Gosh, I don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden. That’s kind of one of those exaggerations.
—George Bush, 10/13/04
Exaggerations???
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. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
—George Bush, 3/13/2002
Imagine if the president were a Democrat and bin Laden were still on the loose. Imagine how that would be touted daily as proof that he was not fit to be Commander in Chief.
I can appreciate it’s not easy to find bin Laden. What bothers me is how Bush flip flops back and forth between whether or not doing so is a concern or not.
You don’t have to worry about bin Laden being captured as an October surprise. He’s dead.
“You don’t have to worry about bin Laden being captured as an October surprise. He’s dead.”
Ayup. Has been for some time, I’m thinking. Don’t have a clue about whether the government has proof, of course – although, bluntly, if I knew I wouldn’t say anyway – but that’s OK, I’m not an administration official. My opinions are just mine, not policy.
I figure he’s dead too. Not very satisfactory in some ways, but I wonder if it’s the best outcome – no dramatic martyrdom, no trial where he gets to preach hatred.
I figure what’s left of OBL could fit under my thumbnail. Heck, even if we didn’t get directly, the guy needed regular dialysis – not conducive to on-the-run living.
Either the administration only suspects this, and doesn’t know for sure, or they are keeping it quiet to stop people from just declaring victory and standing down (and the whole prevention of martyrdom thing). Or he could be very well hidden and has learned to keep his mouth shut (both of which would reduce his influence as a leader of Jihad, no?)
The assertion that Bin Ladin is dead, sans evidence, has been a favorite game of administration apologists for years now. Every few months such speculation is proved false by a videotape or an audio recording, then shortly thereafter the speculation starts up again. Of course, those hoping and praying for the man’s demise will eventually get lucky, but I’d personally prefer to rely on something more substantial than luck when it comes to dealing with America’s number one enemy.
In particular, I want my president to be concerned.
“Every few months such speculation is proved false by a videotape or an audio recording, ”
For somebody who generally gives the impression of not trusting this administration, your apparent uncritical willingness to accept the government’s word on the validity of the alleged OBL recordings is actually sort of charming.
Still, all OBL has to do is release a real-time video/picture which references current events (a day-old New York Times or other international newspaper will do) and I’ll admit that the guy isn’t dead.
Moe
PS: rilkefan, welcome to the wonderful world of being an administration apologist. Don’t worry, it only stings for a little while; pretty soon you’ll get used to the cybernetic implants. Trust me (BZZZT!)… Trust me (BZZZT!)… Trust me (BZZZT!)
I don’t think he’s dead, but I do find it odd that Zawahiri has been doing all the taping of late. Must be an operational security thing.
What bothers me is how Bush flip flops back and forth between whether or not doing so is a concern or not.
Let’s trust that Bush’s lack of concern about Osama bin Laden is something that won’t need to worry anyone after November 3rd.
Bush supporters don’t seem to be too bothered that Bush lies about his lack of concern, I note.
Fact is, no one knows if OBL is dead or alive.
And it is totally irrelevant to Bush’s latest lie. Did he say he wasn’t concerned? Yes.
Did he then claim he never said it? Yes.
This is now well beyond carelessness or puffed up claims. It is clear that the Bush strategy is simply to say whatever sounds good, like the business about spending increases, with zero regard for the truth.
Interesting how one’s view of whether or not bin Laden is dead correlates so well with one’s view of Bush and the Iraq war.
He may be dead. THere is no basis whatever for confident assertions that he is.
Also, there is a credibile possibility that we agreed not to interrogate A.Q. Khan for Pakistan’s help finding Bin Laden. Would we do this if Bin Laden were dead?
It’s a dumb deal even if he is alive of course.
Moe Lane: For somebody who generally gives the impression of not trusting this administration, your apparent uncritical willingness to accept the government’s word on the validity of the alleged OBL recordings is actually sort of charming.
