"We must remember the words of the enemy. We must listen to what they say." --Bush at VFW Wednesday:
It's always amazed me that Americans have tolerated Bush's insistence that they should "listen to the words of the terrorists" as he defends ignoring their own on Iraq. Bush wants us to accept bin-Laden's taunts that a withdrawal from Iraq would be a defeat for the U.S.. Obscenely, he uses the exact same reasoning as bin-Laden in arguing that America should continue on with his 'war' in Iraq. Bin-Laden says Iraq is the central front for his terror fight, Bush says Iraq is the central front for his terror fight.
Problem is, bin-Laden is in Pakistan hoping that his ploy to keep Bush bogged down in Iraq continues to work -- inflaming more and more anti-U.S. violence and recriminations with U.S. soldiers as targets. Bush is the perfect patsy. He's the type who folks like to egg on because of his predictable, foolish reaction. It's disgusting to hear him parrot bin-Laden's calculated nonsense.
Bush, in his VFW speech:
"Bin Laden has declared that "the war in Iraq is for you or us to win. If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever." Iraq is one of several fronts in the war on terror -- but it's the central front -- it's the central front for the enemy that attacked us and wants to attack us again. And it's the central front for the United States and to withdraw without getting the job done would be devastating."
The collapse of the Trade Towers was a devastating act, rationalized by those who took responsibility for the atrocities in elaborate justifications of nationalism and religiosity. But, the violence amounted to nothing more than murder by the perpetrators and accomplices. Whatever they wanted the killings to accomplish didn't necessarily have to occur. In fact, with most of the world allied against the attacks, there was no ideological victory, power shift, or territorial victory for the terrorists which was allowed to materialize in their wake. The coalition of countries who supported the U.S. in their response helped invade Afghanistan and took away any permanent base of operations bin-Laden may have had there.
Yet, Bush has seemed intent on elevating bin-Laden's aspirations since the beginning of his failed campaign to hold on to his congressional majority -- holding up the terrorists' aspirations as some unfulfilled destiny. It's just a mere coincidence, I suppose, that the rebel leader hasn't been apprehended; in part, as a consequence of Bush's shift of the bulk of our forces and resources to Iraq in the middle of the pursuit.
Bin-Laden could very well be waiting out the chaos that he admits to have instigated, waiting to step out of the shadows and into his role as terror svengali to the masses. But he wouldn't have a thing to lord over if Bush hadn't followed his dare and invaded and occupied yet another Muslim-dominated country.
The question remains, why should the American people be swayed by the words of al-Qaeda thugs? Bush and his republican enablers continue to insist -- in their own words, as well as those of the terrorists-- and in their approval of appropriations to Iraq which far out weigh the resources directed to Afghanistan and the hunt for bin-Laden -- that fighting on one side of a multi-fronted civil war in Iraq is more important than directly stemming the influence and muckraking violence directed around the world by bin-Laden and his accomplices.
Certainly the dwindled 'coalition of the willing' didn't think Iraq was at the 'center' of their own security needs as they brought their own troops home. Iraq is important, only, to the political ambitions of Bush and the republicans who are desperate to remain in power; and who are using their support for the continued Iraq occupation as a representation of their commitment to keeping us safe and secure, while, at the same time, bashing Democrats and others opposed to the continued occupation as the reckless, unsafe ones.
The effect of the Iraq diversion on our safety and security was made abundantly clear by the collective efforts of the nation's intelligence community in the leaked National Intelligence Estimate from April 2006 which concluded that the Iraq occupation had actually made our country and the region less secure. By likening Iraq to the worldwide Muslim terror offensive the president did what Hussein could not; he bound Iraqis to the Muslim extremists. He practically invited them to join the battle there and ally with the forces that threaten our soldiers daily. "Bring them on" became the administration's mantra, and those Iraqis who would resist their bloody imperialism obliged; some individuals there banding together under the banner of al-Qaeda.
Instead of concentrating the nation's focus and attention on the root of the animosity toward the U.S. - the animosity which has been nurtured by the administration's neglect of al-Qaeda, and by the collateral and deliberate killings which flow out of his military occupation of Iraq - Bush is concentrating his efforts on stoking the ashes of fear from the 9-11 attacks to keep Americans cowed and yoked to his failed military campaigns; and he's using the obscene taunts of the fugitives that he let escape and run free for the entirety of the over five years which have passed since the attacks.
"Take the word of Osama bin Laden, or Mr. Zawahiri," Bush is urging Americans in his paranoid invitation to huddle in fear behind his bloody flag. Bush's own intelligence community has told him (again) that his Iraq occupation is threatening, not strengthening, the security of our nation by creating an atmosphere which is 'spawning' jihadists bent on harming Americans, our interests, and our allies in Iraq and elsewhere. Instead of changing course, Bush has decided to keep our troops in place as chaos and unrest threaten to engulf our over-deployed soldiers in the waves of recriminations against the regime they helped install and actively defend.
Nothing must thrill al-Qaeda more than to hear Bush read off passages of propaganda from the terrorists' own speeches and dispatches, except maybe the slick campaign commercial the republican party put out during last October's congressional election season featuring the terrorist's words lovingly super-imposed against bin-Laden's smiling image.
"What is yet to come will be even greater," the announcer quotes bin-Laden as saying. "These are the stakes," is the hook; strangely reminiscent of the '64 'Daisy' ad Johnson ran in his campaign which featured a countdown to a nuclear explosion.
That's the republicans' promise to the American people. "For as long as Bush is president," as he has said, " they will continue to sacrifice lives and limbs in Iraq (where 16 of his intelligence agencies say our occupation is creating terrorists, not eliminating them) and continue to short-shrift the search for the leaders of the organization which is influencing other combatants with the example of their members' historic attack and the orchestrators' escape from justice.
Ron Fullwood, is an activist from Columbia, Md. and the author of the book 'Power of Mischief' : Military Industry Executives are Making Bush Policy and the Country is Paying the Price
When I heard GW quoting snippets from terrorists and that "we have to listen to our enemies" I just about lost my mind!
If GW would listen to the "enemies", namely Bin Laden and his fatwas (1996 & 1998) he would have known the reasons why people attacked us in the first place. Maybe we should have listened to them back then and all of this wouldn't be happening to the US.
I truly feel the politicians and the people need a history lesson and to learn a simple logic course, such as "cause and effect". Or perhaps Newtons 3 law. You can start with WWI and the British mandate. Follow each successive year and you will see history link itself together.
Stupid history, it always makes us look bad.
by
Michael Twain (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments)
on Friday, August 24, 2007 at 8:18:02 PM
