Capturing Bin Laden Is 'Not A Top Priority Use of American Resource
 

I don't get it.

How can a lack of consequences for the most deadly attack ever carried out on American soil be a good "message" to Jihadists?

This quote came from a Bush interview with Fred Barnes, editor of the Weekly Standard. He 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."

This same administration wails and pulls its hair over "sending a message to the terrorists" every day when it comes to the mess in Iraq.

And questioning our purpose in killing 3-4X more Iraqis than "terrorists" is categorized as 'giving encouragement to our enemies.'

So how is failing to pursue OBL not 'giving encouragement?'

And in other breaking news...:rolleyes:

It's amazing. I watched the original 9/11/01 coverage the other day on CNN and it struck me; this was a criminal act by a rogue, non-governmental group of terrorists on the U.S.A. Sure, they had countries that were sympathetic to their cause, and who allowed them to train, etc.., but really it was not a country that did this. It was OBL. Bush said in that day that we would "hunt down those responsible", but he was just kidding. If he was honest he would have said, "Great! Now I have an excuse to invade Iraq if I can just tie them to this somehow!"

Pathetic.

+1

Who's bin Laden?

Tied to 9/11:

Afghanistan
Pakistan

Hijackers came from:

Saudi Arabia
UAE
Egypt
Lebanon

Action taken in:

Afghanistan (Taliban overthrown in key cities)
Pakistan (bombed a house)

That sucks; who's house?

Who cares. Buncha towelheads.

Here's what you do, hire someone to bulldoze your own home, and then see how much you like it over the next few years, or maybe decades.

Here's a:rolleyes: that's more meaningful for you.

Not real sure if "who's" is an official word.

Hmm... you might have something there, Denis. I wonder if it was an "official" house. Sure it wasn't a tent? Or a pile of straw and dried camel *****?

It's a contraction of "who is", i.e. "Who's that?"

"Whose" it is. Or should have been. Judges' decisions are final.

The strike was on December 13, '05. 18 villagers were killed. not much is known about it, but Pakistanis were kinda riled up over an airstrike on their country.

The relationship of the Musharraf government with the US has been... inconsistent. Radical Islamists and the Taliban are both very strong in Pakistan.

Not getting Bin Laden has always been a good campaign issue not expoited by those leaderless Democrats. Heck, Bin Laden is what 9/11 is all about.

A while back, I saw a film that claimed Bin Laden's family was flown secretly out of the country soon after 9/11. The family has (or had) a lot of property in the U.S. (not the Twin Towers, of course). You look at Bush, and his emphasis on getting Saddam before Bin Laden, and you wonder where he's coming from. I don't know. There's a lot that happens every day out there we don't know. The media doesn't cover everything.

Yes, the bin Laden family was gathered up and their plane was the only one given permission to fly in US airspace a couple days after 9/11. Days later, they were all allowed to leave the US for Saudi Arabia without any interrogation. It helps when your family has decades of ties with the president's family.

I keep wondering if the Allies would have allowed Aldof to take refuge in the Bavarian Mountains. What ever happened to "cutting off the head of the snake"? Seems as if as long as he is alive, he is a symbol for his followers and a rallying point.

Yes, that's correct, and a potential trump card for Bush if it looks like fellow Republicans won' t win in Nov.

The fact is this is the U.S. military vs. a bandit who hides out in caves. Think about it and tell me (with a straight face) we are not holding back from capturing OBL.

I really wish I knew. You thinking "October Surprise?"

Heck! Why not? Except for Halloween, it's a slow month :D

Even if we could catch him, there's probably more to be gained politically by keeping him under surveillance and leading the public to believe he's "out there" as a threat. It'd be an attempt to legitimize the so-called "war on terror", so I believe there is very deliberately an effort to keep him contained but free.

If bin Laden were caught, you KNOW there wouldn't be as strong of a "need" for things like domestic wiretapping, secret prisons, Patriot Acts, foreign detention centers, etc. To the sensation-craving public, the argument of "Al Qaeda doesn't have a single 'head', it has many 'heads' and capturing bin Laden doesn't diminish the threat" wouldn't be enough - even if it is true.

Normally not a conspiracy theorist but seriously I do think there's more to be gained by NOT capturing him than by capturing him and as such, we don't.