Does the Bush administration have a compelling motive to mislead us on this question (and this is assuming, arguendo, that the intelligence community acts as a wholly subservient appendage of the admin)? I can’t see any way in which it would serve Bush’s interests to assert that Bin Ladin is alive, since this highlights Bush’s failure to capture or kill the bastard and his apparent lack of interest in pursuing that end. There is no purpose in the lie, therefore the claim is reasonably credible. The total absence of evidence to the contrary helps quite a bit, as well.
The amount of professed clairvoyance on display is kind of spooky.
I can’t see any way in which it would serve Bush’s interests to assert that Bin Ladin is alive, since this highlights Bush’s failure to capture or kill the bastard and his apparent lack of interest in pursuing that end.
The Party never manged to capture Emmanuel Goldstein either.
Not that I’m saying that Bush is Big Brother or that I have opinion one way or another about UBL aliveness or deadness. I just want to point out that a live scapegoat is often more useful than a dead terrorist from a PR perspective.
“Does the Bush administration have a compelling motive to mislead us on this question (and this is assuming, arguendo, that the intelligence community acts as a wholly subservient appendage of the admin)? ”
(Stunned look) Sweet Jeebus, you actually meant that. Haven’t you ever heard of disinformation campaigns? I mean, geez, if I was running a counterintelligence operation (scary thought) and I had proof that a named terrorist had quietly died, the absolutely last thing that I’d do would be to announce it to the world. There are so many things that you can do with that sort of scenario, particularly if the body comes with a cell phone or laptop or even an address book: trace out the network, investigate money connections, seed bad information, set up the guy’s compatriots, you name it. Even when all you have is the body, you can still play mind games with the Other Side, the least of which is to encourage them to keep operating instead of going really inactive for a couple of years*. After all, the Leader’s still out there, right?
I mean, sheesh, this really isn’t obvious?
Moe
*Good in the short term, bad in the long.
Me: I just want to point out that a live scapegoat is often more useful than a dead terrorist from a PR perspective.
Oops, misspoke. Not a scapegoat, they are usually innocent. Make that “live threat” instead of “live scapegoat.”
“He may be dead. THere is no basis whatever for confident assertions that he is.”
Agreed. But, hey, we get confident assertions here all the time, and I’m not in a position of trust and authority with the government, so I see no reason why not to voice my opinion. 🙂
I mean, sheesh, this really isn’t obvious?
Thanks, Moe. I wondered how Bush supporters rationalize it, and now I know.
You should write spy novels.
If GWB has solid information that OBL is dead, but he’s keeping that a secret for any of the reasons Moe mentions, then I’ll give the guy props for putting national security ahead of his own political interests. I would think that announcing and proving the death of the main US boogeyman would have a healthy effect on Bush’s poll #s.
Of course, there are still almost three weeks till the election…
“Thanks, Moe. I wondered how Bush supporters rationalize it, and now I know.’
Catty, much?
PS: rilkefan, welcome to the wonderful world of being an administration apologist.
Logic error, Moe. The statement that administration apologists often claim that ObL is dead does not imply that everyone who claims that ObL is dead is an administration apologist.
Personally, I have no idea if ObL is alive or dead.
“Logic error, Moe. ”
True, but if I hadn’t ignored that I wouldn’t have been able to do my Stepford Republican impression.
He is a charismatic and attention-hungry leader who used to have video-taped exhortations to his flock every couple of months. He hasn’t put one out since Tora Bora. Degrees of confidence can vary, but certainly that fact is highly suggestive.
I think there is a far more credible possibility that we agreed not to interrogate Khan because he is considered to be one of the greatest heros in Pakistan’s history for being the father of Pakistan’s bomb and no leader in Pakistan would be stupid enough to be associated with turning him over.
kenB: Of course, there are still almost three weeks till the election…
That’s exactly why I thought Moe’s theory was so brilliant.
Not only is it a lovely structure that’s both completely unprovable and completely undisprovable, it also allows for the possibility that Bush & Co may have Osama bin Laden in a hole somewhere, and are planning to produce him as their October Surprise: it provides a rationalization-in-advance why they didn’t do it sooner.
