Obama: GOP Tactics The Reason bin Laden Is Still Free

WASHINGTON — A defiant Barack Obama said Tuesday he would take no lectures from Republicans on which candidate would keep the U.S. safer, a sharp rebuke to John McCain's aides who said the Democrat had a naive, Sept. 10 mind-set toward terrorism.

"These are the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11," the presumed nominee told reporters aboard his campaign plane. "This is the same kind of fear-mongering that got us into Iraq ... and it's exactly that failed foreign policy I want to reverse."

The debate between the rival camps echoed the 2004 presidential campaign in which President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other Republicans argued that Democratic nominee John Kerry was soft on terror, a claim that resonated with voters and helped propel Bush to re-election. Democrats complained that the GOP was using the politics of fear.

The Republican argument proved less effective in 2006 when then Bush adviser Karl Rove said the Democrats had a pre-Sept. 11 view of the world and Republicans had a post-Sept. 11 terror attacks perspective. In November of that year, Democrats captured enough congressional seats to seize control of the House and Senate.

On his campaign plane, Obama told reporters that Osama bin Laden is still at large in part because Bush's strategy toward fighting terror has not succeeded.

At issue were comments Obama made in an interview with ABC News Monday in which he spoke approvingly of the successful prosecution and imprisonment of those responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Obama was asked how he could be sure the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies are not crucial to protecting U.S. citizens.

Obama said the government can crack down on terrorists "within the constraints of our Constitution." He mentioned the indefinite detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees, contrasting their treatment with the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

"And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo," Obama said. "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks _ for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center _ we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

Story continues below

"And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, 'Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims. ...

"We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws," Obama said.

Obama agreed with the Supreme Court ruling last week that detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a constitutional right to challenge their indefinite imprisonment in U.S. civilian courts. McCain derided the ruling as "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

McCain aides criticized Obama for talking about using the criminal justice system to prosecute terrorists.

"Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation a September 10th mind-set ... He does not understand the nature of the enemies we face," McCain national security director Randy Scheunemann told reporters on a conference call.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey, who is advising the McCain campaign, concurred, saying Obama has "an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism ... and toward dealing with prisoners captured overseas who have been engaged in terrorist attacks against the United States."

The Obama campaign countered with its own conference call in which Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism official in Republican and Democratic administrations, argued the McCain campaign was emulating Rove.

"I'm a little disgusted by the attempts of some of my friends on the McCain campaign to use the same old, tired tactics ... to drive a wedge between Americans for partisan advantage and to frankly frighten Americans," Clarke said.

Kerry accused McCain of "defending a policy that is indefensible" by siding with Bush's policies, particularly with respect to the Iraq war.

Obama said Republicans could be counted on to do "what they've done every election cycle, which is to use terrorism as club to make the American people afraid to win elections." He said he didn't think it would work this time.

Republicans criticized Obama last year when he said the United States should act on intelligence about top terrorist targets in Pakistan even if President Pervez Musharraf refuses.

___

Beth Fouhy reported from New York.

Comments

[rosal]

After their failed foreign policies, I would think they would keep quite hoping nobody notice. Instead, they want to give lessons to Obama on how "to run foreign policy". They are only good on running everything to the ground.

[WeNeedSomethingBetter]

The Republicans have been looking in the wrong place, someone plz tell them bin Laden is not hiding in a Minnesota bathroom stall.

[Scott1560]

Great! Why don't the Democrats reveal his hiding place? Huh?

[Darnamell]

Well we WOULD except that Bush disbanded the joint CIA/SF team that was looking for him. Something I'm sure an Obama administration would make Job #1.

You have to have power to wield it and your fearmongering-without-deeds types are running out of time. Get ready for an America that actually DOES stuff instead of blusters without results.

[lizr]

see entry below yours.

[speciallady2003]

His hiding place was revealed and Bush hired others to find him. He can't be difficult to locate. As a 6'3" man in need of dialysis three times a week one would think he stands out. Why has this administration had such a difficult time finding a sore thumb. Incompetence, or something more?

