The work of a REAL LEADER shines through.....

NOVA

U. S. NAVY Veteran
The US and Pakistan struck a secret deal almost a decade ago permitting a US operation against Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil similar to last week's raid that killed the al-Qaida leader, the Guardian has learned.

The deal was struck between the military leader General Pervez Musharraf and President George Bush after Bin Laden escaped US forces in the mountains of Tora Bora in late 2001, according to serving and retired Pakistani and US officials.

Under its terms, Pakistan would allow US forces to conduct a unilateral raid inside Pakistan in search of Bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the al-Qaida No3. Afterwards, both sides agreed, Pakistan would vociferously protest the incursion.

"There was an agreement between Bush and Musharraf that if we knew where Osama was, we were going to come and get him," said a former senior US official with knowledge of counterterrorism operations. "The Pakistanis would put up a hue and cry, but they wouldn't stop us."

The deal puts a new complexion on the political storm triggered by Bin Laden's death in Abbottabad, 35 miles north of Islamabad, where a team of US navy Seals assaulted his safe house in the early hours of 2 May.

Pakistani officials have insisted they knew nothing of the raid, with military and civilian leaders issuing a strong rebuke to the US. If the US conducts another such assault, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani warned parliament on Monday, "Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force."

Days earlier, Musharraf, now running an opposition party from exile in London, emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the raid, terming it a "violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan".

But under the terms of the secret deal, while Pakistanis may not have been informed of the assault, they had agreed to it in principle.

A senior Pakistani official said it had been struck under Musharraf and renewed by the army during the "transition to democracy" – a six-month period from February 2008 when Musharraf was still president but a civilian government had been elected.

Referring to the assault on Bin Laden's Abbottabad compound, the official added: "As far as our American friends are concerned, they have just implemented the agreement."

The former US official said the Pakistani protests of the past week were the "public face" of the deal. "We knew they would deny this stuff."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/09/osama-bin-laden-us-pakistan-deal
 
Its totally hilarious that you have such an aversion to historical fact.....and yet seldom comment on the facts.....
 
Assuming that there really was such an agreement, good on Bush. What I don't understand, though, is how such a deal would work in the real world and why we would even need one. As described, the deal was that we could attack Osama or other big wigs without telling the Pakistani government and the Pakistani government wouldn't try to stop us but would complain about it afterwards. I mean, if it's super secret and we don't tell the Pakistani government what we are doing, how do they know not to stop us? It's seems pretty weird. And what else would the Pakistani government do other than hue and cry about it whether there was such an agreement or not? Attack us? Stop accepting billions or our dollar?
 
Assuming that there really was such an agreement, good on Bush. What I don't understand, though, is how such a deal would work in the real world and why we would even need one. As described, the deal was that we could attack Osama or other big wigs without telling the Pakistani government and the Pakistani government wouldn't try to stop us but would complain about it afterwards. I mean, if it's super secret and we don't tell the Pakistani government what we are doing, how do they know not to stop us? It's seems pretty weird. And what else would the Pakistani government do other than hue and cry about it whether there was such an agreement or not? Attack us? Stop accepting billions or our dollar?

They are just going to be really mad if we do it again!
 
too much of a wuss to respond to the article...great hack posts though...

:palm:

LOL - like I'm supposed to respond as you & bravo would like me to?

LOVE how my posts are "hack posts," but you've had nothing to say about bravo's drivel. You're drowning in koolaid, Yurtsie - a total worshipper...
 
LOL - like I'm supposed to respond as you & bravo would like me to?

LOVE how my posts are "hack posts," but you've had nothing to say about bravo's drivel. You're drowning in koolaid, Yurtsie - a total worshipper...

what an intelligent post...you must be so proud.
 
The US and Pakistan struck a secret deal almost a decade ago permitting a US operation against Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil similar to last week's raid that killed the al-Qaida leader, the Guardian has learned.

The deal was struck between the military leader General Pervez Musharraf and President George Bush after Bin Laden escaped US forces in the mountains of Tora Bora in late 2001, according to serving and retired Pakistani and US officials.

Under its terms, Pakistan would allow US forces to conduct a unilateral raid inside Pakistan in search of Bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the al-Qaida No3. Afterwards, both sides agreed, Pakistan would vociferously protest the incursion.

"There was an agreement between Bush and Musharraf that if we knew where Osama was, we were going to come and get him," said a former senior US official with knowledge of counterterrorism operations. "The Pakistanis would put up a hue and cry, but they wouldn't stop us."

