Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Predator Drones Sighted Osama Before 9/11
AP Yahoo ^ | 2 hours 47 minutes ago 6/24/03 | By TED BRIDIS and JOHN SOLOMON

Posted on 06/24/2003 7:41:47 PM PDT by chichipow

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 last
To: Sabertooth
Thanks for the heads up!
61 posted on 06/25/2003 9:51:32 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Remember the time during the fight of Tora Bora when a Predator saw a convoy of SUVs in the mountains, and a tall Arab among the crowd that intelligence suspected was Osama? The Predator fired a Hellfire missle, killing the assembled group. They were likely up to no good, but it turned out that Osama was not among them.

If the stroy is ciruclating that Osama was sited by a Predator prior to 9/11, consider it another attempt by the Clinton Apologists (the fastest growing industry in America, btw) to deflect error in judgment from their guy.

Two other things. There can never be 100% assurance that anyone is identified by a Predator. And, secondly, prior to 9/11, we had no good reason to rain-down a missle on a group of unidentifiable Arabs, suspecting Osama was in the group.

62 posted on 06/25/2003 10:01:15 AM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents; Mia T
What I'm trying to get across is the the bin Laden sightings were by more than just drones. Focusing in the Predators, as in the article at the top of this thread, is the hook that is supposed to provide cover for the Clintons.

Here's an unedited posting of the original Washington Post article, on an independent site. No sign-up necessary.


63 posted on 06/25/2003 10:29:17 AM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: section9
Can't wait to hear slick willy reference this hit piece.....
64 posted on 06/25/2003 10:31:59 AM PDT by b4its2late (Insanity is my only means of relaxation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
It's very important the damning information that Clinton could have taken bin Laden out on three occasions is disseminated to as many people as possible, so please pass it along.

I couldn't agree more with your assessment of this. Will be mass emailing to all my non-freepers friends.

65 posted on 06/25/2003 10:32:00 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (proud member of a fierce, warlike tribe of a fire-breathing conservative band of Internet brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: chichipow
This kind of propaganda continues to be an outrage. If I was in a position in the administration or somewhere in politics I would sue these people and continually bring up the clear bias they continue to show. Maybe they ought to be sued for slander? It is so obvious how the media is attempting to tear this President down and I am so enraged by this smear campaign. The media is despicable and someone has to start calling them on it because this is yet another attempt to level outrageous charges against the administration with their 'unnamed sources'.
66 posted on 06/25/2003 10:35:57 AM PDT by bushfamfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Thanks Saber. I'll try to help get the word out.
67 posted on 06/25/2003 8:31:54 PM PDT by Jen (Yep, I am a Spastic Lizard! Got a problem with that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Thanks for the ping. This is an important issue. Do you have any ideas of what to do?

These problems needed to be addressed before 9/11, and that lack of foresight was obvious to all by nightfall that day. Yet, it continues, as a calculated matter of policy. When it hits the fan again, that buck will stop on a desk in an office without corners, and "we had no way of knowing" isn't going to wish that reality away.

68 posted on 06/25/2003 9:23:58 PM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: chichipow
Top administration officials discussed the mission to kill bin Laden as late as one week before the suicide attacks on New York and Washington, but they had not yet resolved a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators and whether the missiles would be sufficiently lethal, officials told The Associated Press.

On a related note:(On the Hunt: An interview with Col. David Hunt)
NRO: How are we doing in the war on terrorism?

HUNT: Al Qaeda is in 80 different countries. We need to harass these terrorist groups, everywhere — in Saudi Arabia, in Yemen, North Korea, the Sudan, Algeria, and Zimbabwe. And then there's the Russian mafia. We need to screw around with their banks, to squeeze them. A lot of these groups get money through laundering and drug trafficking. Here's an example: poppy-producers in Afghanistan. We need to destroy all those poppy fields. We could be much more aggressive in that area.

The point is to make it painful on states that sponsor terrorism. If I go after the bank, that hurts a lot of people. We want to go into the towns and kill these terrorists, in their homes. We're doing that, but we need to do it more. This is the first time we've had a president who wants to do this, aggressively.

NRO: What about the turf wars between FBI and CIA. Has that gotten any better since 9/11?