Moe may think I’m catty: but I am truly impressed. It’s a lovely bit of work. (And I’m sure Moe’s fully aware that it isn’t provable, just as I realised – and chuckled with admiration – that it wasn’t disprovable, either.)
(I meant it about the spy novels, too.)
Katherine: “Interesting how one’s view of whether or not bin Laden is dead correlates so well with one’s view of Bush and the Iraq war.”
Sample size foul. Plus I think OBL’s dead while believing the Iraq war was an awful mistake – that the timing of the lead-up to the Iraq was a mistake.
Moe: PS: rilkefan, welcome to the wonderful world of being an administration apologist. Don’t worry, it only stings for a little while…
Actually I’ve been an apologist for aspects of the Bush admin policy on Iraq for a long time, in the sense that I get into heated arguments with some of my European colleagues who (taking a Bush-like tack) believe that _everything_ the admin did there was without any foundation in reasoned argument – who can’t seem to understand that one can enumerate what various pro-war factions were thinking without either accepting the arguments or dismissing them out of hand.
Here’s a report from the front lines.
My office is within 2 blocks of the WH. Today the Code Orange restrictions on the entrances to the building were lifted. (Restrictions imposed most recently this summer.)
Now it was always silly to close the internal passages — making me go outside and around the block to go to a popular restaurant, or outside and 25 feet to go to a bookstore — instead of going through the building. Who exactly was being protected from what? Nonetheless, unless there was some kind of “all clear” from AQ, it seems awfully curious. The warning was based on old information, you’ll all recall, so it isn’t as if some specific plot has been foiled.
No matter — my trip to work is shortened by 2/3 blocks, and my favorite takeout is now that much closer. A small victory in the WOT . . .
DPU: Not that I’m saying that Bush is Big Brother or that I have opinion one way or another about UBL aliveness or deadness. I just want to point out that a live scapegoat is often more useful than a dead terrorist from a PR perspective.
Sure, but how does this propaganda angle play out for a leader who is loath to even mention the name of the bogeyman in question?
Moe Lane: I mean, geez, if I was running a counterintelligence operation (scary thought) and I had proof that a named terrorist had quietly died, the absolutely last thing that I’d do would be to announce it to the world.
We aren’t discussing announcements of OBL’s death. We are discussing confirmation that he is alive. All the admin has to say is, “We can’t confirm the authenticity of the tapes,” which, in your scenario, would be true AND would avoid tipping their hand. Again, I can see no purpose in the lie, so I take confirmation of the authenticity of the tapes pretty much at face value.
Why you consider me naive for favoring actual evidence over idle speculation and wishful thinking is a mystery to me.
Sebastian Holsclaw: I think there is a far more credible possibility that we agreed not to interrogate Khan because he is considered to be one of the greatest heros in Pakistan’s history for being the father of Pakistan’s bomb and no leader in Pakistan would be stupid enough to be associated with turning him over.
And naturally, Pakistan is a democracy that Bush wishes the US to be allied with. Just like Saudi Arabia.
Osama bin Laden is considered one of the greatest heroes of the Arab world: Sebastian, would you suggest that is a credible reason why an Arab government, if they were holding bin Laden in a private house under what they say are adequate guards, should refuse to turn him over for interrogation?
Osama bin Laden is considered one of the greatest heroes of the Arab world
There are various qualifications I should have made to that sweeping statement: please consider them made. The general query, however, still stands: should Osama bin Laden’s status as a hero* permit a government to deny him to the US for interrogation?
*And I trust I don’t have to explain that *I* don’t think he’s a hero. Well, since I’m typing this footnote, obviously I *do* think I have to explain it.
“Moe may think I’m catty: but I am truly impressed. It’s a lovely bit of work. (And I’m sure Moe’s fully aware that it isn’t provable, just as I realised – and chuckled with admiration – that it wasn’t disprovable, either.)”
Well, not quite disprovable. If Osama Bin Laden makes a video where he reads from the IHT and complains that Shaun of the Dead isn’t hitting foreign markets fast enough – or pick your own current pop trivia references – then my theory goes belly-up fast. Which, if he’s alive and uncaptured, he could do any time, nu?
