White House Claims Bin Laden Was Not The ‘Mastermind’ [Archive]

Kefka

09-10-2008, 11:32 PM

Tomorrow marks the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. In a press conference today, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Dana Perino about the administration’s ongoing efforts to find Osama bin Laden, calling him the “mastermind” of 9/11. Perino interrupted the reporter, claiming bin Laden was not the true “mastermind” of the attacks:

Q: But Osama bin Laden is the one that — you keep talking about his lieutenants, and, yes, they are very important, but Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 –

PERINO: No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of 9/11, and he’s sitting in jail right now.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/10/seventh-anniversary-white-house/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwb2EuzGN4

W.T.F.

Daniel

09-10-2008, 11:41 PM

Is this serious?

Kefka

09-10-2008, 11:43 PM

Still looking into it.

Cephalopod

09-11-2008, 12:04 AM

How does this impact McCain's intent to follow bin Laden to the 'gates of hell and shoot him' with Thompson/Center weapons?

Sean of the Thread

09-11-2008, 12:06 AM

Well, the Bush administration couldn't catch him. Is it surprising they'd now deny he was the mastermind?

Thanks to a shortage of available troops from our pal Clinton and retarded Pakistani soldiers.

He's dead anyways. Can't be hard to spot a camel carrying a dialysis machine across a mountain range imo when you can count the chickens in someones yard from any of our satellites.

Warriorbird

09-11-2008, 01:07 AM

The section of Pakistan he's in is quite securely not ours. 500 million can also buy you a lot.

Back

09-11-2008, 01:35 AM

He was arrested March 1, 2003. We went to war in Iraq on March 20, 2003.

What about the videos and tape recordings of Bin-Laden that were presented as clear evidence?

If Khalid is the mastermind why did we even start on Iraq? Even if it took 5 years to get that confession out of him why don’t we claim victory and start drawing down troops now?

Sean of the Thread

09-11-2008, 01:35 AM

Warriorbird

09-11-2008, 01:37 AM

Awful convenient to blame the President when he's a Democrat and Congress when he's a Republican.

Mabus

09-11-2008, 01:38 AM

Haven't your reactionary friends here confirmed that it was actually Dick Cheney's plan that downscaled the military in Clinton's time, leftover from Reagan's final days?

Anyway, glad to know that you're merely one of those people that claims to ignore people, and doesn't. Surprise.
Not sure if you are calling me "reactionary friends" with the poster, but you are correct that the troop and equipment cuts were outlined to Congress by then Sec. of Defense Richard Cheney, and then implemented by a GOP Congress under Pres. William Clinton, though it was Pres. George H. W. Bush (not Pres. Ronald Reagan) that Richard Cheney was working for at the time the cuts were proposed.

Sean of the Thread

09-11-2008, 01:46 AM

I'm just saying.

And WB you know I'm not a blind party line follower so you can save the "awful convenient" bullshit :)

Warriorbird

09-11-2008, 02:06 AM

;)

You know I mainly blame Congress myself. People mocked Ron Paul for his recent statements but more power to him.

Parkbandit

09-11-2008, 09:54 AM

Awful convenient to blame the President when he's a Democrat and Congress when he's a Republican.

And vica versa...

crb

09-11-2008, 10:49 AM

crb

09-11-2008, 10:55 AM

Since when did they forget about him? We haven't left the mountains of Afganistan, and we have now sent troops into Pakistan as well. Assuming he is even in that region still. For all we know he is sitting in a hut in siberia.

The hunt for Osama and the War in Iraq are not mutually exclusive.

Kefka

09-11-2008, 11:29 AM

Why is this news? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been labeled as the mastermind for years, and was so even in the 911 commission report. The media has been calling him that for years and years.

Bin Laden is the head of Al Qaeda, that doesn't mean he plans everything. Mastermind != head, boss, CEO, etc. Mastermind == designer, architect, etc.

Think of it like a major league sports franchise. Bin Laden may own the team, but that doesn't make him the coach.

This is just an example of a bunch of partisans trying to feign outrage and make excuses. yes yes, both sides do it, and with this issue it is the democrats doing it.

Oh, and backlash, the war on terror is not about titfortat retaliation. It is about preempting future attacks.

So you're saying the head of a terrorist organization is not responsible for the actions of one of his lieutenants? You're also assuming that after 7 years of torture, Khalid wouldn't claim to be the pope to save himself. Do you think any country could get away with blaming one of their generals for attacking another country? Didn't Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda claim responsibility for the attacks? A terrorist organization /= baseball team.

crb

09-11-2008, 12:09 PM

TheEschaton

09-11-2008, 12:16 PM

I think the point of the post is the obfuscation of the WH, arguing about technical meanings of 'mastermind' and who actually planned the attacks, rather than addressing the CONTENT of the question, which is, "Why haven't we caught OBL?"

