Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Does Bush Still Not Care About Bin Laden?

It turns out that the Taliban is giving Osama Bin Laden full credit for the attack on the US military base in Bagram, Afghanistan, during the visit of Dick Cheney. Although Cheney was unharmed, 23 people died in this attack. I wonder if Cheney shares his bosses views about Bin Laden. Remember, Bush-- ever anxious to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no weapons of mass destruction-- got quickly bored by the Saudi terror master. On a number of occasions, Bush made statements like "I truly am not that concerned about him" and capturing Bin Laden is "not a top priority use of American resources."

The mind boggles. Imagine a Democrat had made these statements. And then imagine the intensity of the right-wing noise machine in the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Cheney. In a sense, though, the Democrats have only themselves to blame. The reason: every time a Bushite makes a ludicrous statement about how voting for Democrats means everybody is going to die, the typical response (as Kevin Drum puts it) is "whining". For instance, Rudy Guiliani, his campaign under attack from all sides, whips out the fear card. Instead of using this as a chance to explain how Bushite policies have been such a dramatic failure on national security grounds, we are subjected to balderdash like "Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low" (Obama) and "One of the great tragedies of this Administration is that the President failed to keep this country unified after 9/11" (Clinton). This just makes the Democrats look weak and whiny, and plays into Republican hands. What's so hard about pointing out that Bin Laden is not only alive and kicking, but up to much mischief, and that Bush bears some responsibility?

Update: Josh Marshall nails it.
"Democrats should just hit right back on how President Bush has been helping Osama bin Laden for almost six years. Sounds harsh. But it’s true. Consider the facts. President Bush had bin Laden trapped in the mountains of Tora Bora. But he let bin Laden get away because Bush wanted to focus on Saddam Hussein instead. The president and the White House tried to lie about this during the 2004 election. But since then the evidence has become overwhelming. President Bush decided to let bin Laden get away so he could get ready to attack Saddam Hussein. So pretty much anything bin Laden does from here on out is on President Bush. And how about Iraq? President Bush has screwed things up so badly that he’s created a whole new generation of recruits for bin Laden. He’s created a whole new army for bin Laden. Not by being tough but by being stupid. And by being too much of a coward to admit his mistakes once it was obvious that the occupation of Iraq was helping bin Laden specifically and the jihadist agenda in general. After half a decade, the verdict is pretty clear: President Bush has been the biggest ally Osama bin Laden has. He’s helped bin Laden at pretty much every turn — even if only by his own stupidity, incompetence and cowardice. And when the next big terrorist attack comes, we can thank President Bush for helping make it happen."

10 comments:

Antonio Manetti said...

I agree but I think a prospective leader must do more than engage in he-man posturing or complain about past failings.

This insurgency threatens all. A leader of stature must therefore possess moral authority and, out of that, create the solidarity that binds together nations and persons of good will in defense of shared values.

Rather than pander to our fears, the job of a national candidate is to put forward an ennobling vision that calls on us for courage in the face of threats while reaffirming out commitment to basic values.

Anonymous said...

Other than being in office when we sustained the worst attack on American soil in U.S. history, what exactly did either Bush or Giuliani *DO* that anyone else would not have done? What exactly did they *DO* that supposedly accorded them hero status? Walked through the rubble? Posed for pics with firemen? If Democrats had held those offices, what would they have done differently? Only difference is that they would have been savagely and relentlessly attacked by the Noise Machine as weak, magnets for terrorists, etc. etc. etc. So now we have Giuliani-the-Hero working this stale theme into his high-name-recognition campaign. Terror! Terror! Republicans will make you safe!
Really? Well they sure didn't on 911, did they?

A couple months after 911 I listened in shock and disgust as Fr. John Corapi remarking on EWTN -to thunderous applause from his audience of "Faithful" Catholics -that he sure was glad Al Gore hadn't been elected (trivial point: he actually WAS elected) because Gore would have been clueless what to do about the terrorists. Basically, Gore would have sat on his hands after the attack. Americans were so very lucky to have George W. Bush in the White House at that fateful time, according to Corapi. Here was a Catholic priest spouting this ignorant, straw-man political tripe on a tax-exempt 501c3 network! Needless to say, I have zero respect for the tools who run most of the "Catholic" media these days. I'd sooner listen to Jerry Falwell. Coming from him, it wouldn't seem quite so corrupt.

But back to the point: what pray tell did Giuliani-the-Hero actually DO??? Ca-ching! Why he quickly formed his own "security consulting" firm with sleazy partner Bernard Kerik, enabling these "heros" to rake in millions for the serendipity of holding office on that fateful September day! What could be more American than that? Did their clients ever stop to wonder if Giuliani-Kerik were so savvy about security, how did it happen that their city came under the worst attack on American soil with them at the helm?