Moe
PS: Catty allegation withdrawn. And I wanna write science fiction novels.
Well, not quite disprovable.
Meh. Not provable or disprovable on the current facts available right now to the general public, will that do?
And I wanna write science fiction novels.
Write spy science-fiction novels. That’s the blessing of SF as a genre: you can fit anything from romance to murder-mystery into it.
PS: I assume you’ve seen the latest on Electrolite?
Moe: And I wanna write science fiction novels.
SpySciFi might be a good genre…
Crap, Jes beat me by two minutes.
Threadjack:
So, apparently, is the felon list meme. So it’s sense of beauty that keeps it coming up? Gotcha.
Threadjack off.
“Meh. Not provable or disprovable on the current facts available right now to the general public, will that do?”
Fair enough. I’m not setting policy, after all.
As for the Electrolite thing, I missed the original post. I’m guessing that it wasn’t allohistory per se, but one of those convoluted social commentary pieces typified by Winston Churchill’s If Lee Had Not Won the Battle of Gettysburg*? Nothing wrong with that sort of thing, per se, but the genres do indeed blur.
Moe
*Yup, Winnie wrote at least one SF piece. Freaky world, eh?
Moe
Threadjack off.
In public??
I wrote it, looked at it for a while, then thought: nah, no one else is going to see that. Oops.
Slart – now you’ve made those of us who were spared by our natural innocence think about it long enough to be besmirched.
I thought Republican mind tricks didn’t work on you guys.
As for the Electrolite thing, I missed the original post.
There was no original post; Shetterly just decided to write a post responding to Electrolite as if it were alternate history.
There are so many things that you can do with that sort of scenario…
That’s a good point Moe, but (I’m running with your hypo here and leaving aside the question of electoral motivation) there are some potentially nontrivial side effects, strictly from the psy-ops point of view.
Keeping the storyline alive after you know that OBL is dead has the benefit of encouraging the AQ network to stay coherent long enough to let you get a better grip on it. But if public opinion in Pakistan and SA is any indication, a key part of the OBL storyline is the idea that the US (and/or Christendom and/or Zionism) is unable to respond effectively to terrorism. David vs. Goliath, to use an inapt metaphor.
If the AQ network per se, as descended from the post-Soviet-Afghan taliban, is the core problem, then keeping quiet is a big cointel win. But if the confidence level and recruiting power of anti-American and anti-Israeli factions in Islamic nations governed by potentially rickety not-unfriendly regimes is the core problem, then…
Well, anyway, that’s not a decision I’d wanna have to make…
Fair enough. I’m not setting policy, after all.
If you were, after all, and if your rationalization/theory/scenario were anywhere close to the truth, you would by now be in serious trouble, and in a couple of weeks time we’d all still be wondering where Moe had got to: concerned posts by Rivka about how you and your girlfriend have mysteriously vanished, your apartment is locked up, your job hasn’t heard from you, and Katherine is posting increasingly-urgently about the possibility of extraordinary rendition.
But after Kerry wins the election, hopefully they’d let you out again. 😉
I think there is a far more credible possibility that we agreed not to interrogate Khan because he is considered to be one of the greatest heros in Pakistan’s history for being the father of Pakistan’s bomb and no leader in Pakistan would be stupid enough to be associated with turning him over.
But I thought Khan had been brought to justice. No?
OK, so whether or not bin Laden is dead or not, we’ve got two issues here:
1) Why did Bush deny saying that he didn’t care about bin Laden? Is he that out of touch? Even if, as some are suggesting, he’s dabbling in the dark arts of misinformation, his statement is a matter of public record. He said it to reporters. This is not very good misinformation if that’s what he’s trying to do here.
2) If we can’t trust what the Administration is telling us, because they may or may not be employing misinformation, what motivation have we to believe anything they say at all? How do we know when Bush is giving us nonmisinformation? (Is it when he winks? Does that explain that thing he was doing at the townhall debate?)