-TheE-

crb

09-11-2008, 12:20 PM

You act as if it was a 1 question press conference. And you know how politics are... for example..

"Why are you for drilling when it'll only make a penny in different in gas prices."

A politician answering that and focusing on the content of the question, why are you for drilling, implicitly acknowledges the assumption included in the question which he or she man not agree with. Which could then be used against them in a campaign. Including assumptions like that is a tactic used by politicians and the media and so they're trained to correct assumptions before answering questions.

TheEschaton

09-11-2008, 12:25 PM

I'm sorry, this is a tactic introduced to the WH Press Room by Ari Fleischer. It has always been common to spin in the Press Room, but he was the first to regularly not even address the main point of the question, but quibble on insignificant, minor points not related at all, or outright deny the basis of the fact asserted.

Khariz

09-11-2008, 12:28 PM

You need to start a new thread if you want to discuss who is responsible for 911. This thread you started over who is the mastermind of 911.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS280US280&q=%22Khalid+Sheikh+Mohammed%22+mastermind

The first 10 results all say he is the mastermind, they are:

Wikipedia
Huffingtonpost
Nydailynews
cnn
abcnews
guardian.co.uk
foxnews
telegraph.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
breitbart.com

But Bush says it and he's suddenly wrong? Please

You may also find these links useful:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mastermind
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/responsible

There you go trying to confuse the PC with facts and evidence again. It doesn't work. Most everyone here are immune to such things!

Drunken Durfin

09-11-2008, 12:31 PM

If Khalid is the mastermind why did we even start on Iraq?

Because Bush and his boys knew where the WMD's were, Iraq sponsored the 9/11 terrorists and that they were building a nuke...remember.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

Kefka

09-11-2008, 12:33 PM

You need to start a new thread if you want to discuss who is responsible for 911. This thread you started over who is the mastermind of 911.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS280US280&q=%22Khalid+Sheikh+Mohammed%22+mastermind

The first 10 results all say he is the mastermind, they are:

Wikipedia
Huffingtonpost
Nydailynews
cnn
abcnews
guardian.co.uk
foxnews
telegraph.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
breitbart.com

But Bush says it and he's suddenly wrong? Please

You may also find these links useful:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mastermind
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/responsible

All of those articles have one thing in common. Guantanamo Bay. They're all part of the same story. A government run torture facility gets a guy to confess he's the mastermind behind 9/11. Do you have a link mentioning a rogue faction acting independently of Al-Qaeda? Lieutenants aren't masterminds. They receive orders and it goes straight to the top. The media repeats what they are told.

radamanthys

09-11-2008, 12:57 PM

Mastermind means "guy who planned and executed plot"
Responsible means "guy who told/paid the guy to plan and execute plot"

The pope didn't paint the sistine chapel. But he sure as hell was responsible for it being done. If there was no michaelangelo, it'd have been done differently, but it'd have still been done. Michaelangelo was the mastermind, the pope was responsible.

Liberals use this logic all the time: The guy was the mastermind of the shooting, but it was really the gun that was responsible. Or... bush is 'responsible' for everything, but it's really dick cheney and karl rove who are the masterminds behind the curtain.

etc. etc. etc. Mastermind <> Responsible party. Yes, most of the country thinks that bin laden planned it all out. Apparently this is not true, as that other guy did the planning and masterminded the plot.

So when the press secretary tells the truth, it's further proof of the evil of this administration? Nice logic.

TheEschaton

09-11-2008, 01:00 PM

Like I said, it's not that PErrino clarified who the real mastermind is (that fact seems irrelevant), it's that she DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT BIN LADEN.

Daniel

09-11-2008, 01:01 PM

Yea. Absolutely, let's try and make *not* finding Osama Bin Laden into some sort of success. Fucking Liberals and their sense of accountability.

Khariz

09-11-2008, 01:12 PM

Yea. Absolutely, let's try and make *not* finding Osama Bin Laden into some sort of success. Fucking Liberals and their sense of accountability.

I LOLed and spit coffee at my monitor.

Kefka

09-11-2008, 02:00 PM

Mastermind means "guy who planned and executed plot"
Responsible means "guy who told/paid the guy to plan and execute plot"

Once again he worked for an organization. He was still part of that organization when he was captured. He's not the leader of said organization. He's not the mastermind.

The pope didn't paint the sistine chapel. But he sure as hell was responsible for it being done. If there was no michaelangelo, it'd have been done differently, but it'd have still been done. Michaelangelo was the mastermind, the pope was responsible.

Michaelangelo was a private contractor hired by the church. If he worked for the church, the pope would say they created it.

Liberals use this logic all the time: The guy was the mastermind of the shooting, but it was really the gun that was responsible. Or... bush is 'responsible' for everything, but it's really dick cheney and karl rove who are the masterminds behind the curtain.

