Bush Let Osama Get Away?

  •  March 23, 2005

How does this…

WASHINGTON – A terror suspect held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was a commander for Osama bin Laden during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s and helped the al-Qaida leader escape his mountain hide-out at Tora Bora in 2001, according to a U.S. government document.
The document, provided to The Associated Press in response to a Freedom of Information request, says the unidentified detainee “assisted in the escape of Osama bin Laden from Tora Bora.” It is the first definitive statement from the Pentagon that bin Laden was at Tora Bora and evaded U.S. pursuers.

…translate into “Bush let Osama get away?”
I’m as disappointed that we haven’t brought Osama to justice as the next guy, but I don’t think the fact that we haven’t is as bad as some would make it out to be.

Osama has been driven under ground. In his video address released shortly before the Presidential election he spoke of America’s efforts to find him hampering al Qaeda’s ability to operate. His safe havens in the world, rogue nations and dictatorships in the middle-east, are slowly drying up as the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan has sparked a popular uprising for freedom in many places in that region. Every other week we hear about new terror arrests all over the world as Osama’s terror captains and their followers are rounded up. In fact, the information from the article above originated with one of Osama’s most senior officials who has been cooling his heels in Guantanamo Bay for some time now.
It would be great to take bin Laden down, it would certainly make the world a safer place, but its worth keeping in mind that he has, for the most part, been marginalized. He is an important target, but largely a symbolic one these days.
As for him not being captured in Tora Bora, its unfortunate that he got away. It is, however, interesting to note that some of the very same people who accuse the supporters of the war in Iraq of overestimating America’s military capabilities tend to overestimate those very same capabilities when it comes to tracking down a single man in the wilds and mountains of Afghanistan. One day these people tell us that our soldiers cannot possibly win victory in Iraq against the terrorist insurgents there, but when it suits them they assume that our soldiers could have easily apprehended bin Laden had the President only made some different decisions.

Tags:


«
»
  • http://bitterrants.blogspot.com/ LC TripleNeckSteel

    But why believe me when you can go to the 9/11 Commission:

    Why go to the 9/11 Commission when you can go to your other favorite poster child, Richard Clarke, who himself has asserted that Clinton refused several opportunities to take custody of OBL from the Sudanese because “…we don’t negotiate with terror-sponsoring regimes…”, or something to that effect? Sounds like Saint Slick passed on not only a chance to Tomohawk OBL because he was watching sports on TV, and also lost the launch codes for America’s nuclear arsenal (which he apparently kept rubber-banded to his credit cards in his pants-pocket!), but also missed a chance to perhaps wean a rogue state off of terror– a la Libya…or does that success ring hollow to you?

    You liberals are going to have to come down on one side or another– either the US military are hilariously incompetent Keystone Kops (They let OBL “get away”!!!), or they’re relentless terminators who are able to track a single man in territory unknown to them previously and get him in a time-frame acceptable even to reluctant, fearful liberals…but just didn’t (I won’t even address the fevered, breathless fantasies put forth by the likes of “richard”) for some reason…

    Which is it???

    Manatee?

    Jadgold?

    Anyone?

    *Crickets chirp, file their little cricket nails, whittle absently, and wait…*

  • Colin

    PS. Michael Moore is a big fat stupid f*** too. Talk about driving a wedge through the electorate. And it was his worst work ever. Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine were reasonably good but Faren. 9/11 sucked, I have to say. :)

  • Jadegold

    AFROTC maybe. But I doubt it.

  • son of america

    To slander your own countrymen who fought honorably in wartime is real bottom-feeder stuff, SoA. Paper cuts? Get real, kid- Colin

    Be careful, little colin, you’re talking to a United States Air Force officer. I have to completed two tours of duty in Iraq, so if my opinion is that Kerry’s purple hearts were a little less than legitimate, I have the right to that opinion. I have anwsered the call to willfully defend my country while you disrespect the memory of the soldiers who died so you can sit on your fat ass and spit your anti-american drivel. So, in the future, if you want to debate, don’t bring up the military because a coward like you isn’t worthy to talk about it.

    Again, how do you actually function in real debates when they don’t let you regurgitate Michael Moore? Everything you mention (the vacation days, Bush’s “Response” to 9/11) all comes from that douchebag. And while your flaming rants about how we got into the war are cute, they have been debunked time and time again.

    Speaking of bullshit, I really have to give it up to you; after all the things we have done in Iraq, the liberation of a people, sowing the seeds of democracy, putting an end to a sadistic dictator that murdered his own people, and so on, your willingness to negate all the positive things Bush has done in Iraq because of your hatred of America really is a sight to see.

    I just wish you were an Iraqi insurgent, so the “sight” I could see you from was connected to a sniper rifle.

    Son of America. (thats sir to you colin)

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    Just for the record: I am a guest here. This is in no way my blog and I am in no way a moderator. Rob has graciously given me the power to post stories and that’s as far as my priviledges go.

    You can be sure that if this was my blog, some of the more egregious trolls would be banned as I think they are poison to any discussion.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    Colin shows his true colors, “I *am* blaming 9/11 on Bush.”

    Well thanks for coming right out and showing us serious you are.

    C’mon, Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq.

    How do you know there wasn’t? The whole world was lying and Saddam was the only one telling the truth? Wow!

    Then he retroactively changed our pretext for going to war (which really impressed our allies).

    No he didn’t. You’re either lying here or not paying attention.

    A good number of Americans still TO THIS DAY believe, though this is 100% false, that Saddam was somehow connected to the 9/11 attacks and that Iraq had WMD.

    “100% false” huh? Ha. Okay there buddy.

    As a nation we are dumbing ourselves down.

    Speak for yourself.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    Colin assumes again! “Likwid, if you read the whole thread instead of just reading certain points, you’d find it a lot easier to hold a conversation.”

    I read the whole thread and I pick out what I want to comment on. Got a problem with that or are you going to continue to be difficult just for the sake of being difficult?