1) He made an off-hand comment 2.5 years ago which probably (in the sense of “here’s how to interpret it in a way that makes it sound sensible to my ears”) meant something like – “OBL as an individual is not that important, as long as we roll up most of al Qaeda” – a comment which I can’t see his advisors reminding him of subsequently. Hearing it now it sounds like “I don’t care about al Qaeda”. Earlier Bush was trying to resist metonymic thinking – now he’s back in standard mode and misinterprets himself.
a comment which I can’t see his advisors reminding him of subsequently.
A mistake, given that it was a comment that received wide publicity and, indeed, was one of the clips of Bush used on Fahrenheit 911, giving it even wider publicity.
He made an off-hand comment 2.5 years ago
He made an off-hand comment about the most wanted man in the world? Was the first comment, about wanting him dead or alive, also off-hand?
Moynihan’s “secrecy is for losers” is True the way that “the fewer the moving parts the less there is to go wrong” is True.
Secrets mean lies, and lies are single points of failure. They’re expensive to maintain. They’re purloined letters sitting in plain view, hidden bodies waiting to be dug up accidentally, loose threads that catch on stray doorknobs.
Secrecy is like friction. You need some, and it’s ultimately unavoidable, but “some” almost always means “as little as possible.”
The dead-or-alive quote was, I imagine, written by Rove. The “OBL? Who’s OBL” comment was in response to a reporter’s question, and, let’s face it, Bush doesn’t express what few thoughts he has very well when questioned. (Lack of outrage predicated on the interpretation above.)
Well, we know from the case of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan* that this Administration would choose publicity over national security, so I think we can rule out the possibility that they know Bin Laden is dead but are keeping the information secret for national security reasons.
*Where it appears Condi Rice leaked the name of an al-Qaeda member who been participating in a sting of other members, which of course blew the sting and any chance of arresting a number of al-qaeda members.
Heh. I could tell you some stories.
I could tell you some stories.
About secrecy, or friction? *eyes the thread jack off*
Ew.
Double ewwww.
About secrecy, uv coarse. Mostly as defined by classification guides. I’ve seen unclassified charts that have, say, a table that has two columns. If you multiplied column A by column B, you got a secret number, but the numbers in columns A and B were completely uncontrolled. I even brought this to the attention of the government project office, and they just sort of shrugged.
I’ve still got one of those lying about my office, somewhere.
“Osama bin Laden is considered one of the greatest heroes of the Arab world: Sebastian, would you suggest that is a credible reason why an Arab government, if they were holding bin Laden in a private house under what they say are adequate guards, should refuse to turn him over for interrogation?”
There being some difference between localized heros when dealing with a country whom you are trying to cooperate with and a group of people (those who believe OBL is a hero) with whom we are at war, my answer would be no. There also is some difference between dealing with nuclear powers (Pakistan) and non-nuclear powers. Which is one of the reasons I detest the outcome of the Agreed Framework so much.
“Where it appears Condi Rice leaked the name of an al-Qaeda member who been participating in a sting of other members, which of course blew the sting and any chance of arresting a number of al-qaeda members.”
Doh, you are a bit behind on that story. Last we heard it was Pakistan who leaded the name.
let’s face it, Bush doesn’t express what few thoughts he has very well when questioned. (Lack of outrage predicated on the interpretation above.)
re: outrage…I buy that in bulk. 😉 and while I strive to be an equal opportunity distributor…I must confess to enjoying it more when delivering it to 1600 Penn Ave…
I did some more thinking about your original assessment, and now combined with this further lowering of expectations, I think it’s time to nail this one to the front door and shine a big ol’ parsing spotlight on it.
Look at what Bush said:
This was no “off-hand” comment. One does not “repeat” so emphatically off-hand comments. One does not qualify off-hand comments with “truly”. He was stating a clear belief or he was purposely trying to mislead us. Either way, there’s no way one easily forgets something they’re so careful to emphasize. He either knowingly lied last night in the debate, or he’s got memory issues. It’s not a matter of how he expresses himself.