Actually, 'liberals' go after the people who created or sold him the gun. Also, last time I checked, we focus on Bush because he's the president.

etc. etc. etc. Mastermind <> Responsible party. Yes, most of the country thinks that bin laden planned it all out. Apparently this is not true, as that other guy did the planning and masterminded the plot.

Which goes back to the first quote. You need funds/supplies for that plot to reach fruition. Someone gives you a gun, money, supplies and a plane ticket to kill someone they don't like in another country. Guess what? You're not the mastermind.

So when the press secretary tells the truth, it's further proof of the evil of this administration? Nice logic.

More like when the press secretary changes the story after 2 wars, then it's further proof of the evil of this administration.

crb

09-11-2008, 06:40 PM

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/Tarkus/FacePalm.jpg

Kefka

09-11-2008, 09:30 PM

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/Tarkus/FacePalm.jpg

I did that too when Palin stumbled on ABC tonight. She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is?

Daniel

09-11-2008, 10:02 PM

I did that too when Palin stumbled on ABC tonight. She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is?

Well, it's a good thing she holds out the possibility of a military confrontation with Russia over Georgia and Ukraine.

crb

09-12-2008, 08:57 AM

Well, it's a good thing she holds out the possibility of a military confrontation with Russia over Georgia and Ukraine.
I sense sarcasm.

Lovely liberal media putting a headline "Palin wants war with Russia" as the teaser to the article where she says...

"If countries like Ukraine and Georgia and Poland are in NATO, and if Russia attacks them, the terms of the NATO treaty means we would have to defend them."

That inexperienced war hawk! Wanting to honor the terms of our International treaties! How dare SHE!

Daniel

09-12-2008, 09:43 AM

I sense sarcasm.

Lovely liberal media putting a headline "Palin wants war with Russia" as the teaser to the article where she says...

"If countries like Ukraine and Georgia and Poland are in NATO, and if Russia attacks them, the terms of the NATO treaty means we would have to defend them."

That inexperienced war hawk! Wanting to honor the terms of our International treaties! How dare SHE!

Well considering that Georgia and Ukraine are *not* in NATO and that we would have to add them. This could easily be construed as simply goading Russia into War. So, I think it's an appropriate criticism. We aren't talking about Germany here, but in fact what used to be Russia proper.

There's a reason why European countries blocked Georgia into NATO and it's very unlikely that they'll let them in after everything that has happened. To characterize this as simply honoring our international agreements is just stupid.

Parkbandit

09-12-2008, 09:53 AM

Well considering that Georgia and Ukraine are *not* in NATO and that we would have to add them. This could easily be construed as simply goading Russia into War. So, I think it's an appropriate criticism. We aren't talking about Germany here, but in fact what used to be Russia proper.

There's a reason why European countries blocked Georgia into NATO and it's very unlikely that they'll let them in after everything that has happened. To characterize this as simply honoring our international agreements is just stupid.

You obviously didn't see the interview. You might want to hold out to see it, lest you have another "OMG THEY R BOOING PALIN!" moment again. Taking tidbits from your liberal blog rags doesn't equate to the news.

Stanley Burrell

09-12-2008, 09:55 AM

This is a battle of words. Washington lost battle that when Grand Duke NIZZA-NIZZA-NIZZA-NUKE-U-LAR Y'ALL crawled into the Oval Office.

When Jenna or Jeb become president, we'll have to put warning labels on:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41MNY4GJ3NL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

So that they don't confuse the little plastic pieces for Jujubes. Fack.

Daniel

09-12-2008, 09:57 AM

You obviously didn't see the interview. You might want to hold out to see it, lest you have another "OMG THEY R BOOING PALIN!" moment again. Taking tidbits from your liberal blog rags doesn't equate to the news.

I did see the interview. I was responding to CRB directly when he tried to frame the issue as one of simply honoring our international agreements, which is false.

Parkbandit

09-12-2008, 10:05 AM

I did see the interview. I was responding to CRB directly when he tried to frame the issue as one of simply honoring our international agreements, which is false.

Again.. as a friend, I beg you to go revisit the interview and watch the questions/answers prior to this issue.

There is no more room on the bone stack.

Daniel

09-12-2008, 10:13 AM

Again.. as a friend, I beg you to go revisit the interview and watch the questions/answers prior to this issue.

There is no more room on the bone stack.

What exactly are you not understanding about "Georgia and Ukraine are not members of NATO"?

If you want to make the argument that they should be fine, but you damn well better understand the implications of that choice.

Parkbandit

09-12-2008, 10:17 AM

What exactly are you not understanding about "Georgia and Ukraine are not members of NATO"?

If you want to make the argument that they should be fine, but you damn well better understand the implications of that choice.

