Quote :

"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.”"

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/barnes-osama/

I think our president is very confused. Didn't he just give a major speech a week or two ago about terrorism that mentioned Bin Laden 17 times???

9/15/2006 12:36:18 PM

hey another typical pryderi thread

9/15/2006 12:37:18 PM

I'm gonna copy/paste everything I find about something/someone I hate and put it on tww

9/15/2006 12:39:05 PM

I guess becoming a war criminal by torturing and wiretapping is the only way to stop terrorism.

9/15/2006 12:43:46 PM

blame America first

9/15/2006 12:54:19 PM

Why would he mention Bin Laden 17 times in a speech and then turn around and tell Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard that capturing the guy isn't a top priority?

9/15/2006 12:56:35 PM

One day Bush says we have to stop Bin-Laden, the next day he says it's not a top priority.

One day he says we need to torture the people who would harm this country, the next day he won't kill them while they're holding a rally in a cemetery.

Bush attempts to frighten the american people with the specter of al-qaeda terroists lurking in the shadows, the next day he's "not concerned".

Eventually americans will get off their collective knees and slap that son of a bitch in the face for abusing his position.

9/15/2006 1:13:02 PM

eventually americans will get off tww and do something worth a fuck

9/15/2006 1:17:55 PM

like vote for bush

9/15/2006 1:21:55 PM

I must really get under TT's skin.

I'm going outside to paint. Tomorrow I'll be canvassing for a Democratic candidate for Congress and Sunday I'll be doing the same for a candidate for a state rep.

I'm still waiting for President Bush to do something that's "worth a fuck". Capturing the man who has murdered over 3,000 americans and plans to do us more harm.

9/15/2006 1:23:28 PM

Quote :

"the next day he won't kill them while they're holding a rally in a cemetery."

So that was President Bush flying the drone over Afghanistan?

BTW, a funeral isn't a rally.

9/15/2006 1:52:18 PM

Quote :

"eventually americans will get off tww and do something worth a fuck"

You could be a great leader of this movement.

9/15/2006 3:04:30 PM

Hey pryderi, what did you talk about before Bush was president?

9/15/2006 3:19:35 PM

I don't believe that video clip for a second, I mean its fucking Fox News

9/15/2006 3:21:13 PM

He mentions bin Laden because bin Laden is the name that riles people up. He says bin Laden isn't a top priority because, in a way, he isn't. The man appears increasingly functionless when it comes to planning, coordinating, or executing operations. Taking him out makes everybody really happy, yeah, but it doesn't do a hell of a lot to combat terrorism.

That said, I'll admit to selfishly wanting to spend resources to kill him even so, because I know I'd feel a hell of a lot better and I can't think of anyone on our side who would mind the expense.

Quote :

"Capturing the man who has murdered over 3,000 americans and plans to do us more harm. "

What would you be willing to have the country do to accomplish this goal?

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 4:59 PM. Reason : ]

9/15/2006 4:57:56 PM

Quote :

"The man appears increasingly functionless when it comes to planning, coordinating, or executing operations."

The only way you could know this is if you know him.

So....looks like youre off to gitmo for more of that dignifyed water boarding.

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 5:04 PM. Reason : 4]

9/15/2006 4:59:31 PM

I don't think you'll find a lot of experts on al Qaeda that will tell you that Osama bin Laden is all that integral a part of the organization, or that his death/capture would lead to the disintegration of the organization, or that his death/capture would do anything to slow down terrorism -- in fact, the consensus as I've seen it is that his being taken out would lead to a spike in retaliatory attacks. So if anything, taking him out makes terrorism worse, if only for a while.

9/15/2006 5:03:06 PM

Quote :

"experts on al Qaeda"

and how is that event possible? we dont know where bin laden is but public experts tell us what hes doing?

not possible.

9/15/2006 5:04:56 PM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: He mentions bin Laden because bin Laden is the name that riles people up. He says bin Laden isn't a top priority because, in a way, he isn't. The man appears increasingly functionless when it comes to planning, coordinating, or executing operations. Taking him out makes everybody really happy, yeah, but it doesn't do a hell of a lot to combat terrorism."

Oh, I see.

