# Why did G.W Bush wait so long to say anything about Iraq? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 21, 2002, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858 "2002-11-21T02:57:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/41 "2002-11-24T16:39:41Z")
**zigaretten** , thanks for the quote from Bush. You do understand, of course, that it provides more support than refutation of the suggestion that bin Laden is personally a prime target. The idea of killing an organization while being indifferent to its leaders is silly. There was a Dilbert strip a few Sundays ago about gradually redefining one’s objectives to match what has already been done, and declaring victory. Let’s insist on more than that, shall we? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/42 "2002-11-24T18:01:32Z")
> [@](#): > > Was Osama the principal target of the operations? Well, he sure was when they started. For a while there, Our Leader did considerable swaggering and terse sound biting as to precisely that. Herein lies the source of much of my disdain. The above quoted statement is false. If Bush did “considerable …sound biting” to the effect that Osama bin Laden was the principal or only target in our war on terror, it should be easy for you to come up with a cite to show that this is so. You have consistently failed to provide evidence of your assertion. When others have posted cites and evidence that your other assertions are false, you decline to address why you should be believed in the teeth of the evidence. Rest assured that my disdain for this kind of debating tactic is wholly unfeigned, and not the least little bit “contrived”. I have seen this from you before. You make a statement, and defy the board to disprove it. Even in cases when this occurs, you persist in misrepresenting what have been said, ignore proof to the contrary, and then resort to your usual brand of flowery snottiness. You have no credibility without evidence, and you have no evidence. Kindly produce some, or piss off. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chance_the_Gardener)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/43 "2002-11-24T18:11:53Z")
> [@](#): > > My father is much farther to the right than I am, and listens to a lot of right-wing talk radio. One of the shows he told me about had some military person on it claiming to know that Bush plans to make an assult on Iraq in December if the weapons inspection has any hitches, and that there is already ground assult weaponry and personal gathered in some corded off section of Kuwait that the media has been banned from. The person could be a crackpot, probably is, but if he’s not I guess we’ll see how serious Bush is about this thing in a couple of weeks. > **—elfkin477** You know, I’ve wavered in my belief as to whether or not Bush actually wants this war, or just wants to talk about it. Your quote certainly backs up the notion that this war is going to happen. Another thing that backs it up is what a friend of mine told me earlier this month. He said that a classmate of his at the university in eastern Ohio where he’s working on his bachelor’s told him she’s going to have to pull out of classes. She’s in the Air Force Reserve, and will be reporting soon. Of course she didn’t say where she was reporting; that’s illegal. But a few Reservists in that area have been called up. I’m pretty sure we’re going in. I was guessing February, which is when you’ve got the best weather for fighting a war in Iraq. However, there’s some logic to the December date that your dad mentioned he heard on talk radio. Ramadan ends in December, which would make a much more palatable condition for invasion. Granted, we did start bombing Afghanistan during Ramadan last year, but I suspect we won’t do that again. But you never do know for sure. ---
**Author:** ![zigaretten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/91b2a8/32.png) [@zigaretten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zigaretten)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/44 "2002-11-24T18:18:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\ ***zigaretten** , thanks for the quote from Bush. You do understand, of course, that it provides more support than refutation of the suggestion that bin Laden is personally a prime target. The idea of killing an organization while being indifferent to its leaders is silly. > \*\* No one in this thread has suggested that Bin Ladin isn’t a target. Whether or not he is a “prime” target depends entirely on ones definition of “prime”. The question is if the capture of Bin Ladin is so central to the success of the mission that the absence of this capture, to date, justifies labeling the mission a failure. The argument has been put forward that Bush himself repeatedly emphasized that the principal goal of our actions in Afghanistan was the capture (or death, whatever) of Bin Ladin. I’ve provided a couple of quotes (see above) from Bush where he carefully details our