Getting Bin Laden "Not Important" To Bush Administration

Just when you think this administration has sunk to the lowest possible level of deception, incompetence and utter contempt for the American people, they continue to surprise you.

The Army's highest-ranking officer and the former leader of the secretive world of Special Operations offered his thoughts on the importance of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden during a luncheon Friday.

They're probably not what anyone expected.

"I don't know whether we'll find him," said Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff. "I don't know that it's all that important, frankly."

The Army Chief of Staff, after 2973 Americans were slaughtered on 9/11, and after 370 (and counting) American deaths in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, says that finding the guy who ordered the attacks is not important?? This follows Bush's repulsive March 2002 comments:

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.

Good Lord, where to begin?

"Making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied"? This from a January 25, 2007 Department of Defense report (courtesy of this site):

“…. Based on responses from approximately 1,100 Service members, they experienced shortages of force-protection equipment, such as up-armored vehicles, electronic countermeasure devices, crew-served weapons, and communications equipment. As a result, Service members were not always equipped to effectively complete their missions….

The Request for Forces process did not always ensure that Service members who performed missions that they do not traditionally perform – such as training, provincial reconstruction, detainee operations, and explosive ordinance disposal – received the equipment necessary to perform their wartime mission. As a result, Service members performed missions without the proper equipment, used informal procedures to obtain equipment and sustainment support, and canceled or postponed missions while waiting to receive equipment….

The U.S. Central Command’s and the Army’s internal controls were not adequate….”

Seeing to it that the "strategy is clear"? Yes, it's so clear about 70% of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling the Iraq war, which has now lasted longer than World War II with no end in sight.

Making sure "the coalition is strong"? Here's some recent developments involving the "coalition of the willing":

• Lithuania was reported to be considering withdrawing its troop contingent of 53 troops from Iraq.
• On February 21, 2007, Denmark announced that it would withdraw its 460-strong contingent of troops from southern Iraq by August 2007
• On February 21, 2007, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that 600 British troops would return home within the next few months, with another 500 to follow by the end of 2007, leaving approximately 5,000 troops on the ground; from a high of approximately 40,000 troops during the major combat operations phase.
  
  

Not to worry, though, as we still have 34 Estonians there (no offense to Estonia).

Sickening.