Is Capturing Bin Laden a Priority to the Bush Administration?

[26 X World Champs]

I'm wondering what you all think about our President's commitment to capture Osama Bin Laden. Since this is the 6th anniversary week of 9-11 I thought we should revisit Bush's words from that very first week after the attack. Here's a news story from that "lefty" website Newsmax (right Navy Pride)?

Bush Wants Bin Laden 'Dead or Alive'

NewsMax.com Wires
Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2001

WASHINGTON - President Bush said the United States wanted terrorist leader Osama bin Laden "dead or alive," comparing efforts to hunt down the "evil-doers" to old-time manhunts in Texas.

"I want justice," Bush said when asked by reporters if he wanted bin Laden killed in retaliation for terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. "There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'"

Pressed to elaborate on what he meant by those comments, Bush said: "All I'm doing is remembering. When I was a kid I remember that they used to put out there in the Old West a wanted poster. It said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'"

Referring to bin Laden, Bush added, "All I want, and America want, is him brought to justice."

So now I ask all of you, 6 years later why hasn't justice been served? I think it's because our idiot President made the fatal mistake of starting a war in Iraq over nothing and from then on the "All I want, and America want, is him (OBL) brought to justice."

Is Capturing Bin Laden a Priority to the Bush Administration?

Bush Wants Bin Laden 'Dead or Alive'

NewsMax.com Wires
Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2001

WASHINGTON - President Bush said the United States wanted terrorist leader Osama bin Laden "dead or alive," comparing efforts to hunt down the "evil-doers" to old-time manhunts in Texas.

"I want justice," Bush said when asked by reporters if he wanted bin Laden killed in retaliation for terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. "There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'"

Pressed to elaborate on what he meant by those comments, Bush said: "All I'm doing is remembering. When I was a kid I remember that they used to put out there in the Old West a wanted poster. It said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'"

Referring to bin Laden, Bush added, "All I want, and America want, is him brought to justice."

 

[Navy Pride]

Bin Laden if he is not dead is a non factor.....I worry much more about his second in command.........

 

[26 X World Champs]

Bin Laden if he is not dead is a non issue.....I worry much more about his second in command.........

Very nice Navy Pride. You want to kill Iraqis but you don't want to bring Bin Laden to justice for killing more than 3000 American civilians. Do you ever have any independent thoughts? Why must you always parrot what the neocons do?

It's shocking to me that you are OK with the most hated man in America running free but you got an amazing erection when Saddam was captured and hanged!

Your priorities are ridiculous as always.

 

[Iriemon]

Bin Laden if he is not dead is a non issue.....I worry much more about his second in command.........

The mastermind and leader of Al-Queda, responsible for 9-11 and the deaths of 3000 and all the fuss that followed it including two wars is a non-issue to you?

Un****ingbelievable. You come up with some doozies.

 

[Navy Pride]

The mastermind and leader of Al-Queda, responsible for 9-11 and the deaths of 3000 and all the fuss that followed it including two wars is a non-issue to you?

Un****ingbelievable. You come up with some doozies.

I personally think he is already dead........

 

[26 X World Champs]

I personally think he is already dead........

Really? So now you're accusing the Bush administration of LYING when they confirmed that the latest video tape was Bin Laden's voice when tested for authenticity? How can you write such drivel?

You have ZERO evidence that he is dead, not one single thing AND you ignore the scientific evidence that he is alive!

You're quite the investigator of fact aren't you?

 

[Iriemon]

I personally think he is already dead........

Sure you do. The fact that he released a tape days ago wouldn't change your perspective.

The Bush Administration has utterly failed in its mission to bring the biggest murderer of Americans of all time to justice. That is why you say he is a "non-issue."

What an enormous discredit you do to the United States Navy that you put its name along with the word "pride" as your forum name.

 

[bhkad]

I'm wondering what you all think about our President's commitment to capture Osama Bin Laden. Since this is the 6th anniversary week of 9-11 I thought we should revisit Bush's words from that very first week after the attack. Here's a news story from that "lefty" website Newsmax (right Navy Pride)?


So now I ask all of you, 6 years later why hasn't justice been served? I think it's because our idiot President made the fatal mistake of starting a war in Iraq over nothing and from then on the "All I want, and America want, is him (OBL) brought to justice."

Is Capturing Bin Laden a Priority to the Bush Administration?

