Merged Osama bin Laden dead,

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
It is important - to me - to know whether he said "Dad" or "Daddy". To know whether the story was titled "The Pet Goat" or "My Pet Goat". Maybe we're just not on the same page.

If these differences matter to you, you would be correct, we are not on the same page.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I disagree completely with it being more important to "go after" the Taliban instead of the perpetrator of attacks upon us.

As a practical matter it is an incoherent statement - "going after" the Taliban, whatever that means. Endless counterproductive war in the graveyard of empires, while our infrastructure, economy, and educational system are destroyed and home. Bill of rights trampled. Overthrowing the Taliban government of Afghanistan was tragically stupid.

I can't stand Obama and he's worse than Bush in some ways. But in this narrow incident he was not so magnificently stupid as Bush.

A few helicopters and a handful of men were involved in this. Not a massive army overthrowing Pakistan's government.

 

[Pardalis]

If Bush said, "I don't care if they find Bin Laden", and the quote is claimed to be, "I'm not concerned about Bin Laden", or vice versa, why waste your time arguing such a trivial difference?

I'm with Skeptigirl on this one, I don't see much difference either.

Anyway, Obama showed he can talk the talk and walk the walk, while Bush 43 failed the American people by not pursuing OBL to the end.

 

[dtugg]

I disagree completely with it being more important to "go after" the Taliban instead of the perpetrator of attacks upon us.

As a practical matter it is an incoherent statement - "going after" the Taliban, whatever that means. Endless counterproductive war in the graveyard of empires, while our infrastructure, economy, and educational system are destroyed and home. Bill of rights trampled. Overthrowing the Taliban government of Afghanistan was tragically stupid.

I can't stand Obama and he's worse than Bush in some ways. But in this narrow incident he was not so magnificently stupid as Bush.

A few helicopters and a handful of men were involved in this. Not a massive army overthrowing Pakistan's government.

So you think governments should be able host terrorists that kill thousands of Americans and stay in power. Sorry that's dumb. It sends the message that we will tolerate such governments.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Former Vice President Dick Cheney

The ex-Bush official tells NBC News (on this page) : "It's tremendous news, it really is a great day for an awful lot of people who worked very, very hard for a long time. Think about the bravery and courage of the men who carried out the operation."
"It's also a good day for the administration. President Obama and his national security team acted on the intelligence when it came in, and they deserve a lot of credit too."

Huzzah for incredibly backhanded compliments.

"Good job being in to answer the phone when the end of all our great and important work came to fruition."

 

[Pardalis]

A few helicopters and a handful of men were involved in this. Not a massive army overthrowing Pakistan's government.

You might have a point if the Taliban and the Pakistani government were comparable.

Pakistan had to be involved or at least willing to look the other way when the commando team took OBL, the illegitimate Taliban government was extremely hostile, and would never have permitted such a strike, therefore it had to be removed and invaded.

 

[Ziggurat]

Anyway, Obama showed he can talk the talk and walk the walk, while Bush 43 failed the American people by not pursuing OBL to the end.

Obama certainly deserves credit for this, but your accusation that Bush didn't seriously pursue OBL is unfounded. In regards to hunting Al Qaeda, Obama's policies have (to his credit) been largely a continuation of Bush's policies, namely, we go after them and try to kill them. Obama handled this well (hell, I even liked his speech, and I never like his speeches), but the fact that the actionable intel came in during his watch and not earlier (or later) is largely a matter of luck.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

So you think governments should be able host terrorists that kill thousands of Americans and stay in power. Sorry that's dumb. It sends the message that we will tolerate such governments.

The first part is hyperbole that in the first place implicitly pretends the Taliban was knowingly "hosting" someone planning an attack on the USA.

Secondarily they asked for evidence of his guilt, and we told them to **** ***. So instead of doing that and either taking up their offer of extradition or doing what just happened in Pakistan, Bush did what you champion here - a reckless war to overthrow a government.

How's your war in the graveyard of empires going, champ?

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 10; please do not curse in your posts or mask such words in an attempt to avoid the auto-censor.

 

[applecorped]

Wasn't Hitler declared dead on May 1st as well?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK - this is a joke, right?
Drongo Shrub did not say "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority" in the video you have linked to.

It is important - to me - to know whether he said "Dad" or "Daddy". To know whether the story was titled "The Pet Goat" or "My Pet Goat". Maybe we're just not on the same page.

The source of your semantic nit pick said,

Again, they seem to be saying it’s wrong to focus on just one man, however the fight against terrorism continues as before, and Afghanistan (and so presumably al Qaeda) is a particular concern. No evidence of any major policy changes, or softening of attitudes here.

That hasn’t stopped the detractors, though, who also cite these similar Bush quotes:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
G.W. Bush
http://www.50bushflipflops.com/Lecture_Outline/lesson1.html

These sound impressive, until you look at the source. Then you discover that the first quote doesn’t exist, while as with Myers, the second omits a considerable amount of context: [transcript of the video]

(emphasis mine)

Then they repeat their conclusion:

Whatever you think of Bush, it’s plain that “I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority” is nothing like an accurate summary of the above press conference. Yet again, the message is not to trust snipped quotes: they can be deeply misleading.