goals in Afghanistan without even mentioning Bin Ladin. The argument has been put forward that Bush emphasized the importance of Bin Ladin by stating that he wanted him “dead or alive”. I’ve provided a quote which shows that Bush said no such thing. Bush did state that Bin Ladin is a suspect and warned that other countries should not offer him safe haven. He then followed this up with a statement that he wanted justice regardless of what it takes. You might notice that from the beginning Bush has labeled our actions a war on terror. Not a war on Bin Ladin, not a war on Al Queda, but a war on terror. You’ll need explain to me how the quote you cite supports the notion that Bin Ladin is somehow more important than the entire Al Queda organization, more important than training camps where thousands of potential terrorists were indoctrinated and more important than a sovereign nation whose leadership supported terrorist activities. It would also help if you could provide some sort of cite where Bush has recently said anything other than that we are still determined to bring Bin Ladin to justice. I don’t read Dilbert. ---
**Author:** ![I\_am\_Sparticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c68b51/32.png) [@I\_am\_Sparticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_am_Sparticus)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/45 "2002-11-24T22:01:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zigaretten \* > \*\*No he didn’t. You may be right that this is what people will remember because this is the way it was played by the **media**. But lets look at what Bush actually said on September 18. 2001: > > First he stated: > > “Osama bin Laden is a prime **suspect** and the people who house him, encourage him, provide food, comfort or money, are on notice.” > > He then went on to say: > > "I want **justice**. There’s an old poster out west that says, as I recall, 'Wanted dead or alive………There’s no rules. It’s barbaric behavior … **they** slit throats of women on airplanes in order to achieve an objective that is beyond comprehension………But we’re going to smoke **them** out………” > > There is no question (in my mind at least) that Bush would like to “get” Bin Ladin. But the success or failure of the war on terror doesn’t hinge on one person. \*\* Nope, you’ve got it wrong, here is the cite: [http://www.loper.org/~george/trends/2001/Sep/40.html](http://www.loper.org/~george/trends/2001/Sep/40.html) See Bush’s remarks from September 18, 2001. Also note the reward for dead or alive on this man is a minimum of $5 million and up to $25 million, that amount being raised by the Bush Administration. But beyond being wrong, zigartten, your quote contains those all important ellipses. The cite I refer to puts the “him” directly in those ellipses, and then refers to the clarification by Ari Fleisher later in the day to close any gap that the “him” was OBL. This is repeating an Administration lie of revising history to meet the actual goal accomplished. As much as I want Saddam Hussein’s head on a pike, I wanted it 10 years ago, and not nearly as much as I want OBL’s head on a pike, preferrably now. The Christian Science Monitor also seems to think the reference was to OBL personally. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0627/p01s04-wosc.html](http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0627/p01s04-wosc.html) Bush promised us OBL. OBL is much more important to Al Queda than Saddam Hussein. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/46 "2002-11-24T22:12:24Z")
Don’t make excuses, **zigaretten**. This is too important a matter. No, there will be no cites where Bush said Osama isn’t a prime target. There aren’t any. The _lack_ of statements from him about it, combined with the volume of those about another foe he _does_ know how to locate instead, are what say so. ---
**Author:** ![I\_am\_Sparticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c68b51/32.png) [@I\_am\_Sparticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_am_Sparticus)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/47 "2002-11-24T23:19:12Z")
Besides which, it is a military mistake and political mistake not to make OBL a primary objective. What concerns me about the Iraq thing is not that Hussein must die (and he must, and a new regime put in), but rather that OBL is a greater immediate threat to the citizens of the US and that the focus has been turned elsewhere. As much of a problem as I see Hussein, he is an entirely different problem than Al Queda and OBL. We have a duty and moral responsibility to either avenge or bring to justice the perps of 9/11. There is zero evidence that Saddam Hussein was even unwittingly involved. Changing the focus at such a high level and on such a high priority basis just doesn’t make good sense. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2002, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/48 "2002-11-25T14:50:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by I am Sparticus \* > \*\*Nope, you’ve got it wrong, here is the cite: [http://www.loper.org/~george/trends/2001/Sep/40.html](http://www.loper.org/~george/trends/2001/Sep/40.html) > See Bush’s remarks from September 18, 2001. > \*\* Your cite does not establish what you think it does. ObL is indeed a target. He is not the only or primary target in the war on terrorism. The undoubted fact that we would like him dead or in custody does not establish that he is the only target. Other targets include the Taliban, Saddam, etc. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by I am Sparticus \* > \*\* > Also note the reward for dead or alive on this man is a minimum of $5 million and up to $25 million, that amount being raised by the Bush Administration. > \*\* You did notice that the wanted poster to which you linked lists ObL’s crimes from before 9/11, did you not? ObL has been wanted for his previous acts of terror long before Bush came into office. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by I am Sparticus \* > \*\* > Bush promised us OBL. OBL is much more important to Al Queda than Saddam Hussein. \*\* You have not established that Bush promised us ObL. And the war on terror includes more than simply al-Queda. Bush has never stated or implied that getting Osama bin Laden is the only or primary purpose of the war on terror. ObL is one target among many. Iraqi compliance with inspections is another. I rather suspect that Bush’s enemies are focussing on the fact that ObL is still alive as a reason to label the WoT as a failure. Once he is dead or captured, they will find something else. :shrugs: Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![zigaretten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/91b2a8/32.png) [@zigaretten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zigaretten)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2002, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/49 "2002-11-25T16:04:40Z")
**I am Sparticus** …. This “wrong” of which you speak, I’m afraid I’m not familiar with the concept. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by I am Sparticus \* > See Bush’s remarks from September 18, 2001. Also note the reward for dead or alive on this man is a minimum of $5 million and up to $25 million, that amount being raised by the Bush as I want OBL’s head on a pike, preferrably now. I hate to break it to you, but that isn’t an official administration site, you can tell by the **joke** ad at the bottom. [Here](http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/laden.htm) is the official FBI site. No “Dead or Alive” on it. Though that’s beside the point because I’ll happily concede that the U.S. does, in fact, want Osama “dead or alive” (though I wonder which they would prefer). I’d also just like to emphasize that when you say that the Bush administration “raised” the amount that you mean that they “increased” the amount. There was already a $5 million dollar reward dating from June, 1999. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by I am Sparticus \* > But beyond being wrong, zigartten, your quote contains those all important ellipses… Indeed, when **I** provide the quote then **I** get to decide where to put the ellipses. Just like your site gets to leave off the parts where Bush states that Bin Ladin is a **suspect** and discusses what **they** did and how Bush wants to smoke **them** out. And even on your site Bush just does not say that he (or we or anyone) wants Bin Ladin “dead or alive”. He says he wants **justice** and emphasizes how strongly he wants it by referencing “dead or alive” wanted posters. But more to the point, Bush certainly doesn’t say that capturing Bin Ladin is the primary, central, principal, overriding, dominant, main, foremost, chief, primary, head or only goal of his administration. I’ll give credit where credit is due, you at least provided an instance where Bush states that he wants Bin Ladin (which beats Maureen Dowd columns, Dilbert cartoons and a pair of deuces) and with a little work you ought to be able to find plenty of instances where Bush says that he wants to capture the man. But that’s not good enough. You need to convince me that Bush has “redefined” his goals to cover up some failure. In order to do this you either need to show me that Bush once considered the capture of Bin Ladin to be of paramount importance or that he has recently downgraded that importance. So far, I haven’t seen any evidence of either. As recently as November 13, when we received the tape which gave us the first real indication in some time that Osama was still alive, Bush [stated](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021113-1.html): “Whoever put this tape out (who we now know to be Osama) has put the world on notice yet again that we’re at war……… **It doesn’t matter how long it takes, we’ll find them and bring them to justice** ….There is an international manhunt on. I warn the American people that this is