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?
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
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.
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.
Nope, you’ve got it wrong, here is the cite: 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
Bush promised us OBL. OBL is much more important to Al Queda than Saddam Hussein.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I am Sparticus…. This “wrong” of which you speak, I’m afraid I’m not familiar with the concept.
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 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.
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:
“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.”
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……
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.
Facts? You’ve asserted no facts that haven’t been demonstrated false. Lets go through some of them.
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.
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?
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?
’nuff said.
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?
Oh. yeah, much later. Two whole days after the attack, in fact. 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?
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?
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.
[Moderator Hat: ON]
sleestak said:
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]
[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 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:
“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 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.newspoetry.com/2001/1001.html
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.
Why……Thank you !!
How bizarre……I have always considered the use of google to be intellectual laziness……but hey, to each their own.
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.’"
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
“…….promised us OBL…….”?!? Lord have mercy, you sound like some five year old kid who didn’t get what they wanted for Christmas.
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:
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.
???
My family is dead.
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
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.
Unbelievable.
The following direct quote, with cites and verification:
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