Last week, John McCain's top adviser, Charlie Black, made news when he said a terror attack would be a "big advantage" to McCain's chances of winning the election in November. Republican really think that. The sick thing is that it's the Bush administration's failure to destroy al Qaeda that makes another attack even possible. A blockbuster in today's New York Times explains how the Bush and his top aides have continuously screwed up the anti-terror efforts:
The story of how Al Qaeda, whose name is Arabic for “the base,” has gained a new haven is in part a story of American accommodation to President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, whose advisers played down the terrorist threat. It is also a story of how the White House shifted its sights, beginning in 2002, from counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan to preparations for the war in Iraq.
Just as it had on the day before 9/11, Al Qaeda now has a band of terrorist camps from which to plan and train for attacks against Western targets, including the United States. Officials say the new camps are smaller than the ones the group used prior to 2001. However, despite dozens of American missile strikes in Pakistan since 2002, one retired C.I.A. officer estimated that the makeshift training compounds now have as many as 2,000 local and foreign militants, up from several hundred three years ago.
Publicly, senior American and Pakistani officials have said that the creation of a Qaeda haven in the tribal areas was in many ways inevitable — that the lawless badlands where ethnic Pashtun tribes have resisted government control for centuries were a natural place for a dispirited terrorism network to find refuge. The American and Pakistani officials also blame a disastrous cease-fire brokered between the Pakistani government and militants in 2006.
But more than four dozen interviews in Washington and Pakistan tell another story. American intelligence officials say that the Qaeda hunt in Pakistan, code-named Operation Cannonball by the C.I.A. in 2006, was often undermined by bitter disagreements within the Bush administration and within the C.I.A., including about whether American commandos should launch ground raids inside the tribal areas.
These screw-ups are the people who claim they'll make us safer. It's never been true (although the media laps it up and too many Democrats still cower at the idea of standing up to Bush's failed national security policies.)
It wasn't just the in-fighting, that undermined the anti-terror efforts. As many predicted back during the rush to war in 2002, Iraq was a major distraction from the effort to destroy the real enemy who attacked the U.S. in 2001:
Current and former military and intelligence officials said that the war in Iraq consistently diverted resources and high-level attention from the tribal areas. When American military and intelligence officials requested additional Predator drones to survey the tribal areas, they were told no drones were available because they had been sent to Iraq.
The Bush administration is a national security disgrace. John McCain backed Bush's policies all the way. This is their failure.
Of course, for Republicans, there is a silver lining. If something really bad happens, like another terrorist attack on the U.S., it could help McCain. Maybe that's been part of the strategy all along.
Yeah, not very smart to use Fred Thompson to attack Obama over bin Laden. First off, Thompson said last year that Osama didn't really matter, he's "more symbolism than anything else." Yeah, the symbol of 3,000 dead Americans and others on September 11. That's a symbol worth catching. But Thompson didn't stop there. He said last year that bin Laden “"should get due process if he’s caught". Now, why is that a problem? Because McCain has been railing all week against Obama for saying that there's no reason we can't try suspected terrorists in US courts, even if they're military courts. McCain says that's naive. And now McCain is using Thompson to further that attack on Obama. Except that Thompson said pretty what Obama said, if not far worse in McCain's thinking. Yesterday Team McCain put Giuliani out there to attack Obama on national security after McCain had said that Giuliani has zero national security experience. And now this. Seriously poorly managed campaign over in McCain-land.
I'm speechless. Bush has suddenly decided that it's time to catch Osama bin Laden. Conveniently in time for the presidential campaign. Last year, and the 5 years before that, it wasn't very high up on Bush's agenda, avenging the deaths of 3,000 people in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001. But now that John McCain's presidential race, and Bush's legacy, are at stake, suddenly Bush is "ordering" his administration to catch Osama.
Touche. And he's right. Bin Laden wanted the US to invade Afghanistan and get bogged down in an endless war. In fact, we gave him two. Here's what Joe Klein had to say on TIME's blog:
I was thinking about posting yesterday about McCain's cheesy nonsense about Obama being endorsed by Hamas. If McCain wants to go that route, I can suggest another: that John McCain is probably the favorite candidate of Osama bin Laden, just as George W. Bush was Osama's presidential preference....
The war in Iraq has been a grand strategic gift to Osama, keeping the U.S. military tied down elsewhere and off his tail.
Ron Suskind had a relevant scene in his excellent book The One Percent Doctrine: It's the Friday before election day in 2004 and Osama bin Laden has issued a videotape in which he lambastes President Bush. The top dawgs at the CIA are gathered to analyze the tape. Dep. Director John McLaughlin says, "I wonder who Osama is voting for?" Everyone cracks up because the answer is so obvious.
I remember studying Latin American terrorism/revolutionaries in the 1980s (Shining Path in Peru, FARC in Colombia). What the terrorists wanted were hard-nosed right-wing governments that would clamp down on civil liberties as a response to terrorist attacks, thus ticking off the people, causing more social tensions, and pushing the country ever close to exploding internally. Terrorists thrive on conservative governments. And if John McCain wants to play the terror card, let's play it. Because he wins.
