Why isn't the Kerry campaign ripping Bush to shreds over this???
We've all seen this story:
Bin Laden is located, says 9/11 panelist
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/dailystar/44654.phpIn the interview, Lehman noted, "There is an American presence in the area, but we can't just send in troops. If we did, we could have another Vietnam, and the United States cannot afford that right now."
When pressed on why the United States couldn't send troops into the region to capture the world's No. 1 terrorist, Lehman said the Baluchistan region of the country is filled with militant fundamentalists who do not recognize the legitimacy of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, a close ally of the United States.
"That is a region filled with Taliban and al-Qaida members," he said, acknowledging that Pakistan's security services also are filled with many who agree with bin Laden's beliefs and would aid him if U.S. Special Forces entered the region.
"Look," he said, "Musharraf already has had three assassination attempts on his life. He is trying to comply, but he is surrounded by people who do not agree with him. This is not like Afghanistan, where there was no compliance, and we had to go in.So, because we are deferring to Musharraf, we're not going in after bin Laden? Are we really not concerned with the man responsible for the murders of ~3,000 innocent civilians and the destruction of the World Trade Center? Are we outsourcing the work to Pakistan or just merely letting them determine who we attack and when he attack them??
And why is the Kerry campaign not pouncing on this like a wolf on a stranded sheep?!