Barnes reported Bush acknowledgment that bin Laden "not a top priority," but ignored Bush's recent emphatic pledges to pursue bin Laden until captured
SUMMARY: Fred Barnes reported that President Bush told him that capturing Osama bin Laden is not "a paramount goal of the war on terror." But Barnes gave no indication that the comments he reported appear to conflict with Bush's repeated, public pledges to stay on the trail of bin Laden. Will other members of the media probe this apparent discrepancy?
As the weblog Think Progress noted, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes reported in his September 13 column that President Bush told him in a recent meeting in the Oval Office that capturing Osama bin Laden is not "a paramount goal of the war on terror." Barnes reiterated on the September 14 edition of Fox News Live that Bush said sending U.S. Special Forces into "the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan" to capture bin Laden is "not a top priority use of American resources." But as recently as September 11, Bush said of U.S. efforts to capture bin Laden, "[N]o matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice." Barnes gave no indication that the comments he reported Bush made appear to contradict Bush's repeated pledges to stay on the trail of bin Laden until he is captured. Will other members of the media probe this apparent discrepancy?
Bush has recently repeated his commitment to hunting down bin Laden:
- In his September 11 speech from the Oval Office, apparently the day before the meeting Barnes attended, Bush said: "Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are still in hiding. Our message to them is clear: No matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice."
- From the September 10 press gaggle with White House press secretary Tony Snow:
QUESTION: Osama bin Laden -- there was a Washington Post story today saying that the trail has gone stone cold.
TONY SNOW (White House press secretary): That's just wrong. That's just flat wrong. The fact is that although we're not at liberty to go into sources and methods, we have never stopped looking for bin Laden and will not, until we have found him and dealt with him.
- From a September 5 speech:
BUSH: Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say? America and our coalition partners have made our choice. We're taking the words of the enemy seriously. We're on the offensive, and we will not rest, we will not retreat, and we will not withdraw from the fight, until this threat to civilization has been removed.
This is not the first time Bush has appeared to reverse course on the necessity of capturing bin Laden. As Think Progress noted, Bush told reporters on September 16, 2001, that he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive"; at a March 13, 2002 press conference, Bush said, "I am truly not that concerned about him."
From the 10 a.m. hour of the September 14 edition of Fox News' Fox News Live:
SCOTT: The Bush administration, as you know, has taken a lot of heat over the last five years for failing to catch the world's number one terrorist, Osama bin Laden. But the president insists on a different view of what's most important in the war on terror and what we have to do to win it. We're talking with the Washington editor of Condé Nast Portfolio Matthew Cooper and Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, co-host of The Beltway Boys, and a Fox News political analyst.
All right, so, Fred, you and a few other journalists were in the Oval Office with the president, right, and he says catching Osama bin Laden is not job number one?
BARNES: Well, he said, "Look, you can send 100,000 Special Forces" -- that's the figure he used -- "to the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan and hunt him down, but he just said that's not a top priority use of American resources." His vision of a war on terror is one that involves intelligence to find out from people to get tips to follow them up and break up plots to kill Americans before they occur, as what happened recently in that case of the planes that were to be blown up by terrorists, we think, coming from England. And that's the top priority. He says, you know, getting Osama bin Laden is just a low priority compared to that.
would be a huge propaganda victory for us, far more than any half baked "victory" in iraq. a lot of muslims see him as protected by allah. bush seems more than willing to enforce that concept.
I would be mindlessly repeating "FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP!" over and over and over with a big s#!t-eating-grin on my face...But I'm not, so I won't.
I'd be on all fours saying "thank you sir, may I have another?"
That, or "baaaaaaaaa"...
..I'd be deeply offended by that. But since I'm not, I'll laugh.
I'd lose at least 50 IQ points
to pursue Bin Laden after capture. Don't you just love this language mangling by those who proclaim themselves to be smarter than us mere mortals ?
Why would he give up his favorite boogy man, especially during an election year? Every time Georgy mentions Bin Laden's name, a good portion of the elecortate grabs it's ankles. (Or at least that's how it's worked in the past. I never give up hope that Americans will wake up and see through this bulls**t).
He's important. It is important to have him skulking in the shadows so we can have a bogeyman. If he's captured or killed, if not already dead, Bush loses ground on the War of Terror. His keepers know this too well.
Ann Coulter says Bin laden is irrelevant. Wrong. Nancy Pelosi says if we capture or kill him it's five years too late. I'd have to agree with that.
Bush needs Bin Laden as much as Bin Laden needs Bush. It's like some sort of sick balance of terror. And the world is caught right in the middle of it.
