Bush: "We're not leaving until we succeed"

Okay... Well, with all those quotes, I knew I'd goof up eventually. I've been tricked! I used you this quote before:

"Bush called Osama number one priority. "There's an old poster out West that says, `Wanted: Dead or Alive.' . . . The most important thing is to find Osama bin Laden. It's our Number One priority. We will not rest until we have found him." (Sept. 13 and 16, 2001.)"

Well, there's a problem with that. *Everybody* likes that quote, but I can't find a single *primary source*. I've searched through about two months of Presidential transcripts, and he definitely doesn't say "Osama is the number one priority" anytime between Sept. and Nov. 2001. I'll keep looking, when I have time, but, for now, I take back that quote.

"Wanted: Dead or Alive" still stands, it's from this press conference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-3.html

There is a slightly different, less "sound-bite friendly" quote that, in my mind, amounts to the same thing: A promise by Bush to eliminate Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and to not give up until that's done.

It's from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011119-12.html

And the degree of difficulty is increasing as we work hard to achieve our objectives, not the least of which is to bring the al Qaeda to justice. They're running and they're trying to hide, and we're in pursuit. And we will stay the course until we bring them to justice.

[...]

Q Does that mean the fellow to your left knows? And how soon might America see bin Laden --

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, if our military knew where Mr. bin Laden was, he would be brought to justice. We're hunting him down. He runs and he hides. But as we've said repeatedly, the noose is beginning to narrow, the net is getting tighter. But this is a difficult assignment. Things happened very quickly in Afghanistan recently, as — went to show that our strategy was a well-thought-out strategy. But the objective is yet to be achieved, and we're not leaving until we do achieve the objective.

So, now, with that in mind, take another look at the "I don't know and I don't care" quote: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part — deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is — really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just — he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is — as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide — if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.

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. I know he is on the run.

There's also reason to question whether we're really doing all we can to accomplish this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/15cia.html

Three years after the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency has fewer experienced case officers assigned to its headquarters unit dealing with Osama bin Laden than it did at the time of the attacks, despite repeated pleas from the unit's leaders for reinforcements, a senior C.I.A. officer with extensive counterterrorism experience has told Congress.

The bin Laden unit is stretched so thin that it relies on inexperienced officers rotated in and out every 60 to 90 days, and they leave before they know enough to be able to perform any meaningful work, according to a letter the C.I.A. officer has written to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Okay, so what about terrorism in general? It's been job #1 from the start, right? Especially after 9/11, right?

(this is copied in part from http://www.misleader.org )

When John Ashcroft testified before the 9/11 Commission about the Department of Justice's activities to prevent terrorism, a quick analysis of his previous statements shows he has repeatedly lied to Congress about the Bush Administration's counterterrorism record. Specifically, when questioned by Congress in 2002 about why he tried to de-prioritize and slash funding for counterterrorism before 9/11, Ashcroft resorted to dishonest denials — even in the face of budget documents that proved he was not telling the truth.

For instance, in testimony before the House of Representatives, Ashcroft said that before 9/11, his "number-one goal" at the Justice Department "was the prevention of terrorist acts" and that he immediately "began to shape the department and its efforts in that respect" (1). But according to the Washington Post, internal Administration documents from before 9/11 "show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did" (2). The documents "indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs."

Ashcroft tried to blame his negligence of counterterrorism on the previous Administration, telling Congress that "the five-year plan that had been put in place by my predecessor didn't mention counterterrorism" (3). But according to the New York Times, "the plan issued by Attorney General Janet Reno in 2000 said the Justice Department would have to devote more attention and resources to terrorism, citing sophisticated computer and bomb-making technology and the 'emerging threats of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons'" (4).

Ashcroft has even been dishonest about events after 9/11, telling Congress that when the Administration was writing the emergency counterterrorism funding bill after the attacks, the FBI "came to me with a $670 million request, and we counseled them to take that to $1.1 billion" (5). But according to the Washington Post, "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI... The document, dated Oct. 12, 2001, shows that the FBI requested $1.5 billion in additional funds to enhance its counterterrorism efforts with the creation of 2,024 positions. But the White House Office of Management and Budget cut that request to $531 million" (6). Ashcroft "cut the FBI's request for items such as computer networking and foreign language intercepts by half, cut a cyber-security request by three quarters and eliminated entirely a request for 'collaborative capabilities.'"

Sources:

1. Attorney General John Ashcroft testimony, 02/28/2002.

2. "FBI Budget Squeezed After 9/11", Washington Post, 02/22/2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13541-2004Mar21?language=printer

3. Attorney General John Ashcroft testimony, 02/28/2002.

4. New York Times, 03/01/2002.

5. Attorney General John Ashcroft testimony, 02/28/2002.

6. "FBI Budget Squeezed After 9/11", Washington Post, 02/22/2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13541-2004Mar21?language=printer

Permalink • Posted in: politics, 2004 election, news • Post a comment