John Kerry tells fish stories about Osama

[Augustus]

Link Requires Registration Today

Tora Bora Baloney
John Kerry tells fish stories about Osama bin Laden.

BY MELANIE KIRKPATRICK
Thursday, October 14, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

As John Kerry tells it, Tora Bora is the place where President Bush let Osama bin Laden get away. In the candidate's oft-repeated formulation, the al Qaeda leader was "surrounded" and escaped only because the president "outsourced" the job of capturing him to Afghan warlords.

Well, that's not the way the battle's commanders remember it. The Afghanistan war was led by Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of U.S. Central Command, and his deputy, Lt. Gen. Michael "Rifle" DeLong. As it happens, both men, now retired, have books out that tell a different story. Nor are the ex-soldier and ex-Marine bashful about speaking out to correct the former Navy lieutenant. To them, Mr. Kerry's version of the battle of Tora Bora is revisionist history.

Start with OBL. Gen. Franks, on the campaign trail in Florida for George W. Bush, this week, said it's wrong to assume that bin Laden was hiding out in Tora Bora. Some intelligence reports put him there, he says, but others placed him in Pakistan, Kashmir or Iran--or at a lake 90 miles northwest of the Afghan city of Kandahar. Gen. DeLong concurs. "Was Osama bin Laden there?" he said in an interview. "I don't know."

The battle of Tora Bora took place in the White Mountains of eastern Afghanistan in late November and early December of 2001. Kabul had just fallen and a thousand or more al Qaeda leaders had fled to Tora Bora, where they holed up in the mountains' vast network of caves. The cave complex was built in the 1980s as a sanctuary for the mujahideen fighting the Soviets and equipped with food, water, weapons, electricity and a ventilation system. Bin Laden used it as his headquarters in the mid-1990s. There were hundreds of tunnels, some many miles long, with exits over the border in Pakistan.

Afghanistan is full of rough country, and the jagged peaks of the Tora Bora area are about as rough as it gets--up to 13,000 feet and covered in snow and ice. "Surrounding" the area--in the sense of sealing it off--was impossible. If the U.S. had sent in a massive force, it would have run the risks of clashing with local tribesmen, killing civilians and alerting al Qaeda to the impending attack. Working with Afghan forces was "essential," Gen. Franks has been quoted as saying. If U.S. forces had gone in alone, says Gen. DeLong, "arguably today we'd still be fighting in Afghanistan and there couldn't have been a government."

The U.S. commanders made the decision to embed a team of U.S. special forces and CIA agents into every Afghan unit. Like the Afghans, the Americans rode horses or, in the higher altitudes, walked. The special forces carried communications equipment that allowed them to talk to their commanders and to call in air power. Which they did with stunning effect--demolishing cave-openings and skipping bombs with delayed fuses deep inside. Hundreds of al Qaeda fighters died. No American life was lost.

No one disputes that some al Qaeda men got away, and it's possible that bin Laden was among them. In his book, Gen. Franks says that Pakistan rounded up "hundreds" of al Qaeda fighters as they straggled over the border. But Pakistan's frontier forces were susceptible both to bribes and al Qaeda's ideology and some of the fighters got through.

Getting the Tora Bora story right is important because Mr. Kerry's accusation goes to the heart of his broader charge against Mr. Bush--that he bungled the war in Afghanistan. It's hard to be convincing on this point, when, less than three years later, 10 million Afghans have just gone to the polls in the first free election in their 5,000-year-old history. It's even harder to see how sending in thousands of U.S. troops to secure Tora Bora would have helped win that war faster--even if it had resulted in bin Laden's death or capture. Mr. Kerry's criticism of the Tora Bora campaign also belies his promise to rely more on allies if he were commander-in-chief.

Meanwhile, if the U.S. has the good fortune to find bin Laden before Nov. 2, watch for Democrats to revive Madeleine Albright's half-jest that the Bush administration captured him long ago and has been holding onto him for an October Surprise. President Bush has said we'll get him eventually, dead or alive. As for me, my own hope is that bin Laden is buried somewhere under the rubble of Tora Bora--forever.

[Darth Wong]

Be that as it may, 120,000 troops would have had a much greater chance of finding Bin Laden in Afghanistan than they would in Iraq.

[Augustus]

Be that as it may, 120,000 troops would have had a much greater chance of finding Bin Laden in Afghanistan than they would in Iraq.

Pakistan would not have allowed the US to deploy any significant amount of troops on their side of the border - which is what would have been required to seal off Tora Bora. To this day they are very sensitive about allowing American forces to work in concert with them along the Afgan border.

[Patrick Degan]

Hmm...

World > Asia: South & Central
from the December 17, 2001 edition

Tora Bora falls, but no bin Laden
US-backed Afghans yesterday said they seized the last Al Qaeda posts in Tora Bora, but there's no sign of its leader.
By Philip Smucker | Special to The Christian Science Monitor

TORA BORA, AFGHANISTAN - The site of the world's biggest stakeout certainly has all the appearances of a siege. Heavily armed Afghans race up mountain valleys with anti-aircraft guns in tow.

A US Special Forces team, sometimes hiding behind tinted pickup truck windows, directs the operations of the Afghan fighters and target US bombing runs. Together, they have hammered Al Qaeda forces and cleared two major mountain valleys near the Tora Bora cave complex.

Bin Laden proves master of elusion

But yesterday, after tribal fighters said they captured the last of the Al Qaeda positions, killing more than 200 fighters and capturing 25, there was still no sign of the world's most wanted terrorist - Osama bin Laden. And there were far fewer fighters both captured and killed than were originally thought present.

Could this be called the siege of Tora Bora, or was it something more akin to a sieve? Was bin Laden here, did he die in the bombing, or did he flee days ago?

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld arrived in the region yesterday. From the Bagram Airbase, near Kabul, he told troops and reporters that he didn't think the fighting near Tora Bora was over.

"There are people trying to escape, but that gets harder as night falls. The question is, does that mean it's almost over in that area, and I doubt it," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

But near Tora Bora, Haji Zaman Ghamsharik, the eastern alliance defense chief, yesterday proclaimed victory. "This is the last day of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Our men have the situation under control."

The elusive bin Laden

Mr. Ghamsharik said he had no information on the whereabouts of Mr. bin Laden. The Tora Bora region was the last major pocket of Al Qaeda resistance in the country. And a cave where alliance commanders had thought bin Laden might be hiding was the last Al Qaeda holdout.

"There were only six people [inside]," said another alliance commander, Hazrat Ali. "One was killed by our forces, and the others were captured. A few days before today, I had information [bin Laden] was here, but now I don't know where he is."

Ghamsharik said several hundred Al Qaeda members routed from their caves may be headed toward the border with Pakistan.

By all accounts, about two-thirds of the original 1,500 to 2,000 of Arabs, Afghans, and Chechens may have fled. Yesterday, Afghan military leaders estimated the number of Al Qaeda fighters remaining inside the two valleys that make up the Tora Bora terror base at 300 to 500.

On Saturday, some 30 Yemenis were caught trying to escape over the mountains into Pakistan's Parachinar area - on the same route that a Saudi Al Qaeda operative alleges that bin Laden took earlier.

The arrests of the Yemenis were the first reported captures on the Pakistani side of the White Mountains in the wake of the attack on Tora Bora. Western-backed Afghan fighters have captured, by their own estimates, about 70 Al Qaeda fighters, most of them fellow Afghans.

In addition to the original number of Al Qaeda fighters, hundreds of Al Qaeda family members have escaped the siege of Tora Bora in the past three weeks. Most of those leaving have tapped into an "underground railway" of sympathetic Afghan families at the base of Tora Bora, whose men had long been on bin Laden's payroll.