HUNT: The turf wars continue. Because of the 9/11 commissions, people are sweating scared about what happened. We sucked! We sucked, and we got hurt. 800 Americans were killed over 20 years in terrorist actions, and what did we do? We shot a couple of missiles.

We have not solved the bureaucracy and, because of the war, the Bush administration has been understandably focused on that. But these agencies are still at each other's throats. The FBI is a fabulous crime-fighter, the best in the world, but they need to get out of the terrorism business. We need something to fight terrorism domestically that's not fighting banks. Maybe like the British MI-5.

NRO: What about the Homeland Security department? How's Tom Ridge doing?

HUNT: Don't even get me started on "homeland security"! It was courageous for Bush to do, but you can't do anything without intel. They talk about "sharing" — we know they don't share. You can't get the job done without intel. They get what the FBI and the CIA want to give them. To be effective, a security agency must have what's called "tasking authority." This is probably the most important thing I'll tell you today: I've got to be able to tell you what to do. If I don't have that, I come to you and say, "Would you mind doing X and we'll have a meeting about it." Guess what? Nothing gets done. The Homeland Security department doesn't have tasking authority in the intelligence community. They can ask for stuff, but they can't direct anything except inside their bureau.

And the other problem: You still see public relations playing a role, which is so frustrating. We're not profiling. We know who's attacking us, but we pull over grandmothers so that when we go to court we can show that we're treating white women the same way. Everyone knows that's the wrong thing to do. On the Hunt: An interview with Col. David Hunt National Review ^ | 06/25/03 | Sarah Maserati

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/935273/posts
"You can be someone or you can do something"
Colonel John Boyd

69 posted on 06/25/2003 10:09:17 PM PDT by Valin (Humor is just another defense against the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stimpyone
Bush should have made this priority #1 when he took office.


I am always amazed at peoples 20/20 hindsight.
70 posted on 06/25/2003 10:14:21 PM PDT by Valin (Humor is just another defense against the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Thanks, Saber !!


Uh, haz anybahdy
seed hillary ??


Uh, nevah mind!
Ah found 'er !!

More bump images HERE !


71 posted on 06/26/2003 3:26:05 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Valin
call it what you wish, but 3 months before Bush took office Bin Laden nearly sunk a U.S. warship, justification enough for an all-out assault that would have sent an immediate message that the U.S. had a new attitude toward terrorists.
72 posted on 06/26/2003 5:44:39 AM PDT by stimpyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Here's an example: poppy-producers in Afghanistan. We need to destroy all those poppy fields. We could be much more aggressive in that area.

Hmm, maybe we need the Taliban to retake power since that is exactly what they were doing. ;-)

73 posted on 06/26/2003 5:45:52 AM PDT by stimpyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: stimpyone
You could say the samething going (at least) back to the Beirut bombing. I can understand why the terrorists would think that we are a "paper tiger" given the way we've reacted to there attacks for what 8-20 years.
74 posted on 06/26/2003 6:44:30 AM PDT by Valin (Humor is just another defense against the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Donna Lee Nardo
You are right on! Does anyone know how many manufacturers there are of klintoon kool-aid there are?
And the left thinks that the news is becoming too right wing. Just the latest flavor of klintoon kool-aid.
75 posted on 06/26/2003 6:55:58 AM PDT by Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER; Sabertooth
So, what do we have here? The AP is saying that Bush didn't act on intelligence info? Aren't they claiming that intelligence for Iraqi was no good? So, Bush is guilty of NOT acting on intel re OBL, and guilty OF acting on intel re Saddaam?

Also, Clintoon's defense re not accepting the gift-wrapped OBL was that there was no legal justification, but BJ gave Bush info on where OBL so Bush could take him out? I'm wondering what the legal justification for THAT action was?

Klintoon logic:
Capture a terrorist w/o legal justification -- no go.
Kill a terrorist w/o legal justification -- COOL!
76 posted on 06/26/2003 7:01:39 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
The Bush administration did not fly Predator drones over Afghanistan even though the UAVs spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000. The administration was still refining a plan to use one armed with missiles to kill the al-Qaida leader when Sept. 11 unfolded. The unmanned Predator B taxis back to the hangar in El Mirage, Calif., Thursday, Sept. 6, 2001, after a test flight over the Mojave Desert. (AP Photo/Doug Benc)

77 posted on 06/26/2003 2:26:46 PM PDT by berserker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson