Bin Laden 'Not Our Priority'

Pop Quiz!

Who said this?

"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."

Or this?

"I don't know where he is. I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

Or this?

"Deep in my heart I know the man's on the run, if he's alive at all...I just don't spend much time on it, really, to be honest with you."

And who disbanded the CIA unit dedicated to finding bin Laden?

Hint: It wasn't Bill Clinton.

Comments (51)

1. Probably THE stupidest thing Bush ever said.

   and of course a "fave" on Air America for audio clips.

   BTW, heard you (Mr Berman) on AAR this morning on the "Young Turks" talking about the McCain-Warner-Graham "compromise", but missed the last half. Did you make a prediction on whether it would be passed...and how many Dems would vote for it?

   Posted by Mask at 09/27/2006 @ 10:42am

2. and the hysteria surrounding clinton's "meltdown" is, you know, a perfectly normal media response.

   the daily show did an excellent rip of this:

   http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/26/daily-show-rips-cable-news-for- clinton-coverage/

   Posted by darladoon at 09/27/2006 @ 10:47am

3. GWB's nonchalance about OBL has granted the guy 1842 days of freedom.

   I wonder what the 3,000 American's that died because of his deeds would give Bush for 1842 days of extra life?

   Posted by freedomplease at 09/27/2006 @ 11:17am

4. To Ari Berman

   Somehow Ari, your hint that it wasn't Clinton is no surprise. Want me to dig up a bunch of things Clinton did wrong during the period, like pulling out of Somalia like a whipped dog or doing NOTHING after the Cole was hit? I can find more, although frankly this battle between who's more responsible is absurd and time wasting, pursued by petty talking heads only using the issue to further their own agendas.

   We will probably not know the entire story about 9/11 and Iraq for another 50 years, even though legends-in-thier-own-minds like David Corn think they do. If I may use the time worn but viable example of Pearl Harbour, after 4 separate commissions, hundreds of books and theories ranging from probable to absurd, we are STILL learning things about that catastrophe, (like J E Hoovers role in surpressing incredibly important info out of sheer stupidity-as xenophobic as he was, who woulda figured?)

   In the end it no doubt will be regarded as a circus act right down the line culminating in 9/11, the price we pay periodically for being an open society. Consider that now and you'll be ahead of your time.

   CT

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/27/2006 @ 11:27am

5. Chippy,

   USS Cole happened on Oct 12, 2000. Less than one month before Bush and Gore tied in the presidential election. Of course Bush would relish the opportunity of a tailor made and timed "rally around the flag" episode like the USS Cole bombing, but can you imagine the kerfuffle that the righties would have made had Clinton started launching missiles THREE WEEKS before an election, given that they screamed "wag the dog" every time Clinton did anything with a piece of military hardware?!

   I also find it funny since just a couple of weeks ago our Embassy in Syria was targeted by jihadist terrorists and we've done nothing about it. If as you say, Clinton's or perhaps Bush's inaction to USS Cole was a contributing factor how can we stand by and do nothing when our Embassy in Syria is attacked?

   Posted by freedomplease at 09/27/2006 @ 11:41am

6. this is the swift boating of Clinton. Bush who did NOT capture Osama after the most devastating attack on the US, and his backers are trying to blame Clinton for an event that did not occur in his administration. hey I think it was REagan, who pulled the marines out of Beirut, after a devastating attack on them, who emboldened the terrorists. see, it makes just about the same sense as blaming Clinton.

   The attack on afghanistan was a joke, 18,000 troops in a country the size of Texas. that's a war? all that was accomplished was to evict the Taleban from Kabul, install a puppet gov't, and leading directly to the impasse we are facing now. How long do you think NATO will go along with this charade. Afghanistan cannot be governed WITHOUT the Taleban, as Iraq cannot be governed without the Baathist Sunni.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 09/27/2006 @ 11:53am

7. Afghanistan cannot be governed WITHOUT the Taleban, as Iraq cannot be governed without the Baathist Sunni.

   Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/27/2006 @ 11:53am

   Forever?

   Posted by Mask at 09/27/2006 @ 11:55am

8. I will further theorize that Islamic terrorists have directly weighed in on three different Presidential elections.

   In 1980 Islamic terrorists held US Embassy diplomats hostage in Iran and basically told the US electorate that the hostages would be handed over to anyone but Carter. Reagan would have won anyway, but it's interesting to note that it is also what the terrorists wanted.

   USS Cole can be argued that it was timed to swing the Presidential election away from Gore.

   In 2004 OBL spoke about how he'd like Kerry to be the next President. OBL is a lot of things, but he's not stupid enough to think that would do anything but help Bush.