    For instance, SoA, Mike and others have been calling Clinton ‘Slick Willie’ – now notice when I refer to Bush as ‘Boy George’ you call me an ‘immature troll’.”

    People call Clinton “Slick Willie” because the guy couldn’t keep his damn dick in his pants; often to the detriment of this nation. Now why do you call Bush “Boy George”? It’s obvious that you’re just being an ass. And by the way – I never called you a troll. I had said, “You’re as mature as some of our resident trolls.”

    In fact, you asked me to tone down my language while completely ignoring SoA’s ranting.

    You twist people’s arguments, insert words into their mouths, and look at the world upside down. Face it: you actually are an asshat. Your comments, however, were uncalled for.

    Then you have the audacity to ask me how I function in real debates? Do you realize how you sound? Insane.

    Read above. Consider me honored that you think I sound insane. Wouldn’t have it any other way.

    Is it not dishonest of the President to say, over and over, directly and through talking heads that Saddam is an ‘imminent danger’…

    It’s dishonest for you to say, over and over, directly and indirectly, that the President said that Saddam was an “imminent danger”. The thinking was that we were going to take him out before he became an imminent danger or threat to the US. Many people made the rightful claim that Saddam was an imminent danger to stability and peace of the Middle East. And that was true ever since he took power. Now I can see that you rubber-stamped your comment with, “through talking heads”; meaning that you can now claim that you never meant that Bush said it. The implication is obvious however, and many of us can see right through that slimy rhetoric.

    And in all actuality, a very convincing argument can be made, and has been made thousands of times before, that Saddam was an imminent threat to the United States. You may disagree with that opinion, but to label it “dishonest” simply because you disagree? That’s asshole behavior!

    …and that ‘we know’ Iraq has WMD – and for when that is proven false…

    “Proven false”? I’m not convinced that the weapons weren’t moved to Syria in the 14 month “rush to war”. Are you? Care to explain the semi-trucks moving a shitload of something out of the country just prior to the war? What was that? Produce and furniture?

    I mean, there’s a congressional inquiry into steroids and baseball, of all things, but this is ignored, glossed over, and considered ‘A-OK’ by yourself and others.

    “Considered ‘A-OK’” for the reasons I just stated. You can either take them or leave them, but don’t deny that you weren’t given my reasons. And who is ignoring and glossing over anything? Have you been asleep for the past three years? These subjects have been beaten to death on TV, radio, newspapers and the blogosphere. We’ve been going on and on and on about this subject since at least a year before the war even started.

    You tell me to take my own advice concerning ideas, not ideology, and yet you believe there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 and Al Queda. There is none.

    What makes you so damn sure? And who said that there was a definite link between Saddam and 9/11? I know you’re not talking to me. See…this is what makes you an asshat in the first degree. I merely leave open the possibility that there might have been a link while you go and shoot off at the hip claiming that I say there is. This is what gets some so angry at people like you. If you just paid attention to what others say and don’t group all people into the same group, then you’d get along better with most of us.

    I can’t imagine why you would still believe this implied, false connection, unless it is part of your ideology.

    Read above. I will never buy that it’s been “PROVEN FLATLY WRONG, WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, 100% false.” We’ll never know that. And nothing changes the fact that if Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with Al Quada, it doesn’t matter one whit. If I have to remind you: this is a war against terrorism. If you don’t think that Iraq fit the terrorist state bill, then you’re beyond talking to.

  • son of america

    “You know Likwid, you are impossible to talk to. You live in a fantasy world. If I see the world upside down, I guess it’s because I see it the way it really is.”-

    See, this comment right here is why the liberals lost the last 2 elections. Asshat liberals like Colitroll cannot simply stop at presenting their opinions, they have to whine and bitch about how right they are and how wrong we are. I really believe that if you actually admitted that you were wrong Colin, you would probably have a heart attack.

    In the future, let your arguement stand on its own. Your repeated need to bitch and complain about the way likwid runs his blog only makes your weak arguements even weaker. In short: Colin, your mom doesn’t work here. Whining and complaining about how the moderator treats you won’t get you any sympathy. If you don’t like getting bitch slapped by likwid, leave. (although I hope you don’t ,I look foward to watching you move the goalposts).

    As for the Jadetroll, your little comment really made me laugh. I know you wish you were half the man I am. Don’t worry, your secrets safe with me. In the meantime, stay active in your local cubscout troop. We might need you someday.

    Son of America

  • Jadegold

    I guess this is the point where I get mad and go out of my way to prove that I am who I say I am.

    No, SoA, this is the point where you bluster about ‘patriotism’ and ‘service’ without having either.

    Your ‘combat experience’ is limited to your PlayStation.

  • Colin

    To slander your own countrymen who fought honorably in wartime is real bottom-feeder stuff, SoA. Paper cuts? Get real, kid.

    If you’re so sure that Kerry hardly got hurt, and Max Cleland isn’t serious about homeland security (more bottom-feeder slanderous accusations) – why don’t you give two shits where George was? He was a rich man’s son – he got into the Air National Guard and then disappeared for several months.

    Dan Rather is an incompetent, but the fact remains the Pentagon doesn’t know where Boy George was. Do you care?

    Final aside – SoA, Clinton is not my hero. He did nothing noteworthy during his terms in office. Stop labelling people so that we fit into your smug worldview. Needless to say, you *are* acting as though Bush is your hero.

  • Colin

    100% false, Likwid. 100%. It’s scary you don’t know that, or refuse to accept it.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    Colin spits out, “If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty, continue to bitch about Clinton when you know Bush had far more significant failures on his watch. As I recall, 9/11 happened while he was in office.”

    You blaming 9/11 on Bush?

    If it had have been Clinton he would have been, I don’t know, impeached?

    Probably. If history is any guide, Clinton would have treated it as a criminal matter, and not a terrorist matter.

    Especially if he used 9/11 to justify some half-baked invasion of Iraq.

    Real simple just for you: 9/11 = terrorism. We declared a war on terrorism after 9/11. Iraq fits the bill to be included in the war on terrorism.

    Especially if he lied and told everyone there were WMD’s in Iraq, and implied OBL was somehow involved.

    This sentence makes no sense.

    If you got a ‘liberal’ President in, the cocksucker would be dead inside of 5 minutes. Asshat, indeed.

    Whatever Colin. Come back when you want to discuss issues seriously.

  • Jadegold

    Why go to the 9/11 Commission when you can go to your other favorite poster child, Richard Clarke, who himself has asserted that Clinton refused several opportunities to take custody of OBL from the Sudanese because “”…we don’t negotiate with terror-sponsoring regimes…”, or something to that effect?

    I guess “something to that effect” means “I just made it up.”

    Here’s Clarke, testifying in June 2002:

    “there were people in the administration who were very seized with this issue, beginning with the president. … It is very rare in my experience when the president of the United States picks an issue after his administration has begun, because the world has changed, and says, this is a priority, guys. … If 9/11 hadn’t happened, I think historians could go back and look at what the Clinton administration did … and say, ‘boy, were those guys overreacting.”

  • http://blog.mrichard.net/ Mike

    Actually, Ijaz is the sole source for the claim President Clinton allowed OBL to go free.

    Really? Let’s stipulate that that’s true. Let’s even gloss over the dozen or so articles returned in five minutes of searching on Google that flatly contradict your claim. Why not just ask President Clinton himself? Listen to the full audio of Slick Willy admitting to precisely what you deny his involvement in.

    For God’s sake, if you’re going to pretend to be knowledgable about anything, perhaps you should take five minutes to do a little fact-checking so you can at least make believe with some confidence that you know what the hell you’re talking about.

  • http://blog.mrichard.net/ Mike

    JG: If you have a question or a specific point, I invite you to outline it. Don’t cite vast portions of an article and ask me simply if I believe it or not. My point relative to Bill Clinton’s involvement (or lack of involvement in this case) to the capture of OBL is substantiated by not only Mr. Ijaz, but many others as well. So if you’re attempting to attack Mr. Ijaz’s credibility, you should be aware that he’s by far not the only person making such claims.

  • http://blog.mrichard.net/ Mike

    JG:

    Your claim:
    Ijaz is the sole source for the claim President Clinton allowed OBL to go free.

    Clinton’s own words:
    At the time, 1996, 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.

    This is the textbook definition of a contradiction. Check out dictionary.com – very insightful.

    As far as the 9/11 Commission’s findings in the matter, they’re completely irrelevant to your blatant contradiction of the facts. I’m not arguing with you now whether Clinton did or did not let OBL go; I’m pointing out the inconsistency in your statement.

    I find it laughable that you argue the audio tape of Clinton by pointing to a quote made by him later that contradicts what he himself said! The fact that he later backpedals on his own words only proves that he’s both a traitor *and* a liar.

  • Colin

    It’s like WMD – what, me worry?

  • http://www.oliverwillis.com/ Oliver

    We demonstrated no commitment to getting Bin Laden. We sent in the Afghans instead of our own soldiers to do the job. Al Qaeda is as much a threat now as it was 9/10/01. I did and do support our operations in Afghanistan, but I really have a problem with the way Bush went and screwed it up.

  • http://bitterrants.blogspot.com/ LC TripleNeckSteel

    "Oliver",

    Are you really Oliver Willis, or just some parody-troll bent on making him look even more foolish?

    I mean, really, Mr. Manatee–

    We demonstrated no commitment to getting Bin Laden

    So all that was just for "show"? Ha Ha Ha– that's rich, just like your diet!

    We sent in the Afghans instead of our own soldiers to do the job

    Wrong, o he who is so unwise in the ways of military campaigns– we sent small groups of SpecOps soldiers into territory that the Afghanis knew like the backs of their hands, and used their indigenous (you know, indigenous peoples do have value other than as the poster-children for whining liberals) knowledge and tracking skills coupled with our troops' operative skills and modern equipment and tactics. Do you think we would have wiped out the Taliban in a matter of two weeks or so without such a groundbreaking collaboration, or would you have advised the Sovietski approach of dumping tens of thousands of poorly-trained and equipped conscripts into lumbering and unreliable APCs to get picked off by guys with RPG- 7s?

    Manatee– you have exceeded your purview yet again.

    Al Qaeda is as much a threat now as it was 9/10/01

    Are you basing that preposterous platitude on the number of al-Q'aeda strikes against the US since 9/11? What on earth do you base that on– the number of dead AQ operatives piled up since then? What, Oliver, what?

    I did and do support our operations in Afghanistan

    No you didn't, and no you don't. I refuse to let you fall back on that tired canard of "I support the troops, but decry Bu$h's Illegal and Immoralâ„¢ war!".
    We both know that if some arch-liberal like Kommie Kerry had somehow managed to pull off a similarly stunning defeat of the Taliban, you would be crowing him as some kind of Patton-esque genius, Oliver. Yes you would.

    I really have a problem with the way Bush went and screwed it up.

    How did he "screw it up", Oliver– by not catching OBL? I guess you think that catching OBL would be the best measure of progress in the WoT– but it is by no means the only measure.

    Keep refusing to admit that the Bush doctrine has set in motion the changes we are witnessing (at least those of us who aren't so doctrinally blindered are witnessing it) around some of the world's darkest backwaters– that's why you're called "The Left's Dumbest Blogger", Manatee.

    As far as your apparent willingness to base your "opinion" on the utterances of an alleged AQ operative, I would direct you to the AQ training manual, chapter 18.

    Crikey, you're dumb.

  • http://edogvw.blogspot.com/ edog von winter

    Of course these lies are easily refuted as noted by the prisoner who was there and helped OBL dance away.

    I think it speaks volumes about today's Left(and libertarians) that they take a terrorist's word at face value, while assuming that Bush and other Americans are lying just because they don't subscribe to their point of view. And this griping about not being to find Osama while he's in an expansive and heavily fortified network of caves in the remote mountains of Tora Bora, well, that sounds like a clear case of Monday morning quarterbacking. I think someone's bitter that things are turning around in the mid east, and Bush is rightfully taking credit.

  • Colin

    You'll defend Bush and his asinine policies to the grave.

    In Afghanistan we used a proxy army, made up of opium and arms-smuggling warlords, the same people who were confederates of Osama when he was fighting the Russians. We expect these people to turn in a fellow mujahadeen, who Reagan called 'Freedom fighters?"

    Furthermore, we left only 15,000 troops in Afghanistan for after the war. If we had committed something like we did to the war in Iraq, with nearly 200,000 troops, no doubt we would have caught Osama by now.

    Things are turning around in the Middle East? I do not believe that is what this is about, but if that is true, I welcome it. I would say that you are putting the wagon ahead of the horse.

    I believe this article is about Bush and his miserable attempt to catch Osama. I find it strange that the man directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks that, without, we never would have invaded Iraq – and yet you ostriches say we should'nt worry that he has'nt been caught.

    Is it possible that George did something wrong. Not to you. Again I chalk it up to cognitive dissonance.

  • http://edogvw.blogspot.com/ edog von winter

    Looks like you got things under control TNS. Just let me know if your cluebat needs more pine tar; I got a whole can back at Edogvw.blogspot.com.

    Hey, Ollie, Wuz happenin'?

  • Jadegold

    Rob: The issue is profoundly clear.

    AWOL Georgie had OBL and his ragtag band cornered atop a small mountain in Afghanistan surrounded by history's most powerful military—and OBL got away.

    Of course, this was highly embarrassing to AWOL Georgie, so they did what they always do when they're caught looking like idiots: They lied. They put ot the word that OBL was never really at Tora Bora; that he was somewhere else.

    Of course, this was about the same time OBL went from "dead or alive" status to "I don't think about him that much."

    Of course these lies are easily refuted as noted by the prisoner who was there and helped OBL dance away.

  • Jadegold

    Sheesh, Edog, even your Dear Leader admits it:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2…

    The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.

    Intelligence officials have assembled what they believe to be decisive evidence, from contemporary and subsequent interrogations and intercepted communications, that bin Laden began the battle of Tora Bora inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border. Though there remains a remote chance that he died there, the intelligence community is persuaded that bin Laden slipped away in the first 10 days of December.

  • Jadegold

    Edog: The problem is this terrorist's words were also backed up by US and military intelligence which also believed OBL was on Tora Bora.

    Hey, but let's not let pesky facts get in the way of the Cult of AWOL George.

  • Jadegold

    Richard: There's more than a kernel of truth to what you write.

    As Rob correctly notes, OBL is largely a symbolic figure. If he were to be killed or captured tomorrow, it would certainly be a blow to Al Qaeda but it wouldn't cause them to disband or surrender en masse

    OTOH, I strongly suspect this appointed administration finds a live OBL more useful than a dead/captured one. The AWOL George Cultists need the symbol of OBL out there in order to make their fear-based appeals.

  • richard

    If OBL had been killed the invasion of Iraq would have never happened.

    George needed him alive to make sure the war on terror still had it's villain his death would have been met with a real mission accomplished.

  • http://blog.mrichard.net/ Mike

    While we're spreading blame around – and incidentally I think Bush deserves plenty – for not bringing OBL to justice, let's not forget Slick Willy's role in this as well. It's been a catastrophic failure that has spanned several presidencies and it's rather ignorant of the knee-jerk left to slam GWB and GWB alone.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    richard surmises, "George needed him alive to make sure the war on terror still had it’s villain his death would have been met with a real mission accomplished."

    Yeah richard. Because we all know that the "war on terror" equals the killing of one Mr. Osama bin Laden. /sarcasm

  • Jadegold

    Mike: If you believe Ijaz on this issue, do you also believe him when he says:

    LONDON: Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has struck a deal with the US not to capture Osama Bin Laden, fearing this could lead to unrest in Pakistan, according to a special investigation by The Guardian.

    The paper reported Saturday that Bin Laden was being protected by three elaborate security rings manned by tribesmen stretching 192 kms in diameter in northern Pakistan.

    The paper's information is based on comments made by Mansoor Ijaz, an American of Pakistan origin who, the paper said, knows al-Qaeda better than most people and had close contacts in Pakistan's intelligence agencies.

    Ijaz believed an agreement was reached between Musharraf and US authorities shortly after Bin Laden's flight from his stronghold Tora Bora in Afghanistan in December 2001.

    The Pakistanis feared that to capture or kill Bin Laden so soon after a deeply unpopular war in Afghanistan would incite civil unrest in Pakistan and trigger a spate of revenge al-Qaida attacks on Western targets across the world.

    "There was a judgment made that it would be more destabilising in the longer term. There would still be the ability to get him at a later date when it was more appropriate", Ijaz told The Guardian.

    The Americans, according to Ijaz, accepted the argument, not least because of the shift in focus to the impending war in Iraq.

    So the months that followed were centred on taking down not Bin Laden but the "retaliation infrastructure" of al-Qaeda.

    It meant that Musharraf frequently put out conflicting accounts of the status of Bin Laden, while the US administration barely mentioned his name.

    In January last year Musharraf said he believed Bin Laden was probably dead. A year later he said he was alive and moving either in Afghanistan or perhaps in the Pakistani tribal areas.

    "Yet Western diplomats say they believe the Pakistani authorities are committed to the hunt for Bin Laden, although they admit that frequently the official accounts of the timing and location of successful arrests do not square with reality," the report stated.

    "Pakistan must now end the charade and get Bin Laden… With so much of the retaliation infrastructure gone or unsustainable, Bin Laden's martyrdom does not pose nearly the threat it did a year ago," Ijaz told the paper.

    According to Ijaz, Bin Laden is hiding in the "northern tribal areas", part of the long belt of seven deeply conservative tribal agencies which stretch down the length of the mountain ranges that mark Pakistan's winding border with Afghanistan.

    The paper said that Ijaz, who recently visited Pakistan, believed that Bin Laden was protected by an elaborate security cordon of three concentric circles, in which he is guarded first by a ring of tribesmen, whose duty is to report any approach by Pakistani troops or US Special Forces.

