More From The Osama Chronicles
Okay, just a quick one before I head out the door. I don't even need links for this one because it is all out there and it has all been linked before. It's like this:
Osama Bin Laden is back in the news with a new videotape message. The US government and its lapdog right-wing media responds with the usual, as if it considers Bin Laden to be a problem or something.
How could it? This is the same government presided over by a flip-flopper-in-chief who said he did not care about Bin Laden anymore. Didn't know, didn't care.
The same government who could have used its superpower resources to pursue and capture Bin Laden, but instead chose to let him go free so it could use its "political capitol" to pursue other adventures that held promise of wealth and power for them.
The same government that pulls Bin Laden and/or 9/11 out of a hat every time their popularity dips low. It's been a while since we've seen him, but now that impeachment is becoming a real possibility, it has become necessary to recall Bin Laden from his life of leisure at the ranch in Crawford and dangle him like a scarecrow before the cowering masses. The politics of fear. Also called terrorism. A specialty of the Bush-Cheney regime.
If Osama Bin Laden is a threat, it is because the Bush Administration has refused to pursue and capture him. They want him to remain at large so that they can exploit his name whenever they need to, and use him as a tool to generate fear and support among their followers. He is Bush government's accomplice, and they are his protectors, and they do not give a shit about you or me or anyone's safety but their own. They are vile, treasonous bastards who deliberately jeopardize this nation for their own gain.
Whoever supports George Bush need not worry about Osama Bin Laden. They're all partners in terrorism.
UPDATE: Ooops, nevermind the update. The link changed!
Osama Bin Laden is back in the news with a new videotape message. The US government and its lapdog right-wing media responds with the usual, as if it considers Bin Laden to be a problem or something.
How could it? This is the same government presided over by a flip-flopper-in-chief who said he did not care about Bin Laden anymore. Didn't know, didn't care.
The same government who could have used its superpower resources to pursue and capture Bin Laden, but instead chose to let him go free so it could use its "political capitol" to pursue other adventures that held promise of wealth and power for them.
The same government that pulls Bin Laden and/or 9/11 out of a hat every time their popularity dips low. It's been a while since we've seen him, but now that impeachment is becoming a real possibility, it has become necessary to recall Bin Laden from his life of leisure at the ranch in Crawford and dangle him like a scarecrow before the cowering masses. The politics of fear. Also called terrorism. A specialty of the Bush-Cheney regime.
If Osama Bin Laden is a threat, it is because the Bush Administration has refused to pursue and capture him. They want him to remain at large so that they can exploit his name whenever they need to, and use him as a tool to generate fear and support among their followers. He is Bush government's accomplice, and they are his protectors, and they do not give a shit about you or me or anyone's safety but their own. They are vile, treasonous bastards who deliberately jeopardize this nation for their own gain.
Whoever supports George Bush need not worry about Osama Bin Laden. They're all partners in terrorism.
UPDATE: Ooops, nevermind the update. The link changed!
posted by SheaNC at 11:47 AM
9 Comments:
I love it when libs spew opinions without any basis. Bush wants Bin Laden to run free? You cannot be serious. If Bush captured that scumbag if and when he had the chance, his approval ratings would be in the low 80s and every item on his domestic agenda, including social security reform, would be law by now. Further, even more Republicans would take seats in the Senate and House in the '06 elections. Do you think for a second that the additional thirty points of popular support wouldn't help to assure even more conservative nominees on the Supreme Court, and that Bush wouldn't love that prospect?
Your arguments make little sense, but I respect your effort. (I probably made similar arguments against Clinton during the stained-dress years.)
"opinions without any basis"? Bush himself said that he did not care about going after Bin Laden:
"So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him... And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
That's the basis. You might be in denial about it, but those are his words.
You imply that he actually wanted to catch Bin Laden but was unable to do so. So you're saying that he is not a hypocrite, just a failure. That is what I call republican optimism.
Or, are you saying he was lying? Some cunning strategy, perhaps? Keep in mind that he had all of our resources available, unencumbered by the Iraq war, and he had global support as well, but he pissed it all away because he was "not that concerned".
The fact is, based on his own statements, Bush broke his own pledge and deliberately chose not to pursue Bin Laden. To many of us, that is criminal.
To many people, Bin Laden is the equivalent of a mass murderer. But Bush doesn't care. We're all expendable to him. And Bin Laden is far more useful to the Bush regime if he is kept alive.
By the way, leave it to a republican to equate the negligent dismissal of a mass murderer with a paltry sex scandal. If you devoted as much attention to the sex scandals in the republican party, you might actually have some credibility when you bring up the subject of "stained dresses".
