Why Bush deserves very little credit

This came from Jeff Hauser email today:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), shortly after President Obama's remarks on Osama bin Laden, issued a related statement. It included this gem:

"I commend President Obama who has followed the vigilance of President Bush in bringing Bin Laden to justice."

There's a fair amount of this rhetoric bouncing around this morning, and it's not especially surprising -- Republicans aren't going to credit President Obama, regardless of merit, so it stands to reason they'll try to bring George W. Bush into the picture.

If this is going to be a new GOP talking point, we might as well set the record straight.

In March 2002, just a year and a half after 9/11, Bush said of bin Laden, "I truly am not that concerned about him.... You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."

In July 2006, we learned that the Bush administration closed its unit that had been hunting bin Laden.

In September 2006, Bush told Fred Barnes, one of his most sycophantic media allies, that an "emphasis on bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism."

I was even beginning to believe Bush may have laid some groundwork until I was reminded of the facts today.
And the GOP can downplay the importance all they want, but thousands of people coming spontaneously out
in the street is a big deal. And very powerful! when has it every happened before in most of our lifetimes
except maybe during the millenium celebration.

Even while * wasn't spending a lot of time on the matter, apparently he had employees that were--interrogating (either at Gitmo or in Eastern Europe or at Bagram or some other "black site,", depending on whose speculation you prefer), recording, keeping track of things, comparing notes. One of the big clues was obtained, by asking the right questions and making the right inferences, after * "gave up" the search. Very odd, making and acknowledging a breakthrough after everybody stopped working on it.

The narrative put out by the WH leaves no doubt that information that they found essential came from *'s administration. It's not a hard thing to say.

Similarly, after Obama took office, the work continued, with many of the same field agents and analysts doing the same work they had been doing. Just as many of the breaks under * probably wouldn't have been repeated 2 or 3 years later, so the breaks under Obama didn't obviously occur 2 or 3 years earlier. Sometimes you just need perseverance.


Context is important for understanding questions and their answers. It's a very easy thing to take something out of context, allowing a different context to be assumed.

From Conn-me Rice to Colin Powell ,he prostituted them ,and Duped us.He deserves no credit for anything having to do with Justice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPTwsMEiI0g

What a disgrace. He can't even stand up straight at the damned lectern when he shrugs and simply says "We haven't heard from him" and "I don't know where he is" - as if they're just sitting on their asses waiting for OBL to call them back.

Disgusting.

They could use him and his image as a fear tool to achieve anything they wanted. Remember how an Osama message would magically appear before any thing bu$h or Cheney were about to pursue?

The bu$h regime had no reason to capture or kill Osama.

"In March 2002, just a year and a half after 9/11, Bush said of bin Laden, "I truly am not that concerned about him.... You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."


That was just 6 months after 9/11/01 -- not a year and a half.

So it was six months and two days after 9/11. Pair that with the asshole "looking" for WMDs in the Oval Office in 2004 and that's all you need to know about his phony commitment to the misnamed Global War on Terror.