going to take time to achieve our objective. We’re in a different kind of war. It’s a war that requires international cooperation. We’ve got to cut off their money, we’ve got to share intelligence. And we’re on a manhunt. And we’re not quitting. Slowly but surely, we’re achieving our objective.” > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by ElvisL1ves_ > Don’t make excuses, zigaretten. This is too important a matter. I’m not aware that I’m making excuses. And as for the rest of your argument….well….uh……there doesn’t really seem to be any argument there…… ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2002, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/50 "2002-11-25T23:43:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\*Take that to the Pit, Mr. Moderator. Here, board etiquette demands a cite, or a retraction. What’s it gonna be? \*\* A cite of what, precisely? The lie you told was “You seem content to leave the leader alone while taking out some of his organizations, and calling that success.” No, you’ll get no cite on that from me. Because a) it was you making this assertion, so the cite is on you. Go ahead – find a citation that the U.S. is “leav(ing) the leader alone”; and b) The statement is so silly that you might as well be claiming that the sun rises in the west and asking for cites to the contrary. We’re still chasing Osama. We’re still active in Afghanistan. We’re active in countries all over the world looking for him _and_ his. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/51 "2002-11-26T01:33:00Z")
> [@](#): > > So, facts are too tiresome for your debating style, but slurs on your opponents loyalties are just the thing. But your just warming up, aren’t you? Facts? You’ve asserted no facts that haven’t been demonstrated false. Lets go through some of them. > [@](#): > > Maureen Dowd, in her column yesterday, made the assertion that, at least in terms of public utterances, the words “Osama bin Laden” had not passed the President’s lips in four months. IIRC, she’s right. Took care of this. In fairness, you included “IIRC” in saying she was correct, so it wasn’t really your wrong fact, but Dowd’s. Cool. Let’s move on. > [@](#): > > It wasn’t that long ago that OBL was “priority number one”. Gotta get him, gonna get him. Our Leader loves being seen in assertive, macho poses making flat statements like that. Didn’t happen. Viewed in that light, the Afghan campaign was a flop. As much as was plausible, public attenton was focused on the removal of the Taliban, skillfully evading the original intent. But it was over, there was nobody there left to bomb. Public attention began to drift toward certain unseemly subjects. We’re still going after ObL. What, you think he’s hanging out on the Riviera playing Parcheesi with Idi Amin or something? And the war on terror has _always_ been about more than bin Laden. Why are you lying otherwise? > [@](#): > > We didn’t accomplish d for diddly squat in Afghanistan except to make a miserable and Godforsaken place more of the same. Oh, and overthrow the government. Whether the new regime does better than the taliban remains to be seen. This ain’t a sitcom – you don’t get a resolution after a half-hour. Why did you lie? > [@](#): > > Luckily for us our fate lies in his hands, rather than President-elect Gore. ’nuff said. > [@](#): > > Your bald assertions of effective action are based on nothing more than the self same assertions from the Admin. Apparently, you find this utterly convincing, no further questions need be raised. Was it you complaining of how we were treating the prisoners on Guantanamo? No matter, it was a subject on this board, so you know they exist. Where do you suppose they came from? Did the U.S. government plant the picture of that car we blew up in Yemen? Did the U.S. government identify the dead guy as Abu Ali (hint: no. He was personally identified by a reporter from a Yemen newspaper). There is more than adequate independent evidence that we are making war on al Qaeda and that the war is making progress. No one is asserting that the war is over. Well, except for you. Why are you lying? > [@](#): > > It was rather later that more sophisticated guidelines for measuring success were introduced. Oh. yeah, much later. [Two whole days after the attack, in fact.](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010929.html) President Bush: “As all these actions make clear, our war on terror will be much broader than the battlefields and beachheads of the past. This war will be fought wherever terrorists hide, or run, or plan. Some victories will be won outside of public view, in tragedies avoided and threats eliminated. Other victories will be clear to all. Our weapons are military and diplomatic, financial and legal.” Why are you lying? > [@](#): > > And as to their being arrested, or hounded, thats all to the good. It was precisely that approach that persons like myself had first recommended. You seem determined to believe that such arrests are necessarily the result of military action in Afghanistan, I suggest they might just have easily been ratted out by thier brother in law. Um. At least some of these guys are being picked up because they are _no longer in Afghanistan, what with it not being safe and all_! Others are in fact being rooted out by others, just as the president said they would on September 15 and dozens and dozens of times since. And a few, having been chased out of Afghanistan, are being blown to bits by the U.S. military in other countries. Why are you lying? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/52 "2002-11-26T02:30:38Z")
