When the President opens his mouth, don't look for facts or logic

by Tom Maertens

Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes reported in his September 13 column that President Bush told him in a recent interview that capturing Osama bin Laden is not "a paramount goal of the war on terror." Apparently he told Barnes that tracking bin Laden was not a good use of U.S. resources.

There are reasons for this latter conclusion. First, as the Washington Post reported Sept 10, "The clandestine U.S. commandos whose job is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden have not received a credible lead in more than two years. Nothing from the vast U.S. intelligence world -- no tips from informants, no snippets from electronic intercepts, no points on any satellite image -- has led them anywhere near the al-Qaeda leader, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials."

The second reason is that U.S. military resources are stretched very thin. The New Republic reported last month that congressional Democrats have revealed that a full two-thirds of the active U.S. Army is officially classified as "not ready for combat." The head of the National Guard responded that the National Guard is "in an even more dire situation than the active Army" The Army has almost no nondeployed combat-ready brigades at its disposal.

Then of course, after five years, Bush's failure is an unmistakable sign of impotence, one not to be trumpeted.

So Bush's on-again, off-again commitment to catch bin Laden no matter the cost, dead or alive, is reportedly off again. This is a serious mistake. bin Laden was widely if quietly criticized among Muslims for killing civilians on 9/11 without warning them, and without giving them the opportunity to convert to Islam. Terrorism experts note that bin Laden has given three warnings of late of his plans to attack the US unless Americans convert to Islam. He also has been given a fatwa by a minor Muslim cleric authorizing him to kill up to 10 million Americans.

Despite this threat, Bush is more determined to get the terrorists in Iraq because, as he said on several occasions, we can't leave Iraq or the terrorists will follow us home. So the Iraqi insurgents, who have adopted the al Qaeda brand name as a flag of convenience, will threaten us in our homes, but bin Laden is not a priority. No matter that the Iraqi insurgents have never attacked us at home, and have no known capability to attack us at home. Bin Laden and al Qaeda, on the other hand, are proved threats.

It is well known that Bush doesn't care about facts, but apparently he doesn't care about logic either. Then again, recent experience suggests he will say just about anything that he thinks will generate support for his disastrous war and for the Republicans in the upcoming election.