinton Administration reject proposals to capture or kill OBL (May 1, 1998, June 1999, Dec 4 1999, and August 2000).

    Your claim of the capture of the perpetrators of the Embassy bombings is also not completely accurate. It is possible that ‘some’ were captured, but these attacks were planned and organized by Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was not captured until the Bush administration.

     
  • At 5:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I said:

    "Wow! You are a redundant little sucker aren’t you? What was it that the GOP did during the last campaign, Flip-FLop, Flip-Flop, ,,,,,. It seems the GOP are not the only broken record playing a tune."

    This is in response to the Anonymous that said:

    "forget Bush - what steps would the left have approved anyone of doing that would have stopped 9/11?"

    and said the same thing several times before. My comment about Flip-Flop is to say that Bush and his GANG say the same thing over, and over, and over. I definately know that President Clinton persued OBL and other terrorists with extreme predjudice, and if W had not dropped the ball we would not be having this conversation.

    The problem with being anonymous is the you never know which anonymous is which. I am very much an anonymous that believes that we are in danger of losing not just our freedom and security under W but that the entire human race is more in danger than ever before in history because of what the NEW-CONS are doing. You see just before the dirty thirties the ultra-fatcats had it all and were trying to get more. Then as the depression came on they looked at individuals on the street begging for money and said it must be there own fault. This is how it is now. They spend so much money looking over our shoulder and taking our money while telling us how much good their ding for us, and pissing off the rest of the world while stompping around like spoiled brats on a playground, that they don't see or don't care that the end of the "CIVILIZED WORLD" is only one big gulp of oil away. I know I am digressing, but I can't stand that for one billion dollars in something as simple as a solar energy farm we could be well on the way to freedom from foriegn oil dependance. What I can't stand is that because of all of these destractions the big picture is lost. I can't stand that when the cold hard unmitgating fact stare them in the face their only answer is give us more, we haven't had enough yet. The only excuse they give is it's the other guy's fault. They say it's Clinton, or the Koreans, or the Iranians, ect., it couldn't just be that the NEW-CONS are just that confidence men, diverting our attention while picking our pockets and stealing our freedom, in the name of a god I don't think they even believe in.


    I agree with Anonymous at 4:04 PM.

    W should take responsibility for his actions, and step down from the White House.

     
  • At 12:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Question. Do term limits allow Al Gore run again? He won in 2000. Would certainly have won a 2nd term after nailing OBL. And now he would be gearing up for a 3rd term. Four More Years of Al Gore. Vote for Congress to suspend term limits!

     
  • At 12:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."

    - Joe Biden (D-Delaware)

     
  • At 7:06 AM, Anonymous daytripper said…

    What should Bush have done in August 2001 to stop the impending attack? NSA Wiretaps? Racial Profiling at the airports? Illegal immigration status arrests? Arrests without a crime?

    its quite simple really. enforcing a closed cockpit policy wouldve foiled the whole plot.

     
  • At 12:42 AM, Anonymous PK said…

    Bush has cut and run from OBL. He declared a war on terror and so far it looks like terror won.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home