Bush: Take bin Laden attack threat seriously

Status
Not open for further replies.

rick_reno

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,027
It looks like he's come full circle on Bin Laden. Bush went from "most important" to "I'm am truly not that concerned about him" and now back to "take threat seriously". I wonder what the Bush line will be next year on bin Laden - the odds makers in Las Vegas should take bets on it.

The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"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."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

FORT MEADE, Md. - President Bush defended his spying program on new grounds Wednesday, visiting the ultra-secret facility where the government monitors electronic communications.

After a tour of the National Security Agency, Bush said employees there who are secretly monitoring phone calls and Internet traffic are learning what terrorists are plotting against America. Bush said they are taking Osama bin Laden seriously when he says he’s going to attack again.

“When he says he’s going to hurt the American people again, or try to, he means it,” Bush told reporters after visiting the NSA, where the surveillance program is based. “I take it seriously, and the people of NSA take it seriously.”

It was Bush’s first comment about bin Laden since a tape was aired last week in which the al-Qaida leader warned that his fighters are preparing new attacks in the United States. Bin Laden offered the American people a truce, without specifying the conditions, but the White House said the United States would never negotiate with the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Bush’s NSA visit was part of an aggressive administration effort to defend the surveillance program. Some experts and lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether it’s legal for the government to listen to conversations in the United States without a warrant, which the administration could get through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Democrats sharply criticize program
Four leading Democratic senators sent Bush a letter Wednesday saying although they support efforts to do everything possible within the law to combat terrorism, the NSA program is an “apparent violation of federal law.”

“If you or officials in your administration believe that FISA, or any law, does not give you enough authority to combat terrorism, you should propose changes in the law to Congress,” wrote Sens. Harry Reid, Edward Kennedy, Richard Durbin and Russ Feingold. “You may not simply disregard the law.”

Reporters traveling with the president were only allowed to see a few minutes of Bush’s NSA tour, as he walked through the high-tech Threat Operations Center where intelligence experts monitor Internet traffic. He spoke to reporters from a podium set up in a hallway after completing his tour, but did not take any questions.

In keeping with the NSA’s secrecy, reporters were required to leave their cell phones, pagers, laptops and wireless e-mail devices outside the complex. The White House negotiated so the journalists could bring in cameras and video equipment, but they were allowed only to take photos of the president, not the exterior or interior of the facility itself.

Take bin Laden 'seriously,' Bush says
Bush said the NSA program is limited to communications between the United States and people overseas who are linked to al-Qaida. He said the NSA program has helped prevent terrorist attacks and save American lives, although the government has not given any specifics.

“Officials here learn information about plotters and planners and people who would do us harm,” Bush said, reading from note cards. “Now, I understand there’s some in America who say, ‘Well, this can’t be true there are still people willing to attack.’ All I would ask them to do is listen to the words of Osama bin Laden and take him seriously.”

However, no one in the political debate over the war on terror or the NSA program has suggested that terrorists no longer want to attack the United States. Rather, Bush’s critics have argued that the law requires him to get permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to eavesdrop on communications involving Americans.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., issued a blistering attack on Bush’s explanations.

“Obviously, I support tracking down terrorists,” she said. “I think that’s our obligation. But I think it can be done in a lawful way. Their argument that it’s rooted in the authority to go after al-Qaida is far-fetched. Their argument that it’s rooted in the Constitution inherently is kind of strange because we have FISA and FISA operated very effectively and it wasn’t that hard to get their permission.”

Bush said he had the legal right to do whatever he could to prevent further attacks and that the NSA program “is fully consistent with our nation’s laws and Constitution.”

“I’ll continue to reauthorize this program for so long as our country faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups,” Bush said. “This enemy still wants to do harm to the American people. We cannot let the fact that we have not been attacked lull us into the illusion that the threats to our nation have disappeared.”