People hear what they want to hear and what they expect to hear. If you are bent on confirming your bias that Bush was a good President, you can ignore all his smirking in that video and stretch the meaning of the comments to be saying what I suggested would have been a reasonable thing to say, "we are working hard to get Bin Laden but in the meantime I think we are keeping him from being effective".

That is not what Bush said. What Bush said, including his smirk and body language when assessing the message, was that he was rationalizing his incompetence with his excuses. It was consistent with the paraphrased quote. You can nit pick that the quote was not identified as paraphrased. That would be legit. But to claim the misquote altered the actual statement, that is not the case.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

You might have a point if the Taliban and the Pakistani government were comparable.

Pakistan had to be involved or at least willing to look the other way when the commando team took OBL, the illegitimate Taliban government was extremely hostile, and would never have permitted such a strike, therefore it had to be removed and invaded.

You mean the Taliban government that offered to extradite him if they were shown evidence of his Guilt?

Afghanistan had far less capacity to stop an operation of this kind by comparison to Pakistan.

 

[dtugg]

The first part is hyperbole that in the first place implicitly pretends the Taliban was knowingly "hosting" someone planning an attack on the USA.

Secondarily they asked for evidence of his guilt, and we told them to **** ***. So instead of doing that and either taking up their offer of extradition or doing what just happened in Pakistan, Bush did what you champion here - a reckless war to overthrow a government.

How's your war in the graveyard of empires going, champ?

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content edited.

Osama was a wanted terrorist before 9/11. There is no way they didn't know that.

And they offered to try them in their country under their crazy Islamic laws if they we provided evidence. Bush rightly told them to **** off as that was obviously unacceptable.

 

[Frank Newgent]

New info on where they got the match for bin Laden's DNA.

His goat.

 

[Pardalis]

Obama certainly deserves credit for this, but your accusation that Bush didn't seriously pursue OBL is unfounded. In regards to hunting Al Qaeda, Obama's policies have (to his credit) been largely a continuation of Bush's policies, namely, we go after them and try to kill them. Obama handled this well (hell, I even liked his speech, and I never like his speeches), but the fact that the actionable intel came in during his watch and not earlier (or later) is largely a matter of luck.

Actually, he re-focused the attention on Afghanistan and OBL, he said himself he asked the CIA chief to make catching OBL his new priority, which is what made this happen. Bush relaxed the attention away from OBL to focus on Iraq.

It is obvious that Iraq was Bush's main goal all along, and that Afghanistan was a necessary distraction, or a rehearsal, and while I agree something had to be done about Hussein one way or another, I can't help to think now that the way he lost interest in OBL and Afghanistan was a failure.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Obama certainly deserves credit for this, but your accusation that Bush didn't seriously pursue OBL is unfounded. In regards to hunting Al Qaeda, Obama's policies have (to his credit) been largely a continuation of Bush's policies, namely, we go after them and try to kill them. Obama handled this well (hell, I even liked his speech, and I never like his speeches), but the fact that the actionable intel came in during his watch and not earlier (or later) is largely a matter of luck.

What does the evidence show?

Clinton warned the Bush admin that Osama was a threat. Clinton had wanted to get him but called off at least one attempt because innocent people would have been killed along with Osama. (Remember this was before 9-11 and when the Repugs were criticizing everything Clinton did as a "Wag the Dog" distraction from the Lewinsky case.)

There was the DPB that was ignored by Bush.

There was Tora Bora.

There was the waste of time focusing on Saddam.


Was that just all bad luck? Or bad decisions?

 

[Pardalis]

You mean the Taliban government that offered to extradite him if they were shown evidence of his Guilt?

That was pure BS. Nobody bought that for a minute. It was merely a stalling tactic.

Afghanistan had far less capacity to stop an operation of this kind by comparison to Pakistan.

But their relation with the AQ network was much more symbiotic, and unequivocal, while the relationship between the ISI and AQ and the Pakistani Taliban seems rather chaotic, and schizophrenic.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Wasn't Hitler declared dead on May 1st as well?

May 1st 1973, Buenos Aires.

 

[Ziggurat]

There was the DPB that was ignored by Bush.

Oh please. You're drifting into Truther territory. That had basically no actionable intelligence.

There was Tora Bora.

If you think Bush should have micromanaged military operations, you're a fool. And I doubt you even know what we could have done differently in that battle to have caught him..

There was the waste of time focusing on Saddam.

Because we should have been invading Pakistan instead? Is that the idea?

It's kind of sad that you can't be happy about Obama's success without simultaneously blaming Bush for something.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually, he re-focused the attention on Afghanistan and OBL, he said himself he asked the CIA chief to make catching OBL his new priority, which is what made this happen.

We have no idea what really "made this happen". And probably won't for years.

 

[Pardalis]

We have no idea what really "made this happen". And probably won't for years.

Sure, but a change in policy is certainly a major contributing factor.