NY Post's Ralph Peters ignored evidence undermining his claim that "finish[ing] off" bin Laden was "personal" for Bush
SUMMARY: In a New York Post column about recent comments President-elect Barack Obama made concerning Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, Ralph Peters claimed that, "Bush has done all he could to finish off the Al Qaeda leader (for Bush, it was personal; for Obama, it's just political)." But, in asserting that Bush "has done all he could to finish off" bin Laden, Peters ignored statements Bush has made denying the importance of capturing or killing bin Laden.
In a November 18 New York Post column about recent comments President-elect Barack Obama made concerning Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters declared: "Bush has done all he could to finish off the Al Qaeda leader (for Bush, it was personal; for Obama, it's just political)." But in asserting that Bush "has done all he could to finish off" bin Laden, and in characterizing the desire to capture bin Laden as "personal" for Bush, Peters ignored statements Bush has made downplaying the importance of capturing or killing bin Laden, including his assertion in 2002 that "I truly am not that concerned about him."
When asked about bin Laden during a March 13, 2002, press conference, Bush stated that "the idea of focusing on one person ... really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission"; asserted that bin Laden is "a person who's now been marginalized" and "met his match"; and also said: "You know, I just don't spend that much time on him." Moments later, Bush added that he was "not that concerned about him."
Additionally, as Media Matters for America noted, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes reported in his September 13, 2006, column that Bush had told him that capturing bin Laden is not, in Barnes' words, "a paramount goal of the war on terror." On the September 14, 2006, edition of Fox News Live, Barnes reiterated that Bush had 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."
From Peters' November 18 New York Post column:
But the fact is that, security-wise, we're paying a price for decades of electing presidents with no military experience and no previous interest in things military. Democrat or Republican, they make unrealistic promises that play into our enemies' hands. They don't know what they're talking about - but they sure do talk.
And that's how we have to view Obama's repeated insistence that he'll be the one to "kill or capture Osama bin Laden."
Osama may be found and killed tomorrow or on the day after the inauguration - or never. But if we do nail him, it won't be because of presidential posturing.
Bush has done all he could to finish off the Al Qaeda leader (for Bush, it was personal; for Obama, it's just political). There's no new magic formula waiting to be applied: This effort is still about skill, persistence and luck.
Who is Osama bin Laden?
John McCain knows how to get him, my friends. And he'll get him. Also, he knows how to get him. My friends, we'll get him.
If McCain knew how to get bin Laden, why did McCain as the person who puts America first offer his advice on how to get him to Bushie?
I loved Obama's line in his convention speech: "John McCain says he'll pursue Bin Laden to the gates of hell. Yet, he won't even go to the cave where he lives!"
I think I stood up an applauded at that point. After that speech was over, I knew McCain was toast.
This message was approved by me, the former POW known as John McCain.
"Bush has done all he could to finish off the Al Qaeda leader (for Bush, it was personal"
Yeah.... personal my ass! If Clinton had been this damn pathetic at going after bin-Laden right after 9/11 the Republicans and their rightwing lunatic fringe would have gone to great lengths to get Clinton out of office (yes... they did this, but for other reasons... besides... I'm making a point here...) .... for being inept... and allowing America to be seen as a cowardly country... not to mention that if Clinton then claimed that he "did not spend that much time on him" and "I don't know where he is"... they would have stormed the White House looking to chop his head off!!
This freak Ralph Peters needs to be fired.... and the rightwing collectively needs to one day take a look in the mirror and take ownership of the disaster and the damage they have created within our society!
If he'd have said "Saddam Hussein" instead of "Bin Laden" then the whole thing would make perfect sense, and re-affirm what we already knew! :)
If it was so important and personal, how come he hasn't done it yet?
That and name me one American who wouldn't like to throttle that SOB, and who wouldn't make it personal? There isn't an American that I know, even the most pacifist among us, that wouldn't want to shoot Osama in the head.
OBL was so much more valuable to Bush alive than dead. That way he could rule the ignorant masses through fear and have his little revenge war.
Damn, that's cynical. I think it's also true.
But then how does that explain how bin Laden evaded Clinton as well?
