Bush Administration To Senate: We Can't Just Invade Some Other Country

[Bob Geiger]

This is kind of a postscript to my piece yesterday about Senator Byron Dorgan introducing legislation compelling George W. Bush to actually go after Osama bin Laden -- you know, the guy who actually did attack us in 2001.

The headline for this post is not a direct quote, but came from Dorgan as he gave a speech on the floor of the Senate on Thursday and described how he's asked people high up the Team Bush food chain what seems like a pretty obvious question: If we know where the al Qaeda leadership is and we think they're so dangerous, why don’t we just go get them?

Here's that part of Dorgan's speech:

"Another part of providing security is to apprehend those who perpetrated the most aggressive attacks ever launched against this country. Apparently, based on the testimony of the heads of intelligence on two occasions in the last month, we know where they are. Yet they remain at large.

"I asked a question the other day of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when they testified. I asked the question: If we know where the leadership of al Qaeda is and if this is the greatest threat to our country's security and our homeland, then why on Earth, if we have soldiers to surge, are we not trying to apprehend and bring to justice the leadership of al Qaeda to destroy the leadership?

"I was told: Well, we can't just invade some other country to go find them."

So now I think we all understand… We can invade a sovereign nation -- like, oh, I don’t know, Iraq -- for absolutely nothing but we can't attack Pakistan when evidently we know as sure as Bush is going to pardon Scooter Libby that bin Laden and al Qaeda live there.

Dorgan was puzzled on another front as well.

"I thought we were getting cooperation from this other country. If they are in Pakistan, are the Pakistanis cooperating with us? If not, are they harboring al Qaeda?" asked Dorgan. "If they are not harboring them, then how about allowing us to work with them to bring to justice the leadership of the organization that poses the most significant terrorist threat to this country? When will that happen?"

Senator Dorgan's curiosity is well-founded as this all sounds very fishy, doesn't it?

Let's wait and see how Republican Senators vote on Dorgan's bill this week.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

[Blue Meany]

1. There's a good reason for not invading Pakistan...

They have weapons of mass destruction, whereas Iraq...oops, er, I mean Pakistan is our ally in the war on terror. That's why we can't invade them to capture those America-hating terrorists they're harboring...oops, I mean if we invade their country, their WMD might fall into the hands of terrorists. Yeah, that's the ticket. Just like those WMD in Iraq were smuggled out of the country to Syria, which is why we have to crack down on Assad's ally Iran, which doesn't have any WMD but does have oil, like Iraq.

[denverbill]

2. How is Pakistan different from Afghanistan?

Afghanistan 'harbored' bin Laden. Though they seemed to give varying excuses for not handing him over (once they claimed they would give him to Saudi Arabia, another time they said they didn't know where he was). Whether it was their inability or their refusal to turn him over didn't matter to us. The mere fact that they did not turn him over was proof of their refusal and grounds for invasion. The only difference with Pakistan is nuclear weapons.

[EC]

3. They said they would hand over Bin Laden back in 2001

if we could provide evidence that it was him that did the towers...Bush said screw you....