Bush admin: A "mistake" to focus much energy on bin Laden

[fjord]

Bush argued in April 2001 too much time spent on Bin Laden...The report directly contradicts the White House's continued assertion that fighting terrorism was its "top priority" before the 9/11 attacks.



Link. Story got passed-over with all the Iraq happenings.

 

[conjur]

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0104/30/ip.00.html

WOODRUFF: We will have more of the day's political news coming up. But now a look at some other top stories.

The Navy is ready for more demonstrations on the Puerto Rican island, Vieques. After a break on Sunday, Navy warships are firing at the island's practice range again. Over the weekend, roughly 70 demonstrators were arrested and charged with trespassing. They included a U.S. congressman, Democrat Luis Gutierrez of Illinois.

The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism."

 

[Helenihi]

That is 100% correct. Too much energy focused on one person.

KILLING OR CAPTURING BIN LADEN IN APRIL 2001 WOULD NOT HAVE STOPPED 9/11.

The plan was already well in motion, and Bin Laden's personal involvement with 9/11 was very minimal anyway. Focusing too much on Bin Laden would and possibly did drain resources away from the more important issues of the Al Queada organization as a whole and the individual terrorist cells working in the US.

 

[conjur]

And capturing bin Laden wouldn't have given pause to the hijackers, given them doubt, made them regroup or delay?

 

[halik]

how about we focus on the source of the money caugh*saudis*cough that lets them do the things they do... gee thats an idea

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: Helenihi
That is 100% correct. Too much energy focused on one person.

KILLING OR CAPTURING BIN LADEN IN APRIL 2001 WOULD NOT HAVE STOPPED 9/11.

The plan was already well in motion, and Bin Laden's personal involvement with 9/11 was very minimal anyway. Focusing too much on Bin Laden would and possibly did drain resources away from the more important issues of the Al Queada organization as a whole and the individual terrorist cells working in the US.

Focusing on one person, or one group etc. may or may not have made a difference with regard to 9/11

It would not change the reality that the Bush administartion was/is inept.

The point I'm making is: The Bush cover-up and their numerous lies.

Remember Rice's testimony? Remember Clarke's?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: fjord
Bush argued in April 2001 too much time spent on Bin Laden...The report directly contradicts the White House's continued assertion that fighting terrorism was its "top priority" before the 9/11 attacks.



Link. Story got passed-over with all the Iraq happenings.

We've been over this before - your spin is cute though.

CkG

 

[Genx87]

What Iraq happenings would that be?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87
What Iraq happenings would that be?

Oh...

The 200 or so of our soldiers killed since March as part of the insurgency
The prison abuse photos
The beheading
The doubt as to the handover on June 30

 

[Genx87]

I took his link as they passed him over in 2001 with all the Iraq happenings.

 

[conjur]

Probably that, too. Considering Bush had us going into Iraq within 10 days of him stepping foot into the White House.

 

[katka]

The Bin Ladins are one of the top if not the top construction companies in the Middle East. By villianizing the name early on they would be an excuse to bring in cronies to rebuild Iraq after they blew it up. The Iraq war was preplanned! The Saudis have even stated publicly that they were informed by a US representative. It is about MONEY.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Bin laden has not been killed yet. They obviously did NOT spend enough effort going after him.