What I’m really getting at here is that Kerry’s statement was in no way whatsoever an “exaggeration.” It was a clear accurate statement of FACT. If the President had stopped at “I don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden.” we could forgive him (although fact checkers should still point it out so he doesn’t repeat it)…but he went further…he used this to then disparage Kerry, suggesting Kerry had a habit of exaggerating. So he totally deserves to be raked over the coals on this one.
Still disagree, Edward. Bush at -2.5 years: al Qaeda is important, OBL the individual isn’t. Bush at 0. years: I never said OBL (by which I mean al Qaeda) isn’t important [above caveat applies]. Now I happen to think he let the senior al Q leadership escape at Tora Bora and weakened the follow-up to focus on Iraq, and I agree it was a dereliction of duty to express himself so badly 2.5 years ago (and even more so to foster a state of affairs in which he could get away without having to clarify). And I think Kerry was absolutely right to hit Bush on this, and Bush blundered (from a political point of view) by parrying the blow with his chin.
Note I assume that OBL was mostly a figurehead – he provided an organizing point but not the dangerous ideas. al-Zawahiri is a guy we should be very concerned about – but my guess is that since Bush & Co let al Qaeda metastasize, we don’t know who’s on the list of people to hunt down.
Sebastian: There being some difference between localized heros when dealing with a country whom you are trying to cooperate with
Sounds like an argument against attacking Afghanistan to make the Taliban surrender Osama bin Laden, frankly.
Still disagree, Edward.
About his making an innocent mistake last night?
Or about his original comment being casual?
All caveats noted (and agreed to generally) the missing element in either assessment remais why Bush took the time to say he wanted bin Laden dead or alive back -3.00+ then.
He set the expectation.
Rilkefan: Note I assume that OBL was mostly a figurehead – he provided an organizing point but not the dangerous ideas.
I think this may be an invalid assumption. Cite a 1998 interview with him, for example. Of course, he may now be dead, or so ill that his input is secondary, but I think that if he is alive, he is a considerable threat: he was the founder of al-Qaeda, and took to it several years fighting in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Certainly, I think it as important, if not more important, to establish exactly what has happened to him – dead or alive – as it was to capture or to identify as dead Saddam Hussein. Osama bin Laden’s visibility and status is far wider and far higher in the Arab world than that of Saddam Hussein.
If Bush really thought Osama bin Laden was unimportant – ” not that concerned about him” – that was a colossal error of judgement. If, as I thought when I first heard that comment, he was merely blowing off Osama bin Laden because it was clear that his administration had utterly failed to capture him, it was typical Bush: an irresponsible, shortsighted, and stupid lie.
But either way, it was a comment that got a lot of airtime at the time*, that got repeated on F911 recently, thus garnering even more publicity, that it was idiotic of Bush to claim he hadn’t said – unless he simply believed that the public would continue to believe that reality was whatever he said it was.
*Or so I recollect, though it may just be that it impressed itself on my memory – as I said, I thought it was stupid then.
I don’t know whether he’s alive or dead now, but in July this year he was alive, free, apparently healthy and moving around northern Pakistan (north of Gilgit, reasonably close to the Afghan border) in a convoy of SUVs with a small entourage/bodyguard. He stays typically about 3-4 days in a location before moving on. He may well cross over periodically into Afghanistan. Local Pashtun villages are happy to shelter him for short periods of time (everyone realises that a longer stay would risk attracting unwelcome attention).
ajay – really? Got cites? Where did you read or hear about this?
“Sebastian: There being some difference between localized heros when dealing with a country whom you are trying to cooperate with
Sounds like an argument against attacking Afghanistan to make the Taliban surrender Osama bin Laden, frankly.”
Sometimes I wonder if you pay attention to the news. We asked the Taliban to turn over bin Laden and they repeatedly refused.
Sometimes I wonder if you pay attention to the news. We asked the Taliban to turn over bin Laden and they repeatedly refused.
Yes: and according to your argument defending Pakistan’s not turning over A.Q. Khan for interrogation because A.Q. Khan is a local hero, the Taliban should have been allowed to maintain their refusal. That’s the point I’m making: that your argument (countries ought to be allowed to refuse to hand over heroes) doesn’t work when you think about it.