What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
82 Comments
- whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+43it's not hearsay, bush has said multiple times that Bin Laden isn't a priority...
"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 - 4Crimson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31Martalli, Bush did say this in 2002:
Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html - sremick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Wish they'd make up their minds.
9/14 Bush: "Osama is a low priority"
9/10 Cheney: "Osama is a top priority"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14720480/
Cheney: "...Bin Laden has been a top priority for us from the very beginning, he continues to be a top priority today. That hasn’t changed. The president and I get periodic reports on our efforts in that regard. There’s been no lessening of our interest or of our activity..." - gronne, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25"I'm too busy bombing democracy into the cradle of civilization to try and catch the guy that wants to bomb us back to the stone age. Don't you get that? (insert weird laugh)
- jimbecile, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21but it's hearsay from Fred Barnes, Mr. Party Line. It's not even like it was an editor for the Washington Post- this is literally the house organ.
- fatcat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19then why the ***** are we at war, i thought it was because OSAMA bombed the WTC
- oxyrubber, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Bush has said this in front of cameras. whiskeymb is exactly correct.
My question is: he is still on the FBI top 10 fugitives list, FBI's top terrorist, has a multimillion dollar reward/bounty on his head. If we aren't spending resources on finding him, does that mean we are spending fewer resources finding other terrorists?
Is keeping Osama alive but hiding a way to instill more "fear" in American civilians? And what is with down-grading the terrorism threats in populated states like New York and upgrading threats in Ohio and Iowa? This has to be some ploy to earmark more money for less-populated states that have Senators/Reps in key committees. - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17@ryno35
capturing Bin Laden or killing him won't stop "radical islamic fascists" from attacking us, but you know what it WOULD do, it would put a huge dent in their operations, it would give a significant morale boost to the american public and it would fullfil the promise bush has made to this country time and time again, that he would capture Bin Laden.
Bush is not a man of his word, he is a man of whatever word will get him support at that time. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I know where Osama is...he's hiding somewhere in Iraq. You know, next to the WMDs.
- flernk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16@ryno35
"islamo-fascists"?
Your entire comment was rendered useless. And you have the gaul to complain about supposed Democratic "repeated arguments"? You're silly. - totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Cheney is probably giving Bush a stern talking to about this right now.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17***** you, George Walker Bush.
- dswinscoe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9actually ryno35, if you'd turn off FOX, and start reading about the region, you'd find that contrary to media-induced belief, the US and UK have done more through continuous meddling, regime change and illegal new order operations to indoctrinate new radical fundamentalists than any other native organization. And please, just stop it with the Islamo-fascist crap ... it's racist and stupid.
- right75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Why do you liberals believe Fred Barnes, a conservative publisher, now? If he were saying something else, you'd call him a liar. Since he is saying what you want to hear does this lend more "credibility" to his journalism?
- philonous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This is not exactly a reliable source that you cite.
- radixus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If this quote is actually true then I'm shocked! We all know Osama was one of the key players, if not the main player for the 9/11 attacks.
But really, if memory serves me correct, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor we didn't ship out and invade India or something. No we went directly after the players involved.
How is this getting this guy not a priority. Looks like they have their priorities out of alignment! - jenny1978, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Why would he look for his buddy he knows where he is. OBL is probably at Camp David hunting or something. Why do you think Bush takes so many vacations. (j/k)
- helix400, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10And....I'm already getting modded down for pointing out facts with references.
To those trying to censor history...sorry...it doesn't work. You can't retroactively make Bush say things he never said. Bush never said "I don't care" about finding bin Laden. This is a made up quote that has been circulating around the web for years now. - 4degrees, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3correction: his OLD finance structure... im sure OBL or whom ever is leading terrorists is working on or already has a NEW finance structure.
Im sure that terrorists are not like the Simpsons and try something only once. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"OBL is probably not planning anything, and now without his finance structure, is probably not financing anything."