[Stoyver]

Yo Scott! Are you one of those Republicans who "don't do nuance"? You completely missed the gist of what WeNeedSomethingBetter said. Let me parse it out for you. Republican leadership has not captured Bin Laden because it is not a priority. In fact the Republican fear campaign is enhanced by the at-large status of Bin Laden and his brand of scary terrorists. Do you get it?

[UnbiasView]

I didn't know Larry Craig was a foot soldier looking for Osama.

[lizr]

LOL

[Ladyrantsalot]

Not only has bin Laden been giving the US the finger for the past 7 years, his organization has totally regrouped in Pakistan and the Taliban is once again on the march in southern Afghanistan. Militarily and financially the Bu$hLeaguers have been totally distracted by the neoimperial adventure in Iraq. Our forces are inadequate in Afghanistan and we never inaugurated a real Marshall Plan there. It's all-Saddam-all-the-time. Conservatives just plastered 9/11 stickers all over Iraq and called it the war on terror.

[jupitor]

They are laughing at America and people like bush /Mccain who is bleeding American dry of of our finance's, oil , gas and any thing we'd need to fight old Bin Laden. He knows what he's doing, some of us was smart enough to see it, but Mccain/Bush had to have their war. Ya 50 people died in bagdad, Iraq today from a bomb, But Mccain says Iraq is secure sense the surge! The shame of it is it wasn't saddam or the iraq's who caused 9/11, but Mccain says we need that darn war for the next what was it? 100 years? Two years more, is to much! We can't afford it in human life and we can't afford it financially. but the GOP has turned a corner and now saying they will drill for oil at home! Make the people beleive this will give us immediate reliaf. You know and I know and Mccain knows thats a big fat lie, we wouldn't see any progress if we began drilling know for several years, and a Demacratic senate and congress has to work with the old fool for him to pass it. Fat chance of that! If mccain becomes prez, it will be just like bush, get nothing done or changed in washington!

[prius04]

Obama telling this much truth may not play too well with America's media. Remember all, the media has failed to accept any responsibility for helping sell this wrong war, so how can they do anything but look adverse to this kind of [similar] truth!

[GrainOSand]

Change is the process not the goal. Be the target of change and thereby ye arrive? How a candidate runs their campaign is all one need look at for all questions of character, skill, integrity, and capability. So busy are we at times chasing the dream, that we forget to dream. The pose is not the essence but merely the outward expression of cool.

Concisely, screw the media who betrays the integrity of the intent of the media, the free press. If they are not the solution then they are in fact the problem. Live the change and be ye president of self and thereby manifests all without sweating much or fretting much, but getting much out of life.

[mcthorogood]

Talk about beating a dead horse!

[AmericaIsATerroist]

You mena talk about bringing up yet ANOTHER inconvenient truth.

[lizr]

Not a dead horse to the 3000 dead in NYC on 9-11 I bet.

Or their families.

And if it's such a dead horse how come the Reps expect to keep winning elections on 9-11 constantly. Why don't you go tell them 5 yrs ago it was a dead horse,see how that plays?

Let me know, K?

[zoetrope]

The truth of Obama's words is in our faces this week.
The strength of the Taliban is growing in Afghanistan and Karzai is pleading for help to control the activities of the terrorists hiding on the Pakistan border.
If our military activity was conducted where it belonged, we would not be hearing this now.
Shame! Shame!

[NYDamien]

My guess is that the top military and political leaders haven't made a big effort to get Osama because they don't want to. Keeping him holed up, isolated, and severely restricted may be a better tactic than catching him, and making a living (or dead) martyr out of him. The uprising by the militants by seeing Obama in chains, or in a morgue, may not be the best way to go.
I can't believe that O.B. is much more than a figurehead at this point.
Haven't you noticed that nobody, Republican or Democrat, has been screaming to make an all-out effort to capture him.
Maybe they know something we don't.
BTW..........Having done two tours, believe me when I tell you our special ops guys could capture a gnat's pubic hair in a windstorm if given the go-ahead.