Al Qaeda sources said that this same smuggling route, which winds over mule trails both north and south of the famed Khyber Pass, also has been used by injured fighters and some nonmilitary personnel. At least one deal to transport Arabs out of the White Mountain redoubt was overheard two weeks ago by this writer, as it was being made in the lobby of the Spin Ghar Hotel in Jalalabad between a known Al Qaeda sympathizer and one of the top two warlords in town.

Though Mr. Rumsfeld has said that the two dozen or so US Special Forces are helping to block exit routes, that number of US military personnel can only be considered a token of the real figure needed to cut off all the mountain passes surrounding the mountain enclave. The number of possible passes is in the dozens, if not the hundreds.

Abu Jaffar, a stout, long-bearded man, recounted his escape from Tora Bora last week. Relieved because he thought he would soon be free, he sat with his Egyptian wife beside a small stove at the base of the valley in Upper Pachir, an Afghan village just a few miles from where US Special Forces were reported by the Pentagon to have surrounded bin Laden's own cave.

Abu Jaffar's account

Before leaving Upper Pachir that night to reach sanctuary in Pakistan, Mr. Jaffar gave an account that suggested American intelligence both outside and inside Tora Bora was inaccurate.

The Saudi, who had arrived in Jalalabad about six months earlier with a $3 million contribution to the Al Qaeda cause, said he drove in a truck with bin Laden from Jalalabad toward Tora Bora on the night of Nov. 6.

He was present when bin Laden met with several chiefs of the Ghilzi tribe, whose villages straddle the rugged border between Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. Some 400 Kalashnikovs were given as "gifts" to the Ghilzi tribesmen. In exchange, the tribesmen promised to help smuggle Afghan and Arab leaders to freedom in Pakistan. It was a quid pro quo that the Ghilzis understood well.

When bin Laden finally decided that remaining inside the embattled Tora Bora terror base had become too risky, he used the same Ghilzi contacts to escape the siege.

"Most of us firmly believe that Osama left to Parachinar in Pakistan days ago," says Abdul Wafi, a lieutenant for Commander Ghamsharik. Eight Afghan Al Qaeda prisoners, who surrendered Thursday night, gave similar accounts. They told their captors that bin Laden had left Tora Bora almost two weeks ago.

The current exodus of Al Qaeda fighters from Tora Bora began in earnest when Ghamsharik failed in his own efforts to gain a UN-backed "surrender" for the Al Qaeda fighters.

American officials, who have been highly secretive about relations with the Afghan fighters, were likely incensed to find that Ghamsharik and some of his fellow Khugani tribesmen were offering the Arabs "safe passage" out of Tora Bora.

Afghan sources say that US military officials replaced the ethnic Pashtun leader at the "sharp end" of their military operations with a rival warlord, Hazrat Ali. Mr. Ali claimed only three days ago that he had bin Laden cornered in a cave.

Before any moves were made against Tora Bora two weeks ago, Ghamsharik decided to ask the Arabs in the White Mountains to simply leave their province. Indeed, a senior alliance member, Mujahid Ullah, later appointed as the region's information minister, two weeks earlier had personally persuaded the Arabs to depart Jalalabad without a fight in exchange for "safe passage" into Tora Bora.

"Some of the Arabs were arguing to stay and fight, but Mujahid Ullah was persuading Osama to go and not to resist," says Babrak Khan, who was present two days before the fall of the Taliban in Jalalabad a month ago. "After a long discussion, he agreed to go."

The battle for Tora Bora finally got under way a full week after newspapers published accounts of bin Laden entering Tora Bora with his closest aids.

Ghamsharik - the most senior Afghan military commander - said two weeks ago, that he was launching the offensive because he had no other option. One of the reasons he gave for the attack was, ironically, that stray US bombs had killed 140 Afghan villagers, including some of his own fighters, in the villages at the foot of Tora Bora. "My people are angry at me for what has happened, but they will fight alongside me and get killed in greater numbers than US airstrikes have already killed," he added.