I'm betting OBL is financing the Taliban in Afghanistan. I think he considers putting the Taliban in power the biggest accomplishment of his war, and is not happy they've been overthrown. Remember, his primary goal is to replace Middle East govts. with Islamic theocracies and remove "infidel" troops from holy lands.
You're nuts if you think people are no longer giving him money. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4helix....you're taking away the liberals power to misquote correctly...
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Get a clue.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14726670/
"New video shows bin Laden planning attacks
91-minute montage airs on Web site on eve of fifth anniversary" - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3""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"
Actually if you read the transcript from that press release...he never even said the word 'priority'. And you have to read the context of the question he was answering.
So this quote is completely made up. - tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Fred Barnes is a notorious defender of Bush at the most ridiculuous of situations. Most of the people at the Weekly Standard are.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"OBL is probably not planning anything, and now without his finance structure, is probably not financing anything."
Bin Laden got permission from a cleric to kill up to 10 million Americans through jihad
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/22/amanpour.binladen/index.html
Asking your enemy to convert to Islam is a step you need to take before you wage jihad, according to Bin Laden's beliefs. Done.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/02/zawahiri.tape/index.html
I think more attacks are on the way - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Yes, and look at the context. It helps to read the two questions and repsonses in full.
The reporter asked about the THREAT bin Laden posed after 9/11.
Bush replied with "I'm not concerned about that. Bin Laden is right now probably in a cave. We know he's not directing his operatives right now. So the threat I am concerned about, is Al Qaeda remnants still attacking us."
Or in other words, Bush never touched on the issue of whether he is concerned about finding him. He was only responding directly to if bin Laden could, at the time, direct any new attacks that the US. And to that, Bush sayd "I'm not concerned". - Amplix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Thats quite a hole you're digging there Mr President...
- schlurp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Okayyyy, so pissing away a few trillion dollars on killing 10,000s of muslim civilians (which is somehow supposed to make muslims less inclined to commit acts of terrorism) for no reason whatsoever was the top priority after 9/11, while there is obviously no urgency to get the guy who is responsible.
Makes perfect sense - philonous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, when you have blown every chance to catch bin laden, of course he is no longer a high priority. There was a possibility when he was on the run in Afghanistan, but now that he is entrenched in the most unreachable place on earth, the Afghan-Pak border, then we will not be able to catch him.
And, of course, when the Iraqi conflict is sucking resources out of your government at a break-neck pace and threatening to make an ass out of you at any moment, then bin laden will NOT be a priority.
It's funny. Bush's confession is an admission of opportunities lost, but it's a shame that few will see it for what it is. We could have caught bin laden, could have brought democracy to Iraq, could have had a great economy, could have had fiscal responsibility, could have stopped terrorists, could have...
Bush could have done lots of good things. Instead, his tenure has been marked by one calamitous mistake after another.
http://www.minoofar.com/wordpress/?p=55
http://www.minoofar.com/wordpress/?p=56
P - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2dswinscoe,
It's possible that the US can both be looking for bin Laden, fight a war in Afghanistan, and fight a war in Iraq. I think what Bush was also getting at is that you can saturate resources in finding bin Laden, and they've always been at or near that point.
As for the Bush concerned quote, i've already responded to that earlier. Other posters know I'm not some GOP talking points regurgitator. I just want political debate to be accurate. - Olney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As an American those statements hurt...
Not a Priority???? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jvillano
There is a big difference between disagreement, and disrespect. I disagree with a lot of your points, but I will try my best to not disrespect you. On the other hand, I am guilty of making snide remarks to people on this very site. They are not the president of my country, but I think you'd agree that is not the right thing to do.
You brought up a very good example in President Clinton. I did not vote for Bill Clinton, but not once during his entire presidency did I say anything disrespectful about him. Not one time did my wife say anything disrespectful about him. I supported him because he was the president of our country. I believe that some of the things that he did while he was president were despicable, but I did not voice that opinion.