**Manhattan** your last post contains nothing more than bald assertions, supported by nothing more than your indignant insistence. Finally, the gem of the civility and clarity of your argumentative style, you end each with the accusation that one who disagrees is lying. I can only hope, sir, that your life is less wretched than your sytle of discourse, as I cannot afford to send you any money. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/53 "2002-11-26T03:27:35Z")
[Moderator Hat: ON] sleestak said: > [@](#): > > You are a total idiot. Who, really, is the total idiot? I mean, would a smart person so obviously violate the rules of Great Debates with such a blatant insult? And then make sure by adding an additional “Idiot” at the end of the message? Something to think about as you make sure you **don’t do it again**. * * * David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator [Moderator Hat: OFF] ---
**Author:** ![I\_am\_Sparticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c68b51/32.png) [@I\_am\_Sparticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_am_Sparticus)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/54 "2002-11-26T03:55:01Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by zigaretten \* \*\ ***I am Sparticus** …. This “wrong” of which you speak, I’m afraid I’m not familiar with the concept. \*\* Zig, that you are unfamiliar with the concept of wrong doesn’t surprise me in the least. \*\*I hate to break it to you, but that isn’t an official administration site, you can tell by the **joke** ad at the bottom. \*\* I never said it was an official administration site, it was, however an accurate and full quote, something you are incapable of. It does contain the exact same language that the official White House website quotes for the day, leaving no doubt that GW Bush wanted to get OBL when he made the remarks on Sept 17 or 18, 2002. The fact that there is a joke link at the bottom of the page I cited to is not indicative of Bush’s remarks, which were accurately reported and in full accordance of my usually good memory, and recorded all over the internet all around the world, including, as mentioned at the White House official web site. For those (no names necessary) too intellectually lazy to use google to find these sites, some (including the White House site) are provided below. The cite refers as its sources to The New York Times (of suspect credibility in my book) and the Christian Science Monitor (beyond reproach in my book) as its sources for the Bush statement: Question asked of George Bush during a recent visit to the Pentagon: Do you want bin Laden dead? Answer: I want him - I want justice. And there’s an old poster out West, as I recall, that said “Wanted: Dead or Alive” \*\* [Here](http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/laden.htm) is the official FBI site. No “Dead or Alive” on it. Though that’s beside the point because I’ll happily concede that the U.S. does, in fact, want Osama “dead or alive” (though I wonder which they would prefer). I’d also just like to emphasize that when you say that the Bush administration “raised” the amount that you mean that they “increased” the amount. There was already a $5 million dollar reward dating from June, 1999. \*\* The FBI site does not purport to report Bush’s remarks on the subject. The amount has, as other posters have noted, been upped to $25 million, you may read their posts. \*\*Indeed, when **I** provide the quote then **I** get to decide where to put the ellipses. Just like your site gets to leave off the parts where Bush states that Bin Ladin is a **suspect** and discusses what **they** did and how Bush wants to smoke **them** out. And even on your site Bush just does not say that he (or we or anyone) wants Bin Ladin “dead or alive”. He says he wants **justice** and emphasizes how strongly he wants it by referencing “dead or alive” wanted posters. \*\* Wrong. Mistaken. Pigheaded. Full of prunes. Yes, and I get to challenge the propriety of the uses of ellipses, and characterize their misuse as intentional lies on your part, which they are. Bush says they want “him” dead or alive in response to a direct question. \*\*But more to the point, Bush certainly doesn’t say that capturing Bin Ladin is the primary, central, principal, overriding, dominant, main, foremost, chief, primary, head