The deal puts a new complexion on the political storm triggered by Bin Laden's death in Abbottabad, 35 miles north of Islamabad, where a team of US navy Seals assaulted his safe house in the early hours of 2 May.

Pakistani officials have insisted they knew nothing of the raid, with military and civilian leaders issuing a strong rebuke to the US. If the US conducts another such assault, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani warned parliament on Monday, "Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force."

Days earlier, Musharraf, now running an opposition party from exile in London, emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the raid, terming it a "violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan".

But under the terms of the secret deal, while Pakistanis may not have been informed of the assault, they had agreed to it in principle.

A senior Pakistani official said it had been struck under Musharraf and renewed by the army during the "transition to democracy" – a six-month period from February 2008 when Musharraf was still president but a civilian government had been elected.

Referring to the assault on Bin Laden's Abbottabad compound, the official added: "As far as our American friends are concerned, they have just implemented the agreement."

The former US official said the Pakistani protests of the past week were the "public face" of the deal. "We knew they would deny this stuff."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/09/osama-bin-laden-us-pakistan-deal

On a up-note the US didn't strike on Mother's Day. :)
 
Assuming that there really was such an agreement, good on Bush. What I don't understand, though, is how such a deal would work in the real world and why we would even need one. As described, the deal was that we could attack Osama or other big wigs without telling the Pakistani government and the Pakistani government wouldn't try to stop us but would complain about it afterwards. I mean, if it's super secret and we don't tell the Pakistani government what we are doing, how do they know not to stop us? It's seems pretty weird. And what else would the Pakistani government do other than hue and cry about it whether there was such an agreement or not? Attack us? Stop accepting billions or our dollar?

Shut down the "Customer Service" lines to XM/Sirius radio? :dunno:

I just got off the phone with one of those idiots! Spoke to a guy who said his name was Jason. He was no more a "Jason" than I'm an "Ahmed"! I'm calling back tomorrow to speak with a supervisor. I refuse to have automatic renewal. If it's compulsory I'm cancelling my account. Besides, being summer, I switch cars and I don't have the accessories to switch the radio between cars.

I know no one gives a damn but I feel better now. :D
 
I have a certain amount of pride & self-esteem, yes. And I know I'm smarter than you, by quite a wide margin.

Which is why I get embarassed for you at times...

that you have to try and convince yourself of this and need to brag about it....shows quite the opposite. i mean really....i'm smarter than you ...what are you five years old? oh wait, it is like i said....early signs of dementia and reverting back to your childhood.

if you were as smart as you claim, you would be embarrassed for your own posts.
 
that you have to try and convince yourself of this and need to brag about it....shows quite the opposite. i mean really....i'm smarter than you ...what are you five years old? oh wait, it is like i said....early signs of dementia and reverting back to your childhood.

if you were as smart as you claim, you would be embarrassed for your own posts.

It's just a statement. If I skied my whole life, and you had only been skiing once or twice, I'd have no problem saying I'm a more accomplished skier than you. It wouldn't be bragging; just a statement of fact...
 
It's just a statement. If I skied my whole life, and you had only been skiing once or twice, I'd have no problem saying I'm a more accomplished skier than you. It wouldn't be bragging; just a statement of fact...

my lord you are really stupid. whether you skied or not is objective. whether you're smarter or not is subjective as you have no clue who i am. all you see are posts on a political board and from that you really feel the need to believe you're smarter than me. your desperation to make this true is palpable and really shows that in all likelihood, you're not smarter than me. you have a great need to feel smarter than someone you've never met, have it, hope it helps you sleep at night.

you're a riot...
 
my lord you are really stupid. whether you skied or not is objective. whether you're smarter or not is subjective as you have no clue who i am. all you see are posts on a political board and from that you really feel the need to believe you're smarter than me. your desperation to make this true is palpable and really shows that in all likelihood, you're not smarter than me. you have a great need to feel smarter than someone you've never met, have it, hope it helps you sleep at night.

you're a riot...

Fair enough. If you're smarter than you show yourself to be on the board, you're doing an excellent job of disguising that.

How about this: within the context of board discussion, I'm much, much smarter than you.

Better?
 
Fair enough. If you're smarter than you show yourself to be on the board, you're doing an excellent job of disguising that.

How about this: within the context of board discussion, I'm much, much smarter than you.

Better?

like i said, you have a desperate need to believe you're smarter than someone. people that are smart don't constantly run around claiming they're smarter than people. you frequently feel the desperate need to inform others that you're smarter than them. it shows you're very insecure and in reality, you are most likely one of the least "smart" posters on the board.

i feel bad that you're so insecure over your smarts. well...not that bad :)
 
Back
Top