    Inside them is a tighter ring, around 19 km in diameter, made up of tribal elders who would warn if the outer ring were breached.

    At the centre of the circles is Bin Laden himself, protected by one or two of his closest relatives and advisers.

    Bin Laden has reportedly agreed with the elders' argument that he will use no electronic communications but handwritten notes, and will move only at night and between specified places within a limited radius.

    Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat told the daily: "We have been getting reports of his presence across the border inside Afghanistan and along the border area also.

    "Not all reports have been credible at times. If others were credible, we would certainly have been able to get near to him but certainly that has not been the position so far."

    Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general and security analyst said: "I think the Americans find their reliance on the Pakistanis is now increasing."

  • http://Array richard

    Mr. Shoe,

    I do believe that if Bin Laden were killed early on we would have 1500 plus Americans still alive.

  • Jadegold

    Mike: Actually, Ijaz is the sole source for the claim President Clinton allowed OBL to go free.

    And, frankly, Ijaz has proven time after time to be something of a self-promoting huckster. Periodically, he announces that he *knows* where OBL is and what his plans are (one purported plan was having OBL smuggle in a nuclear weapon aboard a ship and detonate it).

    Common sense dictates that if Ijaz had a shred of credibility, our intelligence agencies would be all over Ijaz like Tom DeLay on a lobbyist's dollar.

  • Jadegold

    Mike: Heard it. It does not contradict my claim at all.

    But why believe me when you can go to the 9/11 Commission:

    "[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

    Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all."

    And here's President Clinton:

    "There was a story which is factually inaccurate that the Sudanese offered bin Laden to us. As far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence of that."

    Facts are tough things, huh?

  • WOOF

    Celebrity Death Match

  • Jadegold

    Here's from Clarke's bestseller Against All Enemies, p. 142:

    In recent years Sudanese intelligence officials and Americans friendly to the Sudan regime have invented a fable about bin Laden's final days in Khartoum. In the fable the Sudanese government offers to arrest bin Laden and hand him over in chains to FBI agents, but Washington rejects the offer because the Clinton administration does not see bin Laden as important or does and cannot find anywhere to put him on trial.

    The only slivers of truth in this fable are that a) the Sudanese government was denying its support for terrorism in the wake of the U.N. sanctions, and b) the CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group, which Clarke headed] had initiated informal inquires with several nations about incarcerating bin Laden, or putting him on trial. There were no takers. Nonetheless, had we been able to put our hands on him then we would have gladly done so. U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White in Manhattan could, as the saying goes, "indict a ham sandwich." She certainly could have obtained an indictment for bin Laden in 1996 had we needed it. In the spring of 1998, she did so. The facts about the supposed Sudanese offer to give us bin Laden are that [Hasan al-] Turabi was not about to turn over his partner in terror to us and no real attempt to do so ever occurred.

  • Jadegold

    Mike: I always find it helpful–not to mention more honest–to post the full quote:

    He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, 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. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

    Note how neatly this jibes with the quotes I furnished previously.

    Try again after you look up 'dishonest' at dictionary.com.

  • son of america

    Try again after you look up ‘dishonest’ at dictionary.com- the Jadetroll

    Jade, I keep trying to look up the word dishonest, but I keep running into a picture of you.

    How is it that you can sit there and say that Clinton had NO part in the events leading up to 9/11? Are you so blinded by the liberal bullshit that you can really believe that, after Bush sr, Clinton had no opportunity in his 8 years in office to catch OBL? what about the first WTC bombing? No? C'mon jadetroll, this Ted Kennedy logic is ridiculous.

    BTW, Triple Neck Steel, Mike, excellent posts. too bad their wasted on an asshat.

    Son of America

  • Colin

    Preface: SoA ignores the fact that parts of the statement were purposefully omitted to make it sound juicier, and responds with his most potent argument – "You're an asshat". Next he will pull out his other tried and true device – "I'll tell my mom on you!"

    If you want to, SoA, we can keep pointing fingers. We can go back to Reagan and look what we find. He funded OBL directly, called the mujahadeen 'Freedom fighters'. Reagan, essentially, is the architect of the current problem, so long as you personify it in Osama Bin Laden.

    If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty, continue to bitch about Clinton when you know Bush had far more significant failures on his watch. As I recall, 9/11 happened while he was in office. If it had have been Clinton he would have been, I don't know, impeached?

    Especially if he used 9/11 to justify some half-baked invasion of Iraq.

    Especially if he lied and told everyone there were WMD's in Iraq, and implied OBL was somehow involved.

    Especially if he vowed to get Osama – and well, you know how that story ends.

    If you got a 'liberal' President in, the cocksucker would be dead inside of 5 minutes. Asshat, indeed.

  • Jadegold

    Edog: Face facts; AWOL George promised to "hunt down" OBL and take him "dead or alive."

    Then a weird thing happened; all of a sudden, AWOL George didn't seem all that interested in OBL saying that he "doesn't think about him that often."

    Can you say, 'flip flop?'

    And let's not forget we can bring an awful lot of resources to bear to find OBL–if we truly wanted to. We also shouldn't forget OBL's capability to travel and his resouces to hide are pretty limited.

    Truly, the debacle at Tora Bora indicated this appointed administration doesn't consider OBL's capture/killing a very high priority. And, clearly, whenever OBL sends out a videotape, it helps AWOL George.

  • http://edogvw.blogspot.com/ edog von winter

    Oh, and about the blame game for 9/11, everyone knock it off. We were all living in the comfortable fantasy world of the "end of history" '90's, and we all share the blame for ignoring the gathering threats beyond our shores.

    To quote from Full Metal Jacket(wasn't Kerry in that? No. Gore): "It's a great big shit sandwhich an' everyone's gotta take a bite."

  • http://edogvw.blogspot.com/ edog von winter

    OTOH, I strongly suspect this appointed administration finds a live OBL more useful than a dead/captured one. The AWOL George Cultists need the symbol of OBL out there in order to make their fear-based appeals.

