| Home |
Invoking Bin Laden, The Terrorist He Failed to Capture
September 5th, 2006
It is no secret that Bush is on a desparate mission to repackage his failure in Iraq as a noble crusade akin to the defeat of Nazi Germany, and it is also clear that he won't let truth or common sense or basic logic stand in his way. Bush hit a new low in the spin cycle today actually invoking and even quoting the 9/11 terrorist who his administration failed to capture and whose importance his administration downplayed for a long stretch [ABC News].
An excellent timeline of mixed message quotes from senior officials as of April 2002 shows just how willing the White House is to use bin Laden as their shifting political needs dictate [Cursor.Org - BIAS ALERT: while this article seems well researched, the site is clearly anti-Bush]. In fact, Bush gleefully recounts how bin Laden "inadvertently" helped him win relection in 2004 when he spoke critically of Bush days before the election [MSNBC]. Just how stupid would Osama bin Laden have to be to think his comments would have had any other effect and why did no major media outlet even float the idea that maybe bin Laden preferred Bush as a lightning rod that helped his own agenda?
The Democrats are of course allowing this opportunity to expose Bush's complete lack of political integrity to pass. The only headlines they can muster are "Dems cry foul" or "Dems defend terror stance". They have no notion whatsoever of how to manipulate the press, which would be wonderful if the GOP wasn't so skilled at it. The Democrats need to stop dancing around the subject and put these very clear points in the press:
He Just Can't Stop Misleading Us On Iraq
August 31st, 2006
Every now and again it seems as though Bush is on the cusp of learning a big lesson, which is not use propoganda to promote bad policies or to cover up for failures. He seemed ready to learn that lesson in the wake of Katrina when he shifted from "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" to "I take responsibility." He also seemed ready to learn the lesson a few years into the Iraq debacle when he expressed regret for his toothless sound bites of "Dead or Alive", "Mission Accomplished" and "Bring it On."
But anyone who held their breath waiting for the President to renounce spin entirely and focus instead on formulating sound policy died long ago of oxygen deprevation. It is an election year and there is simply not time enough to fix Iraq in a way that will benefit his party. His ownly politically expedient choice is to go back into heavy spin mode and try and trick as many voters as possible into forgetting just what an incredible mess he has made in Iraq.
Hence today's speech to the American Legion convention in Salt Lake City [Reuters]. In that speech, Bush propogated the same steady stream of misinformation that we have been subjected to since before the invasion began. The biggest lie? "We should all agree that the battle for Iraq is now central to the ideological struggle of the 21st century."
This argument shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the conflict in Iraq. Or, more likely, it shows the President's willingness to exploit that misunderstanding in the public to garner support. Part of Bush's dwindling base is the "I don't know the difference between Iraq and Iran" crowd. Certainly, many Americans remain unclear about the role of Sunnis, Shiites and foreign fighters in Iraq today, and Bush's comments seek to capitalize on that confusion rather than clarify it.
Most of the violence we are seeing daily in Iraq over the last several months has been sectarian. It has nothing to do with Islamic fascists hating the west. It has to do with rival Islamic denominations struggling for the upper hand in the power vacuum that we created when we unwisely invaded. Is the tension between Sunnia and Shiite Muslims really the idealogical struggle of the 21st century? Of course not.
What Bush is desparate for the public to believe is the falsehood that all things Middle East are tied together and also tied to 9/11. The facts don't support this assertion and neither does common sense. The idea that this mess will somehow follow us home (see below) is nothing more than an insulting scare tactic. Will Iraq fall apart if we leave? Probably so. Will Iraq fall apart if we stay? Probably so. It is falling apart right in front of us despite the 138,000 U.S. troops stationed there. Perhaps if we stayed forever and put up with an average of 2 U.S. fatalities per day (with many more critical injuries) and 4 billion a month, we could postpone Iraq's total collapse. But it is already a haven for terrorists and has already begin speaking out against U.S. policy. What is our objective in holding it together in its present state?
But while leaving might be best for the U.S. and might be ultimately best for Iraq, it is not best for Bush and the GOP. Leaving now and watching the country that was to be our shining example of a western democracy fall apart to be catostrophic for the GOP. They must convince voters that our presence in Iraq is today's equivalant to World War II, even though the events bear little historical resemblance.