Heck, Jeff Christie even gave the story about how Clinton turned down (released) a captured bin Laden multiple times.
There you go, believing Rush again.
Clinton had a much shorter time to get Bin Laden, but he actually did try.
There you go, believing Rush again.
Hey, I'm working on it
Bin Laden is proof that bush must be ADD. Bush lost interest in him pretty quick if ya ask me. The guy couldn't focus on toast if you asked him to.
there was no legal basis to bring bin laden here in 1996. we had suspicions, but no hard evidence. that was just before he fled to afghanistan and they would not turn him over. i guess you missed it on 60 minutes three weeks ago. after we invaded afghanistan, we had him cornered in tora bora. the leader of the cia unit searching for him said every plan they had to capture him was squashed in bush's washington. as a result, he slipped across the border into pakistan. and that is not a new story. guess you and mr. peters never heard it.
i guess you missed it on 60 minutes three weeks ago
It's football season
somehow, i watch games and also get the news.
I save that for Monday to Thursday. Friday-Sunday during football season the news shifts to a low-priority status
Read the book Ghost Wars if you want real insight. Steve Coll wrote it.
Who is Jeff Christie and did you personally do any research on the topic? Anyhow, what does Clinton have to do with Bush keeping OBL "alive"?
Clinton did not devote his entire presidency and foreign policy to finding Bin Laden like Bush did (Bush payed a lot more lipservice to it, that is). He did not use the first WTC bombing to win an election by declaring that we were "safer"(which in Clinton's case was true) and that if we elected his opponent, we would be attacked.
He also never invaded Afganistan in order to find Bin Laden and bring him to justice, then conveniently forgot about him while fabricating a case against Iraq.
I don't know how you can even compare the two.
(Bush payed a lot more lipservice to it, that is)...
and when bush finished him off he wiped the corner of his mouth. ;)
You are one sick puppy :)~
Clinton was not in charge on 20010911.
September 11, 2001 was when Americans believe they have been attacked by a terrorist (toting a dialysis bag). Seven plus years later, they cannot get him. As an American, this is not something I am proud of.
A silly example. There is guy picking pockets for 10+ years (8 out of which Clinton was President). Few years later he becomes a mass murderer and from the moment he commits a, gruesome, mass murder and eight years hence, Bush is the President.
Would you blame Clinton for not bringing this guy to justice for the massacre (terrorist act, in today's terms)?
It's worse than that. Let's extend your analogy. What if Clinton had told Bush "Hey, there's this pickpocket out there that is very dangerous. Here is all the information we've gathered on him. We believe he will be the biggest national security threat to America."? And then imagine Bush ignoring the warning and instead concentrating on some guy jaywalking.
That's exactly what happened. Clinton tried to get Bin Laden and failed BEFORE he attacked us. Bush spent the first eight months of his presidency ignoring the warnings provided him about the seriousness of the Bin Laden threat. Instead, his national security people developed policy around regime change in Iraq and national missle defense. Inexcusable.
I actually think OBL is dead and Bush kept him "alive" for the reason you stated.
Curse you, loonz, for giving me a Weekend at Bernie's flashback. Now I won't be able to sleep... ;o)
That way he could rule the ignorant masses through fear and have his little revenge war.
So true.
Who can forget the "color coded terrorism" chart. Keep the chart on yellow (elevated) and when folks started asking too many questions, change the code to orange (high).
Nothing like fear to keep folks in line.
Does FNC still have that running on their ticker?
(Shows how much I watch FNC)
Well, that or whenever his poll numbers would tank. After a while it seems they gave up on this, since his numbers only went down and down...
Ed Zacahry! Finsihing off SADDAM HUSSEIN was personal!
So I guess Bush is a horrible person? The NY Post should of just said Bush and bin laden are the same? right?
no. they should have noted bush really wasn't that concerned about capturing him.
Bush is a horrible person, but far from OBL. They're not the same. Some might say, Bush is a lot worse.