[timthemedic]

And having done two tours myself, I disagree with you that SF and CAG can capture/kill anyone anytime. But anyways...

[oldvet]

I can guarantee you that army leaders would have done their damnest to capture or kill Bin Laden, had Bush not withdrawn troops from Afghanistan in the run up to his invasion of Iraq.

[timthemedic]

Having done two tours myself, I disagree with you that SF and CAG can capture anyone anywhere. But whatever.

[janpradder]

Not mentioned in the article is that because the Bush Administration ignored critical information about attacks in the US via airliner prior to Sept. 11, the US took no action and was asleep at the switch. This smearing of Obama by the GOP when they are at fault is going to keep coming. Great Americans, my foot. 9/11 might have been prevented if NOT For the republicans.

[hjo4]

Senator John McCain & President Bush Why hasn't Osama bin laden been captured after 7 yrs of looking for him. President Bush and those who supported this war had failed America and the American people miserably.How can we trust or believe a President McCain would captured OBL even if he appeared at his inauguration on the arm of George W Bush.

[kay]

Forget captured. What about tried and punished? Since when do we go after a "movement" to the exclusion of individuals?

It's absurd.

Conservatives can't capture, try and punish this particular perpetrator because they are...busy fighting the war on terror? Huh?

It's like claiming you're busy "crime fighting" while NOT pursuing individual criminals. The broader War On Crime precludes capturing criminals. Okey doke.

Just absurd.

The reason conservatives don't want terrorism compared to criminal matters is because if Americans make that connection they'll realize conservatives have utterly failed at bringing anyone to justice, in anyway.

When do the terrorism trials begin? Are conservatives...gathering evidence? I would think they'd have defendants stacked up in cells with all the illegal searches they conduct.

[Scott1560]

And how could you trust or believe that Obama would capture him? Huh?

Sorry, but no elected President will make a dif. Pure luck and that's about it.

[Hrotea]

THE OSAMA BIN LADEN FIASCO SHOULD BE BLAMED ON THE FOLLOWING AND IN THIS ORDER: BUSH, CHENEY, THE REPUBLICANS AND, SURPRISE, EVEN THE DEMOCRATS!

By Hermie Rotea

Let us stop the fingerpointing. They are all responsible and they are all guilty of letting Osama bin Laden go scot-free. That is, if he were still alive.

In March 2003 bin Laden was already trapped in the Tora Bora mountains in Kandahar. He could have been captured then. But President Bush with warhawk Vice President Cheney ordered U.S. forces to pull out.

At that time they were more interested in invading Iraq and the American troops were needed more there. So naturally the al Qaeda leader fled Afghanistan and hid near or in Pakistan.

The Republicans in Congress, joined by the Democratic majority, voted to fund the Iraq war in violation of the U.S. Constitution, the United Nations Charter, the Nurermberg and Geneva Conventions.

That is because under the American charter the power to declare war is vested only in the Congress, and such power cannot be extended to the president. Under the cited international laws, war of aggression is illegal.

So because the Democrats also voted to fund the Iraq war, they are also guilty as hell. No amount of political doubletalk can cover up the truth.

If bin Laden were dead as has been reported, Bush and Cheney need him as bogeyman in their phony war on terror based on lies, oil and profit.

[Scott1560]

Very interesting how your first date is 2003? What happened to those earlier years when B. Clinton was in office and we all knew the threat?

Playin' party on this one make both dems & repubs look stupid.

[timothyi]

Hey Scotty,

First of all, Bush took office in early 2001. He's had 7.5 years. Second, Clinton attacked al Qaeda camps by air at least 4 times in his second term. He failed to get OBL, but at least he tried. Second, bin Laden and AQ were Clinton's #1 priority in fighting terrorism. Thihrd, his Sec of Defense gave Rice and Powell a transition briefing listing OBL and AQ as the biggest threat to the US. The Bush administration made a conscious decision to put them on the back burner; they did NOTHING in their 8 months before 9/11, even to the extent of ignoring a memo indicating that an attack from al Qaeda was imminent.

