A Question of Literacy at Think Progress

Poor Faiz.

He seems to have problems with the simplest of concepts:

Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes appeared on Fox this morning to discuss his recent meeting with President Bush in the Oval Office. The key takeaway for Barnes was that "bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism." Barnes said that Bush told him capturing bin Laden is "not a top priority use of American resources." Watch it.

[snip]

Bush's priorities have always been skewed. Just months after declaring he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive," Bush said, "I truly am not that concerned about him." Turning his attention away from bin Laden, Bush trained his focus on Iraq — a country he now admits had "nothing" to do with 9/11.
Capturing bin Laden, as Rep. Nancy Pelosi recently pointed out, will not necessarily make America safer because it would come five years too late. Yet, capturing or killing the man responsible for 9/11 should remain a high priority.

Bush said he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive" less than a week after 9/11, and in March of 2002 said that he was "not that concerned about him" in the following context after the Taliban and al Qaeda has been driven from power in Afghanistan.

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of -- THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

Faiz, of course, took a single-line comment out of a much larger comment, completely out of context. Sadly, Faiz shows he just didn't understand what Bush was saying here. If he did, he couldn't logically disagree with the President's point.

How did Bush begin his response, back in 2002? With a concept Faiz and most other Democrats can't apparently grasp four years later:

Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

Let's slow it down and break it into tiny little chunks for our liberal friends to comprehend.

Osama bin Laden, in September 2001, was the undisputed leader of al Qaeda in all capacities. By March 2002 when the President made this comment, we were not sure if Osama was even still alive, or if he had been killed on chaotic Afghan battlefields.

Bush is showing her that he understands terrorist organizations do not have a rigid top-down hierarchy. Taking out Osama, while a great public relations victory for the United States and a temporary psychological blow to his followers, would have very little effect on the overall distributed network of cells. The invasion of Afghanistan drove Osama completely out of tactical and operational control of al Qaeda, and thoroughly isolated him. He is still a nice trophy if we happen to catch him, but as a current planner and plotter of terrorism, he is of very little importance, and our top resources should go towards fighting those that still have an active role.

That is what Bush meant over four years ago when he said that:

…focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Bush was precisely right in March of 2002. Even with four years to think about it, Democrats such as Faiz can't seem to grasp a concept so simple it can be explained in less than 30 seconds.

Perhaps he needs another example, one that is a little simpler. Let's use baseball.

A major league batter facing Nolan Ryan at the top of his game was going against one of the greatest pitchers of all time. A hypothetical major league batter facing Nolan Ryan four years after he retired would be facing much less of a threat.

As a nation fighting a global war against Islamic terrorists and the nation-states that support them, we have a lot of high priorities.

Finding a way to decrease sectarian violence and dismantle the insurgency in Iraq. Defeating the Taliban and finding a way to destroy the opium crop that supports it Afghanistan that financially supports it would be another. Finding a way to stop nuclear weapons development and terrorist support in Iran, a nation led by a sect that believes in their ability to force the return of their savior through a burning of the world is another. Dismantling active terrorist cells and the attacks they are attempting is yet another high priority.

Dedicating a large amount of men and resources to track down and kill a single figurehead that lives in remote isolation and who is not thought to play a direct role in planning or executing attacks for over four years is not a high priority, nor should it be. Osama bin Laden, other than sporadically appearing in cheerleading videos, has been taken out of the picture.

Bush knew that in 2002. Four years later, Think Progress and other liberals have yet to understand that basic concept.