James Fallows: If toppling Saddam was essential to "war on terror," why wasn't toppling bin Laden?

[BurtWorm]

:wtf:

James Fallows expresses his bewilderment over the idiocy of a Giuliani debate response:

http://jamesfallows.com/test/2007/06/06/what-is-rudy-guiliani-talking-about/

Rudy Giuliani’s answer to the first substantive question of the debate: Knowing everything we know now, good idea or bad idea to have invaded Iraq?

Absolutely the right thing to do. It’s unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror. And the problem is that we see Iraq in a vacuum. Iraq should not be seen in a vacuum. Iraq is part of the overall terrorist war against the United States.

Huh????

You can understand why President Bush has to argue this case. To do otherwise would be to concede that his foreign policy has been a failure not just of execution but of fundamental concept.

You can understand why a lot of people argue that now, largely because of the disastrous U.S. occupation, Iraq has indeed become a center of world terrorist organization against the United States – and that this fact makes all the worse America’s bad-enough-to-begin-with predicament in figuring out when and how it can leave. (My view remains: It’s only getting worse the longer we stay, so while it would be terrible to start leaving now, it will be more terrible the longer we wait.)

You can understand how tempting it would be for the Democrats to change just a little part of this statement: “It’s unthinkable that you would leave Osama bin Laden in charge of al Qaeda and be able to fight the war on terror.” Which would kick off a discussion of all the ways in which the switch to Iraq let bin Laden and his cronies wriggle away....

[dogday]

1. Who is Bin Laden?

Hell his name never comes up at all on TV or by this administration....

Kinda like "Where's Waldo"?

[maddezmom]

3. flashback: Bush 'Not Concerned' about Bin Laden in '02

Bush 'Not Concerned' about Bin Laden in '02
By Maura Reynolds
The Los Angeles Times

Thursday 14 October 2004

WASHINGTON - Sen. John F. Kerry caught President Bush off guard during their final debate Wednesday night, asserting that the president once said he was "not concerned" about hunting down Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

In one of the testiest moments of the evening, Bush protested, "I don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. That's kind of one of those exaggerations."

But during a news conference at the White House on March 13, 2002, Bush said something close to what Kerry quoted. "I truly am not that concerned about him," the president said, according to the official White House transcript.

The exchange between Bush and Kerry came during rebuttals to the first question of the debate, when moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS News asked Kerry whether the United States would regain the sense of security it had before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

more:http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101504W.shtml

[dogday]

4. I remember that clip and we should be playing

it as often as we can.. Democrats should be pushing this issue big time... Don't you think?

[maddezmom]

6. agree, here is a clip

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/barnes-osama/

[maddezmom]

7. and another : Bush-Truly not concerned about bin Laden

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

[dogday]

9. Thanks for both

That is what I am talking about.... :hi:

[maddezmom]

8. and one more: Bush's response to not acting on bin Laden

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjB9uMUM6xI&mode=related&search=

[maddezmom]

2. Heroin vs Oil

:shrug:

[BikeWriter]

5. The "war on terror" was invented by neocons.

[uppityperson]

10. Osama was an excuse that gave them a reason to be able to push their "war" through

They have no desire, see no need to find Osama since they are making brazillions off the "WoT".

[Javaman]

11. yup, why shoot the golden goose? nt