or only goal of his administration. I’ll give credit where credit is due, you at least provided an instance where Bush states that he wants Bin Ladin (which beats Maureen Dowd columns, Dilbert cartoons and a pair of deuces) and with a little work you ought to be able to find plenty of instances where Bush says that he wants to capture the man. But that’s not good enough. You need to convince me that Bush has “redefined” his goals to cover up some failure. In order to do this you either need to show me that Bush once considered the capture of Bin Ladin to be of paramount importance or that he has recently downgraded that importance. So far, I haven’t seen any evidence of either. \*\* I never said it was the only, primary, central, etc. goal. I said it was one damn important one. I don’t need to provide you any information about Bush redefining his goals to your satisfaction, as you have already admitted that you don’t know the meaning of the word wrong. Bush stated OBL dead or alive was a goal of his. As for all the adjectives about first, primary, overriding, etc., etc. I never said that Bush had said those things. I stated that he had made it a goal, and it was one of the first things he said and one of the most memorable and in my opinion, most important. It is as important as taking out Hitler or Tojo in WWII. If Bush does not want to capture or kill OBL he is, in my opinion, making a grave mistake. It is clear to me from his backing off this originally quite satisfying language that he doesn’t think he has a very good chance of delivering. And if he keeps refocusing his priorities, his chances of delivering OBL decline. It is called leadership. His proxies are now trying to claim he never said he’d get OBL, or put it anywhere on a priority list, and it just isn’t important. How’s that for leadership and integrity? He is deserting on the OBL issue. Bush said he wanted him dead or alive, and the American people are entitled to that vengeance or justice as the case may be. **As recently as November 13, when we received the tape which gave us the first real indication in some time that Osama was still alive**. . . The first public indication, except for the intercepted telephone calls and videotapes, which were considered pre- Tora Bora attack. The government has not made public (nor should it make public) all of its information. \*\*Bush [stated](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021113-1.html): “Whoever put this tape out (who we now know to be Osama) has put the world on notice yet again that we’re at war……… **It doesn’t matter how long it takes, we’ll find them and bring them to justice** ….There is an international manhunt on. I warn the American people that this is going to take time to achieve our objective. We’re in a different kind of war. It’s a war that requires international cooperation. We’ve got to cut off their money, we’ve got to share intelligence. And we’re on a manhunt. And we’re not quitting. Slowly but surely, we’re achieving our objective.” \*\* Gee, that kinda proves my point that they have promised to bring Osama to justice. I would just like the government to focus on the number one priority: OBL and Al Queda, who have attacked us, not Iraq, which has never attacked us. Iraq can wait for another day. As far as international cooperation goes, the Bush administration is going out of its way to discourage such, its latest effort being to refuse a meeting with the German Chancellor at an upcoming summit. A review of various foreign press will indicate that our allies are furious with the Bush Administration for announcing plans without consulting them first. Asking them after the plans have been made, particularly the situation with Iraq, has cost us dearly in goodwill it took us 60 years and trillions of dollars to build up. Other cites confirming quote that Zigartten denies is accurate: [http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/17/194022.shtml](http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/17/194022.shtml) Referring to bin Laden, Bush added, “All I want, and America want, is him brought to justice.” **He knew then what he wanted, but his apologists deny he said it now.** The official White House cites quotes the language correctly, which you surely must have run across and omitted during your search of the site. Your credibility is worthless. Q Do you want bin Laden dead? ``` THE PRESIDENT: I want justice. There's an old poster out west, as I recall, that said, "Wanted: Dead or Alive." Q Do you see this being long-term? You were saying it's long-term, do you see an end, at all? THE PRESIDENT: I think that this is a long-term battle, war. There will be battles. But this is long-term. After all, our mission is not just Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda organization. Our mission is to battle terrorism and to join with freedom loving people. ``` [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-3.