"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Whether the business was a "bad thing" can be measured.

As the computer people say--garbage in, garbage out. More on that later.

It was never a goal of the Bush administration to kill or capture OBL
(after about 9/18).

We've discussed this before, and of course getting OBL was repeatedly voiced
as the policy of the Bush administration. That Bush later said he no longer
worried about that doesn't alter the fact that at one time he'd talked very
tough on the subject.

If our people ran across him in the course of other endeavors, that would,
of course, be a plus. But the single goal of the Bush folks was to to
prevent another attack on the US or US interests abroad. To do this, they
endeavored to devise strategies and tactics to disrupt terrorist
recruitment, training, financing, communication, movement, and
sanctuaries.

Those are worthy goals, but you've left out some important factors, like the
Bush administration *creating* opportunities for terrorists to attack U.S.
interests in the form of American soldiers stuck in a shooting gallery in
Iraq. You're also overlooking that the Bush administration had other goals,
regime change in the middle east being high on the list--that's why they
were determined to go into Iraq regardless of whether there was a real
threat of Saddam acquiring WMDs.

In this goal, the Bush administration was successful.

I agree; sadly they balanced that success with a bloody and hugely expensive
war in Iraq. It's like painting the front of your house but leaving the
back exposed to the elements....

Since Obama came to office, there have been three terrorist attacks on US
soil: The shootings at Ft Hood, the Christmas-day bomber, and the Times
Square bomber. Whether through "bad luck" or "taking one's eye off the
ball" may never be known.

And here is where GIGO comes in. Comparing 9/11 (where it does seem the
administration of the day didn't have its eye on the ball in that it
apparently ignored warnings from the previous administration that OBL was
determined to attack inside the U.S.) where thousands of Americans died, to
the pinprick attacks of lone nutcases that have occurred in the past couple
of years is to enter corrupt data into the system. Two of the three attacks
you named were unsuccessful, and the one that did result in fatalities
wasn't the kind of attack that any administration would have been likely to
have prevented as it came from someone inside the America military.

You're also overlooking that terror attacks didn't stop during the Bush
administration, they merely moved, both to where American soldiers were
conveniently acting as targets, and to places like Spain where the
terrorists were successful in using violence to split away a partner from
the "Coalition of the Willing". That's something OBL said he was going to
do, peel away America's allies which one by one left Iraq and are unlikely
to be interested in future adventures of that sort. He also said years ago
that his plan was to get America into a war in the middle or far east which
it would be unable to leave, where America would bleed for years to
come--sadly the Bush administration chose to play along.

So your comparison between the success of the Bush administration and the
supposed failure of the Obama administration relies on faulty data from the
beginning in that you downplay some factors and magnify others to get the
results you desire--GIGO. It doesn't matter how many times you measure if
you wrote down the wrong number in the first place as I recently confirmed
making a trellis for a climbing plant my wife thought would look nice beside
the front door. Unlike the mistakes of the Bush administration, the problem
with the trellis was easy to fix.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Whether the business was a "bad thing" can be measured.

As the computer people say--garbage in, garbage out. More on that
later.
It was never a goal of the Bush administration to kill or capture OBL
(after about 9/18).

We've discussed this before, and of course getting OBL was repeatedly
voiced as the policy of the Bush administration. That Bush later
said he no longer worried about that doesn't alter the fact that at
one time he'd talked very tough on the subject.


There was, admittedly, much blustering in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
As dispassionate heads began to think on the issue, however, vengence
against OBL fell into the pot of disinterest, or at least way down on the
list. Contrary to your position, I don't think you can find one single
reference to the killing or capturing of OBL as a goal of the United States
government since October 2011 - by an official OF the government.

Of course the opposition seized on the administration's position and made it
a cause celeb "Why haven't we brought OBL to justice?!!", etc.

"HeyBub" wrote:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Whether the business was a "bad thing" can be measured.

As the computer people say--garbage in, garbage out. More on that
later.
It was never a goal of the Bush administration to kill or capture OBL
(after about 9/18).

We've discussed this before, and of course getting OBL was repeatedly
voiced as the policy of the Bush administration. That Bush later
said he no longer worried about that doesn't alter the fact that at
one time he'd talked very tough on the subject.


There was, admittedly, much blustering in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
As dispassionate heads began to think on the issue, however, vengence
against OBL fell into the pot of disinterest, or at least way down on the
list. Contrary to your position, I don't think you can find one single
reference to the killing or capturing of OBL as a goal of the United States
government since October 2011 - by an official OF the government.

Let me refresh your memory by re-posting what I told you last July
when you made a similar claim;
Message-ID:

GW Bush;
"We're going to get [Bin Laden] Dead or alive, it doesn't matter to
me." 12/14/2001

With credit to wikiquote.org;
GW Bush;
"I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden.
It's kind of one of those exaggerations. "
3rd Presidential Debate, October 13, 2004
"Because he's hiding."
Asked why his administration had been unable to locate and arrest
Osama Bin Laden. (16 January 2005)

Porter Goss- Head of the CIA in 2005;
"In the chain that you need to successfully wrap up the war on terror,
we have some weak links. And I find that until we strengthen all the
links, we're probably not going to be able to bring Mr. bin Laden to
justice."

In 2008 Mccain claimed to have a secret plan to capture Bin Laden.

Admiral Mullen Dec. 2009
""But it's not just bin Laden ... quite frankly," he said. "It's the
entire network that must be defeated. We are very focused on that in
terms of the outcome."

Not that he doesn't have a few of his own ideas-- but since you said
"those charged with carrying out those policies". . ..

" It would not defeat al-Qaida to have him captured or killed, but I
don't think that we can finally defeat al-Qaida until he is captured
or killed."
— Stanley A. McChrystal on capturing Bin Laden / December 09, 2009

Jim

Jim Elbrecht wrote:

We've discussed this before, and of course getting OBL was
repeatedly voiced as the policy of the Bush administration. That
Bush later said he no longer worried about that doesn't alter the
fact that at one time he'd talked very tough on the subject.


There was, admittedly, much blustering in the immediate aftermath of
9/11. As dispassionate heads began to think on the issue, however,
vengence against OBL fell into the pot of disinterest, or at least
way down on the list. Contrary to your position, I don't think you
can find one single reference to the killing or capturing of OBL as
a goal of the United States government since October 2011 - by an
official OF the government.

Let me refresh your memory by re-posting what I told you last July
when you made a similar claim;
Message-ID:

GW Bush;
"We're going to get [Bin Laden] Dead or alive, it doesn't matter to
me." 12/14/2001

With credit to wikiquote.org;
GW Bush;
"I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden.
It's kind of one of those exaggerations. "
3rd Presidential Debate, October 13, 2004
"Because he's hiding."
Asked why his administration had been unable to locate and arrest
Osama Bin Laden. (16 January 2005)

Porter Goss- Head of the CIA in 2005;
"In the chain that you need to successfully wrap up the war on terror,
we have some weak links. And I find that until we strengthen all the
links, we're probably not going to be able to bring Mr. bin Laden to
justice."


Okay, so there was one reference on Dec 14 (90 days after 9/11). But my
point's still valid. The administration was not out beating the drums to
find OBL. Your other two references were to questions asked.