Could you please distinguish the function from the definition of the word "propaganda" please? And specifically address why here today in this instance it was necessary to "rile people up" by including the name of an operationally impotent member of Al Qaeda in a speech 17 times, only to claim within a week that he isn't a top priority?

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: That said, I'll admit to selfishly wanting to spend resources to kill him even so, because I know I'd feel a hell of a lot better and I can't think of anyone on our side who would mind the expense."

So you'll admit to something selfish because you know it's a popularly shared belief?

9/15/2006 5:16:52 PM

most people would agree that bin laden is either in hiding or on the run, at least moreso than he was before 9/11

in that sense, he is not as integral a part of al queda's operations...has to be much more cautious and careful about any traceable communications he makes or gets proxied

if you believe those two things, then by definition, he's not as big a threat as he was, aka not a top priority

though you can certainly use his name as much as you want to describe 9/11, which, like it or not, "opened the public's eyes" to the reality of terrorism on US soil, increasing the resources we put forth into the war on terror

*awaits someone to say we've had him for years and will announce his capture/death right before elections*

9/15/2006 5:19:34 PM

So, let me get this straight, we've issued the administration carte blanche to spook us at will by dragging the operationally impotent leader of Al Qaeda's name out of the closet to represent some boogeyman for the purposes of emotionally manipulating us into feeling like we "need" this or that policy in order to be protected???

9/15/2006 5:24:32 PM

Quote :

"carte blanche "

Can you really use the blank check metaphor for certain issue when the admin has actually recieved a blank check for funds for iraq? Kinda loses its power.

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 5:26 PM. Reason : 32 ]

9/15/2006 5:25:46 PM

No, because we're not talking about money here. We're talking about a quid pro quo, an unspoken psychological contract if you will. How much authority to exploit our fears do we, or should we grant to our government in any given moment?

9/15/2006 5:28:28 PM

Quote :

"impotent leader of Al Qaeda's name out of the closet"

he wasnt an impotent leader on 9/11 or before 9/11

which is the bin laden he is referring to

hell you're making my point for me

9/15/2006 5:29:41 PM

That begs the question. Why do it? Surely, they're aware of the permanent ability to exploit a psychological symbol of pure evil, or the Devil, or Osama Bin Laden. What determines when and whether they should do so?

9/15/2006 5:34:43 PM

well on the 5 year anniversary of one of the worst attacks on america in our 230 year history, i think thats a time to mention him

9/15/2006 5:36:53 PM

Quote :

"Gamecat: What determines when and whether they should do so?"

9/15/2006 5:47:53 PM

Should he be a top priority? Bin Laden at this point (at least I think as far as bush is concerned) is a representation of what we're supposed to be fighting. Bin Laden the man is irellevant for the administration, it's what Bin Laden or someone like him has the capability of doing that is of concern, but that's a bit more of a mouthful than just Bin Laden and less cliched than Terrorism™. In reality though, Bin Laden should not be the top priority and infact the actual Bush quote is rather on spot:

Quote :

""This thing about . . . let's put 100,000 of our special forces stomping through Pakistan in order to find bin Laden is just simply not the strategy that will work.""

At some point you decide where you're going to divide your resources. While Bin Laden is a powerful figure and indeed a worthy object to try to take down, is he worth the majority of your resources or is the organization he heads and it's people worth that expenditure.

9/15/2006 7:03:04 PM

Quote :

"well on the 5 year anniversary of one of the worst attacks on america in our 230 year history, i think thats a time to mention him"

I think it's time to bring him to justice.

9/16/2006 12:21:20 AM

I think a lot of what people are saying here suggests or represents varying degrees of truth.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Should he be a top priority?"

That's a fair question to ask. I'm curious about that myself. I was especially curious when I heard he was being pulled out of the back pocket again. And while TreeTwista10 has a point--it was around the 5th anniversary of the attacks--I can't separate that in my mind from the fact that the Bush administration telegraphed to the press, and the executed on a transparently political setup to exploit heightened tensions on media day (9/11/06).

Otherwise known as the day our media did Al Qaeda's job, and the government was completely silent about it. More on that later.