We'll find out in November if Bush's decision to spin his way toward the mid term elections was succesful for the GOP. It is uncertainly a failure for the American people.
August 24th, 2006
The old pro-Iraq War mantra was "I'd rather fight them over there than on the streets of New York". Getting so many people to regurgitate that phrase required a good deal of fear and ignorance. But with Iraq spiraling ever more out of control, something a little more to the point was required. Hence the new line - "If we leave before the mission is complete, if we withdraw, the enemy will follow us home." These were Bush's words in an August 16th speech to a Pennsylvania audience. It is truly frightening that our wartime Commander-in-Chief would utter something so absurd.
First, let's dispense with all the literal interpretations. Imagine a military air base where families eagerly await the return of their loved ones. Hugs and kisses as the brave soldiers reunite with spouses and children on the tarmac. But wait, what's that? Another plane coming in for a landing right behind them? It's flying the flag of Al Qaeda in Iraq! They've followed us home!!!
Or perhaps the idea is that the terrorists need to follow us back to the U.S. because they simply don't know where it is. It's the classic film noir, our heroes unwittingly lead the enemy back to our top-secret homeland. In the cockpit of the plane in pursuit, nervous terrorists seek to stay on the trail without being noticed. "Omar, step on it, I don't want to lose them in this cloud formation!"
No, of course, this can't be what Bush means. Too absurd. So his meaning must be more general in nature. He must mean that if we leave Iraq, it will be easier for terrorists to commit attacks on the homeland. This isn't as absurd an interpretation at first read, but a tiny bit of thought shows it is just as absurd all the same.
The obvious implication from Bush's remarks is that having troops in Iraq is somehow preventing terrorists from getting into the United States. To expose the absurdity in this, let's look at two different categories of terrorists to whom he might be referring:
Sunni and Shiite insurgents and militias: These are the groups causing the most casualties and destruction in Iraq through attacks on coalition forces and sectarian violence. These people are fighting to get us out of Iraq, they have no more intention of following us home than we had of following the British home after the American Revolution. Can you imagine if King George (no relation to our King George) had insisted on continuing the war out fear that we would follow them across the Atlantic to burn London? Anyone arguing that this group of terrorists will "follow us home" has no understanding of the situation and is unfit to be forming policy on Iraq. So let's give Bush the benefit of the doubt and assume he is talking about:
Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and other non-Iraqi Islamic Terrorists: We're still lumping some very diverse groups together, but for the sake of this discussion, that's OK. Now, some of these terrorists are currently in Iraq, but the vast majority of them are not. But it really doesn't matter because they can all enter and leave Iraq pretty much at will because the borders are not secured! We don't have enough soldiers in Iraq to keep terrorists out let alone trap them in. And what about all the terrorists who are outside Iraq to begin with? How on earth is our military in Iraq stopping them from traveling from, let's say Pakistan or Egypt or Syria or Saudi Arabia, and coming to America? I ask again, how is our military in Iraq restricting the travel of terrorists from all of these other countries to our country?
So what is stopping these terrorists from coming to America? Simple - it's money, logistics, and security. When Bush put troops in Iraq, in addition to creating a terrorist breeding ground where it hadn't existed, he made it far easier for jihadists to attack westerners. He gave them a new choice rather than taking choices away. But maybe that is exactly his argument. By leaving troops in Iraq, we appease the terrorists appetite for Western blood so that they won't even be tempted to undertake the profoundly more difficult task of launching attacks on America. In other words, saying "I'd rather fight them there than here" really means "I'd rather they kill the dummies who volunteered for the military than me" for many Americans. Sadly, that message fits rather consistently with Bush's Vietnam era behavior, in which he has openly admitted to joining the National Guard (at the time a safe haven from battle) specifically to avoid combat.
But that approach is not only cowardly, it is foolhardy. If more Americans would stop being scared long enough to turn on their brains, they would see that this Presidential statement, like so many others, is based purely on fear and ignorance.
Bush, Kerry, Gore, Iraq, Al Qaeda, Politics, Stem Cells, Abortion
|