Really?
I know, like most of us you want to and only remember this side of Bush 6 days after 9/11.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/bush.powell.terrorism/
I'd say at least for the regulars here, we'd all agree with Bush on his focus.
However, something happened, something changed at some point in this "War of Terror" to the point that Bush no longer considered Osama a central focus.
In March of 2002' at a Press Conference the following Q and A took place concerning bin Laden.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
What changed in March 2002' from his words on Sept. 17th 2001'? Where did the focus go from Osama to where?
But did it change back? No, seems in Sept. 2006', his direction expressed in March 2002' seemed the same. Consider this.
From none other than the voice of Bush adminstration in the publication of the "Weekly Standard" and Fox News Commentator Fred Barnes.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/696wnfcp.asp
Was Osama just buried deep and beyond approach? This seems to not be the case and in 2 seperate "known" occassions, we had a shot at Osama and the leadership called off the "Dogs of War."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288997,00.html
and
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304306,00.html
But surely after Bush a few weeks ago spoke of the importance of getting Osama before he leaves office would become a frontburner issue but now it appears the same foot dragging is happening again and this time the DOD is complaining. And this from today's news.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374064,00.html
Even today this was discussed on Fox News with a retired Army officer Maj. Gen. Tim Haake Ret. who commanded Special Operations and who confirmed the bureacratic footdragging. Go to Fox News Video and watch the video entitled Beyond Bureaucracy.
OK. except for the initial CNN story, none of the rest came from left wing, liberal or anti war sources. All raised questions as to just how hard Bush wants Osama like he did on Sept. 17th 2001' and I think these are valid concerns that raise legit questions.
As for Al Qaeda having changed tactics towards effecting the economics of the west and for that matter global economics?
Now who would utter such Tom Clancy fantasies? Why none other than the highly respected Conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation in April of 2006'.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/NationalSecurity/bg1926.cfm
You might also read this report from the Heritage Foundation given as testimony by James Philips in 02/2006' to the US House Armed Services Subcommittee of Terrorism called "The Evolving Al Qaeda Threat."
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/NationalSecurity/tst021606a.cfm
You know before you rattle off Tom Clancy again, you might be aware that his "FICTION" is based on a lot of "FACT!"
Uh oil prices dropped a bit during mid-day trading as the US gov't released a report that US demand had dropped and they reported that the Seymour Hersch story on Iranian covery operations was unfounded. At least Ambassador Crocker was the mouthpiece for this but one could question just how much he knows to begin with. But then the Israeli jets are over the Med making what many believe are dry runs for something big!