Why yes, you are.

The biggest obstacle to anti-terrorism efforts in Pakistan are a direct result of anti-US sentiment, which has mushroomed since the US invasion of Iraq.

Expressed militarily, the US has been paying Pakistan over $1 billion annually to conduct military operations on our behalf. Over the past few years, these operations have grown more infrequent to the point that the Pakistan government pretty much does nothing for that money now.

And it isn’t just militarily that this decline has hurt anti-terrorism efforts. It has hurt cooperation in law enforcement as well, with fewer arrests and fewer checks on militants

Intelligence suffers. Less cooperation there between US and Pakistan.

Politically. Anti-US sentiment colors government actions and has given rise to pro-taliban groups. Pakistan’s government exerts little control over some areas of the country.

Well, that is actually against the law. The CIA can’t assassinate heads of state (that’s their story and they’re sticking to it), but OBL is not a head of state.

It will be the same military, same planners, same intel sources, same limitations, same results.
Hopefully, we’ll get some more qualified people to run it by then.

You realize that plenty of smart people in the military with a helluva lot more data than you or I are working on this constantly. Which means that anybody who tells you there is an easy, bumper sticker answer is full of crap. Again, look how long it took to get Saddam (he was very mobile) – when we fully controlled all of the countryside militarily.

Vigilance and perseverance are the only answers at present. Most needed is hard core, reliable intel. If we knew he and one or two others were going to be at the Islamabad Hojo for two weeks, the small hit team idea might work. But that hasn’t ever been the case.

And make no mistake about it. This situation will be exactly the same under a Dem CinC. It will be the same military, same planners, same intel sources, same limitations, same results.

So what do you propose we do? I mean, besides letting your hero, Osama, get away?

I know that. I never said that I supported a military force.

That being said, are you saying you’re an advocate for covert operations and special forces missions that would send guys into other countries to “kill terrorists?”

Well, either that or capture and try them. Personally, I’d be in favor of the latter.

The answer, of course, is IRAQ. That’s where our perceived mission changed from self-protection to imperialism.

That, and that without actual terrorists being at large, Bush & the GOP would be nothing.

And this concludes one of the most inconsistent and insane posts dugger has coughed up in a while.

Since Jay and Dugger decided that we should be …

Since when do we givashit about that?

- Butter Bin Ladin’s kitchen floor and call the home phone.

(apparently being a hypocritical idiot is not something Jay is at all concerned with either)

Because naturally Oliver’s concern for the rule of law is more important than whether the president gives a shit about it or not.

I’m merely asking if he’s in favor of covert ops and special forces type actions and if so, how does he reconcile that with all of his “rule of law” chatter that we’ve heard about the last few years. The reason I ask is that covert ops and missions using Navy Seals or Delta would more likely than not violate international law. If he wants to brag about how right he is, then he should be in a pretty easy position to back that up.

Of course, it gets lost when nitwits like Frameone tries to save the day by attempting to deflect the issue by questioning my supposed lack of concern regarding the President’s consistency. That’s a called a red herring.

The answer, of course, is IRAQ. That’s where our perceived mission changed from self-protection to imperialism.

Classic.