And last week, Ghamsharik could be overheard asking Al Qaeda fighters over a radio to "surrender or leave."

And for some background:

Americans meet their favourite warlord to plan Tora Bora attack
By Philip Smucker in Jalalabad
(Filed: 30/11/2001)

AMERICA is planning how best to attack the Tora Bora mountain cave complex where Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'eda leaders are believed to be hiding, it emerged yesterday.

Defence officials have met Haji Zaman Ghamsharik, the leading military commander in eastern Afghanistan, to discuss the assault.

Bin Laden fled to Tora Bora more than two weeks ago with his best fighters and could still be there, Afghan and western sources said.

Commander Ghamsharik, Washington's favourite warlord in the region, told The Telegraph that efforts to negotiate the surrender of the estimated 2,000 Arab and Chechen diehards in the base had failed.

Strolling in an orange grove at his Jalalabad base camp, he said: "They have refused all our overtures and we have begun to work on a plan of attack. I have always hated terrorism and will continue to hate it until the day I die. I also hate the prospect of war."

He said he had met a senior American defence official in Jalalabad, but did not to go into details.

Tora Bora, which can be seen from Jalalabad, rises from the desert, through hills and forests, into snow-capped peaks that lead to Pakistan.

A valley narrows into a labyrinth of caves, deep trenches and wooded cliffs, making it all but impregnable.

The Pentagon has said that Tora Bora is one of two places where it is hunting for bin Laden. But the American and British intelligence agencies are convinced that Tora Bora is his hideout, rather than in the area of Kandahar in the south.

Their belief is based on a welter of evidence, some collected by the SAS and American Delta Force soldiers and some in the form of signals and imagery intelligence from satellites and aircraft.

Some commanders have urged the Americans to blanket the base with incendiary bombs, but Commander Ghamsharik said he favoured a winter siege.

He stressed that his defences needed to be significantly strengthened before he could launch an attack. Opposing commanders still loyal to the Taliban and al-Qa'eda continue to hoard heavy armour.

"We are ready to fight as long as America and Britain watch our backs," a seasoned anti-Soviet fighter said.

Arab fighters have already launched guerrilla attacks on Jalalabad. Two "police officials" chasing a lorry with tinted windows were shot dead on Wednesday.

Rising tensions between Commander Ghamsharik and a mountain warlord have also begun to spill over into bloodshed.

Complicating any attempt to besiege Tora Bora, feuding warlords inside the Jalalabad city limits have failed to extend their control into the countryside south of the city, where Taliban and al-Qa'eda loyalists still control roads.

The siege idea may not appeal to western military planners for another reason: fighters in the base have boasted that they have enough supplies for a year.

[Augustus]

Its legitimate to disagree with Operation Iraqi Freedom. Even though I support the overall effort I have misgivings about how the war began and the shifting rational.

But it is disingenuous to believe that the battle of Tora Bora was handled incompetently, because the US was holding the troops back for Iraq. The deployment of assets for the Iraq war didn't begin until mid 2002 several months after Tora Bora.

Ultimately you either believe the 'War on Terror' is a metaphor or a real shooting war.

[Beowulf]

Be that as it may, 120,000 troops would have had a much greater chance of finding Bin Laden in Afghanistan than they would in Iraq.

I suppose you have some plan to airlift 8 division into Afghanistan that the Joint Chiefs and their staffs couldn't think of.

[Edi]

Ultimately you either believe the 'War on Terror' is a metaphor or a real shooting war.

Black/white fallacy. It can be and is both. First and foremost, it is a metaphor, an affirmation that terrorism is a problem worldwide and needs to be addressed. Secondly, it is a shooting war if and when you need to physically deal with a known terrorist organization that has presented a viable target for conventional military response (e.g. the Taliban-era AQ in Afghanistan).

