Albright thinks Bush hiding bin Laden
 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=36182
It's pretty sad if it were true that the Bush Administration is using the capture of Osama and Suddam as publicity for his re-election campaign.

Re: Albright thinks Bush hiding bin Laden
 

Santa Claus is gonna' bring him down the chimney on Christmas Eve. Do you honestly believe that the US has bin Lade in custody and are hiding this fact so it can be released at the last moment for political gain? This is about as much bullshit as Reagan and Iran having a delayed deal on the hostage release.

Not in custody but they most likely know or have information where he is hiding.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106012,00.html
WASHINGTON — Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright insisted Wednesday that she was just kidding when she wondered aloud whether the Bush administration is holding Usama bin Laden captive, waiting to break him out at the best political moment.



It was a "tongue-in-cheek comment and was not intended in any other way," Albright told Fox News.


Lokks to me like she stepped in sumthin'

Ha ok :lol:

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if what she said had some truth to it. Conspiracies theory are just that.Conspiracies. Matter of fact I won 100 bucks from a friend cuz as soon as I saw Bush in Bagdad, I said Saddam will be caught by Christmas.

I think the U.S knows exactly where Osama is and is just waiting for the opportune time to pick him up. Kinda like a drug sting. They want as many paticipants as possible especially Al-Queda.

If the U.S doesn't have a clue where he is then with all the technology and manpower, I would have to say that they are then as dumb as a bag of nails. Really a guy who needs kidney dialysis treatments riding around on a fucking camel. Yup.

Albright is not McDermott. When Madeline Albright says something to this effect, even in jest, it makes McDermott look vaguely reasonable.

While I think she may have been expressing a rueful joke, I tend to think that a woman who's been the Secretary of State under a Democratic president would be particularly careful about this sort of thing when at the place where that president was most often reviled. Therefore, whether or not she thinks it's probable, I have got to think that there is some part of her that thinks it's possible. That says a lot to me about her opinion of Shrub and how much to inflate her public misgivings about the handling of the Iraqi debacle to arrive at an estimate of her private misgivings.

Still, time will tell.

Re: Re: Albright thinks Bush hiding bin Laden
 

Hostages taken 11/4/1979
Reagan Inaugurated 1/20/1981
Hostages released 1/20/1981

it was just an amazing coincidence that They were held for over a year and then released the same day Reagan was inaugurated eh?

Even his daughter provides evidence that he was working this in the back channels.

Re: Re: Re: Albright thinks Bush hiding bin Laden
 

I don't think I'd rely much on the daughter for info. Got even one more source?

Think about this - A do-nothing, turn the other cheek prez is going out of office - one is coming in who will rip your other cheek off! Which one do you want to deal with?

Re: Re: Re: Albright thinks Bush hiding bin Laden
 

The Iranian's hated Carter and were terrifed of what Reagan would do. Reagan being an 'cowboy' and Carter being a 'pussy'.

Go figure they released them that day.

We're in the middle of a global war on terrorism.
I expect my government to do what it does for strategic advantage. Psy Ops is less brutal than Special Ops.

All forms of advantage taken during wartime by smart governments are about strategic advantage.
Political advantage is a subset of strategic advantage.
This includes managing as much of the flow of information as possible and managing the timed announcement of whomever is in custody. I hope the government is not telling us exactly what information, assets, and resources it is in control of. If we know it - the enemy does too.

It's naive to think otherwise.

Yet another politician being stupid. If nothing else, she should have known better than to say something like this even jokingly.

Now as far as those who think it's true...Ummm, yeah that's it. And I suppose Bush will plant him alongside a bunch of wmds in the center of Baghdad a week before the election.

And as far as the whole Iranian hostage thing. Carter's efforts towards the end of his Presidency, before Reagan was sworn in, were increased exponentially trying to free the hostages. To claim it was all Reagan and the "fear he instilled" or his "backroom dealings" is crazy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Albright thinks Bush hiding bin Laden
 

Sure, I have Carter, Patty and author Robert Parry.

Yes they had reason to be afraid of Reagan too. And Reagan was so fearful he gave them 8 billion in siezed Iranian property after he was in office and gave them immunity to being prosecuted for the event

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0825448.html

Yes, Carter who was giving them nothing was the pussy, while Reagan who gave them billions plus immunity was the cowboy!

Sure :rolleyes:

Here's another way to look at Carter's handling of the Iranian Hostage Crisis:

Number of American Civilians killed: 0
Number of Innocent Civilians killed: 0

Sounds like a success to me...

edited so that I can still squeek out a point...

You might want to up that number of Americans killed to 8 to include the failed rescue attempt.

Ah yes, forgot about that, thanks.

No problem.

are politicians born with foot in mouth disease or do they pick it up along their careers? bush has no idea where osama is and hasn't since the failed attempt in Tora Bora what a year and a half ago. (not sure on the timeframe)

Well, you have to give them a little credit. The media watches them constantly, and there's an entire army of people waiting around for you to say something to tear you apart about.

That's not to say this statement wasn't stupid, it most definately was. If it was an off the cuff kind of thing, and wasn't a calculated incident meant to do harm to the Bush administration (which I don't think it was), you can't fault someone for being stupid once in a while.

agreed Phanex good point, everyone is entitled to screw up once in a while.

It's when they screw up consistently day after day for 3 years or so that you really have to wonder;)

It seemed like an off the cuff comment between two people.

If she had gone and said it on, say, Larry King, then there would be cause for alarm.

America knows roughly where Bin Laden is, Pakistanis are just making it quite tough to find exactly where. If they could have him now, why wouldn't they get him?

Saddam and Bin Laden in one week, what more of a boost do you need? Once they find the WMDs, there won't be much to complain about.

Don't forget the marine killed when the hostages were taken.

true if she said it on a more credible news channel. was it fox who put geraldo in with the troops? hope someone got fired over that.

good point about the marine forgot that one

Would you consider CNN to be credible?

not a big fan of CNN. how about you? I think CNN is one of the worst newscasts at least if you want to get different stories they seem to hit a lot of dead time where they need filler and then they bring in Dr. Gupta for some reason. I watch the BBC or the CBC most often not to say that either one of these are always credible, but a little better than CNN

True, but I wasn't counting the initial action, just the response to the hostage taking.

there are no real "credible news agencis out there now there are so many that they compete for the same stories and you can go from channel to channel and basically see the same thing. the only reason i mentioned the BBC and CBC is because they give a different perspective on thing and they also have a lot more stories on parts of the world that might not be heard from otherwise.