    The Cult of Michael "Insurgents r' Minutemen" Moore certainly made a huge issue out of our inability to catch OBL in the 2004 election, as you're doing now (scroll to the top and you'll see it's entire point of this thread). So, either Karl Rove KNEW he could shake off the blame for this failure(of course, he had already stolen Ohio–buwhahahahaha!) , or they actually can't find OBL. When you consider that OBL is hiding in territory that is vast, thinly inhabited, and friendly (this is the same territory that nearly swallowed up Alexander's entire army)then the latter theory makes far more sense. Not that those blinded by their hatred of everything Bush will ever grasp this.

    If OBL had been killed the invasion of Iraq would have never happened.

    George needed him alive to make sure the war on terror still had it’s villain his death would have been met with a real mission accomplished.

    Okay, so which is it, a phony war about WMD, or a war against terror? Man, talk about cognitave dissonance. But I think your comments are telling, as you imply that the WoT was limited only to the Taliban and al Qaeda. If you believe this then your engaging in the same sort of simplistic thinking which you attribute to GWB.

    One other point about the "AWOL" issue: it helped Kerry lose (thanks for obsessing about it, guys). For far too long in the campaign Kerry made his service in Vietnam his only issue–right through the convention, and you guys tried to make Bush's military service one. This was a terrible idea; most Americans didn't really care about either man's military service. So when Danny boy went over the edge with Memogate, and Kerry was attacked on his one issue, the election was effectively decided. Thanks again.

    Oh, and Jeff Gannon and Karl Rove stole Ohio!!!!

    BUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!

  • Colin

    I *am* blaming 9/11 on Bush. If he was'nt so freaking incompetent, it would never have happened. I think history will have an interesting perspective on this whole era – one you doubtless will disagree with, mostly because of poltical ideology instead of what you know to be the truth.

    C'mon, Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq. Then he retroactively changed our pretext for going to war (which really impressed our allies). A good number of Americans still TO THIS DAY believe, though this is 100% false, that Saddam was somehow connected to the 9/11 attacks and that Iraq had WMD. It's sad. As a nation we are dumbing ourselves down.

    You guys know this to be the truth, and if you really loved your country you would ask for more answers. The Commission was a joke, since the Executive severely limited who they could interview and whether it was published.

    I mean, Bush chose Kissinger, for f***'s sake, to head the 9/11 commission. The King of Dirty Tricks, architect of the notorious bombing runs on Cambodia that killed thousands of innocents, a war criminal! that is not allowed in the UK or France lest he be arrested.

    But I know, cognitive dissonance. *sighs*

  • son of america

    whoops, sorry jadetroll, i guess it was your fellow troll richard that contributed that piece of comedy about Bush. Sorry, guess it sounded so much like something you would say that i attributed it to you.

    I'll try to be more observant of asshat conspiricy theories next time

    Apoligies,
    Son of America

  • richard

    How about his reaction when being told that the United States was under attack. Now I know his concern was for all of those little kids but holy crap batman did it not dawn on him that they could be under attack as well as himself.

    Now I know there are those out there that will say that tape was faked.

  • son of america

    likwidshoe, there is no response that would please these asshats. If Bush had run crazy for the door like Clinton for the last Crispy Creame, then the moonbats would say "what an evil man, he scared those poor kids!" But,since he had the presence of mind to wait until he had more info and react accordingly, it is construed as not caring.

    This is yet another example of the classic liberal techinque of baiting. Maybe if John "i got three paper cuts err.. PURPLE HEARTS" Kerry were president, he could have reinacted what he did on the swift boat: Curl up in the fetal position, and cry for his mommy.

    Leave it to an asshat to regurgitate Michael Moore. Wow, sure didn't see that coming from Jadetroll /sarcasm

    Son of America

  • son of america

    "Bush had far more significant failures on his watch. As I recall, 9/11 happened while he was in office."-Colin

    First of all, let me commend you for your willingness to engage in debate with me. It seems the cowardly Jadetroll has taken his repeated asskickings to heart and decided to steer clear of someone who can see through his bullshit.

    That being said, how the FUCK can you seriously believe that George W. is actually MORE RESPONSIBLE for 9/11 than a president that spent 8 F***in years in office (which included the first attack on the WTC, by the way). W was in office for 6 months! Do people really take you seriously when you raise your hand in your middle school, colin, or do they laugh at you? I mean, your ignorance on this matter is astounding! You want to point fingers to Regan, fine, that is another arguement for another time. I would at least grant you a little latitude on that subject. But to actually BELIEVE that CLinton, who had repeated DOCUMENTED chances to take OBL into custody, (lets not forget, the fucker bombed the WTC in 92), but decided instead to get a blowjob from an intern while OBL was let free to try again,is not only disengenious but, simply put, really f***in stupid (Rob, im really trying to cut down on the profanity, but these idiots make it SOO hard).

    If you want to blame Bush Sr. for his part in not finishing the deal- fine, we can argue about that. But for fucks sake, don't try to shift the blame off of your hero, the adulterer. Lets at least pretend that you have at least a 5th grade comprehension, ok?

    BTW, how refreshingly different, a liberal who has to resort to debasing my mother because he cannot debate. I'll be sure to raise the kids i'm having with your sister differently.

    Son of America

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    richard said, "How about his reaction when being told that the United States was under attack. Now I know his concern was for all of those little kids but holy crap batman did it not dawn on him that they could be under attack as well as himself."

    What do you think he should have done? And how long have you been with the Presidential detail of the Secret Service? Tell us about your service.

    Now I know there are those out there that will say that tape was faked.

    That's the first time this political junkie has heard that one.

  • Jadegold

    Gosh, wasn't AWOL George on vacation when he got the PDB that stated "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US?"

    Yes, I believe he was.

    And what did he do when he received this? What actions did he take?

    Nada. Zip. had hisself another 3.2 beer.

    Oh, and who was Preznit when John Ashcroft cut counterterrorism funding by 60%? Why, it was AWOL George–the Coward of Crawford.