In 2004, the BBC released a powerful series called The Power of Nightmares, The Rise of the Politics of Fear. It is about the parallel rise of radical Islam and the radical neocon right since the 1950s. (View online here.) One issue that the three part documentary covered was the rise and then hard fall of radicals in places such as Algeria. Indiscriminate killing and a steady blood bath in the name of the cause has lowered support for the movement time after time. The documentary is well worth viewing.
The poll suggests Pakistanis are looking to peaceful opposition groups after months of political turmoil and a wave of suicide attacks.
In the latest bloodshed, a bomber blew himself up at an opposition rally in the northwestern town of Charsadda on Saturday, killing 27 people and injuring 50.
According to the poll results only 24 percent of Pakistanis approved of bin Laden when the survey was conducted last month, compared with 46 percent during a similar survey in August.
Backing for al-Qaida, whose senior leaders are believed to be hiding along the Pakistani-Afghan border, fell to 18 percent from 33 percent.
Wait, yesterday, Bush's Homeland Security adviser said the Osama Bin Laden was "virtually impotent." Yet, today, Bush's National Intelligence Director testified that Bin Laden's forces pose a real threat. What is it? And, if we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here, how can they still be a real threat? That can only happen because of Bush's failed leadership. On many levels, unfortunately, it's Bin Laden who is claiming "Mission Accomplished":
Six years after the September 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network is bleeding the U.S. military in Iraq while regrouping with an avowed aim of another strike on the United States.
U.S. intelligence agencies and other analysts say security improvements and international efforts against al Qaeda have helped prevent another major U.S. attack.
But the network's ability to attack the West is rebounding, they say, and already it has met what some analysts describe as a goal of luring the United States into a damaging Middle East war that would cripple U.S. influence in the region.
Al Qaeda has inspired cells and sympathizers who may be unable to strike on the scale of September 11 but can nevertheless cause death and destruction.
"They have regained a significant level of their capability," National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell said of al Qaeda during a Senate hearing on Monday, the eve of the sixth anniversary. "The threat is real," he said.
So, six years later, despite all the tough guy talk, the terrorists who attacked America are still a real threat. Plus, they've lured us into an intractable war in Middle East. And, of course, Bin Laden is still free to taunt us. So who exactly is "virtually impotent" these days? Not Bin Laden.
Kill one person, you get the death penalty. Kill 3,000 and you get off scot free and the Republicans don't even care about catching you. Fred Thompson said as much this past week, George Bush has said as much, John McCain has said as much. We can now add "soft on mass murder" to the ever-growing list of corrupt Republican party values.
George Bush loves to invoke September 11th. So does Osama Bin Laden. The fact that Bin Laden is still alive and able to make these tapes mocking America is a testament to Bush's failed leadership. Of course, the Bush administration hopes we're all suitably frightened by the Bin Laden tape:
The White House said that any new video message from bin Laden would only underscore the threat the United States and other nations face from extremists.
Actually the Bin Laden underscores the fact that Bush has failed to capture or kill the guy who masterminded the attack on America on 9/11. If we still face a threat from Bin Laden six years later, it's Bush fault.
The president, in an Oval Office meeting with Thailand's prime minister, would not predict the timing of bin Laden's capture but said he doesn't care how the suspect is brought to justice. "I don't care, dead or alive — either way," Bush said. "It doesn't matter to me."
Clearly, bringing Bin Laden to justice hasn't really mattered for six years.
We reported on this the other day, but it hasn't gotten much play. Bush had Zawahiri, Osama's right hand man from the Al Qaeda that did attack the U.S., in his sights but didn't take Zawahiri out because it would have ticked off the Pakistanis. Well boo frigging hoo. Having the World Trade Center come down on 3000 people ticked off a lot of Americans, and the next time it happens Bush can explain to the families of the dead just why it was he was afraid of ticking off the Pakistanis.
Interestingly, this is the lie that Disney/ABC, along with their right-wing producer, tried to peddle about Madeleine Albright in Disney's fantasy film "The Path to 9/11." Remember how they claimed that Madeleine Albright wouldn't let us take out Osama because the Pakistanis might get upset? Never happened. But now we know that it DID happen under Bush's watch.
Bush and his military lapdogs keep telling us that Al Qaeda is the biggest threat we face in Iraq. It's totally untrue. But to the extent that the administration wants us to believe that Al Qaeda is the "big bad," we need to keep reminding them that the only reason Al Qaeda is still around is kicking is because George Bush gave them a pass.
Classic Bush from the 2001-2004. Yes, the just declassified information about bin Laden and Iraq from 2005 was so hot that even the Bush administration did not change the national terror alert level. Wow, bin Laden talking with Iraq in 2005 after the brilliant invasion that was going swimmingly, who would have guessed? So Bush was doing such a great job with Iraq and Afghanistan that there were regular communications between the terrorist groups. It's all so scary and I don't think we've heard this story before from Team Terror who take delight in regularly terrorizing the American public for their own political gain, which backfired in 2006.
