Hmmmmm…I dunno, but those look kinda different to me. But assuming that all you really meant to suggest was that capturing Osama was one of several goals of the administration, where exactly does the “backpedaling” come into play? Has Bush recently stated that that we no longer want to capture the gentleman in question?
Here is Bushs speech from Oct. 7, 2001 in which he carefully explains the goals of our military actions in Afghanistan. I won’t excerpt any of it, you can read it or not. But you won’t find the name Osama in it.
zigaretten, see the very next paragraph in the first post, where I said “I agree with you that saying that capturing Bin Ladin was the only goal, as Daschle implied, is incorrect.”
Debaser, I supplied a cite, and then quoted from it. December provided a cite, and I quoted from his cite. The context was available for any clarification needed. I pulled out what I thought was an important snippet from each cite to clarify my own point; no obfuscation was intended.
Sure we would. How often do you see people here referring to Bush as an evil, stupid, oil-hungry, power-mad, illiterate, vindictive buffoon? Christian fundamentalists dismissed en masse as idiotic bigots? These boards are rife with ad hominem attacks, and half the time nobody bats an eye. I’m not trying to justify the types of attacks that Rush sometimes uses, but let’s take off the rose-colored glasses before we start to examine the behavior of our companions here. The SMDB is light years ahead of most message boards, but the vitriol can fly pretty fast and loose here.