What Did Bush Do to Prevent 9/11?

Keith Olbermann drives another hole through Bush’s 9/11 armor of infallibility, and answers the question, Just what did the Bush administration do to prevent 9/11 and to respond to the bombing of the Cole?

How Can We Trust Again?

Here’s what five and change years of a bitterly partisan, utterly opportunistic and completely self-serving Republican administration has wrought on our country, just when Americans should not be doubting our own government (AFP, 08.10.2006):

Bush Seeks Political Gains from Foiled Plot

CRAWFORD, United States (AFP) - US President George W. Bush seized on a foiled London airline bomb plot to hammer unnamed critics he accused of having all but forgotten the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Weighed down by the unpopular war in Iraq, Bush and his aides have tried to shift the national political debate from that conflict to the broader and more popular global war on terrorism ahead of November 7 congressional elections.

[...]

His remarks came a day after the White House orchestrated an exceptionally aggressive campaign to tar opposition Democrats as weak on terrorism, knowing what Democrats didn’t: News of the plot could soon break.

Vice President Dick Cheney and White House spokesman Tony Snow had argued that Democrats wanted to raise what Snow called "a white flag in the war on terror," citing as evidence the defeat of a three-term Democratic senator who backed the Iraq war in his effort to win renomination.

Man, where to begin!?

Sadly, all I can say is that this morning, when I first heard of the news coming out of Britain, I immediately thought, Wow, just on schedule for the mid-term elections.

This is where we, Americans, are. Some of us simply cannot believe anything that this administration and its allies, whether domesitic or from abroad, tell us. I honestly cannot trust anything that even carries a whiff of the now infamous Rovian taint, since the tactics that now associated with that name so permeate the actions of this administration and of the Republican party.

A Conservative Asks About Withdrawal from Iraq

Over at DailyKos.com I engaged in an exchange with a conservative supporter of the Bush Administration, after he requested, Could somebody explain to me the rational[e] behind withdrawing our troops immediately [from Iraq]?"

I first proceeded to address the first point inherent in his question:

I’ve addressed the larger point that your question raises, that is: Was it smart to go into Iraq to begin with? Clearly the answer was and is a resounding no. Any answer to the contrary simply ignores the rational voices that opposed the war at the beginning and, now, an answer to the contrary, ignores reality on the ground. Accordingly, to sum up: only those that were willing to deceive themselves bought the lies coming from the Bush Administration and, today, war supporters choose to remain oblivious to the reality on the ground.

Which then lead me to address the premise he had used to set up his question:

All that said, your premise, that if the US left Iraq that it would lead to civil war and/or to undesirables gaining control of the country, simply ignores the facts. The reality is that, as expert observers have already noted, Iraq is in a low grade civil war already, a war that’s only likely to escalate — remember, experts knew that this would be the likely result after invasion (that’s why Bush I stopped short of going into Baghdad). As for Al Queda getting a stronger foothold in the country, I’d would remind you that your statement, again, ignores immediate history and the post invasion reality that now exists on the ground: Hussein and Al Queda had absolutely no operative relation; but now, after the Bush Administration, with the consent of his supporters, invaded Iraq, Al Queda is indeed in that country now (we and the Iraqi people have all those that supported and continue to support Bush & Co. to thank for that — that, I presume, includes you).

I then concluded with:

So, what do we do now that the Bush Administration, with the aid and comfort of his war supporters, committed the biggest military blunder in American history? (Before continuing, lemme just say that it truly pisses me off that after Bush et al committed this, and other catastrophic mistakes, that we (Liberal and Democrats) some how have the responsibility and onus to offer a solution to the mess that your president created; but, nonetheless, that’s what Liberals do, we offer solutions and make progress.) So, what do we do? We do what Murtha has proposed in his redeployment plan, and I paraphrase: 1. We form a quick reaction team to be deployed "just over the horizon," in case the shit really hits the fan; 2. We give the military REAL & CONCRETE goals that lead towards a timed reduction in troops over a predetermined period of time (of course, since the military would really be in charge over such timed withdrawal, they would determine the pace and how safe it is to conduct such withdrawal; the goal, though, would be active progress towards a reduction in troop presence); 3. We make it absolutely clear that the US will not build permanent bases and that we’re not there indefinitely.

To this I would add that, after redeploying the troops completely out of Iraq, the next presidential administration (given that the current one has already given up on formulating an actual solution (Bush has said that it’ll be up to the next president to decide what to do about Iraq)) will need to come up with an intelligent plan to "win the hearts and minds" of that region and, too, figure out a way to combat the poisonous grip that the religious conservative mind set has on that part of the world (of course, if we’re not careful here at home, we too may find ourselves infected and tainted by the same sort of conservative religiosity — why just look at our own brand of religious clerics and their fanatical supporters).

This American Life: Habeas Schmaebeas

Just finished listening to a very moving radio piece from This American Life — an amazing public radio show that every week brings the sort of stories to its audience that informs, moves and presents the world as if one were seeing it for the first time. This week This American Life brought us the stories of some Guantanamo Prison detainees. These are men so dangerous, so monstrous that the Bush Administration had to build a prison camp 90 miles outside of the US, so that these men, err, terrorists, could not harm American citizens… well, at least that’s what Administration tells us.