Bush vs bin Laden
Cobra Commander vs G.I. Joe
Darth Vader vs Luke Skywalker
Doctor Octopus vs Spider-Man.
The Joker or The Penguin vs Batman.
Lex Luthor vs Superman.
Of course Bush is no super hero, but he and his supporters would have us believe that he is.
Bush Terror-Fighter Man
Road Runner vs. Wylie Coyote... guess which one is Bush.
" His vision of a war on terror is one that involves intelligence to find out from people to get tips to follow them up and break up plots to kill Americans before they occur" (Barnes)
That's why the rightys keep asking liberals, "well, what's your plan for fighting terrorism?", they've been looking for ideas.
I wish they'd tried stealing the other sides plan a few years ago.
Or better yet, we could have elected the people who understood all along that fighting terrorism is an intelligence and law enforcement job.
that would've been way too efficient.
That's all I feel every time our president or one of his bobblehead pawns tells us that the capture or killing of a recognized leader of the terrorist organization responsble for the horrific events of 9/11 is a "low priority".
Usama Bin Laden is revered throughout the Muslim world because he is the one who is giving the U.S. a run for its money. The longer he's alive and free, the more his legend can grow, the more young, impressionable Muslims will hear his message and answer his call for violent jihad.
2,973 people killed on American soil, and the leader of Al-Qaeda remains at large.
5 years, and the leader of Al-Qaeda remains at large.
$300 billion worth of war effort and lucrative no-bid contracts, and the leader of Al-Qaeda remains at large.
2,664 dead American troops in Iraq, and the leader of Al-Qaeda remains at large.
21,084 American war wounded, and the leader of Al-Qaeda remains at large.
How many more American deaths, how many more American wounded, how many more of my tax dollars, how many more years do I have to wait until my outrage ceases to be an "unpatriotic" sign of my "hatred toward America"?
For the love of God, somebody please help me make sense of this.
Your Democratic Minority House leader Nancy Pelosi weighs in;
"On September 13, 2006 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said “even to capture him now, I don't think, makes us any safer," when asked about finding Osama Bin Laden".
*******************************
She is wrong. Bin Laden is the spiritual leader of al queda and capturing him would be huge, symbolically as well as it would be some measure of justice for the 3000 lives he is responsible for taking on 9/11.
Bush turned his head away from Bin Laden when he invaded Iraq and that was a huge mistake for him as well. We should be ashamed we haven't caught this murderer by now, it is an embarassment to this country and to Bush.
Ms Pelosi was commenting on SECURITY ISSUES, while dumbaya and his cabal (which BTW you are not part of, someday you may realize that) is trying to justify letting him stay free and alive while pouring all our political and finacial capital into another country that had never attacked us, and creating the current security nightmare we are in.
What makes it important to get bin laden is not necessarily whether it makes us more safe (although I agree with you about that, but it is an arguable point), but it would demonstrate that if anyone attacks us, we will stop at nothing to make sure you pay the price for your choice.
Right now, WE have created a situation in Iraq that never should have happened. We are killing people that had nothing to do with the original attacks on America on 9/11.
The difference speaks volumes to our enemies and emboldens them. They are warmed by the fact that we don't have the will through our current leadership to bring them to justice.
Bush turned his head away from Bin Laden when he invaded Iraq and that was a huge mistake for him as well. We should be ashamed we haven't caught this murderer by now, it is an embarassment to this country and to Bush.
- tommy
-------------------------------------
thanks a lot for putting this moron in office. next time use your head when you vote.
... on everything except continuing the flow of Iraq oil for the direct profits of Bush's Oil Industry contributors.
Isn't it interesting that NOBODY in Media is questioning or tracking what's happening to Iraq's oil, who is profiting, how much cash is being made, how much is being shipped and to WHERE? It's the best MEDIA BLACKOUT in history.
Troop numbers are not examined either. In a big move, some 30,000 troops were moved to Baghdad, but most came from Kuwait. Wait a second ... weren't there already 175,000 troops in Iraq? Where ARE they? Why, they're guarding the oil pipelines to make sure that daily flow continues!
This "WAR" isn't even about democracy or terrorism. It's about the oldest motive known to man, the "ROOT OF ALL EVIL", it's about filthy lucre ... MONEY. Bush is killing our soldiers for the cash profits of his friends.
Bin Laden? Who gives a damn about capturing him? As long as he's fomenting and creating TERROR for Bush to use as an excuse for unfettered use of American POWER, bin Laden's a bigger asset at large than captured.