However, the claim that it has to be either-or is ridiculous. If it's just a shooting war, then what matter if sources of terrorist financing are addressed? You just kill the lot of them are done with it. Why bother trying to improve social conditions that cause radicalization, discontent and despair that give rise to desperate and destructive acts? Just kill all the terroists (never mind that there will be more taking their place if the source is not dried up). Besides, a shooting war only tends to worsen the conditions that breed terrorism and/or give it an opportunity to take root (see Iraq for Exhibit A).

Fighting terrorism is like fighting mosquitoes: Doesn't matter how fucking many gnats you spray poison in your house and in the yard, it's not going to make one iota of difference if you don't also drain the swamp a hundred yards away on the other side of the field, the little bastards will just breed there and come over for a snack. The terrorists are the gnats, the social conditions that gve rise to them (unemployment, oppression, poverty, desire for revenge, lack of prospects) are the swamp, and there ain't no way in hell you're going to drain it with a shooting war. The shooting war is only good for dealing with the ones that are already beyond salvageable, it's just bug spray, other methods are needed for the swamp, and they are the more important part of the war on terror.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

Be that as it may, 120,000 troops would have had a much greater chance of finding Bin Laden in Afghanistan than they would in Iraq.

Pakistan would not have allowed the US to deploy any significant amount of troops on their side of the border - which is what would have been required to seal off Tora Bora.

So the Bush Administration subjected the idea of further deployments in Afghanistan to a "global test" and decided against it because it wasn't "popular" in other countries? For shame ...

[Augustus]

So the Bush Administration subjected the idea of further deployments in Afghanistan to a "global test" and decided against it because it wasn't "popular" in other countries? For shame ...

So dumping a few Divisions into Pakistan to lock up the Afgan border would have been a good idea... only expect for completely destabilizing a country that had tenitive control of its military and nuclear weapons. If you remember the average Pakistanis were hardly tolerant of the impositions the US made on them during operations in Afganistan.

You support/like Kerry and thats fine. I don't expect to change your mind or anyones else's. But Kerry's account of the Afgan operations and Tora Bora in particular are clearly a gross revision of history.

[Augustus]

< Respectfully Snipped>

I meant a metaphor in the sense that the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty" are. Your points are well made and well taken.

[Darth Wong]

So the Bush Administration subjected the idea of further deployments in Afghanistan to a "global test" and decided against it because it wasn't "popular" in other countries? For shame ...

So dumping a few Divisions into Pakistan to lock up the Afgan border would have been a good idea... only expect for completely destabilizing a country that had tenitive control of its military and nuclear weapons. If you remember the average Pakistanis were hardly tolerant of the impositions the US made on them during operations in Afganistan.

You didn't pick up on the references to Bush's campaign bullshit slogans?

[Augustus]

You didn't pick up on the references to Bush's campaign bullshit slogans?

I did.

You support/like Kerry and thats fine. I don't expect to change your mind or anyones else's. But Kerry's account of the Afgan operations and Tora Bora in particular are clearly a gross revision of history.

Exactly what kind of reaction where you expecting?

[Darth Wong]

You didn't pick up on the references to Bush's campaign bullshit slogans?

I did.

OK, as long as you agree that they're bullshit, and that America does actually have to concern itself with the popularity of its actions in other parts of the world.

[The Cleric]

You didn't pick up on the references to Bush's campaign bullshit slogans?

I did.

OK, as long as you agree that they're bullshit, and that America does actually have to concern itself with the popularity of its actions in other parts of the world.

Insofar as that countries ability to start a nuclear war. We had to be very careful with Pakistan. While Bush isn't the brightest crayon in the box, he would have recognized the potential disaster if Pakistan got pissed off too much.

[Augustus]

OK, as long as you agree that they're bullshit, and that America does actually have to concern itself with the popularity of its actions in other parts of the world.

I do, in so far as those other countries and "parts of the world" hold America's best interests at heart. Is a litmus test required for me to point out Kerry's prevarications on Afganistan?

[Iceberg]

OK, as long as you agree that they're bullshit, and that America does actually have to concern itself with the popularity of its actions in other parts of the world.