What good would it have done? Would it do my country any good to get a thousand people to agree with me on those points? Would it have helped my country in any way that those thousand got another thousand each to agree with them? And so on it goes, and a lot of conservatives are very guilty of this same thing as you well know. The very thing that happened when Bill Clinton was president is happening today. In conversations concerning policies that I disagreed with, I would state that I did not agree with this policy, but that I supported him. I am not talking about his policies of office interns. I believe that the way he was drug through the muck was abhorrent. Just as I believe that the way President Bush is being drug through the muck is abhorrent.
Say you have one hundred million people that agree with you that President "Bush lied and people died". So what? What does that do but divide us into groups? We are Americans. I could go on and on, but I think you get my point. I do not happen to think that the war in Iraq is a catastrophe. I do believe things could have been handled better, but I am not the one that was in a position to make those decisions, so second guessing them does no one any good and it's not going to change the decision. All it serves is to divide. Where I can change things is when it's time to vote again.
If you'll notice in my post above, it is calling the republicans hypocrites just as much as liberals. We are divided for no purpose and to no end. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I didn't say anything about whether or not you believed him, my man.
- dswinscoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'll retract for now - thank your for the WikiQuotes reminder. Sorry that I've repeated something apparently misquoted. That said, I think you are still misleading with your comments. You know very well, that Bush (and now Cheney) have said that OBL is a priority. Even according to WikiQuotes: "And, again, I don't know where he is. I — I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run."
So now that we have that established, hopefully to you exacting grammatical precision, do you still want to argue that he hasn't varied the focus on Iraq numerous times to suit his ultimate agenda? Didn't we want him "Dead Or Alive," even if we have to "smoke him out?" Come on, stop playing the GOP wordsmith crap with us, ok? - gd007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1is this a paradigm shift from 'wanted dead or alive'?
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/696wnfcp.asp
Here's the Weekly Standard article. - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I want to start a new EXTREMIST religion that says anyone who wastes this much time of my life trying to make me afraid deserves some severe psychological ***** with. I am sick and tired of seeing "terrorism" on TV every day. I wouldn't be afraid if it weren't on the news all damn day.
I am an extremist capitalism and I think all this wasted air time is *****. I believe in kicking ass when needed but idle threats will not be heeded. Threaten all you like, I am not listening. War speaks for itself. To win a war you have to be 10x as ruthless and make them scared. I think the media forces us to be pussies (America) and prolongs the war.
Kick the media out of Iraq, make the ***** come out, scare them, let them know we mean business - OR leave. Leave and never come back.
I am sick of our government trying to make us afraid. We elected you to do your job, not spin us for personal endeavors! - Pancake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Am I the only one who gets physically worked up and angry whenever I hear or see anything Bush-related? Its like an allergic reaction.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Someone's lying: http://digg.com/politics/Bush_says_the_hunt_for_Osama_bin_Laden_has_not_slackened
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Considering that his fam and Osama's all hang out and play Bridge, is anyone really surprised? I seriously doubt the plan was to ever capture him.
- MaxDrax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dear George. ***** you from me too. I wish there were a Hell for you to burn in. Maybe you'll die in a rocket attack when freedom-loving nations come to liberate the United States and the World from your tyranny.
Funny thing. I'd actually fight against those forces. I'd become an insurgent. I'd kill any foreign soldier by any means at my disposal that sought to occupy the United States. I'd even learn how to make and effectively distribute IEDs.
If captured, my hope would be that the foreign invaders would observe Geneva Convention guidelines on torture. - Shinta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What about you retard liberals and your 9/11 conspiracies hinting at the conservatives for doing 9/11 or the Jews for playing America?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ lakawak
"the war was never baout [sic] finding ONE ***** guy who is nothing more than a figurehead."
so this is not really Bush speaking...?
"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
"Yes, he helped plan 9/11. But NO more so than he helped plan the 1993 bombings."
The 1993 WTC bombing has never been reliably proved to be anything to do with al-Qaeda. Ramzi Yousef was a Kuwaiti (Kuwait, our allies in the first Iraqi war?), with dual American citizenship. He claimed to belong to a totally different terrorist group.
