Saturday, July 08, 2006
Building and Razing...
Let's see:
Without any evidence that we know of, the Bush Administration and the press spoke and acted under the presumption that Osama bin Laden had been responsible for 9/11. Subsequently bin Laden made remarks in which he sort of took credit for it.
Then, without any honest evidence, the Bush Administration and the press suggested that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist threat, and invaded Iraq and toppled him -- after which most if not all of their stated reasons were revealed to be false -- and after which terrorists swarmed into Iraq, which subsequently broke into the open sectarian fighting which continues to this day.
Then, without any evidence that we can find anywhere -- and we've looked -- the Bush Administration and the press began to refer to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as bin Laden's top al-Qaeda operative in Iraq, after which bin Laden and al-Zarqawi acknowledged each other seemingly for the first time. Prior to this they were at best unaware of each other, at worst rivals, and al-Zarqawi was known as a small-time "Syrian terrorist" with no ties to al-Qaeda.
Then the US killed al-Zarqawi and the Bush Administration and the press claimed that by doing so we'd struck a mighty blow against al-Qaeda.
Then the press announced that the Bush Administration had disbanded the CIA unit charged with capturing Osama bin Laden a year ago.
Do we have this about right?
Without any evidence that we know of, the Bush Administration and the press spoke and acted under the presumption that Osama bin Laden had been responsible for 9/11. Subsequently bin Laden made remarks in which he sort of took credit for it.
Then, without any honest evidence, the Bush Administration and the press suggested that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist threat, and invaded Iraq and toppled him -- after which most if not all of their stated reasons were revealed to be false -- and after which terrorists swarmed into Iraq, which subsequently broke into the open sectarian fighting which continues to this day.
Then, without any evidence that we can find anywhere -- and we've looked -- the Bush Administration and the press began to refer to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as bin Laden's top al-Qaeda operative in Iraq, after which bin Laden and al-Zarqawi acknowledged each other seemingly for the first time. Prior to this they were at best unaware of each other, at worst rivals, and al-Zarqawi was known as a small-time "Syrian terrorist" with no ties to al-Qaeda.
Then the US killed al-Zarqawi and the Bush Administration and the press claimed that by doing so we'd struck a mighty blow against al-Qaeda.
Then the press announced that the Bush Administration had disbanded the CIA unit charged with capturing Osama bin Laden a year ago.
Do we have this about right?
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I think the case against bin Laden is closed. No "sort of" about it. He has admitted to 9/11. Bur your larger point is still valid: George W. Bush is a lying douchbag.
How, exactly, did he take credit for it? We remember his saying that he had been "most optimistic" about the attack. Did he subsequently actually and fully claim to have been behind it?
And not to get into unanswerable questions, but...is there any reason to believe him if he said he was? Wouldn't any self-promoting terrorist criminal take credit for 9/11 if he thought he could? Epsecially if a) the actual psychos who did it were all dead, and b) the US was blaming him anyway?
That's more or less our point here: that by trying to put a face on the terrorist threat, the US not only misleads itself and its people -- thereby decreasing the effectiveness of our counter-terrorism efforts -- but plays into the hands of the self-promoting terrorist "leaders", many of whom have dubious control over the so-called "terrorist network", and who are in all probability rivals.
Post a Comment
And not to get into unanswerable questions, but...is there any reason to believe him if he said he was? Wouldn't any self-promoting terrorist criminal take credit for 9/11 if he thought he could? Epsecially if a) the actual psychos who did it were all dead, and b) the US was blaming him anyway?
That's more or less our point here: that by trying to put a face on the terrorist threat, the US not only misleads itself and its people -- thereby decreasing the effectiveness of our counter-terrorism efforts -- but plays into the hands of the self-promoting terrorist "leaders", many of whom have dubious control over the so-called "terrorist network", and who are in all probability rivals.
Links to this post:
<< Home
