We don't know where Osama is and we're not all that concerned

[LizW]

about looking for him.

I'm staggered by this admission.

I've been listing possible reasons for this and here's what I've come up with so far. In no particular order:

1. He's dead, and the administration knows it.

2. He's imprisoned somewhere (the White House doesn't know exactly where, so they have plausible deniability).

3. He didn't do 9/11 after all, so Bushco doesn't care about getting him any more.

4. He did do 9/11, but Bushco just doesn't really care all that much about getting him anymore. Other priorities have intervened and obscured the need to get justice for the victims.

5. We want him, but we can't catch him and it looks bad, so we're pretending we aren't really trying that hard.

6. The administration is lying about him not being a priority in order to lull him into letting his guard down.

That's all I can think of at the moment, and none of those looks very good. Interestingly, every one of these involves Bushco lying to the American people, or at the very least, withholding information in order to keep the fear of Osama alive.

What am I missing? What other reasons could there be for saying Osama is not a priority?

[Arancaytar]

1. Because Osama gave Mr. Cheney an excellent deal on some oil or WMDs?

I think the imprisoned/dead seems not unlikely. They'd keep that as October surprise, I expect. Last minute.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Osama is good for business... gotta have a boogey man to keep

the sheeple voting for the wrong person.

[lectrobyte]

2. Could it be that the administration had a hard-off for Iraq, and

really really didn't care about who did 911? Nah, that's too cynical, even for me. It could be that we believe he's dead, but we can't conclusively prove it, or we just can't find him, and it's sour grapes.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. "But there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan" Rumsfeld and

furthermore... just look at all the money to be had by economically infesting and colonizing Iraq with Amurkan corporations. Whoever posted this link in another thread... thank you... this confirms everything I have thought for the last 4 years. I do have Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" and this article clinches it.

http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html


If the American economy was so crippled prior to 911, (and it was) and if we needed to #1 get the drug traffic back up in Afghanistan, and #2 invade and colonize another country to prop up and support this economy... then I would say that it has been a catastrophic success.

[wildflower]

5. I always thought it was essentially #5...

As time went by and they didn't get him, they realized this would look very bad to the American public.

So the solution was to downplay his significance. Otherwise the drumbeat "You said he's number one priority - where is he?" would grow stronger and stronger.

-wildflower

[LizW]

7. That's what I hope

Of all the possibilities, I think this one is, at least, not treasonous.

Everything is political with Bushco. Every decision and priority is evaluated in the light of its political effect. As you say, the political effect of not catching OBL is bad and will only get worse. I have to think that this downplaying of OBL is just damage control and not something worse.

[ClintonTyree]

6. Without Osama....................

and his backing of the 9/11 attack, Bush's Presidency would have been the worst (if it STILL isn't) in History. Before the attack Bush was polling in the mid 40% in job performance.
Osama DEFINED Bush's Presidency. He was and remains, Bush's Golden Goose. Without Osama, Bush is nothing. Osama is the Bush Admnistration's "Bogeyman". Bush needs the spectre of Osama firmly rooted in each and every American's mind. Terra', terra', terra'!!!
If Osama were to be captured or killed, Bush's entire facade of the strong and resolute protector of America becomes somewhat less meaningful. BUSH NEEDS OSAMA ALIVE!