But you'd fairly say I'm stalling if I didn't answer your basic question. No, I don't think he should be a top priority. But is it really that farfetched to suggest that these represent mixed messages on at least some level?

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: At some point you decide where you're going to divide your resources. While Bin Laden is a powerful figure and indeed a worthy object to try to take down, is he worth the majority of your resources or is the organization he heads and it's people worth that expenditure."

And that's exactly where it's a little murky. Does he really head the organization? Did he ever really head the organization? The more I've learned about the structure of Al Qaeda, the less it resembles some pyramidal organization like a business, military, or government organization. It's far more decentralized, compartmentalized, and nuanced than that. It almost seems odd to suggest anyone really heads the organization, or really did before either.

I'm curious about what evidence firmly linking Bin Laden to a role as "head" of Al Qaeda exists in the public record.

And just to stir the pot a little, not everyone decided our resources needed to be divided in the first place. This is exactly the contingency a few hundred thousand extra troops would've been worth keeping around for. Say what you will about the Daily Show, but it was quoting officials with direct knowledge of Afghanistan's opium harvest for the year. They were crying for a red alert because their nation's harvest alone would be sufficient to satisfy 30% more than current worldwide demand.

Do you see how the terrorists are getting ready to make a lot of money? Despite the restrictions enacted on financial transactions with the USA PATRIOT ACT and USA PATRIOT ACT II, we all know that the federal government's power doesn't extend into black markets. Some markets are liberalizing their drug laws, and many new markets are creating disposable income within societies with fewer social mores against drugs than our own culture. The export problem could become a national security crisis.

On some level, this is about a lot more than Osama Bin Laden. This is about the national security interests of our country and how they are being affected by the lack of presence we have in Afghanistan, and the weakening of the Pakistani regime.

9/16/2006 1:53:20 AM

Quote :

" Could you please distinguish the function from the definition of the word "propaganda" please?"

I'm not sure I follow, could you rephrase the question?

Quote :

"And specifically address why here today in this instance it was necessary to "rile people up" by including the name of an operationally impotent member of Al Qaeda in a speech 17 times, only to claim within a week that he isn't a top priority?"

It wasn't. Bush was an idiot for admitting that Osama isn't a top priority for reasons that this thread illustrates very clearly.

Quote :

"So you'll admit to something selfish because you know it's a popularly shared belief?"

I'd like to think I'll admit to being selfish wherever I am being selfish, but then, I'm probably biased. Most of the time I can hammer together a facsimile of a good argument for how what I want is for the betterment of the human condition, but this time, I know that shooting Osama is liable not to help us materially and I want to do it anyway, and I'll admit that.

9/16/2006 2:21:58 AM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: I'm not sure I follow, could you rephrase the question?"

Sure. Could you please distinguish between the function of using the name 17 times in a speech only to renounce the same name's potency as an operational figurehead a week later, and the definition of the word "propaganda?"

You didn't claim they were different in the first place, but I'm presuming you'll see I'm getting more at what justifies exploiting the effect in your mind. I presume you distinguish this propaganda from Al Qaeda propaganda somehow. How is that?

I'll grant you this before you start, I already think Al Qaeda propaganda's pretty fucking dangerous.

And it's one reason I've declared out and out war on the media. Not the liberal media. Not the conservative media. The fucking terrorist-aiding media. I'll explain.

What I saw on my screen on the morning of this 9/11 absolutely turned my stomach. On that day of somber rememberance of a tragedy no one could or will ever forget--regardless of what any political or ideological campaign tries to convince you--the major news networks were rebroadcasting the horrifying events of five years previous in real time.

It was like a scene out of the Twilight Zone. Or a post-modernist horror movie based on Groundhog Day. Or a mix of the two. I walked out in my living room brushing my teeth because I could've sworn through the noise of the shower, I had heard the television say that a "tower" had been attacked by an airplane. My first thought was that Al Qaeda had choreographed another strike using airplanes, and managed to hit the Sears Tower or something. But when I saw what was happening instead, when it became clear I was looking at New York, I just got absolutely livid.

Was the original attack not specifically designed by Al Qaeda to be seen on television? Why was the media broadcasting the attacks in realtime as if 9/11/01 were recurring in 9/11/06? Why didn't the government have a problem with that and condemn the media on national security grounds?