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-3.html) [http://www.newspoetry.com/2001/1001.html](http://www.newspoetry.com/2001/1001.html) [http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/09/18/stories/01180003.htm](http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/09/18/stories/01180003.htm) That Bush apologists would attempt to re write history by going out and arguing on message boards that Bush never promised us OBL is simply disgusting. ---
**Author:** ![zigaretten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/91b2a8/32.png) [@zigaretten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zigaretten)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/55 "2002-11-26T05:50:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by I am Sparticus \* > Zig, that you are unfamiliar with the concept of wrong doesn’t surprise me in the least. Why……Thank you !! > [@](#): > > For those (no names necessary) too intellectually lazy to use google…… How bizarre……I have always considered the use of google to **be** intellectual laziness……but hey, to each their own. > [@](#): > > ……it was, however an **accurate and full quote** , something you are incapable of…… From your first site: “I want him - I want justice. And there’s an old poster out West, as I recall, that said “Wanted: Dead or Alive”.” What I quoted: “……I want justice. There’s an old poster out west that says, as I recall, 'Wanted dead or alive………” From your brand spanking new _official_ White House site: Q Do you want bin Laden dead? THE PRESIDENT: I want justice. There’s an old poster out west, as I recall, that said, “Wanted: Dead or Alive.” From your Newsmax source: “I want justice……There’s an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’" > [@](#): > > Your credibility is worthless. I can see why you feel that way…….transposing “as I recall” and “that said” is unforgivable. By the way, do you actually read your cites before you use them? > [@](#): > > Bush says they want “him” dead or alive in response to a direct question. Well, not according your above citations. In fact, if we look again at your White House site, we find that the press tried to pin the President down on this point and Bush refused to confirm that interpretation: Q Are you saying you want him dead or alive, sir? Can I interpret – THE PRESIDENT: I just remember, 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.” All I want and America wants him brought to justice. That’s what we want. > [@](#): > > Wrong. Mistaken. Pigheaded. Full of prunes. Yes, and I get to challenge the propriety of the uses of ellipses, and characterize their misuse as intentional lies on your part, which they are. Well…which is it? You are free to call me a liar, a knave and a detriment to the community. Trust me, I’ve been called worse. > [@](#): > > I don’t need to provide you any information about Bush redefining his goals to your satisfaction…… True, you don’t **need** to post at all. I _supposed_ that you originally posted this “quote” in support of the argument that Bush has redefined his goals; but I am perfectly willing to believe that you just threw it into the ring as some completely irrelevant bit of trivia that you felt a need to share. > [@](#): > > Gee, that kinda proves my point that they have promised to bring Osama to justice. And gee, it kinda proves my point that they are still promising to bring Osama to justice (or, more realistically; to do everything in their power to bring Osama to justice). > [@](#): > > That Bush apologists would attempt to re write history by going out and arguing on message boards that Bush never promised us OBL is simply disgusting. “…….promised us OBL…….”?!? Lord have mercy, you sound like some five year old kid who didn’t get what they wanted for Christmas. ---
**Author:** ![I\_am\_Sparticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c68b51/32.png) [@I\_am\_Sparticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_am_Sparticus)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/56 "2002-11-26T06:22:49Z")
Sorry Zig, but you need to eat crow on this one, you denied that he ever made reference to OBL in the dead or alive statement: ## quote: ## Originally posted by I am Sparticus Bush declared that we would get him “dead or alive.” That is the statement the public will remember. No he didn’t. You may be right that this is what people will remember because this is the way it was played by the media. But lets look at what Bush actually said on September 18. 2001: First he stated: “Osama bin Laden is a prime suspect and the people who house him, encourage him, provide food, comfort or money, are on notice.” He then went on to say: "I want justice. There’s an old poster out west that says, as I recall, 'Wanted dead or alive………There’s no rules. It’s barbaric behavior … they slit throats of women on airplanes in order to achieve an objective that is beyond comprehension………But we’re going to smoke them out………” There is no question (in my mind at least) that Bush would like to “get” Bin Ladin. But the success or failure of the war on terror doesn’t hinge on one person. Does that refresh your recollection? He said it, he meant it. You denied it, you were W R O N G. Look it up. Your family will be grateful once you have assumed the adult position of being able to acknowledge that you were W R O N G. Ever since the day Bush made the comment, they have been very silent and downplaying the importance of delivering the MFer OBL’s head on a pike, but if they don’t deliver, even conservatives will abandon the Bushistas. They have been pretending it was never said, just like you did. ---