   In that theory Islamic terrorists have been cheering on milataristic Republican Presidential candidates for a quarter century......and the electorate have bought it every time!

   Posted by freedomplease at 09/27/2006 @ 11:56am

9. hey I think it was REagan, who pulled the marines out of Beirut, after a devastating attack on them, who emboldened the terrorists. see, it makes just about the same sense as blaming Clinton.

   Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/27/2006 @ 11:53am

   And Bush pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia - reason #1 on OBL's list of gripes.

   Posted by Hman23 at 09/27/2006 @ 12:06pm

10. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/27/2006 @ 11:27am

    Chip, howzabout instead of a bunch of things Clinton did wrong, you bring up a bunch of things Bush did to get bin Laden (don't forget the 4000 in-theater Marines who didn't receive orders to assist in bringing bin Laden to justice in Tora Bora). But, wait! The guy who uttered all of the remarks Ari posted was George Bush. Well, Chip I guess there's no need for you to bring up a bunch of things Bush did to get bin Laden: George is just not that concerned about him...not a priority...

    Posted by nathanhale at 09/27/2006 @ 12:11pm

11. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 09/27/2006 @ 11:56am

    Intersting perspective.....and plays well into the fundy-vange-nuts who are holding their breath for the rapture. Like peas in a pod - the lot of them.

    You see that very conservative Mel Gibson is decrying the Iraq debacle and now compares the US' direction as comprable to the decay of the Mayans (of course, spins current event to sell tickets to his new movie...but the parallels interesting nonetheless)

    Also the Dali Lama has officially "thumbed down" Dubya's debacle...of the AP

    The Dalai Lama said Tuesday that violence in Iraq has cost too many lives and soured his view of the U.S.-led war.

    The Tibetan spiritual leader initially reserved judgment on the conflict, saying it would only become clear with time whether the invasion was a good idea.

    "At the early stage I felt, and also I expressed, 'Too early to say, to judge.' But now, things not very positive," he said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Now in Iraq _ too many killings."

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/27/2006 @ 12:14pm

12. Hman,

    There's more to the story of the bases. Last night the house voted overwhelmingly to pass the $448B annual defense budget and inserted into the Bill was a proviso to NOT have permanant bases in Iraq....interesting to see if the inserted proviso makes it through the Senate version.

    In theory, we could end up with no bases in Iraq or Saudia Arabia. That would please Bin Laden......and we'll be spending $448Billion per year on defense...that'll please Northrup Grummond.

    In fact, everyone will be happy, except people that want to effectively combat terrorism and American taxpayers.....but why should Congress give a fuck about either of those two constituents!

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/27/2006 @ 12:18pm

13. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 09/27/2006 @ 12:14am

    I think Gibson's move is more to shore up support in Hollywood among the Left since his "drunken anti-Semite" scandal.

    After all, if we go after Gibson for using a political issue to self-promote his latest work....we'd have to take on David Corn too!...hehe!

    Posted by Mask at 09/27/2006 @ 12:19pm

14. Posted by MASK 09/27/2006 @ 12:19am

    could be....and since he's pissed of all his conservative allies I guess he has to pander to someone.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/27/2006 @ 12:23pm

15. why should Congress give a fuck about either of those two constituents!

    election day 2006?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/27/2006 @ 12:26pm

16. still, to this day, no discussion on how bin laden was responsible for 9.11. has a single intelligence document proved that bin laden had a direct hand in 9.11?

    i repeat: the 19 hijackers are DEAD, and therefore, we know very little about 9.11's preparation. intelligence agencies STILL, TO THIS DAY, do not completely know how the 'global terrorist networks' are organized, staffed, funded, or how they plan attacks.

    so, in a way, bush is somewhat honest to say that he doesn't care about this one guy---even if killing this one guy would up his approval ratings to unprecedented levels. why? because if nobody knows where bin laden is, then how can they know what he's actually doing?

    Posted by darladoon at 09/27/2006 @ 12:26pm

17. let's just have it out, right here and right now:

    SOMEONE PROVE TO ME THAT BIN LADEN HAD A DIRECT HAND IN 9.11

    SOMEONE PROVE TO ME THAT BIN LADEN CONTINUES TO ORGANIZE ATTACKS

    FINALLY, SOMEONE PROVE TO ME HOW KILLING BIN LADEN WOULD MAKE US SAFER

    good luck!

    Posted by darladoon at 09/27/2006 @ 12:28pm

18. Posted by DARLADOON 09/27/2006 @ 12:26am | ignore this person

    Posted by DARLADOON 09/27/2006 @ 12:28am

    Could somebody she ISN'T "Ignoring" get DD to explain whether she thinks Bush isn't working hard enough to get bin Laden....

    or it's not important if Bush works hard enough to get bin Laden because "nobody can prove" OBL had anything to do with 9/11?

