Looks like the worker bees at the CNN branch of the Ministry of Truth forgot to send this one down the memory hole......

More likely....you got confused and got this from The National Enquirer. But then again, if CNN (One of those MSMs) said so in 1999 then by God it must be true.

The Taliban did promise that bin Laden would not use Afghanistan as a staging arena for terrorist activities.

Now I wonder who believed them....hmmmmm.....

if CNN (One of those MSMs) said so in 1999 then by God it must be true.

Ding, ding, ding. Hugh finally got one right! Of course it was true, in 1999. It's only after Bush took office that everything that was true before 2000 became false.

Gateway Pundit found a CNN article documenting the fact that Saddam Hussein offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.

Fact?

Actually, if you READ IT, you can easily see that it is an unsupported allegation by an unidentified source. I guess that you believe this particular source, even though it's from CNN—whom you'd otherwise consider unreliable—because it alleges something you want to believe.

Here's a fact: President Bush essentially gave asylum to bin Laden by letting him go in Tora Bora and reneging on his promise not to sleep until he got bin Laden. His failure to get bin Laden is now on day 1834...and counting.

Publicus:

The number of times you've mentioned Bush's failure to get bin Ladin is now up to 1834. Once again, judging success/failure on whether we got one man or not on the WOT is laughable.

Please, enough with the broken record.

Publicus:

Why bother? If the writer of this silly post (Priest) had an editor she'd be fired for trying to publish this.

The rabid dogs of the right who read this however, will begin to salivate and yell SEE, we told you so. That Clinton was a traiorous America-hating blah blah blah.

Hugh:

I haven't believed a word of CNN reporting since Peter Arnett and his Operation Tailwind fiasco.

Now, since you don't like their reports from 1999, maybe you should recommend other "factual" years for CNN's faithful viewers.

Tom:

Good grief.....I take it from your response that you actually believe that story.

If so, the despearation of the right grows mightier by the day.

So how come we are not invading Pakistan? Aren't they currently harboring Osama?

Or is it possible that sometimes diplomacy and containment are actually better then bombings?

Actually Publicus that isn't what it says at all.

There is a section heading, "Saddam Hussein offered asylum", between the section discussing bin Laden's departure from Afghanistan and the section stating Saddam Hussien offered asylum.

Since there is no reference back to the previous section and no new reference to a source that indicates a direct reference to Saddam Hussien.

Hugh:

What part of

"I haven't believed a word of CNN reporting since Peter Arnett and his Operation Tailwind fiasco."

did you not understand? I'd like to see this story, which originated from Gateway Pundit, by the way, validated by another source before putting any stock in it.

Now then. Let me clarify: if YOU trust CNN reporting, EXCEPT for 1999, which year do you recommend that faithful CNN viewers trust? Hmmm?

Even if the allegation that Saddam offered Osama been Forgotten asylum is true it certainly doesn't mean that he didn't regard been Forgotten as an enemy.

According (I believe) to wikipedia, Saddam's favorite movie is The Godfather. One of the more important themes of The Godfather is the advice: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."

So it is not surprising that when Saddam's sons-in-law became his enemies, Saddam lured them to Iraq with benevolent promises of forgiveness and friendship, then had them murdered.

Not wanting to end up that way, Osama never took Saddam up on his "asylum" offer, right? If Saddam offered you asylum, would you go to Iraq?

No one wants to end up like Fredo.

Tom;

I don't watch CNN so how can I answer your rather agitated question? You sound like Hannity.

I have a question for you. Do you believe the story priestap has posted?

Herman:

Or like Sonny.

Carter was outsted from office after 444 days of failing to rescue hostage in Iran. Why is Bush immune from 5+ years of failure to get bin Laden? Just because you're tired of hearing it?!

Tom -

Once again, judging success/failure on whether we got one man or not on the WOT is laughable.

You keep putting words in my mouth. My comment isn't about the WOT—its about Bush's broken promise to get bin Laden and essentially pardoning the guy most responsibile for starting the WOT.

I know you don't like to hear it...because it's an inconvenient truth.

Actually, it's an AP report. Normally those only survive a few weeks online for free, but CNN archived this one for some reason.

My comment isn't about the WOT—its about Bush's broken promise to get bin Laden and essentially pardoning the guy most responsibile for starting the WOT.

Because, of course, it's just so easy to search caves at 10,000 feet in hostile territory. Any idiot could find a guy under those conditions, right? Thousands of square miles of mostly unmapped terrain? No problem! Let's send Publicus! He'll succeed because he's so much smarter than the ones doing the hunt now!

Looks like those on the left, Hugh, Publicus and ? didn't think to challenge this information when it was first aired because the adminsitration in power at that time had called for the removal of Saddam from power, so the left had nothing invested in making the truth a lie. Now, you idiots have so much invested in your lies about Bush and the war in Iraq, that you will deny anything that does not fit with your spin on eventss past and present. It is a shame people like you get to be American citizens by birth, because none of you are capable of earning citizenship. You are truly disgusting.

More great reporting from Kim. Add it to the list!

Bar none, the best Wizbang writer. Ever.