"Swing Sets"? Seriously? For eight years he hid behind "Swing Sets?"
@TubaTechno & helix400
You are indeed correct. Bush never said ""I don't know where bin Laden is"
He actually said "So I don't know where he is".
He did not say "I have no idea and really don't care."
He actually said "again, I don't know where he is.".
He did not say "It's not that important. It's not our priority."
He actually said "You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you." and " I truly am not that concerned about him."
Apologies to all concerned for the confusion :|
@cliffzdude
Do you tuly belive that they "are so pissed off that we let our women run around with their faces "naked" that we deserve to be killed"?
I thought most Americans were better educated that that, but it seems that some poor souls fell through the gaps in the system. I can only apologise on behalf of the western world for the failings in the system, and hope you find some form or recompence at some point in the future.
My Aunt runs -pre-school classes, and informs me that she would be more than willing to help you get up to that level of education. Just let me know... - KMChina, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bush is right..if Clinton or Gore had said this, all you "progressives" would be applauding them..hypocrites....Osama would be a nice catch, but to expend resources that could be more usefully employed saving lives on the task of killing one man is pointless....Especially as his death would have little impact on the fight in Iraq or the overall war on terror...it would be a symbolic win, but not a military win......Bush needs to ratchet up the troop levels and do the job properly...I wish he would stop pandering to the political whims of the "Chamberlain" crowd and get of with the task at hand and hand the Islamic nutcases their wish of eternal life with 72 virgins...And BTW, 72 virgins would at most only last 72 days with me...then what? An eternity of nagging from 72 "wives"?...Does not sound like "heaven" to me...
- e3boy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's not a priority because it was the Pakistani ISI (secret service) who organized 911.
One of the most comprehensive sites out there:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org
It's NOT a consipracy theory site, it's a complete timeline of 911 events. pre & post.
The info was gathered from little known stories barried in the back pages of the main stream media. - Tanbo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Honestly (and I haven't clicked on your link), Pakistan is for more involved than people realize.
I'm not saying the ISI organized 9/11, but they likely knew about it and did nothing to stop it. Furthermore, the Pakistani government has decided to make peace with the terrorists in order to appease the unruly border region. Surely you can imagine nothing would bring greater unrest in those regions than capturing or killing Bin Laden, so dont count on the Paki government to do it, or to allow us to either.
Which is why we have to really just do our own thing. Troops that have squandered their time and effort in Iraq should be out in these regions of Pakistan in full force, hunting Bin Laden - for however long it takes. Bin Laden is key to the war on terror. He's still the man at the top, the one who inspires islamic fascists round the world, gives them hope.
Never trust others to do your own job. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Pelosi was quoted as saying:
"Even if he is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late, He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But in fact, the damage that he has done is done. And even to capture him now, I don't think makes us any safer."
Of course the republicans wanted to take her down for this statement even though our President and Vice President have made similar statements. Here on this site we experience liberals ranting about what President Bush said, but no mention of what Pelosi said. Hypocrisy abounds. Politicians are liars and we are divided as a nation because of these liars. People need to examine who they're voting for and vote. Once the election is done, you support the people elected. When the next election comes around, you weigh your choices and do it again. Instead, people just bash our president. He's our president, and until we replace him I will support him. I don't have to agree with him though. - Jrgurl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bin Laden is not the begining or the end of terrorism people-
we have neutralized him, now we are focusing on all the others who want to kill You and Me- why is this so hard for liberals to understand? - cab1030, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Amen to this sir. It hurts all Americans, just imagine how the victims families of 9/11 feel hearing the president say that the person responsible for killing their loved ones is not a priority and he does not care about catching him. It's just disgraceful. Remember to get out and vote Democrat in November.
- Bobski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dammit! Will you liberals make up you fsckn' minds?!
The US is not under any threat, the US is under nuclear threat. There are no bombs, but we are going to get bombed. Muslims are not a threat, but muslims are out to kill us with nuclear bombs that don't exist.
No wonder the Democratic Party is in such disarray. -
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is