Lord knows I tried.. but since you insist...

The questioning prior to Palin's comments was whether or not Ukraine and Georgia should be invited into NATO.. to which she said yes. The line of questioning after that assumed they were both members already.

Daniel

09-12-2008, 10:20 AM

Lord knows I tried.. but since you insist...

The questioning prior to Palin's comments was whether or not Ukraine and Georgia should be invited into NATO.. to which she said yes. The line of questioning after that assumed they were both members already.

Yes. Thank you. That is what I have been saying.

Admitting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO is about the same as goading Russia into a War (How do you think the US would feel is Russia admitted Texas into the Eastern Bloc?) and Palin seems to have no problems with that.

What exactly is your point?

crb

09-12-2008, 12:23 PM

Yes. Thank you. That is what I have been saying.

Admitting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO is about the same as goading Russia into a War (How do you think the US would feel is Russia admitted Texas into the Eastern Bloc?) and Palin seems to have no problems with that.

What exactly is your point?
....Because mutual protection pacts are ever so incendiary.

What is plan B, appease Russia into a reversion to the USSR?

If we have allies how can we be so two-faced as to reject mutual protection pacts with them? Are we such fair weather friends?

And saying it will "goad russia into war" is just retarded (But then again, look who says it). Its like saying if little billy has a problem with bullies in school and if he asks his older much much larger brothers to pick him up after school to help protect him it will make his bully MORE likely to fight.

Russia will piss, and moan, and complain, and saber rattle, and they may fuck with natural gas shipments to europe, but in the end, they will not attack a NATO country. Bringing a country into NATO will not make them more likely to attack, they want you to think that, of course, they want you to think the world will end, because they want the freedom to be able to roll over countries like Ukraine and Georgia, but in the end, it is all posturing on their part. They're no such zealots as to wish to engage NATO in a war.

Daniel

09-12-2008, 12:31 PM

....Because mutual protection pacts are ever so incendiary.

What is plan B, appease Russia into a reversion to the USSR?

If we have allies how can we be so two-faced as to reject mutual protection pacts with them? Are we such fair weather friends?

And saying it will "goad russia into war" is just retarded (But then again, look who says it). Its like saying if little billy has a problem with bullies in school and if he asks his older much much larger brothers to pick him up after school to help protect him it will make his bully MORE likely to fight.

Russia will piss, and moan, and complain, and saber rattle, and they may fuck with natural gas shipments to europe, but in the end, they will not attack a NATO country. Bringing a country into NATO will not make them more likely to attack, they want you to think that, of course, they want you to think the world will end, because they want the freedom to be able to roll over countries like Ukraine and Georgia, but in the end, it is all posturing on their part. They're no such zealots as to wish to engage NATO in a war.

Then I guess you would have to wonder then why the State Dept and John McCain have been much more muted about antagonizing Russia over Georgia and Ukraine.

Keep thinking that this is a great idea. For one, it will never happen because Europe isn't going to allow it as they aren't that fucking stupid.

crb

09-12-2008, 12:45 PM

I did see the interview. I was responding to CRB directly when he tried to frame the issue as one of simply honoring our international agreements, which is false.
She said, in the interview, it would be our treaty obligation to defend them if they were NATO members. WATCH THE INTERVIEW.

crb

09-12-2008, 12:45 PM

Then I guess you would have to wonder then why the State Dept and John McCain have been much more muted about antagonizing Russia over Georgia and Ukraine.

Keep thinking that this is a great idea. For one, it will never happen because Europe isn't going to allow it as they aren't that fucking stupid.
Ahh Europe, the original appeasers. How well that has worked out for them historically.

Daniel

09-12-2008, 02:26 PM

She said, in the interview, it would be our treaty obligation to defend them if they were NATO members. WATCH THE INTERVIEW.

Right after she said they should be members. I know you and your buddies have problems with logical progresssions but seriously. It's not that hard.

Daniel

09-12-2008, 02:28 PM

Ahh Europe, the original appeasers. How well that has worked out for them historically.

certainly not any worse than our recent toughtalk and beligerent policies.

crb

09-13-2008, 12:11 PM

certainly not any worse than our recent toughtalk and beligerent policies.
I don't know... our foreign policy hasn't resulted in us being conquered before.

Read up on chamberlain, appeasement, and hitler, and get back to me on if you think the European style is really a good idea.

Warriorbird

09-13-2008, 12:32 PM

So... we're going to conquer Russia? We see how well that's worked historically.

Daniel

09-13-2008, 01:01 PM

I don't know... our foreign policy hasn't resulted in us being conquered before.

Read up on chamberlain, appeasement, and hitler, and get back to me on if you think the European style is really a good idea.

there is a big difference between appeasement and being intentionally beliggerent and reckless. Feel free to look at Vietnam and Iraq for good counter examples.