JohnAnnArbo -

Understand. Bush PROMISED to get bin Laden, and had the whole country behind him. But, when someone told him it might be DIFFICULT, he gave up.

ah..c'mon, really..you folks can not have it both ways...either bennie L is important or he isn't...
Bush has president since Jan 2001...if we don't have bennie L...then can we agree that both Bush and Clinton have failed in the past five years?
(although the difference is Clinton has probably gotten a BJ from someone other than Hillery since 01/2001 while Bush's BJ from binnie L has elected Republicans in 2002..2004..

binnie L not dead is the most visible reminder of Bush's failure to respond to 9/11..,.maybe you folks don't care...but my 19 year old neice died in the towers...Saddam did not take credit for her death,...binnie L did...
Maybe you don't mind him spitting in our face...I do...

Since Bush isn't up to getting bin Laden or, as he himself says, not really into it...maybe he should get our ally Pakistan, in who's mountains bin Laden may be hiding, to do something.

Oh, wait. Our "ally" has signed a TRUCE with the TALIBAN and freed hoards of terrorists. Yeah, Bush is really on top of this thing.

Its all TOO HARD for Bush. Pathetic excuse.

But, when someone told him it might be DIFFICULT, he gave up.

Feel free to say that to the face of a SEAL team member who's been over there, or any other special forces guy who's served in the area.

I'm sure they'd be delighted with your assessment and will be only too glad to let you know that in the most direct possible way.

Publicus:

But, when someone told him it might be DIFFICULT, he gave up.

So I suppose my friend's brother, and my buddy, is over Afghnaistan eating dates and smoking opium and getting his thing on with one of the locals?

What a brainless, gutless and fucking stupid (happy I'm not using "insipid", Hugh?) remark.

Hoard != horde, o learned one.

There is also the very real possibility he's already dead, too. How would we know if a particular bombing raid took him out if we're unable to inspect, on the ground, what's left? And do you think al Qaeda would help us out here and ADMIT we'd offed him?

Something to think about, since he's been strangely silent for a long time now, even though he knows that any tape he issues will be on Al Jazeera within a day.

Drew --

So sorry to hear that your niece was lost in the towers. I knew someone, but wasn't nearly that close. I was in NYC on 9/10 visiting someone who just had an operation. I nearly spent the night.

I think that for many people, 9/11 was an abstraction, kind of a TV drama. It felt unreal.

But for those of us who had been in the WTC many times, and had spent time in NYC...well, we know all too well that it was real...

Seeing the images again on the 5th anniversary, I got angry at myself for being distracted by all the other political stuff. We should never have let Bush take his eye of the ball. We shouldn't have let bin Laden slip away.

If OBL dies a natural death...that will only compound the injustice and failure.

Publicus:

I don't mind hearing it a *few* times. It's just that you sound like my toddler. You repeat yourself over and over and over and over and over and over and over.........It's not an inconvenient truth to me. We haven't had a successful attack in 5 years.

Hugh:

Pfft. I'm not a Hannity fan. One more time:

"I haven't believed a word of CNN reporting since Peter Arnett and his Operation Tailwind fiasco."

...and...

"I'd like to see this story, which originated from Gateway Pundit, by the way, validated by another source before putting any stock in it."

Really. That should have been plain enough the first time.

1.“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

Ooop's- Palaces for his cronies. Maybe one for Osama to?

2.“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

Damn, a bunch of cowards actually proposed an attack in 1998????

3. “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

Poor old inocient Saddam developing WMD, no way.

What did the democrats know and when did they know it? As usual the democrats have their nuts in a vice and someone is turning up the pressure. Release of the documents (how about next month) captured during the invasion should about complete the mission to have a million democrats comitt suicide in one day.

The left keeps saying Bush let Bin Laden escape without letting the facts get in the way.

General Franks made the decision on how to attack Tora Bora. The strategy of allowing tribal fighters, backed up by US special forces and air power, worked brilliantly in dislodging the Taliban from power so it made sense to continue the strategy. A large influx of US troops may have alienated the locals and turned them against the US. Remember the Soviets attacked Tora Bora repeatedly with little success over a decade.

The downside to the strategy, of course, was the locals didn't have the incentive to capture or kill al Qaeda fighters, just to drive them out. However, the Pakistanis were suppose to block the exits and set up a net to capture OBL.

One way to ensure Bin Laden's death was to carpet bomb the entire tribal region but the resulting civilian casualties would have had the left screaming, "War Crimes". Given all the circumstances, Frank's strategy was probably the wisest, although no strategy was certain to guarantee OBL's capture or death.

Lets see how many of you righties have the courage to say wheher on not you believe The National Enquire, oh I mean Priestap's post that Sadam offered assylum to Osama.

Place your votes...and no worry Diebold will be doing the counting.

Tora Bora is not the crux of the problem (raised by Publicus).

It's the flip-flopping suggested in Bush's very own words.

1) Dead or alive/ I will not rest...

2) I don't know where he is, I don't think about it that much.

3) OBL does't fit with our priorities (recently to Fred Barnes).

To me, that is a flip-flop which suggests a lack of integrity and a cut-and-run inconsistency in the war on terror.

Hugh:

We'd need someone who can actually read to count the votes. ;-)

(The wink means I'm joking...really!)

"Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress."
Mahatma Gandhi

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I feel like we're getting somewhere. I'd like to wish a good night to my sincere opponents, like Tom Blogical, and even JohnAnnArbo. I believe we're trying to understand each other.

; -)