The Army’s highest-ranking officer said Friday that he was unsure whether the U.S. military would capture or kill Osama bin Laden, adding, "I don’t know that it’s all that important, frankly."
"So we get him, and then what?" asked Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the outgoing Army chief of staff, at a Rotary Club of Fort Worth luncheon. "There’s a temporary feeling of goodness, but in the long run, we may make him bigger than he is today.
"He’s hiding, and he knows we’re looking for him. We know he’s not particularly effective. I’m not sure there’s that great of a return" on capturing or killing bin Laden.
Schoomaker pointed to the capture of Saddam Hussein, the killings of his sons, Uday and Qusay, and the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as evidence that the capture or death of al-Qaeda’s leader would have little effect on threats to the United States.
Days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President Bush said he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive," and then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said, "It is not enough to get one individual, although we’ll start with that one individual."
Bush reaffirmed the goal last September in a prime-time speech, warning bin Laden: "No matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice."
But Schoomaker’s remarks echoed comments last year by Vice President Cheney, who seemed to play down the value of capturing or killing bin Laden days before the Bush speech. "He’s not the only source of the problem, obviously. . . . If you killed him tomorrow, you’d still have a problem with al-Qaeda," the vice president said.
"I think in fact if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we’ll do is validate the al Qaeda strategy, the al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people."
"If you are going to advocate a course of action that basically is withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, then you don’t get to just do the fun part of that, that says, well we’re going to get out and appeal to your constituents on that basis. You have to be accountable for the results…
"The point I made and I’ll make it again is that al-Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. … That if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we’ll quit and go home… If we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al-Qaeda. I said it and I meant it."
There’s a huge paradox in what Cheney is saying. Huge. Getting Bin Laden, doesn’t matter. Killing Hussein and his government did matter. Allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to breed in wherever-they-are doesn’t matter. Staying in Iraq does matter. Decrying the barbarism of al Qaeda does matter. Becoming barbarians ourselves in Iraq doesn’t matter. Not giving in to al Qaeda’s strategy does matter while al Qaeda itself doesn’t matter. It makes absolutely no sense…
It has to be all about staying in Iraq. It has to be all about being in on the development of the Iraq Oil Fields. His logic ebbs and flows in ways that make absolutely no sense, unless the continued presence of Americans in Iraq is in the equation. It’s why we went – to occupy Iraq and develop it’s oil. It’s the Mission. We’re not coming home, at least not while Dick Cheney is around. What the Administration says makes zero sense without the equation:
Foreign Policy = AmericansIraq + IraqOil
Point of fact is that Dick Cheney has not, cannot, will not, and would not given the opportunity even, be held accountable for jack shit. What a travesty that such an inane little man could rise to such influence in the midst of a gathering of persons (America) who are so much more in the firmament of human experience generally. A failing of modern medicine Dick Cheney…why on earth is he still here?
Check our Frank Rich’s column about the Bush lies etc. and see why Bush or Cheney are still there. All you have to do is go on Meet the press to straighten out inconvient truths.
How many members of the Bush Administration does it take to change a light bulb?
Answer:
TEN.
1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed;
2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed;
3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb;
4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or for eternal darkness;
5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for a new light bulb;
6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor and standing on a step ladder under the banner “Bulb Accomplished”;
7. One administration insider to resign and reveal, in detail, how Bush was literally “in the dark” the whole time;
8. Another one to viciously smear #7;
9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light bulb-changing policy all along;
10. And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and the country. And after all is said and done, no one will notice that they never actually managed to change the light bulb.