    Posted by Mask at 09/27/2006 @ 12:35pm

19. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 09/27/2006 @ 12:23am

    Well, he could be looking for the FROMREDBIRD vote....anti-Semitic AND anti-Bush!

    Posted by Mask at 09/27/2006 @ 12:36pm

20. To FreedomPlease,

    I don't think we should stand by and do nothing about the Syrian thing. That was partly my point: We probably are doing something, but you and I aren't going to hear about it. Partly because this kind of war demands intense secrecy as to the belligerents activities. And given our current Presidents' obsession with secrecy, it may take a while before this particular episode is known. Just the way it is in this kind of war, I guess.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/27/2006 @ 12:54pm

21. Nathan old boy, your missing the point. The blame game is, or will be, declared irrelavent one day though the aquisition or more and more info. Just don't look for it too soon. Those who think they can "pin" all this on one side or the other are small minded, driven by agendas that won't mean dick to anyone years from now.

    CT

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/27/2006 @ 1:00pm

22. Chip, you're either missing the point or posting to the wrong thread. I believe it was George Bush who said, "I think about Iraq every day. Every day." Now, you may feel, like Darladoon, that OBL is not "behind 9/11", and, if so, feel free to come out and say it. I think the reason that Bush professes to be "just not that concerned" about OBL is because it is a stain on the record of his presidency that he went after bin Laden but bin Laden got away. What alternative explanation do you have for Bush's lack of concern?

    Posted by nathanhale at 09/27/2006 @ 1:15pm

23. i repeat: the 19 hijackers are DEAD, and therefore, we know very little about 9.11's preparation. intelligence agencies STILL, TO THIS DAY, do not completely know how the 'global terrorist networks' are organized, staffed, funded, or how they plan attacks.

    They are, but Ramzi bin-Shibh isn't dead. He was going to be another hijacker but couldn't get in the US, so he began involved in the logisitcal side of it, being one of Muhammed Atta's top leaders in the Hamburg cell. Atta trained at al-Qaida camps from late-'99 to early-'00. The other three pilots also trained at al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan. We also have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al-Qaida's operations manager who planned 9/11. He visited the Hamburg cell often. Financial transactions to the hijackers have also been traced to al-Qaida.

    Even if bin-Laden can't provide the same level of assistance to attacks, his being at liberty is a propaganda advantage for Islamist militant groups. Killing or capturing him would take that away.

    Posted by brunowe at 09/27/2006 @ 1:15pm

24. The reason the hsuB admin and their self-loathing/apologists/neosans/paid-off henchmen are trying to point the finger at Clinton is precisely because more of the public already know who is responsible for the failure. But hey, what's one more when there's already sooo many. (Sounds just like the NIE revelation that Iraq is fueling terrorism, the polls said most of the public already felt that way.)

    Gallup Poll panel survey. Sept. 21-24, 2006. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Sample was randomly drawn from Gallup's nationally representative household panel, which was originally recruited through random selection methods.

    "How much do you blame [see below] for the fact that Osama bin Laden has not been captured or killed: a great deal, a fair amount, not much, or not at all?"

    ____________A Great Deal__A Fair Amount__Not Much__Not at All

    George W. Bush ___29_________24__________23_________24

    Bill Clinton________18_________24__________25_________32

    "Who do you blame more for the fact that Osama bin Laden has not been captured: George W. Bush or Bill Clinton?" Options rotated

    _______________Bush_______Clinton_______Unsure

    9/21-24/06_______53_________36__________11

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/27/2006 @ 1:29pm

25. Chippy,

    If you are prepared to believe that our reaction to the Syrian embassy attack is secret (but actually happeneing) then why don't you believe that our reaction to USS Cole was also secret (but actually happened)?

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/27/2006 @ 1:37pm

26. To Freedomplease:

    Good Point. I sit corrected. Maybe one day we will no both answers.

    TO Nathan,

    I'm not sure what I said to make you think I believe OBL isn't behind 9/11. Of course he was. In fact, my own personal feeling about Iraq has always been that Bush lost focus when he went there. Not that there is anything wrong with taking out the likes of Saddam, but it was kind of like being angry with Hitler & Mussolini but attacking Franco cause he supported them. Right idea, wrong guy.