There's a new book out about the pillage of Iraq by Bush's corporate buddies. I forget the name, but the author was interviewed on Fresh Air a couple of days ago. According to him, Iraq is riddled with paid-for but uncompleted multi-million dollar projects...and guess who paid for them...those of us who didn't get massive tax cuts.
Where did that missing $6 billion go, George?
Is "Blood Money" by T. Christian Miller.
Even though you are never challenged to offer up substantial proof of these baseless accusations, you just rant and rave and insult such as > "Bush is killing our soldiers for the cash profits of his friends."............and this > "Bin Laden? Who gives a damn about capturing him? As long as he's fomenting and creating TERROR for Bush to use as an excuse for unfettered use of American POWER, bin Laden's a bigger asset at large than captured.".............I am giving you the opportunity now to backup your allegations with provable facts, can you?
As for all "war for oil" scenario, let me ask you this. Now I have admitted many times that this effort is a disaster and we need to get out fast - but I have yet to get an answer to this > If Bush lied and his motive was oil and money for him and his rich buddies, then where does Tony Blair and his unfettered support for the invasion fit into your little scheme of Bush's? After all, Blair was a Clinton guy, no fan of Bushs.
Who knows how they got to Blair...good old fashioned bribery, perhaps? Let's check his bank records. In fact, while we're at it, let's check the bank records of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice and every Right Wing pundit. No telling what kind of slimey stuff you'd find.
A lot of money has been lost and wasted in Iraq. Whose pockets did it trickle into? Greed is a strong motivator.
If bribery of a leader of a foreign country is all you've got, well, that ain't much.
It's never been investigated.
I have an idea. Let's give a partisan opponent of Bush unlimited time, money, and power to investigate any and all bad things Bush has ever done. Then we'll have a list of facts to give you.
I'm sure you would consider that a good idea, seeing as how you're consistent and everything.
that blair is no fan of bush's. not what i've read. they're both bible bangers.
It's already been announced that Tony Blair recieves a job at Carlysle Group with Pappa Bush. He retires soon to join Warmongers Inc, world's top arms cartel.
Osama is like Roe v. Wade for the Repubs. They can invoke the name around election time - swearing to do something about it this time! - and the frightened sheep will baaa and pull the (R) lever. Then the issue will disappear for another two years, until it becomes useful again.
You really can fool some of the people all of the time.
All you need is to show, in succession, the statements by Puddinhead George concerning Bin Ladin. Show the "dead or alive" statement, then the "I'm not that concerned with him". Then show him in the Kerry debate denying that he said it. Then show him all "concerned" about him again.
It might not work, but sure would be fun.
I'm pretty sure you can't use debate footage in a commercial -- part of the agreement.
Still, the rest of it would work.
but I had heard or read somewhere that OBL is a paid agent of the CIA? Not quite a paid informer, but simply a scapegoat to be used, while living in luxury?
If this is true, it certainly explains the harsh words back in 2002 that OBL needs to be found "Dead or Alive" and the fact that we haven't found him since......
PJCARTER is right.......OBL is an important ingredient to BushCo's ability to keep on fighting terror......
Hell, the words out of their collective mounth's simply ices the cake......it seems that every terror plot was somehow concocted by OBL?
A big question out of all this that the BushCo thugs must have asked themselves is:
Which do we want?
Being seen as incompentant by the fact that we can't find a guy that suppossedly lives in a cave? (See first sentence of this post)
or
Being seen as tough in a war against an ideology that could go forever (as long as their are terrorists) that they could use to their advantage, attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 to try to get peoples minds off the original reasons, allow torture and ignore the Geneva Conventions, lie about WMD's, create bullcrap laws that suppress American's rights (and claim that its necsasary to fight terror: USAPATRIOT Act I & II), yet be seen as incompentant overall, but can somehow get away with it by claiming those that feel that way are un-American, un-Patriotic, or sympathetic to the terrorists and then basically undermine the very essence of what America is supposed to be all about (tolerance, freedom, liberty, decency), all with the help of the media......and FOX!!
______________________________________________
I'm all for finding & getting the bastards that hurt us on 9/11! There are times that I can't help but look toward those that are supposedly our leaders and think that maybe by looking toward DC......perhaps I did find them??
They gain more politically and economically by keeping the public scared. Frightened people are less likely to question the means by which they are "protected"...this gives Bush & Co. free rein to loot the treasury and consolidate political power in hopes of one-party rule.
to fight the USSR in Afghanistan. Then once that was no longer an issue, they dumped them all. So once again the repukes create messes the rest of us have to clean up.
I'm beginning to think Republicans suffer from ADD...