Morning's Minion said...

Dear God, did Carapi actually say that? Is there a reference anywhere to a transcript? Anyway, I heard rumors that Vatican is most unhappy with EWTN for downplaying its position on the Iraq war.

Anonymous said...

Dear God, did Carapi actually say that? Is there a reference anywhere to a transcript?

Yes! With God as my Witness, he said that. I mean you can't make this stuff up. I heard it on our local Catholic radio station, an EWTN affiliate. I assume it was the audio of a EWTN TV broadcast. This was sometime in the fall of '01 and Corapi was talking to a live audience. Bush was riding very high in those days and his many tools at EWTN were strutting their stuff, believing they were instrumental in getting him elected. They always refer(ed) to him as *OUR* (sigh) President. I'm sure this particular "homily" was taped prior to the Iraq war run-up. But the Bush bobbleheads at EWTN had no problem with invading Iraq either. If it was the brainchild of Our Wonderful Pro-Life President Bush, even an unjust war would be regarded as super moral.

As far as getting a transcript, I have no idea if they have them. It's probably not the type of commentary they'd want to release at this point for obvious reasons. If you were to contact them about getting one, they'd probably suspect you were one of the "forces of evil" trying to embarrass them or someone from "the dark side" out to threaten their tax exempt status.

Actually, I heard far worse than Corapi's little screed on our local Catholic radio station. But that's for another day.

Franklin Jennings said...

If he said in the Fall of "01, it had nothing to do with the Iraq war.

EWTN is staffed almost entirely by citizens of the United States. Like it or not, he is their president.

How paranoid do you have to be to turn that into a celebration of their instrumentality in getting him elected?

I guess I am glad to see that the right has never had a monopoly on paranoid moonbats and wingnuts.

Anonymous said...

If he said in the Fall of "01, it had nothing to do with the Iraq war.
umm . . . yes, that's right. It had nothing to do with the Iraw war as it specifically states: I'm sure this particular "homily" was taped prior to the Iraq war run-up. Maybe a remedial reading class would help?

EWTN is staffed almost entirely by citizens of the United States. Like it or not, he is their president.
Ah, but there are presidents and there are (SIGH) OUR (SIGH) Presidents. Anyone who heard it would immediately understand. Obviously you didn't.

How paranoid do you have to be to turn that into a celebration of their instrumentality in getting him elected?
They made no bones about the fact that they did everything they could to get him elected and were very proud of it. So how is it "paranoid" of me to mention that fact? BTW, you seem quite paranoid yourself.

I guess I am glad to see that the right has never had a monopoly on paranoid moonbats and wingnuts.
Your commentary here is so lame, off the mark and utterly lacking in substance, all you can do is resort to name calling? Glad I could yank your chains.

Franklin Jennings said...

No, this place just doesn't deserve much effort. Its a fun diversion, watching folks confuse stale radicalism for Catholicism, all the while pulling all the stops to castigate those who confuse stale reactionism with Catholicism.

If Minion took seriously all Christ's talk of motes and beams, I'd disappear in a moment. Less than even. but as long as Minion's electrons skew toward her brother's speck, with the occasional recognition that "Hey, this pro-abortion plank in my eye might not be helping my vision", I'm likely to keep playing gadfly.

Oh, and what kind of coward hides behind petty nom de plumes? Especially the most overused one ever?

Anonymous said...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

English translation, please!

Franklin Jennings said...

Left and Right, Democrat and Republican are both horribly screwed up categories unfit for Catholics. But if you're going to identify with one, especially to this degree, concentrate your efforts on criticising your own party and let the other guys fix theirs or go to hell for their evil.

Unless you just wan to know what a nom de plume is. That's a fake name.

Anonymous said...

The "pro abortion" plank is in the eye of the beholder - in this case "Franklin-I-Crave-Attention-Jennings". Calling someone a pro-abort is past its sell-by date. It lost its shock value when people woke up to the fact that it's simply code used by the fringe to judge and insult anyone anyone they deem insufficiently deferential to Geo W. Flightsuit and the Republicatholic wing of the Church.

Speaking of "Franklin Jennings" (as if anyone seriously gave a rat's behind what this troll calls him/herself) fanciful "Franklin" apparently believes he/she is taking the moral highground by contriving not one but TWO fake names (doubly creative!) to cloak him/herself in as he/she lurches from thread to thread defending God-knows-what from God-knows-what. "Franklin" is both anonymous AND deceptive. Who'd have guessed?