Erm, seven years old, Rat. Ever thought about quoting what he has said since? To be fair, that interview sounds like Bush does not wish to give OBL any kudos and wishes to focus on other more tangeable concerns. But, again, that clip is SEVEN years old.
Multiple places shit it's been six or seven years since he gave up the hunt. You mean you've never heard his administration say it's not important? Here'just one: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/696wnfcp.asp
He does not say he has given up the hunt he says:"This thing about . . . let's put 100,000 of our special forces stomping through Pakistan in order to find bin Laden is just simply not the strategy that will work." Which is true.
What exactly was the scope of the mission, I am sure most American's didn't understand it after his Smoke Him Out and Dead or Alive speeches? We sent out kids over there looking for him, but the game had been changed and we weren't let in on it. I don't think a lot of young people would have signed up if this had been the War to Spread Democracy.
Funny how he hasn't been important to the White House since 2002, but he crops up as the boogey man every election period.
Like I said earlier it seems as if he was attempting to shift the focus onto more immediate concerns. Not giving up the hunt. It, yes, is a political strategy to seem like the troops are more important than an individual. Perhaps he genuinly felt that way. But, what you are saying is false. Nothing you have posted has shown he has given up the hunt, merely shifted focus. Your last post: I'm not going to respond to flippant remarks today, sorry.
We were only six months into Afghanastan when Bush/Cheney switched focus. Now we are supposed to focus on Iraq indefinitely, and perhaps add Russia and Iran to our agenda. All the while supplying nuclear power to the Saudis that manned the planes. We've accomplished alot in seven years haven't we? Spread a lot of democracy and capitalism?
Glad you can see it is shifting focus rather than giving up the hunt. I'd give this one up, gardener. People from Saudi' were on the planes, yes. Government orchestrated? no. Show me some evidence that is true. If you can't, don't add it to your responses, as it just sounds naive. Glad you can appreciate that.
Saudis manned the planes during the attacks, you can't worm out of that. Bin Laden is a Saudi. When are we going to tell the world we've changed our target/focus. From justified retribution to empire/democracy building? I think our President made it clear, he's no longer interested in getting Bin Ladin in fact he hasn't been interested since shortly after 09/11. If he ever was. As for spreading democracy, what we are spreading is not democracy, it's more about spreading corporate power throughout the world under the guise of democracy with the protection of the US Taxpayers. Sorry but my wallet can't support us waiting for the Iraqis to sign the PSAs in favor of the multinational petroleum companies. My wallet can't support protecting Israel. My wallet can't support creating a war with Iran or Russia to secure pipelines for multinational petroleum companies. I just shot my wad bailing out Wall Street and the Bankers.
Let Bush/Cheney/McCain threaten us with Bin Laden again. I think they've cried wolf once too often. And I don't think Putin's head floating over Alaska scares us that much either.
Now you've done it. You've gone and stirred up the crazies. Time to hear about OBL being a CIA asset for the umpteenth time.
Wow Gardener, you've sure covered the bases in this thread, and haven't even really made a point while doing so, other than acting like a drunk in a bar fight who doesn't even know who they're swinging at. You bringing up the Saudi's reminds me of our discussion some time ago. I see your understanding of the "boogeymen" hasn't made much progress since then.
I never attempted to infact I said that earlier (remember?). What I did say is it was individuals not the government. Come back with some info it was the Saudi government and perhaps we might be getting somewhere. I gave you the opportunity to show this; have you? No. You're moving over to my position of saying he has shifted focus. Which is not what you said at the begining, but IMO could not hold that position with any of the "evidence" you brought up. To take this out of context: I can see you have - and I'm not going to answer all the points you raise as I and others surely have done this many times before. Can't we stick to the point for once?