This is a significant change, given that Bush has opined on March 13, 2002 that "I just don't spend that much time on him... 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." What has changed since then? Has Bin Laden's influence and ability to act increased significantly since then? If so, it means that Bush's war on terror is an abject failure, indeed counterproductive as American policies have ensured a steady flow of idiots willing to kill themselves and innocent others has increased. One thing is sure, Osama's threat level does seem to rise and fall in sync with the US election cycle.
According to Bush, al Qaeda wants to set up a violent, radical Islamic caliphate based in Iraq and vowed he would not let this happen on his "watch." Let us assume that this is true. Before Bush's invasion of Iraq, al Qaeda was in no position to achieve such a goal. In other words, Bush wants us to support his current policy because of the terrible consequences of his previous policies -- which hardly fills you with much confidence...
That is assuming his comments are true, which they are not. On the same day he made his speech the White House published "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" which stated "we have significantly degraded the al-Qaeda network . . . Terrorist networks today are more dispersed and less centralized. They are more reliant on smaller cells inspired by a common ideology and less directed by a central command structure." So who is right? Bush or his administration? Is al-Qaeda weakened or not? It depends on what is required to drum up support or for the needs of argument. Such doublethink is truly Orwellian.
Looking at Iraq, the bulk of the insurgency are home grown nationalists as Bush's government well knows. Foreign fighters number less than 1,000 (excluding the 140,000 plus US and UK troops who strangely never seem to be counted in this category). It is utterly implausible that al-Qaeda could take over Iraq, particularly given that the US could not. It is doubtful that the marriage of convenience between those who call themselves "al Qaeda" in Iraq and the Sunni nationalists would last long once the US are gone and it is unlikely that the Shiites and Kurds would never put up with such a regime which would have no popular base at all.
Ultimately, if Bush were not in Iraq then neither would al Qaeda. Hence the need for Bush to create an "Islamic Fascist" bogeyman, to draw attention away from his failed policies and their cost in human life and resources. As it stands, it took the US less time to crush the might of fascist Italy, Germany and Japan than it has to find Osama. This suggests that US policy has little to do with finding the criminals behind 911 and more to do with exploiting that strategy to further US imperial interests.
In this regard, Bush's policies have worked to some degree. The main goals of the Iraq debacle were to create a client state to ensure US control of the natural resources of the Middle East and provide a base to deploy military might in the region and beyond (against China and Russia). That is progressing: bases are being constructed and the Iraqi Parliament has its hands tied by the occupying powers and is dependent on their troops. However, such progress is at a much higher cost than anticipated. Hence the need to scare the US population to make the necessary sacrifices for the American Empire - and the profit margins of US big business.
Significantly, Bush quoted one letter from bin Laden to the former Taliban ruler, Mullah Omar that coalition forces found in Afghanistan in 2002. In it, he wrote that an objective of al Qaeda should be to launch a media campaign to try to drive a wedge between the American people and their government and tell them that "their government would bring them more losses, in finances and in casualties," and that they are being sacrificed to serve the interests of big investors, "especially the Jews."
In other words, if you disagree with Bush then you are playing into the hands of al Qaeda -- which is handy for the Republican Party come election time as well as a state seeking more powers to curb protest and spy on its citizens. Given the role of the Bush Junta in limiting freedom of speech, dissent, protest and of the press these sorts of comments are to be feared.
Who needs an Islamic caliphate when the Bush Junta is busy creating a capitalist one?