**Author:** ![zigaretten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/91b2a8/32.png) [@zigaretten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zigaretten)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/57 "2002-11-26T06:37:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by I am Sparticus \* > Sorry Zig, but you need to eat crow on this one, you **denied that he ever made reference to OBL** in the dead or alive statement: > [@](#): > > First he (zig) stated: > > "Osama bin Laden……… ??? > [@](#): > > Your family will be grateful once you have assumed the adult position of being able to acknowledge that you were W R O N G. My family is dead. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/58 "2002-11-26T15:47:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > You suggest that a threat dispersed is a threat diminished. The strategic nuance of that evades me. This statement is mind-boggling. I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “divide and conquer”? How about Ben Franklin’s statement when the Declaration of Independence was signed: “we must hang together, or surely we will all hang separately”? It is axiomatic in strategic theory that a dispersed enemy is less dangerous than an enemy that is concentrated. The Germans didn’t defeat France because they killed all the French soldiers - indeed, there were still huge numbers of French soldiers under arms when France surrendered. The Germans defeated France because they were able to break through French lines and _isolate_ the various French units from each other, so they could not work together to push the Germans back. But let’s make this simple. Say you are leading a squad of 20 soldiers. There are ten enemy soldiers out there. Would you prefer to (a) attack all ten of them together, with 2-1 odds, or (b) separate the ten from each other, and fight them individually, at 20-1 odds each time? You may have a point in some other argument, **elucidator.** You don’t have one here. Sua ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/59 "2002-11-26T17:14:18Z")
**manhattan** : Offering an interpretation that disagrees with the Rush Limbaugh Party Line, or even makes you feel uncomfortable instead of smug, is now “lying”? I pointed out the lack of success in anything significantly measurable, while simultaneously making clear the mismatch between reality and your desires. Deal with it - we base debates on fact and reason here. I apologize for my mistake in thinking you were a responsible adult. You called me a liar, and, in effect a traitor, without factual support of either. That is called libel (or is it slander, message boards being less permanent than paper? Got a legal ruling, somebody?). Whichever. It is not respectable conduct and you should know better. Still waiting for either the pitting or the retraction, Mister Moderator. Don’t forget the “Ditto” next time, either. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/60 "2002-11-26T18:57:51Z")
Unbelievable. The following direct quote, with cites and verification: > [@](#): > > THE PRESIDENT: … After all, our mission is not just Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda organization. Our mission is to battle terrorism and to join with freedom loving people. > [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20010917-3.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20010917-3.html) > > [http://www.newspoetry.com/2001/1001.html](http://www.newspoetry.com/2001/1001.html) > [http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/...es/01180003.htm](http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/...es/01180003.htm) is followed by a claim that Bush “promised us bin Laden” _in the very next paragraph_. A quote where Bush says that his primary focus is **not** bin Laden is interpreted as saying that he is. And posts pointing out, line by line, where a poster has been making misstatements of fact are brusquely dismissed as containing “no facts”. Arguments I can counter. Flames I can ignore, or return. But I have no idea how to address a bald-faced assertion that black is white, down is up, war is peace, and freedom is slavery. And certainly not the assertion that ignorance is strength. I feel like it is “a bright cold day in April, and the clocks are striking thirteen.” Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858.md?page=4)