I do, in so far as those other countries and "parts of the world" hold America's best interests at heart. Is a litmus test required for me to point out Kerry's prevarications on Afganistan?

So wait... PAKISTAN has America's best interests at heart??

*laughs self silly*

[Stormbringer]

OK, as long as you agree that they're bullshit, and that America does actually have to concern itself with the popularity of its actions in other parts of the world.

I do, in so far as those other countries and "parts of the world" hold America's best interests at heart. Is a litmus test required for me to point out Kerry's prevarications on Afganistan?

So wait... PAKISTAN has America's best interests at heart??

*laughs self silly*

The Pakistani that matter most right now, Pervez Musharaf. I dare say he does more than a lot of our other "allies" do.

[Plekhanov]

OK, as long as you agree that they're bullshit, and that America does actually have to concern itself with the popularity of its actions in other parts of the world.

I do, in so far as those other countries and "parts of the world" hold America's best interests at heart. Is a litmus test required for me to point out Kerry's prevarications on Afganistan?

Do you really believe that? If so your even dumber than I thought, it’s patently obvious that Musharaf like Saddam and all the other dictators the US has propped up in the past has the “America's best interests at heart” just so long as they coincide with his own personal “interests”.

[Augustus]

Do you really believe that? If so your even dumber than I thought, it’s patently obvious that Musharaf [is]like Saddam and all the other dictators the US has propped up in the past has the “America's best interests at heart” just so long as they coincide with his own personal “interests”.

How do you define "best interests"? Not turning central Asia into a smoking hole and allowing the US enough staging areas to enter Afghanistan was/is certainly in the best interests of the US and Pakistan post 911. Nevertheless, without insulting your intelligence what standard would you have advocated be used? Declaring Musharaf and evil dictator(tm) on September 12th, 2001 would have only made certain that the US would have had to go thru Pakistan armed with nuclear weapons, before being able to begin the real work in Afghanistan.

Mike's clearly using sarcasm to make his point about the US's recent unilateral actions in comparison with the Afghan war. His point is well made. The US did handle the potentially explosive situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan with much more aplumb and dexterity than in Iraq to achieve their ends. But what does the nature of US foreign policy past-present or future have to do with Kerry distorting the Afghanistan war (which is the subject of the thread)?

[Symmetry]

Be that as it may, 120,000 troops would have had a much greater chance of finding Bin Laden in Afghanistan than they would in Iraq.

Pakistan would not have allowed the US to deploy any significant amount of troops on their side of the border - which is what would have been required to seal off Tora Bora. To this day they are very sensitive about allowing American forces to work in concert with them along the Afgan border.

More to the point, at this point in the campaign we didn't have the means to land large numbers of troops in Afghanstan during the time that the Tora Bora operation occured. I was surprised and glad when we got Packistan to let us fly through, but I don't think that they'd have let a US division drive through their territory.

[Joe]

Musharraf may be a dictator, but he's better than the alternatives. He and a few guys he trusts are the only thing keeping Pakistan from becoming another Islamic hellhole.

[Plekhanov]

Do you really believe that? If so your even dumber than I thought, it’s patently obvious that Musharaf [is]like Saddam and all the other dictators the US has propped up in the past has the “America's best interests at heart” just so long as they coincide with his own personal “interests”.

How do you define "best interests"?

Well to directly answer your question I’d use the Oxford dictionary definition of “to the greatest advantage or benefit of” is that clear enough for you?

Not turning central Asia into a smoking hole and allowing the US enough staging areas to enter Afghanistan was/is certainly in the best interests of the US and Pakistan post 911. Nevertheless, without insulting your intelligence what standard would you have advocated be used? Declaring Musharaf and evil dictator(tm) on September 12th, 2001 would have only made certain that the US would have had to go thru Pakistan armed with nuclear weapons, before being able to begin the real work in Afghanistan.