Wow you really are in outerspace
I honestly believe WPE Bush fits the definition of a sociopath. I would never have said that when he first took office and resisted the urge to apply drastic labels to him for a long time. Over time it became impossible for me to ignore characteristics of him that seemed so obvious.
bin Laden is certainly the more evil person by nature, but Bush has done more damage than OBL could ever have dreamed of.
The irony of which lies in the likelihood that W responded just as OBL wanted him to...
True. It becomes hard to know which man deserves more credit for some of the damage done.
There's no guessing involved. He is horrible.
Do you know what a strawman is?
Do you know what a strawman is?
My bet is he thinks it's Ray Bolger from The Wizard of Oz...
But you've pretty clearly picked up the right-wing theme; when W is criticized, whine that we're mistreating him. Meanwhile, on another thread, it seems to be completely okay with them to accuse Obama of being the Antichrist--but how dare you criticize our sainted President Bush!...
So you think the government should forcefully shut MMfA down? Right? If pointing out an imbalance on panel shows means they want Republicans silenced, and pointing out that Bush wasn't all that gung-ho about catching Bin Laden means they want the two of them should be portrayed as equal, then your criticism of MMfA must mean you think they shouldn't exist at all. It certainly fits into your mindset.
Maybe he was thinking of Saddam Hussein. That one was personal.
"Hussein, bin Laden...they all look alike to me!"--W to Rummy, 2003
All kidding aside, I'm sure that's the way many people looked at the situation. They're both "Mooz-lims (translating phonetically from Rightwingese)," so going after one as as good as going after the other...
I am surprised that even now, there is no accountability.
I still remember Rumsfeld saying he knew where to find the WMDs (somewhere to the north and west of Tikrit, or something like that).
Why is no one, media or the government, asking him about his statement? Just because he retired, resigned, was let go, does not make him less culpable / reponsible in the Iraq fiasco and the death of Americans for an unnecessary cause.
A big part of it is that they'd have to fess up to their own culpability if they go after Rummy or Dick or Dubya now. The press and the majority of the govt was cheer leading that war back then and didn't ask many questions. They aren't going to rehash the whole thing and remind us all that they helped drum up public support for a war of choice.
Bush should personally thank Bin Laden, if he ever gets the chance. If it weren't for Bin Laden, Bush would be a one-termer like his daddy.
You're assuming he hasn't...
Bush and Bin Laden have a symbiotic relationship with each other and neither can exist without the other.
Bush "has done all he could to finish off" bin Laden.
Well to be fair, maybe "not good enough" was indeed "all he could do."
"This effort is still about skill, persistence and luck."
And, unfortunately, for the last eight years, we have had a President who has displayed none of the above, Mr. Peters.
Mr Bush has been totally ineffective in getting bin Laden even after his rant about "We'll get Bin Laden, DEAD OR ALIVE!" Obviously, Bush is a paper tiger when it comes to fighting bin Laden. He pulled so many troops out of Afghanistan so he gave bin Laden freedom to run all over the Pakistan/Afghanistan border area. For someone who is supposed to have been dedicated to getting binLaden all these many years. we must only conclude that Bush has not even come close in carrying out his threat. Now, Bush will no longer be President and he leaves the man's job to Obama since Bush himself took his eye off the prize. I always wonder how the survivors of the 9-11 attack feel towards Bush after his sneering "dead or alive" boast so early on in the war and now Bin Laden roams over that area at will. So much for a silly brag and not being able to get even close to carrying out the threat. All talk and no action!!!!
Simply google 'bush and bin laden family' for starters. They are decades long friends. When a special opps was close to finding bin laden they were told to back off. (see poster's reference to 60 minutes story) The day after 911 our US planes flew the bin ladens who were here in America out for their own safety. Why? Wouldn't it have been better to put them in some kind of witness segregation for bartering? No one wants to believe the Bush administration is as corrupt as it obviously is.
If Clinton's v.p. started a war that would enrich his own company by the billions, with no-bid contracts, how loud would the uproar be? Yet nary a peep is heard about Halliburton and its war-profiteering.
Maybe, just maybe, the reason Obama and the Democrats finally came to power is because enough citizens decided to get their head out of the sand, smelled a rat or a bunch of rats, and took action. Maybe.