(NewsMax.com) Bin Laden's Location Pinpointed

[Piebald]

Lehman: Bin Laden's Location Pinpointed

Former Navy Secretary John Lehman said Thursday that the Pentagon has pinpointed the location of Osama bin Laden in the Baluchistan Region of Western Pakistan, but is holding back on rounding him up because it could destabilize the government of Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf.


Bin Laden is living in South Waziristan in the Baluchistan Mountains of the Baluchistan Region, Lehman told the San Bernadino Sun, after delivering a keynote speech on terrorism at Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif.


"There is an American presence in the area, but we can't just send in troops," he told the Sun. "If we did, we could have another Vietnam, and the United States cannot afford that right now." Lehman said that because Pakistan's Baluchistan Region is "filled with Taliban and al-Qaida members" who do not recognize the legitimacy of President Musharraf, the U.S. military is holding back.

"Look," he explained, "Musharraf already has had three assassination attempts on his life. He is trying to comply, but he is surrounded by people who do not agree with him. This is not like Afghanistan, where there was no compliance, and we had to go in."

"We'll get [bin Laden] eventually," he added. "Just not now."

Contacted by the Sun, Department of Defense spokeswoman Capt. Ronnie Merritt declined to comment on Lehman's remarks, except to say that he normally didn't speak about these issues, and she was surprised he had.

Lehman served on the Sept. 11 Commission investigating bin Laden's attacks on the U.S.

[The Laughing Man]

So if Kerry is elected president (perish the thought!), do you think he'll immediately send troops into the area to get Bin Laden?

[Meh_Gerbil]

"There is an American presence in the area, but we can't just send in troops," he told the Sun. "If we did, we could have another Vietnam, and the United States cannot afford that right now."

That quote seems to add a great deal of weight to the idea that going into Iraq spread us too thin to really go after Bin Laden.

BTW, what kinda deal do we have with Bin Laden that the USA isn't really going after the guy to kill him? Even after terrorist attacks Clinton turned him down and now Bush is too busy to take him out?

What is going on here?

Do we got a "Cat's Cradle" (Kurt Vonnegut) going on here?

[Jimmy Higgins]

That quote seems to add a great deal of weight to the idea that going into Iraq spread us too thin to really go after Bin Laden.

BTW, what kinda deal do we have with Bin Laden that the USA isn't really going after the guy to kill him? Even after terrorist attacks Clinton turned him down and now Bush is too busy to take him out?

What is going on here?

Do we got a "Cat's Cradle" (Kurt Vonnegut) going on here?

Clinton never turned down bin Laden. The guy who claimed that, Mansoor Ijaz, has the credibility of a certain Chalibi.

[Nicholas]

Even after terrorist attacks Clinton turned him down

Actually, if I remember correctl, it was the Sudan government offered to hand over Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia, the Saudi's refused the offer.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually, if I remember correctl, it was the Sudan government offered to hand over Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia, the Saudi's refused the offer.

What people neglect to note is that if it wasn't for Pakistan, al Qaeda could have withered into nothingness. The Sudanese Government robbed bin Laden of all of his stuff in Sudan. He didn't have too much left. But the Pakistani government allowed him to Afghanistan where he strengthened again. But lets not have pesky details get in the way. We'll just pretend its all Clinton's fault.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Clinton never turned down bin Laden. The guy who claimed that, Mansoor Ijaz, has the credibility of a certain Chalibi.

Odd.
I have him on tape admitting he turned down Bin Laden.
He admits it at ~1:40

http://www.newsmax.com/clinton2.mp3

The quote for those of you who don't listen to sound over the internet:

"Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan ... And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

And then later in '98
And ABC News even reported that Janet Reno too turned down the 911 mastermind (my emphasis):

"Federal agents seeking bin Laden had developed a plan to have a plane fly in and attack a compound in Kandahar, Afghanistan, where the terror leader was believed to have been holed up back in 1998 — three years before the devastating attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But when the plan went up the chain of command for approval, it was killed by then-Attorney General Janet Reno. 'They came to the decision that this plan was probably too dangerous, that the loss of life on the ground would have been significant,' (former FBI agent Jack) Cloonan said. 'There was concern that people around the bin Laden compound would be killed.'"

If you'd like the complete rebuttle the the Al Franken brainwashing you've endured, just visit here: http://www.lyingliar.com/lies/clintonosama.htm

[The Laughing Man]

Mad_G:

[Amazing Rando]

Isn't it kind of ridiculous to publicize the fact they know where Bin Laden is? Won't he just get up and move now?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Odd.
I have him on tape admitting he turned down Bin Laden.
He admits it at ~1:40

http://www.newsmax.com/clinton2.mp3

The quote for those of you who don't listen to sound over the internet:

So where does anything say that Sudan offered bin Laden?

And then later in '98
And ABC News even reported that Janet Reno too turned down the 911 mastermind (my emphasis):

Sadly, I don't have my Clarke book on me. I know this is brought up.

If you'd like the complete rebuttle the the Al Franken brainwashing you've endured, just visit here: http://www.lyingliar.com/lies/clintonosama.htm

I tend to get my info from sources higher than Franken, like Richard Clarke.

[BeHereNow]

"There is an American presence in the area, but we can't just send in troops," he told the Sun. "If we did, we could have another Vietnam, and the United States cannot afford that right now."

Some people say what we have in Iraq is the beginnings of another Vietnam, and Iraq has never attacked us. Why can't we pull out, let the UN take over for now, and just make a tactical strike on Osama? If his location is pinpointed, we send in a strong enough force to assassinate him and pull out.

If Pakistan's government crumbles because of it, too bad. They shouldn't be "harboring" him anyway, should they? Aren't they are enemy if they don't turn him over?

Lehman said that because Pakistan's Baluchistan Region is "filled with Taliban and al-Qaida members" who do not recognize the legitimacy of President Musharraf, the U.S. military is holding back.

Who cares what they think, we should be killing all of them, too. What the hell is this administration thinking to respect the political views of the Taliban and al Qaida?

I just don't understand why they'd be so adamant against Iraqi freedomfighters and not known terrorists who actualy have attacked the US.

"We'll get [bin Laden] eventually," he added. "Just not now."

Then when? After he plans a few more attacks?

Unless this story is bogus, my mind is completely blown right now.

[Archimedes]

Weird. Isn't this what some paranoid conspiracy theorists have been predicting all along; that bin Laden is miraculously found just in time for the election so as to pull the rug under Kerry's campaign?

[Meh_Gerbil]

Weird. Isn't this what some paranoid conspiracy theorists have been predicting all along; that bin Laden is miraculously found just in time for the election so as to pull the rug under Kerry's campaign?

Do the conspiracy theories include allowing Bin Laden to remain free?

Something incredibly WRONG is going on here.

[Losvedir]

Do the conspiracy theories include allowing Bin Laden to remain free?

Something incredibly WRONG is going on here.

I agree. I don't really understand why they're not just going in and getting him....

*And why's it all bold?

[AtheistArchon]

So if Kerry is elected president (perish the thought!), do you think he'll immediately send troops into the area to get Bin Laden?

- Perhaps you believe newsmax.com has better intel than whatever sources Bush used in his argument that Iraq has WMD's. I'd be hard-pressed to debate you.