Bush Wants Bin Laden 'Dead or Alive'

NewsMax.com Wires
Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2001

WASHINGTON - President Bush said the United States wanted terrorist leader Osama bin Laden "dead or alive," comparing efforts to hunt down the "evil-doers" to old-time manhunts in Texas.

"I want justice," Bush said when asked by reporters if he wanted bin Laden killed in retaliation for terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. "There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'"

Pressed to elaborate on what he meant by those comments, Bush said: "All I'm doing is remembering. When I was a kid I remember that they used to put out there in the Old West a wanted poster. It said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'"

Referring to bin Laden, Bush added, "All I want, and America want, is him brought to justice."

I can't be but somewhat critical of this poll because at least you imagined the truth of the matter.

When you are looking for someone who is intent on not being caught they probably won't allow themselves to be caught. But if they become convinced the search has concluded they might make a mistake which leads to their capture.

If not they must remain in a perpetual state of anxiety never knowing or trusting or being 100% relaxed. That's not quite as good a prison as ours but it's the next best thing until the real thing comes along.

 

[Iriemon]

I can't be but somewhat critical of this poll because at least you imagined the truth of the matter.

When you are looking for someone who is intent on not being caught they probably won't allow themselves to be caught. But if they become convinced the search has concluded they might make a mistake which leads to their capture.

If not they must remain in a perpetual state of anxiety never knowing or trusting or being 100% relaxed. That's not quite as good a prison as ours but it's the next best thing until the real thing comes along.

Pretty lame excuse for justice.

 

[bhkad]

Pretty lame excuse for justice.

If you want to stop the spread of Jihad do you sequester yourself in the corner of Afghanistan searching for one guy when you know that Jihad is running rampant and itching to spread in the region of the ME and Persia?

Only if you are a fool.

 

[26 X World Champs]

If you want to stop the spread of Jihad do you sequester yourself in the corner of Afghanistan searching for one guy when you know that Jihad is running rampant and itching to spread in the region of the ME and Persia?

Only if you are a fool.

If you want to stop the spread of Jihad you don't start a stupid as$ war in Iraq that focuses hatred against America....DUH!

 

[bhkad]

If you want to stop the spread of Jihad you don't start a stupid as$ war in Iraq that focuses hatred against America....DUH!

If you have a giant jihadist nation named Iran that is ready to take over Iraq you do.

 

[Iriemon]

If you want to stop the spread of Jihad do you sequester yourself in the corner of Afghanistan searching for one guy when you know that Jihad is running rampant and itching to spread in the region of the ME and Persia?

Only if you are a fool.

Of you want to stop the spread of Jihad, do you start a war against a nation lead by a secular leader with a Christian top minister based on "mistakes" and misrepresentions, throw the nation into chaos, and then indefinitely occupy it so as to piss off the entire Muslim world and motivate them to support the resistence against the "mistaken" invasion thereby greatly spreading the Jihad?

Only if you are an idiot.

 

[Iriemon]

If you have a giant jihadist nation named Iran that is ready to take over Iraq you do.

I don't believe the Iranians are so stupid as to invade and occupy Iraq and then have to deal with the insurgency for the next few years.

That would be insinuating they are as stupid as the leaders we've had the past 6 years.

 

[bhkad]

Of you want to stop the spread of Jihad, do you start a war against a nation lead by a secular leader with a Christian top minister based on "mistakes" and misrepresentions, throw the nation into chaos, and then indefinitely occupy it so as to piss off the entire Muslim world and motivate them to support the resistence against the "mistaken" invasion thereby greatly spreading the Jihad?

Only if you are an idiot.

Or if you have a giant jihadist nation named Iran that is ready to take over Iraq as soon as they know Iraq has no WMD's.

 

[Iriemon]

Or if you have a giant jihadist nation named Iran that is ready to take over Iraq as soon as they know Iraq has no WMD's.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=632140

 

[bhkad]

I don't believe the Iranians are so stupid as to invade and occupy Iraq and then have to deal with the insurgency for the next few years.

That would be insinuating they are as stupid as the leaders we've had the past 6 years.

They would do it differently than we have and let's face it, they are Muslim and we aren't.

 

[Iriemon]

They would do it differently than we have and let's face it, they are Muslim and we aren't.

And therefore, the sunnis in Iraq will welcome them? The rest of the Sunni states in the ME (and the rest of the world for that matter) are going to just sit by and watch the Iranians waltz into Iraq?

Neocon/warmonger paranioa pipe dream to try to scare us into maintaining an illegitimate and harmful occupation.

 

[bhkad]

I'll say it AGAIN!

Israel feared imminent WMD attack from Saddam and to prevent their own annihilation were going to launch a 1st strike on Saddam.

When we found out we said to Israel "Please don't".

They said, "But we must or we will die."

We said, "ok, then we will use our intelligence to make sure there are no WMD's to worry about and we will get Saddam to remove them."

Israel said, ok.

After months of inspections and intelligence we still could not give Israel 100% assurance they would not go up in smoke the next day. So Israel was going to attack iraq.

We said, "but that would cause great turmoil in the Middle East! You know that many racist Muslims hate Israel and would consider an attack on Iraq a fitting excuse to declare Holy War on you and that would jeopardaize the stability of the Middle East and maybe the entire planet if things escalated!"

Israel said, "Ok, well, if you can give us 100% assurance that we won't become toast then we will hold back."

And so we looked and looked and determined the ONLY way we could give them that assurance would be to invade.

And so we did.

And when it was determined that the Iraqis no longer had WMD's the Iranians would have come in and taken over.

By invading we stopped Israel. We stopped Saddam. We stopped Iran. And we protected the oil.

Not bad for a stupid president, huh?

 

[Iriemon]

I'll say it AGAIN!

Israel feared imminent WMD attack from Saddam and to prevent their own annihilation were going to launch a 1st strike on Saddam.

When we found out we said to Israel "Please don't".

They said, "But we must or we will die."

We said, "ok, then we will use our intelligence to make sure there are no WMD's to worry about and we will get Saddam to remove them."

Israel said, ok.

After months of inspections and intelligence we still could not give Israel 100% assurance they would not go up in smoke the next day. So Israel was going to attack iraq.

We said, "but that would cause great turmoil in the Middle East! You know that many racist Muslims hate Israel and would consider an attack on Iraq a fitting excuse to declare Holy War on you and that would jeopardaize the stability of the Middle East and maybe the entire planet if things escalated!"

Israel said, "Ok, well, if you can give us 100% assurance that we won't become toast then we will hold back."

And so we looked and looked and determined the ONLY way we could give them that assurance would be to invade.

And so we did.

And when it was determined that the Iraqis no longer had WMD's the Iranians would have come in and taken over.

Wow. Did you make this up by yourself or did you find it somewhere.

So the entire reason for attacking Iraq was for Israel?

I had wondered if that was a major factor, but people call me anti-semitic when I suggest it.

 

[bhkad]

Wow. Did you make this up by yourself or did you find it somewhere.

So the entire reason for attacking Iraq was for Israel?

I had wondered if that was a major factor, but people call me anti-semitic when I suggest it.

Here we go again. :doh

When will you fellers get it through your heads there were ALWAYS multiple reasons for the invasion???

And as for your Israel hating spin, we didn't do it FOR Israel but to protect the M.E. from what Israel would have unleashed.

And as for where I got the scenario, have you ever read my sig?

 

[Iriemon]

Here we go again. :doh

When will you fellers get it through your heads there were ALWAYS multiple reasons for the invasion???

Depends on who you listen to. Bush said there was only one issue: Iraqs WMDs.

And as for your Israel hating spin, we didn't do it FOR Israel but to protect the M.E. from what Israel would have unleashed.

And as for where I got the scenario, have you ever read my sig?

Ahh -- we attacked bombed invaded and occupied Iraq causing the deaths of scores of thousands for their own protection. And the ingrates don't even appreciate our sacrifice.

I got an idea -- since we are so concerned about what Al-Queda might unleash against us maybe we should attack, bomb, invade and occupy ourselves.

 

[bhkad]

Depends on who you listen to. Bush said there was only one issue: Iraqs WMDs.

There is alot of stuff the President just can't tell us because the enemy would hear it also. Do you think any of the things I've said could have been told to the American people without all hell breaking loose? He told us about the WMD's because that was the crux of the matter. If Israel didn't fear being wiped out by WMD's there would have been no urgently pressing problem.

Ahh -- we attacked bombed invaded and occupied Iraq causing the deaths of scores of thousands for their own protection. And the ingrates don't even appreciate our sacrifice.

I got an idea -- since we are so concerned about what Al-Queda might unleash against us maybe we should attack, bomb, invade and occupy ourselves.