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he’s eager to learn more. Asked on NBC’s “Today” show, if Bush broke the law, McCain replied: “I don’t know. I want to be perfectly clear. I don’t know the answer.”
 
It seems that the ever-wavering needle on the Bin-Laden-O-Meter has swung to the red-shaded panic side of the gauge again.

Is it really surprising though that the latest of Bush's turnabouts regarding the prioritization of the most recent binLaden threat just happens to occur at a media event at NSA headquarters during a time when the administration is still feverishly defending their position on domestic spying?

The convenience of this latest tape purportedly from Osama and Co. is really being stretched for the maximum mileage allowable.
 
A good example of not realizing that the hand basket in which we're riding is heading straight towards the netherworld.


When the priorities shifted on 03-20-03 from a clear, tangible response to the GWOT to what is now a multibillion dollar bloodbath of lies, the Bush administration broadly opened itself up to many new criticisms from just as many critics.

It not hard to spot the posturing in this story unless you're willing to ignore the obvious.
 
President Bush and the Pope were touring Washington, DC by boat on the Potomac. A gust of wind blew the Pope's hat into the water. GW leaped over board and walked across the water to retrieve the hat.

New York Times headline: "Bush Can't Swim".
 
RealGun said:
A good example of how Bush would be ridiculed either way.


It would be impossible to criticize him if he would just do the right thing for a change..
 
shermacman, as much as I don't truly like GWB, that does sound accurate re: the reporting of him.
 
joab said:
What would the right thing be?

Catching and/or killing the real terrorists would be a good start.

Finding a way to put all those billions of dollars frittered away in Iraq back into the Treasury would be another good thing...

Appointing actual constitutionalists as jurists instead of corporate/GOP shills would be something else I'd be keen to see.

Most people know what "the right thing" is when they see it. Most people know that what our current administration is doing isn't it...
 
Bush would not be criticized on this point if he had maintained a consistent policy on Bin Laden.

Bin Laden has gone from extremely important, to unimportant, and now back to important again.

Bush knows he has to keep people scared of terrorists, or he will have no hope of convincing people to give up their rights for the perception of increased safety.
 
Lone_Gunman said:
Bush would not be criticized on this point if he had maintained a consistent policy on Bin Laden.

Bin Laden has gone from extremely important, to unimportant, and now back to important again.

Bush knows he has to keep people scared of terrorists, or he will have no hope of convincing people to give up their rights for the perception of increased safety.

So if Bush is responding to public sentiment, he has been inconsistent.
 
RealGun said:
A good example of how Bush would be ridiculed either way.
I seem to remember another Presidential candidate that was ridiculed as a "waffler" or "flip flopper" when his opinions swung both ways. :rolleyes:

What's good for one isn't good for the other, I suppose...
 
GTSteve03 said:
I seem to remember another Presidential candidate that was ridiculed as a "waffler" or "flip flopper" when his opinions swung both ways. :rolleyes:

What's good for one isn't good for the other, I suppose...

We never want to talk about the rightness or wrongness of the decision. We only want to talk about the context of it coming from George Bush. If it was his statement or his decision, it must be wrong.
 
It's OK, GWB has a plan, he's intentionally leaving the southern border wide open in an attempt to lure OBL through. When OBL takes the bate and tries to enter then the coyotes will inform vincente fox who will inform GWB and voila!. The man is a genius.:rolleyes:
 
RealGun said:
We never want to talk about the rightness or wrongness of the decision. We only want to talk about the context of it coming from George Bush. If it was his statement or his decision, it must be wrong.
I don't remember anyone criticizing Bush when he stated that Osama was a big threat. Everyone knew this and agreed with him, that's why we invaded Afghanistan.

Then he flip-flopped and said he wasn't a threat at all. That's when the criticizing on this issue started.

Now he's waffled back to his original position, and we are still criticizing him not on where his position is now but on the fact that he's been inconsistent with it.
 
While you anti-Bush fellows may or may not be correct, how would we be any better off with Al (I'm actually a mentally unbalanced person hiding in this body) Gore, or John (Vote for me because I'm the other rich, white guy-not Bush) Kerry? :rolleyes:
 
joab said:
What would the right thing be?

Admit that Iraq was a tactical blunder based on not only bad intelligence, but selectively used bad intelligence. Fire Rummy and get someone who cares about the lives of the troops. Refocus on KILLING Osama bin Laden. Answer questions as to why his family has such close ties with the bin Laden family and the House of Saud, when most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, and why the paper trail back to Saudi Arabia was stonewalled.

And develop foreign policy and longterm military strategy that's a bit more comprehensive than 'Yeehaw!'. AND stop repeating 9/11 9/11 9/11 in EVERY g_ddamned speech!
 
Maybe its not that he just is not being consistent. Perhaps he is going on what intelligence reports are telling him. There are times when a not so big threat becomes a huge threat. We have gangs in our jurisdiction that sometimes are very dormant, and other times are a very realistic threat.
 
Optical Serenity said:
Maybe its not that he just is not being consistent. Perhaps he is going on what intelligence reports are telling him. There are times when a not so big threat becomes a huge threat. We have gangs in our jurisdiction that sometimes are very dormant, and other times are a very realistic threat.
Possibly, but do you have people that are constantly following up on these gangs or do they get reassigned as priorities change? It would seem to me that while a gang (or group of terrorists) may not be showing up in the intelligence as much lately, they are still out there and probably have something in the works.

I wouldn't classify a bear in my backyard as a non-threat when it's asleep just because it's not currently awake and trying to attack me.
 
RealGun said:
We never want to talk about the rightness or wrongness of the decision. We only want to talk about the context of it coming from George Bush. If it was his statement or his decision, it must be wrong.


....

Okay. So we can't talk about it because it came from him, we have to detach from the fact that HE said it, and discuss the decision as if it drifted in from midair from nobody in particular. You lost me. :confused:

HE SAID IT. And I'm sorry...but I feel you're blinded by party loyalty, there.
Because he has that huge, golden glowing (R!!!) behind his name, he can do no evil.

He is NOT making good decisions, he has NOT made good decisions, and he has, on public record, contradicted himself constantly to suit the whims of the moment, to rattle the cage of the American public as needed while not actually dealing with the threat.
 
Optical Serenity said:
Maybe its not that he just is not being consistent. Perhaps he is going on what intelligence reports are telling him. There are times when a not so big threat becomes a huge threat. We have gangs in our jurisdiction that sometimes are very dormant, and other times are a very realistic threat.

Don't bring logic into the rhetoric. Let's also forget that the media was making Bin Laden out to be Devil on earth, and that Bush's comments about him personally were directed towards reminding people the organization was the threat and not the man himself.

Think of it like this: Tojo launches an attack on Pearl Harbor; Roosevelt says he wants him dead; Tojo goes into hiding but the Japanese war machine goes forward. Which is the bigger threat, Tojo or the war machine? Simple answer. But just because Tojo isn't completely in charge any more, doesn't mean that when he speaks, you don't take him seriously.
 
Buzz,

stop making sense. You're supposed to carefully parse every phrase from GWB, especially ones from years ago which don't match those he says today. Get with it.
 
A good example of how Bush would be ridiculed either way.

No one really needs to ridicule Bush because he does such a good job of it himself when he says things like:

“Now, I understand there’s some in America who say, ‘Well, this can’t be true there are still people willing to attack.’

Huh? Who are these people? The only person in the United States who I've ever heard say that he is not concerned about another attack from Osama Bin Laden is George Bush himself:

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

When you have a leader like this making statements like this, there is no need for anyone to ridicule him because he's doing a perfect job of making a fool out of himself. The frightening thing is that this man has supporters who are willing to trash their Constitutional rights now and forever to further the causes of a leader so cynical that he plays politics with national security.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top