75%!??!
Roach-Busters
09-10-2004, 02:21
Bush just said, a few minutes ago, during the debate, that "we have 75 percent of his [Osama bin Laden's] people." That seems a little farfetched. Can anyone either support or refute this claim? Thanks.
Bush just said, a few minutes ago, during the debate, that "we have 75 percent of his [Osama bin Laden's] people." That seems a little farfetched. Can anyone either support or refute this claim? Thanks.
He doesn't have Osama bin Ladin...
The Sword and Sheild
09-10-2004, 02:23
Wouldn't it be assumed if they have caught 75% of A-Q, then they would have to know all 100% of A-Q, so why the hell don't we have them? To quote a percentage means we know who all of them are, so why don't we have them?
The Black Forrest
09-10-2004, 02:24
He is probably refering to the inner circle.
We have knocked off or captured quite a few of them.
He is stretching it a bit because there are many commanders and subcommanders.....
Roach-Busters
09-10-2004, 02:28
He is probably refering to the inner circle.
We have knocked off or captured quite a few of them.
He is stretching it a bit because there are many commanders and subcommanders.....
That's what I thought. I mean, c'mon, 75%? There are at least several thousand members of al Quaeda (sp?), aren't there?
That's what I thought. I mean, c'mon, 75%? There are at least several thousand members of al Quaeda (sp?), aren't there?
More then that now...
Xenophobialand
09-10-2004, 02:32
Bush just said, a few minutes ago, during the debate, that "we have 75 percent of his [Osama bin Laden's] people." That seems a little farfetched. Can anyone either support or refute this claim? Thanks.
We have captured or killed 75% of the senior leadership of Al Queda who were in place during or just before the Sept. 11 bombing. The problem is, this argument only seems significant until you realize that Al Queda can fill holes in it's leadership by recruitment from the lower ranks.
Superpower07
09-10-2004, 02:36
He is probably refering to the inner circle.
We have knocked off or captured quite a few of them.
He is stretching it a bit because there are many commanders and subcommanders.....
We've got 75% of their leaders, yes.
Sadly, A-Q is growing at an alarmingly fast rate
Roach-Busters
09-10-2004, 02:39
Sadly, A-Q is growing at an alarmingly fast rate
No surprise there. :(
i hope those rats get captured soon
Yeah, and just about 45 seconds ago he said "We have a deficit. We have a deficit because this country went into a recession." Hmm. And I suppose the country just goes into recession on its own, huh? "The stock market began to climb dramatically six months before I came into office. Then the 90's bubble popped." Gee, I wonder why?
Ah, here comes Kerry's rebuttal.
Great points. first pres in 72 yrs to lose jobs... tax cuts during war, to top 1%... OH PLEASE, THAT IS WAY TOO HIGH OF A BRACKET. Sorry, but $200,000? That's insane, I mean, I agree with abolishing tax cuts to people above that but we could make that $100,000
The Astray
09-10-2004, 03:48
Note that President Bush used that quote in his last debate. Then, he specified that "75% of the KNOWN leadership of Al-Queda had been captured or killed". The known leadership of a well-known but secretive terrorist organization that lives by the anonymity of it's leaders and terrorist acts.
Al-Queda's leadership is intelligent, there is no doubt about that. It would make sense to me if much of the known leadership were merely figureheads and that the real leaders are in the background.
Also, as others have noted, Al-Queda does not have any shortage of members and they will not any time soon. Killing or capturing a terrorist does nothing. That just inspires his friends, his family, even fanatics who have never heard of him before his martyrdom to take the fight to those who killed him. To destroy terrorists you need to attack their ideals and their purpose, not their physical existence.
Just my opinion, but I believe that it makes sense within the context.
Chess Squares
09-10-2004, 03:59
its a republican figure, aka they counter the number of stars in the sky until they got bored
Kwangistar
09-10-2004, 03:59
And I suppose the country just goes into recession on its own, huh?
Most of the time, yeah.
Thunderland
09-10-2004, 04:14
Roach, I'll try to answer in a non-partisan manner.
When Bush uses that figure, he is both correct and incorrect. Big surprise there?
What he is correct about is the fact that there was a report issued a few months back that stated that approximately 2/3's of Al-Qaeda's leadership structure had been captured. I can't remember who first changed the number from 2/3's to 3/4's but I'm thinking that it was Condoleeza Rice. But in essence, what Bush has said is correct, though the number is off a bit.
Now, where he is wrong is the fact that while that leadership structure has been captured, it has also been replaced and grown since. The CIA has reported that the leadership structure of Al-Qaeda has replenished its ranks without difficulty. Also, intelligence reports have made it specific that Al-Qaeda is not hurting when dealing with finances. Therefore, he is wrong in stating as fact that 75% of the leadership has been captured because the ranks are refilled.
The only blatant untruth about his saying that is the 75% part, which the initial report said 2/3's.
I tried to be non-partisan with my explanation...much as I wanted to insert a few things.
<i>Yeah, and just about 45 seconds ago he said "We have a deficit. We have a deficit because this country went into a recession." Hmm. And I suppose the country just goes into recession on its own, huh?</i>
Basically. The President has little to no impact on the economy, tax cuts notwithstanding.
<i>"The stock market began to climb dramatically six months before I came into office. Then the 90's bubble popped." Gee, I wonder why?</i>
He said it began to decline drastically, not climb, first of all. Second of all, the technology bubble was DOOMED to burst from the beginning. This had nothing to do with Bush or his administration whatsoever. When tech companies are losing vast amounts of money and yet their stocks keep climbing, as in the late 90s, there is a problem, and that problem must be corrected.
Even if the Bush administration had done something completely stupid to screw up the economy somehow (I honestly can't think of anything that could have such a huge impact) it would have taken much longer to take effect. There is simply no logical way that Bush could have had anything to do with the recession. It was waiting in the wings when he came into office.