There were multiple reasons for the attack.

It was to:

- stop Israel from pre-emptively attacking Iraq's WMD's.

- stop Iraq from posing a threat to ANY of his neighbors.

- pre-empt any possible terrorist actions by Saddam.

- affect regime change as was ordered by the 1998 US law.

- protect oil from being used as a weapon (by ANYONE) to destabilize any of the Western nations that depend on the oil for energy but also as a means of keeping the economies running.

- free the Iraqi people

- prevent Iranian encroachment via any means into Iraq after it was known Saddam had no WMD's or after Saddam was deposed.

- transplant liberty in the region so the people might become fans of liberty and be inclined to prevent Iranian jihad from taking hold.

- open up new markets for trade to and fro.

- eventually help create a long lasting peace and stability.

 

[Iriemon]

There is alot of stuff the President just can't tell us because the enemy would hear it also. Do you think any of the things I've said could have been told to the American people without all hell breaking loose? He told us about the WMD's because that was the crux of the matter. If Israel didn't fear being wiped out by WMD's there would have been no urgently pressing problem.

Yes. I do think the President should be honest with the American people about why he is starting a ****ing war. If the President can't be honest about why we are going to war there are some big freaking problems with why we are doing it.

If this war was supposedly to protect Iraq from Israel then that is what he should have said it was about. You're right he could not have said that because he probably would have been impeached for starting a war for that stupid of a reason, and certainly would have voted out of office.

If what you are saying is true, political expediency does not excuse blatant lying for starting a war for totally inane reasons.

There were multiple reasons for the attack.

It was to:

- stop Israel from pre-emptively attacking Iraq's WMD's.

If that was the danger then Bush should have attacked, bombed, invaded, and indefinitely occupied Israel.

- stop Iraq from posing a threat to ANY of his neighbors.

The fact that a nation poses a threat to another is no excuse of attacking it. That would justify an attack by any nation against virtually every other. Did the US pose a threat to Japan in December 1941? Yes, the US naval fleet was its only real threat in the Pacific. Therefore by your reasoning Japan was justified in attacking Pearl Harbor, and the US was wrong to declare war on Japan.

- pre-empt any possible terrorist actions by Saddam.

Since Hussein was never before involved in terrorist actions despite having WMDs for many years, this provided absolutely no excuse for starting a war.

- affect regime change as was ordered by the 1998 US law.

The fact that one nation does not like the government of another nation is no justification for starting a war. Otherwise Germany was justified in attacking Poland in 1939.

- protect oil from being used as a weapon (by ANYONE) to destabilize any of the Western nations that depend on the oil for energy but also as a means of keeping the economies running.

The fact that one country has resources desired by another is no justification for starting a war. Otherwise Japan was justified in attacking the US in 1941.

The fact that our oil somehow go under Iraqs sand in no way justified war. It is their oil and they can do whatever the hell they want with it, even if it means it makes it more expensive for us to drive our Hummers.

- free the Iraqi people

That is up to the Iraqi people, who had plenty of opportunities to overthrow Hussein if they wanted to. No nation has the right to attack another nation because it disapproves of its government.

- prevent Iranian encroachment via any means into Iraq after it was known Saddam had no WMD's or after Saddam was deposed.

There was absolute no evidence historical or current to suggest that Iran was or was going to "encroach" into Iraq. Pure fantasy. If Iran did, then there might be a reason to use military force to resist Iran, not attack Iraq.

- transplant liberty in the region so the people might become fans of liberty and be inclined to prevent Iranian jihad from taking hold.

On government has no right to attack another because it disapproves of the type of government it has, even if you think you can force liberty by war.

- open up new markets for trade to and fro.

One nation's interest in economic prosperity is absolutely no justification for starting a war with another. Or else Germany was justified in attacking Poland and Japan attacking the US.

- Eventually help create a long lasting peace and stability.

You don't make peace and stability by starting a freaking war.


Not one of these reasons comes close as a justification for one nation attacking another or the US attack on Iraq.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I'll say it AGAIN!

Israel feared imminent WMD attack from Saddam and to prevent their own annihilation were going to launch a 1st strike on Saddam.

When we found out we said to Israel "Please don't".

My oh my aren't we quite the revisionist! What story will you make up after this one is debunked like everything else you Neocons have tried to make people believe?

Is the next one going to be "my dog ate the WMDs"?

What a load of horseshit...