Tweet
Did Bush’s war on terror policy stop a second terror attack? Is Obama right that US policy tended to help al Qaeda grow? Is Cheney an ogre? Is Obama a naive fool?
Maybe the right answers don’t fit neatly into place. Maybe US policy back under Bush both tended to empower al Qaeda, by making Muslims more militant, and discourage an attack on the US at the same time. Perhaps, bin Laden’s success at making the Muslim World more militant, made him in no hurry to attack the US a second time. However, was giving al Qaeda space to grow something really worth cheering about?
Yes, I agree with those who claim Bush made the world a mess, but in 2003 he withdrew US troops from Saudi Arabia. Troops there, was the main reason bin Laden vowed to attack the US a second time. Bush starting to withdraw some troops from Afghanistan, to fight in Iraq, pleased bin Laden in two ways. Bin Laden was far more interested in US troops leaving Afghanistan, where he spent many years then in mostly Shiite Iraq, and he was happy to see a secularist, Saddam Hussein, out of power. The first time President Bush might have really upset bin Laden was perhaps when he started sending a few drone aircraft into Pakistan, which might have not been enough for bin Laden to renew his desire to follow up 9/11 with a bigger attack just because of the drones.
When George Bush first became President, he wanted to look tough while avoiding war with Russia and China. Thus he came out with his “Axis of Evil” rhetoric. After 9/11 US troops in Afghanistan also made Bush look tough but it also whittled away Afghans being fed up with the Taliban. After 2003 Bush withdrew US troops from Saudi Arabia. US troops there was the main reason bin Laden stated for the 9/11 attack and why he vowed to attack again.
One of Bin Laden’s basic goals is to make moderate Muslims militant, craving a world of the 8th century where Muslims were quick to attack. Not that anyone in the 8th century would have used their child or helpless old mother as a combatant. Or attack where noncombatant Muslims could get hurt such as at two US Embassies in Africa at rush hour. Or get Muslims to fight with each other like al Qaeda is doing between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq, or get drunk before a battle assignment like 9/11, or tax Opium.
When, then Majority Leader, Bill Frist was about to call for bipartisan prison detention reform after reviewing the secret additional Abu Ghraib photos, al Qaeda derailed it by posting Nick Berg’s beheading when Frist’s press conference was about to start, which derailed the reform efforts, meaning the torture of suspects is what bin Laden wanted the US to do so he could use it as a recruiting tool,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-11-iraq-beheading_x.htm
The day after the January 22, when Obama announced the decision to close Guantanamo, al Qaeda announced that a former terror detainee was to be second in command in the Arabian Peninsula (it turned out only nominally),
http://wcbstv.com/national/guantanamo.bay.detainee.2.916216.html
Again it seems to suggest bin Laden wanted US torture facilities to stay open for it’s propaganda purposes.
I personally think it is a mistake for the peace movement to assume that the al Qaeda threat is over, and that thus Cheney doesn’t know what he is talking about when he claims there will be another terror attack where Cheney can claim “I told you so”.
I got some more sober assessments. More likely then not, a real possibility of peace in the Middle East or a quick agreement with moderates, or semi-moderates and a US withdrawal from Iran and Afghanistan would make al Qaeda desperate to attack instead of waiting for the US to bankrupt itself.
We need to deal with the possibility that as soon as bin Laden’s dreams seem hopeless is when he will be the most desperate. Why should bin Laden just smash his own brains out when he loses like the al Qaeda member did in England when he bashed his truck into a strong steel gate at a military base where he had not much hope of killing anyone but himself, when other al Qaeda members can al least attack take a few vacationing Americans, on perhaps cruise ships in the Caribbean, with them. As al Qaeda diehards commit suicide in defeat, they will want to take as many of the enemy with them as the go.
Anyway, Bush policy of getting US troops out of Saudi Arabia shows that appeasement works even if done by someone who pretends to be tough all the time.
Perhaps the above is just exaggerating the al Qaeda threat, but if so an al Qaeda pretend to be, such as the Anthrax terrorists, might still cause the US to go into an anti terror spin,
http://capitolhillblue.com/blog/2419
http://ramblingsfromthehornetsnest.blogspot.com
RichardKanePA
7 Comments
nobody believes the threat is over, what we believe is the principles of cheney magnify that threat exponentially
and of course cheney doesn’t know what he’s talking about, he’s a moron who has failed at everything he’s done, more so then bush
I agree that bin Laden wanted to initiate a war between Islam and the West with the 9-11 attack, but it seems to me you’re confusing motivation with ability.
Yes, perhaps bin Laden would have gotten motivated to attack the US again had Bush not gotten America involved in Iraq, but the 9-11 attack was a one-off event that simply wasn’t repeatable.
Remember, the attack would never have succeeded had Bush not been demonstrating horrendous negligence, incompetence and dereliction of duty.
Lest we forget the history that lil’ Dick was touted as the perfect candidate by the media because, as you recall repeated 1000 times, he brought “gravitas” to the ticket. I bet W et al wish they had never heard that word with its deception. Yep, gravitas with a poor aim.
perris’s comment wasn’t on this sight until after yesterday evening despite the date on it,
and the spelling in RevBev’s comment makes we wonder if he posted several link filled comments that didn’t post.
In the meantime I kept getting error messages when I tried to answer rich2506 which may mean it included a link that a group censoring the internet didn’t like.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com…..ment-50736
http://capitolhillblue.com/node/17849
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5423
Hope to be able to enclose some important links later
RichardKanePA
Rich2506,
I agree with you to the extent that at the bare minimum Richard Perle at several White House Cabinet meetings, preaching the need for a “New Pearl Harbor” which interfered with competent people being hired and promoted,
That doesn’t negate the possibility that Cheney could have also been involved to a further extent.
Shouldn’t we be worried about the possibility that some professional Qaeda “pretend-to-bes” in the future to slip some goof-balls like the ones just arrested in NY some Anthrax instead of the FBI slipping them toy weapons. Or even the Anthrax terrorists to slip real al Qaeda members some as well.
RichardKanePA
I am going to try to enclose the link that I can’t somehow post with out getting a data base error by spreading it out
.if
americans
knew.
org/
us_ints/
nc-pilger.html
Partly false alarm,
If Americans Knew is a sight that blamed Israel for the Kennedy Assassination.
Being a half-breed and troubled by the knowlage that Moussaoui, and the murders of Daniel Pearl dream of Hitler’s efforts getting finished, I was bothered that nothing other than some all encompassing conspiracy seemed to make sense for the Kennedy assassination until E. Howard Hunt exposed Lyndon Johnson as being involved.
The facts of the JFK assassination are now available. Bush Jr. helpful declassifications, and Hunt’s deathbed confession makes the facts assessable.
RichardKanePA