Any attempts to justify Bush's irresponsibility and malfeasance should be smacked down hard. They are repuglican talking points that have no relation to the truth.

[pacats]

Under the Clinton adm., the 4 men responsible for hitting the twin towers were captured. In the 90's the democratic adm. was focused on capturing the terrorist.

[KenBenobi]

"...joined by the Democratic majority,"

Uhhh, I'm sorry, Mr. Paul (Hrotea), but exactly WHAT Democratic "majority" would you be referring to? Before you pen another so-so piece of self-promotion, won't you please provide the number of the dem-dominated Congress that authorized the Occupation now in question...

[sarimn00]

So true.

[Hadok]

I would like to see Bin Laden brought to justice, but I don't know what that would accomplish other than to satisfy our sense of justice (or revenge).

His capture/death will elevate his status as a martyr. In death he will become more of a rallying point for those who hate us. There are probably 100's more Bin Ladens waiting in line to take his place.

On the other hand, if we could foster stable democracies in the Middle East, and if people there could come to understand that terrorism is not the path to nirvana, then perhaps the world could become a safer place. Difficult task, indeed.

We allowed the radical Islam faction to take over the embassy in Tehran in 1979, and did nothing except "take it" (other than a botched rescue attempt). It is true that 52 hostages were released after 444 days. However, it was demonstrated that America would not take decisive action when its interests were attacked. The terrorist factions of the world were emboldened. Attacks on America's interests escalated, safe in the assumption that America would "take it." How many lives have been lost due to radical terrorism since 1979?

It is a difficult problem. We assisted the Afghans in expelling the Soviets. Then we walked away from the country. We can see what happened. I suspect that if we were to hunt down Bin Laden and then walk away (again) from the region, we will be following the same failed strategy.

[kay]

This is just nonsense. He's a mass murderer. He should be captured, tried and punished INDIVIDUALLY.

Should we apply your thesis across the board? No punishment for mass murderers or we will only make them "martyrs"?

Talk about abandoning every premise of US law. We have a system that punishes individuals for specific crimes. We don't NOT punish because it might motivate some "movement".

Thank God zany conservatives weren't around for the Nuremburg trials. My goodness. They'd be claiming punishment would reignite Hitler's movement.

[Hadok]

You did not read my post. My post begins with "I would like to see Bin Laden brought to justice."

I only point out that simply tracking down Bin Laden, and doing nothing more, is not likely to accomplish much to deter terrorist threats against American interests. In his recent ABC interview, Obama correctly points out, concerning the first WTC attack, "... we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated." Well, that is true. I'm glad we brought those terrorists to justice. However, it didn't do much to deter further attacks.

And, by the way, the Nuremburg trials were possible only because we actually WON that war.

[Viper]

Pre 911... Bush went on vacation (again), CONDI and Ashcroft ignored warnings and were incompetant. 911 happened because the BUSH Administration was incompentant. After 911, they let Bin Laden escape, invaded the wrong country, strengthened Iran. massive fraud, waste of money. cronism, New Orleans/Katrina.... turning corners, last throes...., gas prices, huge deficits, Credit Collapse, Oil speculation/deregulation by Repugs. housing bubble, massive MFG jobs lost... massive trade deficits becuase of failed Free trade Agreements, real wage decline, America on half off sale. Lies and more lies, spin followed by spin. Torture. Iraq will not take but a few months and will cost 2 billion.

I fail to see the difference pre 911 or post 911.. incompetance and wrong at every turn before 911 and after 911... Consistency.. all BAD for America!


Regards

[ribe8g]

Whoever put together the picture for this piece is very perceptive of where this country is
right about now. How unappealing.

[southafrica4obama]

The two neo-cons attacking Obama have been "accused of both profiting from and promoting the Iraq War." Thus, forgetting about Osama.

[kay]

Rudy Guilaini has made an entire career out of 9/11. WILDLY profitable.

He's truly loathsome.