I believe the answer to the first question is the only verifiable one we have. Yes. It was most certainly planned to be seen on television. Al Qaeda is often cited as being obsessive about its media efforts. Let's not forget how many times we've heard reports that Bin Laden was dead only to hear a tape of him reading yesterday's Sport's section come out the next morning. I have no understanding whatsoever for why any journalistic editorial board with sense, or any FCC with sense, would have let this pass without even a hint of public condemnation--at least after the fact.

That's why I'm absolutely furious with our media. And philosophically reject buying into the bullshit paradigms they peddle without giving them the objective, critical perspectivist critique they deserve.

[Edited on September 16, 2006 at 3:05 AM. Reason : ...]

9/16/2006 3:03:18 AM

9/16/2006 7:47:32 AM

dirka dirka

9/16/2006 9:32:58 AM

And he shouldn't be, killing Bin Laden won't do anything except give the American people something cheap to cheer about for a day or two. Besides they will just make a martyr out of him. I say we start making so many martyrs they can't keep 'em straight.

9/16/2006 9:59:57 PM

And how the fuck would you know hes not a threat?

9/16/2006 10:03:02 PM

Do you think killing Bin Laden would reduce the threat to our country? I think if we had killed him back in the 70's instead of helping him fight the Soviets, it would have made a difference, no it doesn't matter. There are so many extremist clerics around the world preaching intolerance and hatred to a riled youth that anything left for Bin Laden to say or do would be just another fish in the sea.

9/16/2006 10:08:50 PM

You agree hes a threat then.

9/16/2006 10:09:41 PM

He's as much a threat as any other, I don't think he as an individual should be a priority. We need to wake a psychological war, and turn people away from his philosophies.

9/16/2006 10:11:29 PM

That sounds like something a pinko would say

9/16/2006 10:22:12 PM

honestly if i could go back in the past i'd nuke the middle east in like 1945

man we'd have so much oil now

9/16/2006 10:23:17 PM

For real.

9/16/2006 10:26:07 PM

for real

9/16/2006 10:31:12 PM

We pretty much destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq without capturing Saddam until much later. I think all he's saying is capturing the figurehead of the organization is not as important as bringing down the cells. Plus I'm sure bin Laden is not involved in the day to day workings of individual cells, they have their own leaders.

If we were to parade bin Laden's broken corpse through the streets of Washington DC tomorrow, al Qaeda would not disolve. It would be a symbolic victory but wouldn't change too much.

9/19/2006 1:07:27 PM

if Bush had said bin Laden is still priority #1 you liberals would go back to claiming that terrorism isnt a threat

9/19/2006 1:11:19 PM

I don't really see much point in using massive amounts of resources to find him, I think eventually he will show...

he is more of an idol or figurehead to them than he is a leader now... we have to worry about our own asses now, not finding dude in a cave putting out video tapes ones in a while

I've love to capture him, but thats more vendetta and revenge than it is stopping terror...

he is no longer the guy to worry about, it's all of his followers running around durkadurkastan and in our own country

9/19/2006 1:17:03 PM

synchrony7 and pwrstrkdf250 answers represent pretty historically accurate viewpoints. In other words, our common body of knowledge supports these hypotheses.

It just seems to me that the solution here is to educate people about how Al Qaeda operates. If they don't know that, they can't effectively help the government fight it. This is basic shit.

9/19/2006 2:51:22 PM

^^ shit my spelling was horrible

I hate laptops... I need to get a usb keyboard for this thing

9/19/2006 3:01:57 PM

Quote :

"if Bush had said bin Laden is still priority #1 you liberals would go back to claiming that terrorism isnt a threat"

Actually I think they would probably say that he shouldn't be the #1 priority. Then they would point out 100s of other ways you are more likely to die and finally bust out some life insurance quotes.

9/20/2006 7:37:16 AM

Bush got what he wanted out of 9/11. He finally had a half-assed excuse to invade Iraq by claiming Sadaam had ties to Al-Qaeda. After that, everything else is a moot point for him.

9/20/2006 10:41:28 AM