Not a surprise.

__________________
Frugal tip: To keep potatoes from budding, place an apple in the bag with the potatoes.

How to Fold a Shirt

Salty's Blog

Yeah, it's not a surprise. The Guardian isn't exactly pro-Bush and loves to plant conspiracy theories...

__________________

Exactly...

Information Clearing House is pretty much the same thing as Prison Planet and Rense...

When you read their stuff you gain knowledge on what DIDN'T happen...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

It's fairly easy to just say "No, they're wrong"...
But what competing theory is there behind the policy change?

Remember, before this Bush has REPEATEDLY said he didn't care about Osama bin Laden.
Can anybody else give a better explanation for the change?

(And for the record, if any Democrat (especially presidential candidate) had said they didn't care about Osama, the Republicans would be all over him.
Bush? Not a cricket chirpping... )

First of all, Pres. Bush's "trophy strike" has already been made. It happened when Anbar Province in Iraq went from being the most violence ridden place in Iraq, with continual Coalition troop presence to being a fairly peaceful place that is largely being managed by Iraqi forces. Of course, this kind of thing only gets mentioned in one article per newspaper or new show, so it's not seen as the HUGE success that it is. This is the final major step in the establishment of a stable Iraq and there's very little being said about it (in large part due to the media's election obsession, but also due to the media's long time near black-out on good news out of Iraq).

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

Hmm... I don't know, perhaps that the previous strategy wasn't producing the desired results?

Um, political turmoil in Pakistan? Musharraf was openly willing to look the other way. The new government needed to understand that they weren't going to be allowed to dictate things.

Perhaps it's because people actually understand that capturing/killing one person won't eliminate the entire organization. If any Democrat believes otherwise they would be laughed at for having their head in the sand.

__________________

Considering the "previous strategy" revolves around Bush "not caring" about Osama, by Bush's own words, I think the results were thoroughly consistent with the strategy...


And under this Pakistani government, we have orders to slay the American invaders...
Which brings up all sorts of questions on "sovreignty".
And make no mistakes, the "sovreign" issue is not one I hold a blind "hands off" approach for. I am more inclined for a heavier hand.


Considering nobody even hinted that capturing/killing one person would eliminate the entire organization, I am puzzled by your response.
By that logic, killing a single al Qaeda representative would not "eliminate the entire organization", so logically we shouldn't kill/capture any, right?

With the sarcastic logic aside, obviously capturing/killing Osama will WEAKEN al Qaeda, which should be a goal.
Does that need to be explained to the Republican base?
Or can you give me an alternative reason for why Republicans were unwilling to chastise Bush on his "not caring" where Osama was?

(Realistically, I think "blind partisan politics to the detriment of the nation" should be the acknowledged answer. But if you have a better one instead of trying to somehow blame Democrats for SOMETHING BUSH SAID, I'm all ears! )

I think you're expressing 'blind partisan politics to the detriment of the nation', actually.

I find it very consistent and logical that the POTUS not allow himself to appear to be obsessed with capturing or killing one particular member of a terrorist organization that may or may not even still be alive.

It's very clear to me that Bush in his statement isn't willing to turn Bin Laden into any more of a messiah pariah than he already is.

Because of your blind partisanship it wouldn't really matter what Bush said regarding Bin Laden. You're just unwilling to be honest with yourself.

Someone blasting a criticism primarily to score political points loses the right to cry 'blind partisan politics' when someone says 'hey, it's quite logical why he might say that'.

Meh ... it doesn't matter what I say, you're going to believe what ever they want you to.

__________________

No.
There is no "detriment" to the nation by my observations.
My comments may reflect negatively on the Republican party, but that should never be confused with the actual U.S. of A.


I don't think you even realize what he said...

"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

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Again, if a democrat had said this, he would be eaten alive.


No. You're thoroughly wrong.
If a Democrat had said any of the above, I would WANT them eaten alive.

The boring part about this is that ANY criticism of one party or the other can be ignored over claims of "partisanship", when the truth is that it should be examined and seen if it has any merit. The true partisanship is in completely ignoring observations just because they are made by somebody who has a "D" instead of an "R".

Your obvious first response is to claim "partisanship", WITH ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE if I would treat the Democrats the same way if the shoe was on the other foot.