  • Jadegold

    Well, AWOL Georgie did beat feet to a bunker in Nebraska to bravely hide.

    Then Ari Fleischer had to make up a story about AF1 being under attack.

  • Colin

    You should learn to spell 'apologies' or at least use the spell check button, asshat. It kinda makes you look, I don't know, ignorant?

    The whole world was lying? Uh – if we had have let the inspectors do their job instead of rushing into war, we would have found out. Instead, this whole fear the WMD thing was drilled into peoples heads.

    You actually believe yourself, don't you likwid? WMD was'nt the casus belli for our going to war with Iraq? Mr. Powell didnt get up in front of the UN and present flawed evidence that turned out to be flatly wrong? Bush didn't turn around after the invasion and, along with the rest of the Repubs. start talking this freedom and democracy crap?

    I believe, sir, it's you who have not been paying attention, or willfully are ignoring the facts. The whole world is laughing at you because you've got your heads so far up your asses.

    SoA, your lack of a middle school education is patently obvious to anyone who even bothers to skim through one of your groupthink rants. I seem to recall a certain memo, what was it called? Condi was trying to remember the title in front of the 9/11 Commission – Oh, that's right! It was titled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE U.S.". That memo was passed on to Bush & Co. by the former Dem administration.

    Check some old news around summer, 2001. John Ashcroft, who had been flying commercial (as did Janet Reno, his predecessor) to save taxpayer's money (certainly laudable), received an unspecified 'threat warning' from the FBI concerning flying on commercial airliners. He began flying chartered / military flights at that point. It was minor-league news then, hardly worthy of a blurb.

    The fact that the Attorney General of the United States of America could no longer could fly commercial FOR SECURITY REASONS apparently didn't concern the Bush administation. They neither

    (1) warned the public (who knows, maybe implement a color-coded threat level system, heh)

    (2) come back from his cozy vacations at Camp David or the Crawford ranch.

    So the fact that Bush was only in office 6 months (insert baby crying) excuses his incompetent handling of counterintelligence and counterterrorist operations during that fatal summer? According to you nuts, the root of all that is evil is Clinton. You REFUSE to even consider the possibility that maybe Bush shares a little bit of responsibility. He was, after all, Commander-in-Chief. Are you saying that he hadn't had time to get used to his job? That for those 6 months he did, what, golf?

    PS. Adultery is not a crime. If you want it to be, you're stranger (as in kook) than I can imagine. I happen to enjoy adultery. Makes me feel, well, adult. :)

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    Colin spits out, "You should learn to spell ‘apologies’ or at least use the spell check button, asshat. It kinda makes you look, I don’t know, ignorant?"

    Colin Colin Colin…

    WMD was’nt the casus belli for our going to war with Iraq?

    You should learn to spell "wasn't" or at least use the spell check button, asshat. It kind of makes you look, I don't know, ignorant? Hahaha.

    And to answer you leading question, it was one of many reasons for going to war. Your previous claim of "retroactively changed our pretext for going to war" is still wrong.

    Uh – if we had have let the inspectors do their job instead of rushing into war…

    "Rushing into war" = 14 months.

    (2) come back from his cozy vacations at Camp David or the Crawford ranch.

    "Cozy vacations" = meeting with heads of state.

    According to you nuts, the root of all that is evil is Clinton.

    Dude you're an idiot. And a jerk. The root of all this evil is the terrorists.

    PS. Adultery is not a crime. If you want it to be, you’re stranger (as in kook) than I can imagine. I happen to enjoy adultery. Makes me feel, well, adult.

    Don't know why you said this. It makes no sense in the context of anything said in this board.

    Dan Rather is an incompetent, but the fact remains the Pentagon doesn’t know where Boy George was. Do you care?

    "Boy George"? Wow. You're as mature as some of our resident trolls.

    Stop labelling people so that we fit into your smug worldview.

    Take your own advice there chief. And cool it on the language.

    100% false, Likwid. 100%. It’s scary you don’t know that, or refuse to accept it.

    Egh. Whatever Colin. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

  • Colin

    Ya, misplacing my apostrophe really makes me look 'ignorant' Likwid. Ha-ha.

    No, Bush changed your reasons for going to war *after* the invasion. For people like Likwid, that's what 'ret-ro-act-ive-ly' means. I must apologize for using such big words.

    Well, Likwid, if 14 months wasn't long enough, I guess we should have given them more time. We had sanctions in place for, what, 10 years? Were they working? I don't see who would have been harmed (except maybe around 100,000 Iraqi citizens who would'nt have been) by waiting to let them finish the inspections. Of course, the war would have been even more unpopular at home..

    Meeting with the heads of state of ass. Bush sadly neglected his foreign policy commitments in his first year in office. Meeting with heads of state – NO I'M TALKING ACTUAL VACATION TIME (he is forced to log it as such) – which in his first term, he logged as 250 days, as of August 2003.

    Compare that to Mr. Reagan, who over two terms, 8 years, had a total of 335 days on vacation. Bush must have been really working hard, since he nearly has as many vacatio ndays in his first term in office as Reagan had all through his.

    I have a question for you that might help enlighten you as to why people hate. Why do the 'terrorists' (and I see you lump them all in together, regardless of religion, country of origin or raison d'etre) hate America? Do they hate our freedom? Our products? What is it, Likwid-san?

    Don't blame not reading the thread on me, Likwid. From SoA;s post: "But for fucks sake, don’t try to shift the blame off of your hero, the adulterer." Meaning Clinton. Thought I would straighten that out.

    If you can call Clinton 'Slick Willie', I'll call Bush whatever I want, including Boy George.

    Cool my language? I know, you like to insult people but you don't like it when they insult you right back. You're the type of guy who thinks he can win a fistfight with anyone who disagrees with you. You can't, by the way. I'm sick of being called a liberal or whatever it is that you people think I am. Grow up – its about ideas, not ideology.