    BTW, the thread is "not our priority, yes?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/27/2006 @ 2:00pm

27. Screaming Weiners?? And I thought I was being crude when I started the phrase "LEFTNUTS" to describe you guys.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/27/2006 @ 2:19pm

28. and you never will.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/27/2006 @ 2:44pm

29. " Financial transactions to the hijackers have also been traced to al-Qaida."

    this is NOT true--- the "financial transactions" have not been traced AT ALL. and we sure as hell don't know what al qaeda is, where it is, how it is organized, or who are its members. therefore, we certainly can't "trace" anything.

    and i never said that capturing bin laden wasn't a good idea, i asked about killing.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/27/2006 @ 2:52pm

30. The hsuB admin's biggest problem has become that they bought into their own lies and those lies are coming home to roost. So then, can the hsuB admin even recognize them as ‘only' their IMAGENARY progeny? (Condi we gave you a pass on the BS once at the 9/11 hearings, it doesn't work a second time. Everyone's awake now.) When and if they ever do, they'll have ‘lots of splaining t'do'. Can't imagine the extent of how tumultuous the realization will express itself as, but I sense a quietness and withdrawal from hsuB when it hits him. When he looks at all his and Roves rationale for selling: the war, tax cuts, appointments, torture, spying on citizens, social services… and then they go ‘poof', the smoke dissipates with no substantiation remaining, too few of the gullible bought into them. So the bubble doesn't pop, no bang, no excitement or exertion, it simply wrinkles and sags, begins to look disgusting and shunned. I predict hsuB retires and could care less if he's impeached in 2007 after congress goes dem this November.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/27/2006 @ 2:56pm

31. Posted by DARLADOON 09/27/2006 @ 12:26am

    Posted by DARLADOON 09/27/2006 @ 12:28am

    Could somebody she ISN'T "Ignoring" get DD to explain whether she thinks Bush isn't working hard enough to get bin Laden....

    Posted by MASK 09/27/2006 @ 12:35am

    MASK, if you don't like being on so many ignore why don't you try toning down your anti-semitic ranting?

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/27/2006 @ 2:59pm

32. These statements further illustrate the political use of the "war on terror." When it wasn't useful to talk about it, statements from the article were used by the President. When he needs a boost in the polls, he turn to his macho, war president talk. Bush has no intention of actually winning the "war," but really intends to ride this out until the end of his term and hope to pass it on to another defense / oil industry sponsored president.

    Bush always likes to talk about the strength of our "resolve," these statements show a clear weakness in the President's resolve. Its too bad Joe and Jane American don't have to common sense to see through Bush's smoke and mirrors. Well at least in the past they didn't, maybe this November is a sign the times they are a changin'.

    I predict Bush falls of the wagon after either his impeachment or resignation and spends his remaining years stumbling around Crawford in a drunken haze.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 09/27/2006 @ 3:06pm

33. MASK, if you don't like being on so many ignore why don't you try toning down your anti-semitic ranting?

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/27/2006 @ 2:59pm

    I'm sorry... Did I say something Howard Dean thought was anti-Semitic????

    Posted by Mask at 09/27/2006 @ 3:07pm

34. i never said that capturing bin laden was insignificant. i just said that killing him wouldn't eradicate what amounts to a constant and ubiquitous threat.

    after all, we still don't know what bin laden actually does for a living. if we don't know where he is, how can we possibly know what he's doing? does he still train? does he do the accounting? does he do e-mail? does he make phone calls to cells in atlanta?

    yes, capturing him would be wonderful. and yes, bush isn't working hard enough---his own words attest to that, and the fact that he disbanded the CIA unit in charge of capturing him.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/27/2006 @ 3:07pm

35. I'm sorry... Did I say something Howard Dean thought was anti-Semitic????

    Posted by MASK 09/27/2006 @ 3:07pm

    Don't get anxious . . it's George Allen's opinion that counts where you come from.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/27/2006 @ 3:11pm

36. we sure as hell don't know what al qaeda is, where it is, how it is organized, or who are its members. therefore, we certainly can't "trace" anything.

    and i never said that capturing bin laden wasn't a good idea, i asked about killing.

    Posted by DARLADOON 09/27/2006 @ 2:52pm

    Well, first off, I'm sure FRB will tell you who Al Queda is....they're "freedom fighters in the struggle against Western and Zionist imperialism and oppression".

    Second, why do you want bin Laden even "captured"...if you don't think it can be proven he had anything to do with 9/11?!?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 09/27/2006 @ 3:12pm

37. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/27/2006 @ 3:11pm

    Not really (check out my comments on Mr Allen on Ms vanden Huevel's thread)....

    now if it was the opinion of Hassan Nasrallah....well, we know who to turn to here at "The Nation" blog for that guy, don't we?