I believe Bush is "not that concerned about him" because OBL's network, especially at the time of the statement, was shattered, and AQ was on the run and in hiding. OBL's recent offer of a truce is a joke. It underscores that he is no longer a threat. Let's not forget that OBL is the one who has stated, often, that his objective is to destroy the West. Now, suddenly, he wants a truce?
He's not dealing from a position of power. He needs the heat to come off for a while so he can try to rebuild. This tape was nothing more than an appeal to the Cut-and-Run-Left. OBL understands history, he's trying to get the anti-war movement as revved up as it was about Vietnam. He knows the North Vietnamese were getting slaughtered, holding on by their fingernails until the U.S. public would hand them a victory. That's all OBL is praying to his God for, a victory handed to him by the American Public. Because he can't win it for himself. He can't even effectively head up AQ, he's become largely irrelevant. It would be nice to finally capture/kill him. But that won't end this conflict, and the failure (yes, failure) to accomplish that to date doesn't increase his effectiveness. Its difficult to be an effective leader when all you do is run and hide. He's not exactly a shining example of mujahadeen covering his butt in the deepest, darkest cave he can find.
But Sean, the "cut and run" thing addresses the Iraq war, which has nothing to do with OBL. He's a Saudi Arabian, home-based in Afghanistan. The war with him and AQ started well before the conquest of Iraq (although we know the neocons were planning to take Iraq since their declaration in the '90's). Besides, as Bush's statements describe, he "cut and run" from that battle a long time ago.
The war in Iraq might "end", more or less, but the "war on terror" won't. Like Bush said during one of his few honest moments, it's something you "can't win". The war on terror, of which OBL is a part, is not a war against a country, like Vietnam, it's a war against an ideology.
If OBL wants the anti-war movement revved up, he wants the pro-war movement equally revved up. He wants this war to continue because he knows that it is totally working to his advantage: he wanted to damage the US economically, to stretch its resources thin, and to generate support for his cause and more recruits for terrorist groups, which this war has done.
By the way, to be "not concerned" about Osama Bin Laden just because he had dropped out of sight for a while is like becoming "not concerned" about the BTK killer, since he dropped out of sight for a while. Time heals all wounds for conservatives, does it? Why bother trying to apprehend a killer, if he seems to have gone away somewhere?
Especially if his crime was the catalyst for your beloved "political capital".
There's a difference between the BTK killer taking a holiday and OBL being hounded by Coalition, Afghani, and Pakastani troops. And OBL is still being pursued by our special forces and Afghani and Pakistani troops. Just because it isn't in the headlines everyday doesn't mean it isn't happening. After all, that's why a Predator just leveled a house in Pakistan, because we're pursuing OBL and his top lieutenants.
Yes, the cut-and-run policy is being pushed by the Left for Iraq. That is what OBL is not advocating in order to gain their support. His offer of a "long term truce" is ridiculous. Who does a truce benefit? Him and AQ only. It will give them time to regroup and rebuild.
If anything OBL said was true, he wouldn't have offered the truce. This is a guy who wants nothing more than to destroy the West. If he thinks he can draw out this conflict and thereby damage our economy, as well as inflict casualties on our troops, all while having banner recruiting of jihadis - he wouldn't let out a peep. Those are all steps towards his goal of destroying us. Now, he offers a truce to avoid 1) damaging our economy, 2) reduce the level of jihadi recruits, and 3) allow us to live in peace, and you believe him?
Come on. OBL does a 180 in his rhetoric and you don't see that as a good thing? It seems obvious that we're putting a lot of pressure on him and his last resort is to appeal to Bush haters to step up the anti-war pressure. That's the only thing that's going to save his butt and his Islamofascists compatriots in Iraq.
That is what OBL is not advocating in order to gain their support
Should say that is what OBL is now advocating ...
Sean - "Now, he offers a truce... and you believe him?"
Sean, you're not addressing me with that statement, are you? I never said I believe anything about a "truce", and I certainly don't "believe him". In fact, my post has nothing to do with the "truce" thing. All I wrote about was the hypocrisy of the Bush administration's refusal (not failure, refusal) to apprehend Bin Laden.
Where do you get that thing about "believing him"?
I'll blame it on the cough medicine.
Did we miss an opportunity at Tora Bora? (I know, you don't actually say Tora Bora, but when you refer to letting OBL go I assume that's what you're talking about). Yes, we missed an opportunity. I don't know if I would say we let him go. Was it a mistake to rely on local troops who knew the terrain better? In hindsight, yes, that was a mistake. But hindsight is 20/20. OBL was a known threat long before Tora Bora, and we had several chances to apprehend him - and passed them up. Both parties have mud on their faces with respect to this issue.
Its a bit over the top to say they're partners in terrorism, though.
Post a Comment
<< Home