    Finally, the 100% comment Likwid, is talking about the so-called link between Iraq and Al Qaida, or between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks. I was referring to the polls in the media that showed some 30% or so of Americans sitll believe that canard, though it has been PROVEN FLATLY WRONG, WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, 100% false. Don't you think it's sad that you need to keep thse bedtime stories for you to sleep at night?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    Colin ignorantly spits out, "Ya, misplacing my apostrophe really makes me look ‘ignorant’ Likwid. Ha-ha."

    Dude,..you went down that road and I merely showed you how stupid it was. If you want to make the weak style over substance claims, then be my guest. Just don't get upset when someone calls you on your BS. Continue laughing.

    No, Bush changed your reasons for going to war *after* the invasion. For people like Likwid, that’s what ‘ret-ro-act-ive-ly’ means. I must apologize for using such big words.

    No reasons were changed. The major selling points were changed. Do you know the difference or are you going to give me another smart ass response?

    Meeting with the heads of state of ass. Bush sadly neglected his foreign policy commitments in his first year in office.

    Proof?

    Meeting with heads of state – NO I’M TALKING ACTUAL VACATION TIME (he is forced to log it as such) – which in his first term, he logged as 250 days, as of August 2003.

    Are you so naive as to believe that U.S. Presidents get vacations? Get real.

    If you can call Clinton ‘Slick Willie’, I’ll call Bush whatever I want, including Boy George.

    You're barking up the wrong tree seeing as how I never call Clinton "Slick Willie" or anything other than his real name. The real question for you is: why are you using someone else's actions as an excuse for your own? Have you not learned the little kid lesson that it's not okay to do that?

    You’re the type of guy who thinks he can win a fistfight with anyone who disagrees with you. You can’t, by the way.

    Whatever the hell that means.

    I’m sick of being called a liberal or whatever it is that you people think I am. Grow up – its about ideas, not ideology.

    Take your own advice.

    Finally, the 100% comment Likwid, is talking about the so-called link between Iraq and Al Qaida, or between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks. I was referring to the polls in the media that showed some 30% or so of Americans sitll believe that canard, though it has been PROVEN FLATLY WRONG, WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, 100% false.

    No it hasn't. You're either lying or not paying much attention.

    Don’t you think it’s sad that you need to keep thse bedtime stories for you to sleep at night?

    Are you an adult? Why don't you start acting like it?

  • son of america

    Nice try, Jadetroll. I guess this is the point where I get mad and go out of my way to prove that I am who I say I am.

    But, i'm not.

    Why? Because validation of my combat experience from an anti-american COWARD like you is not the reason I joined the military in the first place. I would try to explain it to you, but it would contain words like pride, patriotism, courage and, well, as you've shown in your many posts, these are concepts you simply don't understand.

    So, stick to your pathetic American hating bullshit, and leave the protection of your cowardly ass to the REAL patriots like me.

    "The only thing needed for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." -Sir Edmond Burke

    Son of America

  • Colin

    Likwid, if you read the whole thread instead of just reading certain points, you'd find it a lot easier to hold a conversation.

    For instance, SoA, Mike and others have been calling Clinton 'Slick Willie' – now notice when I refer to Bush as 'Boy George' you call me an 'immature troll'. When SoA, who you presumably agree with since his opinions jibe with GOP talking points as neatly as your own, refers to Clinton as 'Slick Willie', or uses extensive profanity in his posts, you don't bat an eye. In fact, you asked me to tone down my language while completely ignoring SoA's ranting.

    SoA, specifically: If you failed to notice I posted earlier in this thread: "PS. Michael Moore is a big fat stupid f*** too. Talk about driving a wedge through the electorate. And it was his worst work ever. Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine were reasonably good but Faren. 9/11 sucked, I have to say. :)

    SoA specifically cont'd: You tell me, aside from the ad hominem attacks (the weakest rhetorical device, by the way) that I spit 'anti-american drivel', that I disrespect the military, that I parrot Michael Moore and that you wish I was an Iraqi insurgent so you could shoot me. Then you have the audacity to ask me how I function in real debates? Do you realize how you sound? Insane.

    SoA, as for me not being *allowed* to have an opinion, I guess that just illustrates how you feel about the Constitution, free speech and open discourse. You would have felt at home in Stalin's USSR, Rome under the emperors or modern-day Saudi Arabia.

    I never understood why people equate criticism with hatred. If not for criticism and debate, America would not have a Constitution, nor would it have the glorious history it does. Just as Athens, in it's era, does. Or Rome, when it was a republic.

    Back to Likwid: I am glad you concede 'the major selling points' were changed. Is it not dishonest of the President to say, over and over, directly and through talking heads that Saddam is an 'imminent danger' and that 'we know' Iraq has WMD – and for when that is proven false, he falls back on Freedom and Democracy(tm)? I mean, there's a congressional inquiry into steroids and baseball, of all things, but this is ignored, glossed over, and considered 'A-OK' by yourself and others.

    You tell me to take my own advice concerning ideas, not ideology, and yet you believe there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 and Al Queda. There is none.

    A CNN news story on this subject: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/kerry.p…

    From FactCheck.org (recommended by Cheney):
    http://www.factcheck.org/article203.html

    History News Network:
    http://hnn.us/articles/5745.html

    I can't imagine why you would still believe this implied, false connection, unless it is part of your ideology.

    Respectfully (unlike most)
    Colin Patrick

  • Colin

    You know Likwid, you are impossible to talk to. You live in a fantasy world. If I see the world upside down, I guess it's because I see it the way it really is.

    I think you're really sensitive on these subjects because you know them to be matters of life and death, and it's hard to admit mistakes were made, which are stirring up a hornet's nest of antipathy and hatred in the Middle East.

    What were my comments that were uncalled for? You a moderator here? No wonder the tone of this place is so anti-intellectual.

    For the record, the whole world knows Saddam was *not* an imminent threat. To insist a good argument can be made, as though facts were not involved and this was a political matter, makes you an asshole – since you desperately need to link terrorism and Iraq. You need a casus belli or you might have to alter your worldview. There, I got to call you a name.

    Continue to preach to your choir.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development