    Posted by Mask at 09/27/2006 @ 3:13pm

38. Al Queda is....they're "freedom fighters in the struggle against Western and Zionist imperialism and oppression".

    Posted by MASK 09/27/2006 @ 3:12pm

    I think most people have a considerably more nuanced view than that, MASK, but you'll have to admit that The Nation gets credit for allowing even nuts like you to post here.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/27/2006 @ 3:21pm

39. now if it was the opinion of Hassan Nasrallah....well, we know who to turn to here at "The Nation" blog for that guy, don't we?

    Posted by MASK 09/27/2006 @ 3:13pm

    If I want Hassan Nasrallah's opinion on anything I'll be sure to contact you, MASK. I promise.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/27/2006 @ 3:23pm

40. The USS Cole was attacked in October 2000, the FBI investigated and proclaimed Bin Laden responsible, George Bush was sworn in in January 2001 - why did he not go after the younger brother of his dad's business partner?

    Osama Bin Laden and his Saudi terrorists were hired by Reagan/Bush to attack Russians in Afghanistan. Not everyone agreed with this idea. Some spoke against it. Democrats spoke against it. Democrats spoke against it because as they said, "these Wahabbi extremists from Saudi Arabia are crazy". Did George Bush interrogate his dad, to find out what he knew about the younger brother of his business partner?

    Posted by LiberalPride at 09/27/2006 @ 4:30pm

41. Republicans said "its necessary to hire Osama Bin Laden and his Wahabbi terrorists from Saudi Arabia". They are the only people willing to fight against Russia in Afghanistan. Really?

    Trust us, we know what we are doing.

    The USS Cole was hit in October 2000, the FBI investigated, in January 2001 George Bush was sworn in. Why didnt he go after Osama Bin Laden after the USS Cole was hit? Why didnt he go after Osama Bin Laden after he received the daily brief "Bin Laden determine to strike inside the US"? Why didnt George Bush go after Osama Bin Laden after 911? Why hasnt George Bush gone after Osama Bin Laden since he started appearing regularly on his own TV show? How do George Bush supporters know for certain that Osama Bin Laden is "in a cave"?

    Posted by LiberalPride at 09/27/2006 @ 4:34pm

42. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/27/2006 @ 2:59pm |

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/27/2006 @ 3:23pm

    Oops....ergo, logically if both these posts are true....me and Nasrallah are anti-Semites.

    Sure you want to stick with that...doesn't seem nice to Hezbollah, FROM???

    Posted by Mask at 09/27/2006 @ 4:35pm

43. Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 09/27/2006 @ 4:34pm

    LIBPRIDE....curious. Who WERE the Democrats who didn't want us helping the mujaheddin in Afghanistan? I can't remember.

    Posted by Mask at 09/27/2006 @ 4:36pm

44. he's NOT in a cave, c'mon people, one of the wealthiest men in a sea of likeminded islamists, in a cave? whatta joke.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/27/2006 @ 4:36pm

45. he's NOT in a cave, c'mon people, one of the wealthiest men in a sea of likeminded islamists, in a cave? whatta joke.

    He's also got a huge price on his head. He's probably in a nicely appointed cave or hiding out in a number of villages on the Afghan-Pakistani border.

    Posted by brunowe at 09/27/2006 @ 5:05pm

46. Whitey Bulgar also has a huge price on his head, and he's presumably not living in a cave. Bin Laden is a culture hero to millions of muslims, kinda like the pope. if anyone should ever claim that reward, there will be more than one fatwa on their head. he's not inna cave.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/27/2006 @ 5:27pm

47. . . me and Nasrallah are anti-Semites.

    Posted by MASK 09/27/2006 @ 4:35pm

    You are, that's for sure, and if you're more than just a self-appointed spokesman for Nasrallah, then I guess he is too.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/27/2006 @ 6:20pm

48. interesting interview with bin laden in 1998:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.htm l

    he's a very calm, focussed speaker. some glaring contradictions, obviously, but in general, he's not crazy.....

    Posted by darladoon at 09/27/2006 @ 8:01pm

49. Of course, Bush said those things. Inasmuch as he knows who the REAL culprit is -- and it ain't bin Laden -- there's no reason for him to be concerned about bin Laden. The number of times bin Laden has been deliberately allowed to go free when he was within arm's reach -- well, the whole thing would make a great comedy film.

    Posted by ljsullivan at 09/27/2006 @ 9:45pm

50. LJ, conspiracy theory?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2006 @ 10:54am

51. I would like to put the US military efforts in Afghanistan in perspective. we have approximately 35,000 cops patrolling New York City, a city of eight million. we sent 18,000 troops to afghanistan, a country roughly the size of Texas.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/29/2006 @ 09:31am