Saturday, February 24, 2007

Aberrant Alibis on Osama bin Laden

It turns out that the self-confessed killer of 3,000 innocent American civilians could run and hide.

Today's theocons and neocons thrive on describing Osama bin Laden as a sort of modern day Hitler or Mussolini and the war against terror as a war against the global threat of 'Islamofacism', comparable to the challenge met by our Greatest Generation which triumphed in World War II.

But, within this context, the evolution of George Bush's policy seems grotesquely incomprehensible . Initially, after the 911 attacks, on 13-September 2001, Bush pledged,
The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.
But, less than a year later, on 13-March 2002, Bush had all but forgotten about him:
I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority. . . I am truly not that concerned about him.
Now, Bush's Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker says in a speech to the Rotary Club of Fort Worth:
He's not the only source of the problem, obviously. . . . If you killed him tomorrow, you'd still have a problem with al-Qaeda . . . . I don't know whether we'll find him.I don't know that it's all that important, frankly.

So we get him, and then what? There's a temporary feeling of goodness, but in the long run, we may make him bigger than he is today. He's hiding, and he knows we're looking for him. We know he's not particularly effective. I'm not sure there's that great of a return . . . .
So, the only 'justice' that mass-murderer Osama bin Laden faces is the dismal prospect most of us contend with: dying a natural death in his ripe old age.

17 Moderated Comments:

Blogger DB Cooper said...

This post leaves more questions than answers.

Had GWB been in FDR's shoes immediately following Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war, would Shrub have pursued regime change in Moscow or Madrid?

2/24/2007 01:44:00 PM  
Blogger Messenger said...

Or invaded China and India?

2/24/2007 04:30:00 PM  
Blogger Messenger said...

Having detoured the global war on terror into an invasion of Iraq, Bush is now risking the occupation of Iraq and by starting something with Iran. (Al Qaeda-in-Iraq is in Sunni areas, not Shiite.) See this report in the Washington Post.

"Stay the Course"? Bush can't hold a course because he can't read a compass.

2/24/2007 04:31:00 PM  
Blogger Beach Bum said...

Now I may be wrong because its been a long time in some regards, but wasn't Osama almost universally condemned because of the 9/11 attacks? Had we kept him isolated by staying on target for only al-Qaeda and not going off to Iraq so Bush could even some personal score our capture of Osama would have been a major victory.
al-Qaeda would over time shrink in size and scope due to it being viewed as what it is, a terrorist organization.
But now that Bush and his actions have so poisoned and muddied the waters with people around the world and inversely becoming the best recruitment officer Osama could ever find I am almost forced to agree with General Shoomaker in that if Osama was killed or captured now another with his same abilities to lead would take his place quickly. So no matter what we do now al-Qaeda will still be a major player just looking to strike at us again with an equal or worse attack that 9/11.

2/24/2007 07:03:00 PM  
Blogger Beach Bum said...

What is even worse is that because of Bush's poisoned and muddied waters it won't just be al-Qaeda looking to hurt us. Just about any group in the Middle East, Chavez and his new Latin American socialist bloc, and the proto-China/Russia alliance will all be looking to knock us down a peg or two.

2/24/2007 07:13:00 PM  
Blogger Messenger said...

Beach Bum,

What I am saying is Bush has another grand design: sidling up to al Qaeda's Sunni hosts in order to combat Shiite ascendency. According to Sy Hersh, this new "Redirection" has four major parts:

(1) Israel would be assured that its security was paramount and that Washington and Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states shared its concern about Iran.

(2) the Saudis would urge Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian party that has received support from Iran, to curtail its anti-Israeli aggression and to begin serious talks about sharing leadership with Fatah, the more secular Palestinian group.

(3) Bush Administration would work directly with Sunni nations to counteract Shiite ascendance in the region.

(4) the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria.

Hersh seems to think Cheney's big idea is to encourage regional sectarian polarization to such an extent that all anti-Israeli states are broken up into micro-states. I think he has something, even though Cheney's running out of time.


You and Vigilante should read this; I'd be interested in your reactions.

2/25/2007 02:09:00 PM  
Blogger Beach Bum said...

Messenger from the way I am reading the info you are right on target. I can't believe how weary I am of all this Sh*t and the SOB's who seem able to generate a never ending supply. I could really use two weeks in the Caribbean away from the internet, television, and radios to try and reboot.

2/25/2007 07:01:00 PM  
Blogger Vigilante said...

Beach, I share your fatigue and feel your pain. I am totally fooking depressed.

2/26/2007 05:54:00 AM  
Blogger Messenger said...

Buck up, Vigilante. Don't let fatigue sap your eternal vigilance.

2/26/2007 06:45:00 AM  
Blogger Messenger said...

In the wake of the weekend bombing of Baghdad's School of Administration and Economy of Mustansiriya University which embarrassed the Bush-Maliki surge plan by killing 41, a spokesman of Muqtada al-Sadr read a statement which blames the sectarian-neutral presence of Americans:

I say to the Iraqi security forces, and in particular the army and the police: You can protect Iraq and its people by virtue of your faith and sacrifices, your patience and solidarity and sincerity toward the people. But you cannot do it via help from the airplanes and tanks of the occupier.

I am confident, like all persecuted Iraqis, that no security plan can succeed or produce any good by depending on the Occupation. . . .

Stay away from them and God will keep you away from mischief and harm . . . Make your plan Iraqi and independent, not sectarian or dictatorial, so that you will be victorious. Stay away from oppression and harming others, so that others will have no case against you. Let your reputation be that of being Iraqi . . .

2/26/2007 06:46:00 AM  
Blogger DB Cooper said...

If a significantly large proportion of Members of the Iraqi parliament are either under or subject to American arrest, and another significantly large proportion have taken up residence in Europe, in what sense is Maliki's government not best described as a puppet government?

2/26/2007 06:58:00 AM  
Blogger Recidivist said...

Messenger, our anti-Iran stance is part and parcel penance for our long-term unconditional support for Israeli ethnic cleansing of the West Bank.

2/26/2007 10:34:00 AM  
Blogger LTE said...

Yep. There are many countries that have large minorities that have managed to live in an equitable relationship. Israel has certainly not done this.

It is increasingly recognized that Israel's democracy is not reconcilable with being "a state of the Jews." But this recognition is slow to come in Israel and is not significantly quicker in the United States.

2/26/2007 11:08:00 AM  
Blogger M.D. said...

Yup. They think he is so bad, and yet they can't be bothered to go catch him.

2/27/2007 04:54:00 PM  
Blogger M.D. said...

My current understanding:

They planned Iraq.

The 9/11 attack happened.

Small effort to catch perpetrator.

Stop. Time's awastin'

Exploit 9/11 to make Iraq seem
much more of a threat. Hype WMD.

Invade. Mission accomplished.

[Truer words were never spoken, from the perspective of the neocons who planned the whole thing! They had gotten what they wanted - access to the oil.]

2/27/2007 10:00:00 PM  
Blogger HILLBLOGGER said...

I don't understand - all the collateral damages in pursuit of the Al Qaeda and their boss for nothing?

Why is Shoemakker saying this:

"I don't know whether we'll find him.I don't know that it's all that important, frankly."

Extraordinary!

Ok, I do accept kinda difficult to go get OBL but to dismiss the old fart coz some Bush staffer thinks "I don't know that it's all that important, frankly." is downright mind-boggling or is this another Bush joke is on us kind of thing?

3/01/2007 06:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.
But, less than a year later, on 13-March 2002, Bush had all but forgotten about him:
I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority. . . I am truly not that concerned about him.

___________________

Phony quotes:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/918437/posts

3/05/2007 02:32:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home