Once again, I love my job. I love being on the front lines in the War on Terror.

I remember prior to the start of the Iraq Battlefield, that we tried to get Saddam twice using those smart missles, and missed both times.  Some times you get the bear, some times the bear gets you.

Notice how no one has said "where" the intel for the attack was coming from? There has been more than a little scuttlebutt that it came from the Pakistani Intel Corp.

it's maybe proof of what you wanna deny. we all wanna see a real war on terror. while productive intel would be greatly preferred, faulty intel is gonna happen. its sources should be investigated and efforts made to prevent it.

what we can't and won't support is a cynical sidetracking of the real war on terror to advance a political or personal agenda and deliberate use of questionable intel to that end.

it's maybe proof of what you wanna deny. we all wanna see a real war on terror. while productive intel would be greatly preferred, faulty intel is gonna happen. its sources should be investigated and efforts made to prevent it. what we can't and won't support is a cynical sidetracking of the real war on terror to advance a political or personal agenda and deliberate use of questionable intel to that end.

Did you take note that NO ONE used the word proof? At least not until you did. Aren't you one of the people who said we shouldn't get side-tracked from the "real" war on terror? Just what would you call the number 2 man of Al Queda? And just an fyi...you don't always have the required time to check throughly as we'd like. Intel was given with a very small window to act on it.

Ummm...does anyone really think Pakistan is an ally?

NO ONE used the word proof? At least not until you did

if you'll lemme know which language is your native tongue, i'll try to provide a translation from english just for you.

does anyone really think Pakistan is an ally?

yeah.

northwest pakistan seems to be a close ally of the taliban and al quaeda. the rest of the country and its leader do their best to maintain a close relationship with large quantities of our currency.

Where is the outrage? Botched air-raids are only reserved for the like of Clinton or Carter.

NO ONE used the word proof? At least not until you did if you'll lemme know which language is your native tongue, i'll try to provide a translation from english just for you.

Okay smart guy go find it and show me! You won't be able to, at least not until reply #4 WHICH IS YOURS! So my point stands, no one used the word "proof" until "YOU" did.

PESHAWAR, Pakistan - At least four foreign terrorists died in the U.S. airstrike purportedly aimed at al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, the provincial government said Tuesday. ADVERTISEMENT A statement by the administration of Bajur, the Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan, also said that 10 to 12 foreign extremists had been invited to dinner at the village hit in Friday's attack.

The attack was based on the best information at the time and was judged to be timely and actionable. Turns out Zawahiri sent several underlings instead of attending the meeting himself. Just because we missed doesn't mean that it wasn't important.

There has been a thread initiated by Bahu saying that we invaded the sovereignty of Pakistan by shooting those missiles into the country. To that I say if that country is going to harbor fugitives from justice, then they are fair game. Pakistan is run by a dictator who is desperately trying to hang onto his country. The Paki populace is virulently anti-Bush and anti-West. Musharraf is trying to please both his constitutents and teh Bush Administration, which has been breathing down his neck for full access to the Paki frontierland bordering Afgahnistan.

With appeasement, Musharraf's government is giving neither side what they want. The US wants unfettered access, and can't get it. So we have to send in cruise missiles from afar. But the information sharing that the Paki government is providing only inflames anti-American rhetoric in Islamabad and the countryside.

My point in initiating this thread is that if we're going to prosecute the War on Terror, we need to be willing to do whatever it takes, wherever it is, to bring the perpetrators to justice. Whether that justice is in this world or the world to come. Pakistan is an unwilling ally, and we need to either step it up with them militarily or just throw up our hands and say "War's over, boys."

To sum up, the missiles were necessary to prosecute the War on Terror.
Too bad they missed.

no one used the word "proof" until "YOU" did.

i guess i gotta splain this to you really slowly...

if you'll actually read what i said instead of what you THINK i *said*--perhaps about 20 times--you may eventually catch on. i was responding to singrdave's observation regarding the overall lack of anger over this particular attack in pakistan and suggesting that lack of anger proved the error of those claiming we who are opposed to the war in iraq are also opposed to fighting a war on terror.

al-zawahiri--and his cohorts who are still operating freely--are exactly who we shoulda been fighting alla time.

in response to his sarcasm about this being a case of bad intel, i was explaining that wasn't a problem either--as long as the bad intel isn't knowingly used to mislead the country so as to generate support for a different agenda as this administration did in 2002/2003.

i have no idea what you thought i was trying to say. whatever it is, you were totally outta the park.

as long as the bad intel isn't knowingly used to mislead the country so as to generate support for a different agenda as this administration did in 2002/2003.

Is that bad intel going to be used to win the hearts and minds of the Pakistani people? Are we going to have to try and spin this for support of American presence in Pakistan?

as long as the bad intel isn't knowingly used to mislead the country so as to generate support for a different agenda as this administration did in 2002/2003.

Are you guys still on this? There is absolutely no evidence anyone "knowingly" misled anyone.