Some say "bin Laden not a top priority"
And by some I mean elected officials, and by elected officials, I mean Republican elected officials, and by Republican elected officials I mean George W. Bush. Commentators on Fox and radio love to use the "some say" phrase to make their straw men arguments.
If a democratic elected official said that "bin Laden was not a top priority" a few months after 9/11 and then again at the fifth anniversary of the event the howls from Fox, Rush, Hannity and their ilk would break the sound barrier. How does he sell this blantant disregard for bring bin Laden to justice? Expand the fight. Why? Because only by expanding the fight can they maintain support for The Forever War. (which is btw, a great SF book from Joe Haldeman)
-- via Atrios via Think Progress
Bush Tells Barnes Capturing Bin Laden Is ‘Not A Top Priority Use of American Resources’
Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes appeared on Fox this morning to discuss his recent meeting with President Bush in the Oval Office. The key takeaway for Barnes was that “bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.” Barnes said that Bush told him capturing bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources.” Watch it.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/barnes-osama/
If a democratic elected official said that "bin Laden was not a top priority" a few months after 9/11 and then again at the fifth anniversary of the event the howls from Fox, Rush, Hannity and their ilk would break the sound barrier. How does he sell this blantant disregard for bring bin Laden to justice? Expand the fight. Why? Because only by expanding the fight can they maintain support for The Forever War. (which is btw, a great SF book from Joe Haldeman)
-- via Atrios via Think Progress
Bush Tells Barnes Capturing Bin Laden Is ‘Not A Top Priority Use of American Resources’
Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes appeared on Fox this morning to discuss his recent meeting with President Bush in the Oval Office. The key takeaway for Barnes was that “bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.” Barnes said that Bush told him capturing bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources.” Watch it.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/barnes-osama/
3 Comments:
So the president who said he didn't want to waste time "swatting flies" would rather continue trying to interdict plots as they unfold (which is all well and good, and might have been a good idea five years ago too), but *not* to actually neutralize the people or organizations who actually support them?
Yeah, you know when Reagan used to say stupid stuff like this the press would go to his handlers and ask, "did you really mean that?" and they would say,"Actually what he meant was...blah, blah, blah,"
Now just give him a pass on it. Someone did a compare and contrast with a "main stream media' and they left out that part that Fred Barnes mentioned.
Yesterday, the WaPo reported it this way:
On another topic, Bush rejected sending more troops to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas to find Osama bin Laden. "One hundred thousand troops there in Pakistan is not the answer. It's someone saying 'Guess what' and then the kinetic action begins," he said, meaning an informer disclosing bin Laden's location.
Hiya, Spocko!
It seems to me that having Bin Laden still running about (or quietly locked away somewhere) makes him a more useful policy-manipulating tool to whoever is pulling W's strings than if they were to actually capture or kill him and people knew about it.
Just because I'm not a conspiracy nut doesn't mean there's not a conspiracy.
Post a Comment
<< Home