Wednesday, March 2, 2011
"The goal has never been to get bin Laden"
Read the article written by Matt Kelley on April 6, 2002 called, "No large anti-Taliban operations in Afghanistan looming, Gen. Franks says." It includes an interesting quote by retired General Richard Myers, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Wikipedia:
General Myers became the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs on October 1, 2001. In this capacity, he served as the principal military advisor to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council during the earliest stages of the War on Terror, including planning and execution of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. On September 30, 2005, he retired and was succeeded by General Peter Pace.
The quote by Myers reads, "The goal has never been to get bin Laden," which was made by Myers on a CNN show called "Novak, Hunt & Shields."
Matt Kelley wrote, "The capture, killing and scattering of midlevel al-Qaida operatives is perhaps more important than the fact that al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is still at large, said Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
Isn't it interesting that less than a year after the 9/11 attacks happened, the top command in the U.S. military regarded the man who was supposedly responsible for the tragedy not as the top catch in America's counter-terrorism efforts, but as somebody to be forgotten and ignored?
The Bush administration held up Osama bin Laden to the American people and the world as the main architect and villain behind the attacks on the World Trade Center. But he wasn't important enough to capture and/or kill. Why?
Why connect a man to an act of murder and an act of war but then refuse to go after him and bring him to justice for his crimes? If "the goal has never been to get bin Laden," as Myers stated, then why is the United States in Afghanistan? What is it doing there besides hunting down the terrorists who killed Americans on 9/11?
And why has the media not questioned Myers' statement about Bin Laden? Isn't it important to know what American soldiers are doing in Afghanistan, if not to capture and kill the terrorists who attacked America on September 11?
It wasn't just Myers who said that Bin Laden wasn't important, and not the main reason for why America is in Afghanistan. Former President Bush, the guy who wanted Osama Bin Laden dead or alive, said in 2006 that Bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources." Visit this site to get more background on Bush's quote.
Bush made similar statements at a press conference six months after the 9/11 attacks occurred. "Focusing on one person really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission," Bush said, adding, "Terror is bigger than one person." He also said, "I don't know where he is. I just don't spend that much time on him."
Counter those statements with what Bush said just one day after 9/11. "Those in authority should take appropriate precautions to protect our citizens. But we will not allow this enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms," (President Bush said this during a photo appearance with his National Security Team on September 12, 2001. The quote was taken from the website Wikiquote.)
Who was Bush referring to when he said "we will not allow this enemy to win the war"? Who is the enemy, if not Bin Laden? How can anybody supplant Bin Laden as the top enemy when he was accused of committing the 9/11 attacks? If Bush was so interested in stopping terrorism and "protecting" American citizens, then why didn't he go after Bin Laden and stop him from committing crimes in the future? Was Bin Laden even alive six months after 9/11?
It is not out of the question to suggest that Bin Laden died shortly after 9/11, but Bush and his military commanders didn't want to admit this fact to the American people because of the fear that support for American military involvement in Afghanistan would rapidly decrease. What other explanation accounts for Bush's indifference to the whereabouts of Bin Laden?