If Bush knows so damned much about bin Laden, find him and quit terrorizing the public with unnecessary fear. Too bad the Democrats folded and failed to see that the American public overwhelmingly rejects Bush's war and his silly rants.
George Bush and his cronies are constantly puffing out their chests and talking tough about Iraq and terror. Dick Cheney invoked al Qaeda in a vicious attack on leading Democrats. They're sounding like they did in 2002. Same language, same threats -- but it's mostly just for political purposes. Bush and Cheney should be thinking back to 2001 when they ignored Bin Laden and al Qaeda the first time. Frank Rich shows us that it is 2001 all over again:
The White House doesn’t want to hear it now, either. That’s why terrorism experts are trying to get its attention by goingpublic, and not just through The Times. Michael Scheuer, the former head of the C.I.A. bin Laden unit, told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann last week that the Taliban and Al Qaeda, having regrouped in Afghanistan and Pakistan, “are going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States” (the real United States, that is, not the fictional stand-in where this same scenario can be found on “24”). Al Qaeda is “on the march” rather than on the run, the Georgetown University and West Point terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman told Congress. Tony Blair is pulling troops out of Iraq not because Basra is calm enough to be entrusted to Iraqi forces — it’s “not ready for transition,” according to the Pentagon’s last report — but to shift some British resources to the losing battle against the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.
This is why the entire debate about the Iraq “surge” is as much a sideshow as Britney’s scalp. More troops in Baghdad are irrelevant to what’s going down in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The surge supporters who accuse the Iraq war’s critics of emboldening the enemy are trying to deflect attention from their own complicity in losing a bigger battle: the one against the enemy that actually did attack us on 9/11. Who lost Iraq? is but a distraction from the more damning question, Who is losing the war on terrorism?
The record so far suggests that this White House has done so twice.
Twice.
Note to the media: Just because Bush says he's fighting the war on terror, doesn't mean it's true. Yesterday, the Army's Chief of Staff said of capturing or killing Bin Laden, "I don't know that it's all that important, frankly."
Frankly, that was the attitude of George Bush and Dick Cheney back in 2001. Look where that got us.
Wow. Seriously. Osama Bin Laden launched an attack on the U.S. that killed 3,000 people. Looks like the Bush Administration is prepared to let him get away with it. The U.S. Army's highest ranking officer said getting the terrorist who led the attack is not that important. What kind of message does that send to the terrorists?
Earlier this week, The NY Times reported that Bin Laden and his allies have "re-established significant control" over a resurgent Bin Laden:
American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan. Until recently, the Bush administration had described Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri as detached from their followers and cut off from operational control of Al Qaeda.
That disturbing report makes sense now that we know our leaders don't think capturing Bin Laden is worth the effort according to a report in today's Washington Post:
The Army's highest-ranking officer said Friday that he was unsure whether the U.S. military would capture or kill Osama bin Laden, adding, "I don't know that it's all that important, frankly."
"So we get him, and then what?" asked Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the outgoing Army chief of staff, at a Rotary Club of Fort Worth luncheon. "There's a temporary feeling of goodness, but in the long run, we may make him bigger than he is today.
"He's hiding, and he knows we're looking for him. We know he's not particularly effective. I'm not sure there's that great of a return" on capturing or killing bin Laden
The Bush Administration didn't take Bin Laden seriously in early 2001. They're not taking him seriously now.
Instead, Bush and Cheney only invoke Bin Laden and al Qaeda for their own warped political purposes. Just this week, Dick Cheney had the audacity to bring up al Qaeda in yet another partisan political attack on Democrats. What a fraud. If Bush and Cheney had done their jobs, al Qaeda wouldn't be a force anymore. Instead, the Bush Administration has enabled and emboldened the terror network. Now, apparently, it's Bush policy to let Bin Laden get away with the mass murder of Americans. Beyond shocking.
Bush and Cheney have not only enabled Bin Laden, they've made him a legend.
So much for the Global War on Terror. If I have my recent history right, George Bush was going to get Bin Laden before he decided he didn't care about him. Well, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are making a comeback while the U.S. is pinned down in Iraq. If this can happen, George Bush doesn't care about the security of Americans. The NY Times has the story:
As recently as 2005, American intelligence assessments described senior leaders of Al Qaeda as cut off from their foot soldiers and able only to provide inspiration for future attacks. But more recent intelligence describes the organization’s hierarchy as intact and strengthening.
“The chain of command has been re-established,” said one American government official, who said that the Qaeda “leadership command and control is robust.”
American officials and analysts said a variety of factors in Pakistan had come together to allow “core Al Qaeda” — a reference to Mr. bin Laden and his immediate circle — to regain some of their strength. The emergence of a relative haven in North Waziristan and the surrounding area has helped senior operatives communicate more effectively with the outside world via courier and the Internet.
How George Bush let the people who attacked this country get away with it is really beyond explanation. How the Republicans in Congress let this happen defies explanation. Thanks to Bush and his GOP allies, the world is a much more dangerous place.
Al Qaeda is back. Bin Laden has reasserted his authority. It's really almost unbelievable.