Congratulations you are attempting to change your argument whilst simultaneously using a black and white fallacy, your mother must be so proud of your dissembling abilities. Sadly for you it just won’t work, you initially claimed that “those other countries and "parts of the world" hold America's best interests at heart” that is to say that Pakistan has the US’s best interests “at heart” a claim that as Iceberg pointed out is simply laughable.

Now you are attempting to alter your argument to say that it wasn’t in the US’s interest to invade Pakistan, I of course agree but that WASN’T YOUR ORIGINAL ARGUMENT so quit trying to pretend it was.

Mike's clearly using sarcasm to make his point about the US's recent unilateral actions in comparison with the Afghan war. His point is well made. The US did handle the potentially explosive situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan with much more aplumb and dexterity than in Iraq to achieve their ends. But what does the nature of US foreign policy past-present or future have to do with Kerry distorting the Afghanistan war (which is the subject of the thread)?

I was merely responding to your irresistibly absurd claim that Pakistan or indeed any other country holds “America's best interests at heart” I’ll leave others to rebut the rest of your bullshit.

Musharraf may be a dictator, but he's better than the alternatives. He and a few guys he trusts are the only thing keeping Pakistan from becoming another Islamic hellhole.

He may well be the least bad option in the short term but he sure as hell does not hold “America's best interests at heart” which was Augustus’s original claim.

[Joe]

He may well be the least bad option in the short term but he sure as hell does not hold ?America's best interests at heart? which was Augustus?s original claim.

Of course not, but the benefits of working with him outweigh the costs of going it on our own regardless. It has nothing to do with any test of international approval, it's simply cost-benefit analysis.

[Plekhanov]

He may well be the least bad option in the short term but he sure as hell does not hold ?America's best interests at heart? which was Augustus?s original claim.

Of course not, but the benefits of working with him outweigh the costs of going it on our own regardless.

The costs in the short term at least certainly, I’m sure you realise that this is the same rationale that led to the US supporting Saddam back in the 80s though don’t you?

It has nothing to do with any test of international approval, it's simply cost-benefit analysis.

Really so your cost benefit analysis doesn’t pay any attention to international opinion, why do you make that claim? It seems to me that the opinion of the current dictator of Pakistan weighs quite heavily in your abjectly short term world view.

[Augustus]

Congratulations you are attempting to change your argument whilst simultaneously using a black and white fallacy, your mother must be so proud of your dissembling abilities. Sadly for you it just won’t work, you initially claimed that “those other countries and "parts of the world" hold America's best interests at heart” that is to say that Pakistan has the US’s best interests “at heart” a claim that as Iceberg pointed out is simply laughable.

A few comments:

First - I can't believe I'm getting jumped on for a statement I made agreeing with Mike about Bush distorting Kerry's statement about "global tests" and international "popularity". My views about the US's international action are changing, and dispite my distaste for Kerry I have to admit he has a point e.g. Iraq. That being said he is still distorting the events of the Afgan war to an absurd level.

Second - On reflection I would agree with your definition of "best interests" as being “to the greatest advantage or benefit of”. Perhaps I worded my criteria inexactly by attempting to be metaphorical in saying "best interests at heart". For the record I do not think that the people in Islamabad occupy their free moments well wishing the US.

Now you are attempting to alter your argument to say that it wasn’t in the US’s interest to invade Pakistan, I of course agree but that WASN’T YOUR ORIGINAL ARGUMENT so quit trying to pretend it was.//quote]

Conceded.

I was merely responding to your irresistibly absurd claim that Pakistan or indeed any other country holds “America's best interests at heart” I’ll leave others to rebut the rest of your bullshit.

What "bullshit" is that? That when Kerry says "..the Prisident outsourced catching Osama in Tora Bora.." (loose quote) he is guilty of oversimplifying the situation and changing the facts to suit him.

I've agreed with both Mike, Edi and you on points here. I'm reasonable and don't mind admitting I'm wrong but it would be nice to get back on topic.