Of course, given all that we’ve learned about this incompetent Republican Administration over the past five years, if one still believes what comes out of their press office, then one might as well still believe in the tooth fairy, that clouds are made of cotton and that the moon is composed of cheese — only children are excused for believing in such fantasies. As this week’s This American Life episode shows us, much — if not all — that the Bush Administration has told us of the men imprisoned at Guantanamo are plain lies. For instance, according to stats mentioned in the program, only 5% of the Guantanamo detainees were processed by US forces in the field of battle; instead, the vast majority of the prisoners were handed over by "bounty hunters" in Afghanistan and elsewhere, looking to cash in on the reported $5,000 to $10,000 per head that the US military was offering locals in exchange for Al Queda or Taliban fighters. Now, one can easily imagine that, in a lawless country, like Afghanistan was right after the US invasion, that some opportunistic men would take advantage of such a situation and collect what must be a tidy sum for that part of the world — and keep in mind how much more difficult it all must have been to sort things out in the middle of an armed conflict, with language barriers and all, where virtually anybody could be the enemy… well, these are the conditions that ensnared many unwitting and innocent young men, some of which are now in Guantanamo, where they can do no harm to American citizens — and, too, where the Bush Administration does not have to abide by habeas corpus.

The radio episode also asks some more substantive questions about our legal system and about whether the current Administration has violated the long held principled of habeas corpus — a principle that’s at the very heart of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and, too, a principle that was at the center of our American Revolution. Now, it is unmistakably clear to me that, yes, the Bush Administration has lied to us about virtually everything that’s happened since 9/11, just as it is unmistakably clear to me that this Republican president has violated and soiled the founding principles of the American Revolution; yet, in spite of it all, the most harden of his supporters, the self-deluded morons that consider themselves uber-patriots, are complicit with the Bush Administration in betraying the spirit and legacy of our nation’s war for independence.

Here’s a synopsis of this week’s This American Life episode:

The right of habeas corpus has been a part of this country’s legal tradition longer than we’ve actually been a country. It means the government has to explain why it’s holding a person in custody. But now, the war on terror has nixed many of the rules we used to think of as fundamental. At Guantanamo Bay, our government initially claimed that the prisoners should not be covered by habeas – or even by the Geneva Conventions – because they’re the most fearsome terrorist enemies we have. But is that true? Is it a camp full of terrorists, or a camp full of our mistakes?

And you can hear this week’s episode here — it’s a great show, as always.

It’s About More than Power

I’ve carried on a mostly cordial conversation with a co-worker over the past year regarding Iraq, the Bush administration and politics in general. Here’s an email I sent just yesterday:

Dear [___________],

Yesterday I mentioned how I consider any analysis that simply concludes that, It’s about power, or with, They simply want to get power, to be simplistic. Now, I don’t mean to belittle this approach; however, to simply say that it’s about power is to rely on a truism which, at face value, is difficult to refute. Moreover, not going beyond this level of analysis, It’s about power, leaves a lot unanswered and skirts the hard work of looking at the tangible issues that contribute to Islamic terrorism. Yes, it’s about power; but this is the most obvious and least complicated part of the equation. Again, there are tangible issues and policy concerns that can be pointed to which contribute to Islamic terrorism; thus, if the ultimate goal of an offensive war against Iraq was to “change the climate of the region,” and to diminish “the rise of Islamic terrorism,” it clearly would’ve been better to start by looking at those tangible issues and policies that contribute to terrorism in the region — rather than playing into their hands by initiating an offensive war. This is specially true if, as a lot of close observers (including war supporters, military personnel, intelligence analysts, historians and others) note that invading Iraq has contributed to the radicalization of a lot Muslims that would not have otherwise engaged in terrorists acts. Moreover, this same group of observers notes that invasion simply bolsters the Al Queda propaganda line that “infidels,” (namely the U.S.) are interested in “invading and occupying Muslim lands for its oil.” Finally, Bin Ladin out right ridicules the notion that the Bush administration is fighting for “freedom,” and Bin Ladin counters that he is the one fighting for “Islamic freedom and against the occupiers of Muslim land.” Now, ask yourself this question, in the region, who do you think is winning the propaganda war? Better yet, ask yourself, Who has more credibility in the Islamic world, Bush or Bin Ladin?

Lastly, note that Bin Ladin’s and Al Queda’s war is not against Westerners in general, but against very specific targets. For example, in a statement released by Al Queda ridiculing Bush’s rationale that Islamic terrorists hate our freedom, Bin Ladin noted that Al Queda does not hate our freedom and posed this question, Why is it that Sweden is not targeted and yet they enjoy as much freedom as Americans? His response, because Sweden does not occupy Muslim land nor support apostate regimes in the region. Clearly Al Queda is motivated by religious and ideological fervor. Yes, at surface level, it is about power; however, the fuel that drives Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists, and which fills their ranks with supporters, is composed of perceived grievances against U.S. policies in the region which some Muslims perceive as “unfair, oppressive, against their religion and against their national interests.” These grievances are difficult to address; however, they are rooted on tangible policies and causes that we, as a nation, can choose to address. Unfortunately, rather than looking at the situation in an analytical manner, a lot of our fellow citizens have given in to hyper-nationalism and, too, bought into the bumper sticker rationale for the war (i.e., freedom and all the other one line slogans).

[XX]

PS. You may be asking, What the fuck do you base this on? Well, on close obersvation of current events, but most recently, on these two books:

Imperial Hubris:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1574888625/
qid=1123789202/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/
104-1294730-7043913?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Through Our Enemies Eyes:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/
1574885537/ref=pd_bxgy_img_2/
104-1294730-7043913?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

The author of both these books is a historian, specialist on the Middle East on Al Queda and Bin Ladin, and a 20 year veteran of the CIA.

I’ll also be reading this book, No God But God:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/
0812971892/ref=reg_hu-wl_item-added/
104-1294730-7043913?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance