George W. Bush: the master of language and logic

At the official swearing-in ceremony for new Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff on March 3, 2005, Bush said the following:

Recently, we learned that Osama bin Laden has urged the terrorist Zarqawi to form a group to conduct attacks outside Iraq, including here in the United States. We're on a constant hunt for bin Laden. We're keeping the pressure on him, keeping him in hiding.

This sounds tough, but it really has a weak meaning. See, if you are keeping bin Laden in hiding, you don't know where he is, and you are not going to capture him. And keeping pressure on him apparently has not prevented him from operating because, as George his ownself said, bin Laden is in communication of sort sort with Zarqawi.

Further evidence of bin Laden still being able to operate was presented in this AP article.

Meanwhile, bin Laden continues to operate. He released a video addressed to the American people days before the November elections, appearing healthy, shaven and lit by studio lights.

Within the last several weeks, U.S. officials say bin Laden has been in contact with al-Zarqawi, who first pledged his loyalty to bin Laden in October. Al-Zarqawi is believed to run his own network in Iraq — aligned with al-Qaida and receptive to its cause but maintaining some autonomy.

Not only do George's statements not really make sense, but there is a question as to whether there is a constant hunt and pressure, as noted in these excerpts from the same AP article:

In the search for bin Laden, Pakistan’s President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said in December 2004 “the trail has gone cold,” and U.S. officials largely agree.

*******

Yet a former intelligence official, speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity, wondered about recent decisions on U.S. resources. The official said intelligence and military assets were moved from Afghanistan to Iraq for the Jan. 30 elections there, and it’s unclear whether they went back.

Asked to confirm the shift, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable said, “As a matter of security, we don’t comment on operational matters.”

*******

The No. 2 commander in Afghanistan, Maj. Gen. Eric Olson, recently said he was concerned that U.S. policy-makers will seize on an apparent drop in militant attacks to cut coalition troops to ease the pressure on forces stretched by their deployment in Iraq. Olson added that he did not anticipate any letup in the mission to find bin Laden.

Frankly, this is not a big concern to me because I feel the capture of bin Laden is not the most important objective. I agree with what James Pavitt, head of the CIA’s clandestine service until last summer, who told the AP:

While the symbolic importance of capturing bin Laden remains high, Pavitt also stressed the importance of going after the network. “The issue is a network, and it is a network that is more diffuse than it was three-and-half years ago,” he said.

In other words, the priority should be shutting down the network, not capturing bin Laden (although capturing him would certainly help damage the network).

So why am I complaining? I am complaining because Bush says things that do not make sense and are not honest. Bin Laden is still operating, and it appears that we are not constantly hunting him and putting pressure on him. Why not just tell us that the priority is going after the network--of which Zarqawi is a vital part and Iraq is the key location--and while we are still going after bin Laden, for now our resources and efforts are keyed on Iraq and Zarqawi?

Why can Mr. Straight-shooter-plain-talker not just tell everyone the truth?