Taking credit..

Who Killed Osama bin Laden

From The Daily Show:

Eleven Bush administration officials come out of their hidey-holes to take credit for Osama bin Laden’s death.

Taking credit.., posted with vodpod
About these ads

12 thoughts on “Taking credit..

  1. I have a longer comment but the Dept of Labor PCs are still on Office 2003 and my file is 2007. Pathetic. Later

  2. BIN LADEN, DONE THAT.

    Part 1 of 3

    Congratulations to the CIA for tracking down Osama Bin Laden and to SEAL Team Six on the success of their extremely dangerous mission in Pakistan.

    Apparently there was no visual confirmation that Bin Laden was actually using the compound or that he was actually there even when the SEALs landed, so no-matter how obvious and inevitable the conclusion that could be drawn from the evidence gathered since August 2010 the action was still very risky for the SEAL team, notwithstanding their skills and training.

    There was tremendous diplomatic risk in deciding to conduct the raid without even warning the Pakistan president let alone asking permission. (Pakistan has since publicly told the US not to do it again!)
    Finally there was great political risk for President Obama; the ill fated attempt to rescue US hostages in Iran was laid squarely on then-President Carter’s shoulders (even though the deadly debacle was entirely due to the newly formed Delta Force’s inexperience and inadequate preparation over which Carter had no control) and was exploited to significant effect by the Republicans.

    Not surprisingly, Republicans are trying to claim some credit for the successful mission on George Bush’s behalf, and the corporate media, also not surprisingly, has been doing nothing to revisit the Bush administration’s miserable record regarding terrorism in general and Bin Laden in particular.

    There was the Bush administration’s failure to take the Al Qaeda threat seriously, evidenced by the rejection of Richard Clarke’s anti-terrorist planning and apparently zero response to Bin Laden’s attack on the USS Cole; Dick Cheney’s utterly fake anti-terrorist task-force; George Bush’s and Condoleezza Rice’s disregard for the alarming August 6 President’s Daily Briefing (that was supported by dozens of other warnings), and of course the 9/11 attacks themselves.

    There was Rudolph Giuliani’s criminal, self-serving equipping of the NYPD and NYFD with substandard incompatible communication equipment; his placement, against the advice of experts, of New York’s anti-terrorism HQ within a known terrorist target; his self aggrandizing busy-work on the day and his disgusting performance at the NYC RNC Convention in 2004.

    There was the decision(s) to task the actual capture of Bin Laden in Tora Bora to local Afghanis whose allegiances were far from clear and whose historic, well-known opportunism and double-dealing should have been appreciated, is being ignored.

    There was the derision heaped on John Kerry for his opinion that the terrorist threat should be countered by intelligence operations rather than blundering reactionary violence.

    There was the Bush administration’s blowing the cover of the British-run mole who handled Al Qaeda’s internet communications, just to try and score points with the public as elections loomed.

    There was Bush telling a reporter during his second-term that he’d pretty much stopped thinking about Bin Laden; that Bin Laden didn’t matter any more (UBL certainly mattered less by being forced out of Afghanistan, but he still mattered enough to be used by the administration for their own propaganda purposes). In fact the special Bin Laden Unit of the CIA was disbanded in 2005 (as the New York Times, for one, explicitly noted).

    There was the chorus of Republican claims that Obama’s election would actually lead to more terrorist attacks to which the media dutifully gave plenty of television- and radio-time, web-space and column-inches, without challenge. (As a matter of fact there were more terrorist attacks against Americans as a direct result of Obama’s election— those being from the domestic right wing).

    continued….

  3. BIN LADEN, DONE THAT.

    Part 2 of 3

    There was Cheney, saying that Obama’s election would certainly result in another devastating attack on the US because he was ‘soft on terror’.
    There were the Republican claims that Obama was really a Muslim and thus his supposed sympathies made him a national threat—which the corporate media thought was worth talking about at length, but not worth actually examining claims for facts or even reason.

    And there has been in every media discussion of terrorism, Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo and Al Qaeda over the past decade from Republican politicians, pundits and propaganda plants masquerading as impartial experts (the latter often high ranking ex-officers with direct post-retirement financial interests in the Republican Party and the military-industrial-security complex) who were consistently given a numerical and temporal advantage in media appearances and attention and column inches in the print and web-page press, the constant refrain that Democrats and latterly President Obama didn’t “get it” with regard to the threat of terrorism and the demands of counter-terrorism, which the media persistently let spew forth without the least amount of skepticism or honest inquiry and challenge.

    For all these gormless, gung-ho gunrunners of the GOP who saw the abject failure of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice to take AL Qaeda seriously that allowed the 9/11 attacks to succeed so spectacularly as “an opportunity” (to quote Rumsfeld) to establish an unparalleled presence of control and influence in the oil-rich Middle East and the yet-to-be-developed energy reserves of the various ‘Stans’ next door to Iraq and Afghanistan, to then attempt to claim ANY credit at all for the hunting down and elimination of Osama Bin Laden is beyond ridiculous—and yet the mass media is still prepared to entertain the idea, apparently because the claims and opinions of the right wing are inherently superior to their political and intellectual opposites by virtue of…..magic?

    Consider what happened and didn’t happen in Tora Bora: Bin Laden had apparently been run to ground and cornered.. The way Bush told it, capturing or killing Bin Laden was a top priority, and there couldn’t have been a single US soldier in Afghanistan who wasn’t willing to die for that one particular cause— and yet what appeared to be the final physical take-down of Bin Laden was outsourced to locals.
    If George Bush himself outsourced the task or allowed it to be outsourced what was his reason? If he was worried about the cost in US military lives in what would presumably be a frenetic Close-Quarters fight, well then he either didn’t have much faith in the soldiers, or suddenly didn’t have the stomach for making hard decisions about soldiers lives (both of which seems unlikely given that he approved of such a lightweight invasion force in Afghanistan) or that in particular he feared the repercussions of a potentially high cost in lives and/or possible failure for political reasons.
    Did he decide that there needed to be an Afghan face on the capture of Bin Laden? If so then that would have been a political decision rather than an operational decision; and for goodness sake why? Bin Laden was undoubtedly America’s target—Bush had unequivocally made him so, and if the decision was not Bush’s, then who the hell made the decision, and why would Bush not have ensured that no such decision could be made without his approval?

    Bush had Bin Laden momentarily trapped in a country that was under US control with the blessings of the UN behind him and significant local support—yet what should have been a conclusive capture/kill operation was outsourced and Bin Laden got away. (How come that utter failure didn’t play out for Bush the way Carter’s failed Iran hostage rescue played out?)

    Obama had a seemingly solid lead but no actual visual confirmation of Bin Laden. The target was inside Pakistan—a “partner” in the “war on terror”— and obviously had local supporters.
    The circumspect choice would have been to coordinate with the Pakistan Government and its security forces to avoid any horrible mistakes (like having the raid actually kill some Pakistani poobahs who wasn’t Bin Laden) and as a measure of respect for the US/Pakistan relationship, as well as, believe it or nor, US and international law.
    Instead Obama decided the risks to American lives, US/Pakistan relations and of killing the wrong guy, and thus risking his political future, were nonetheless preferable to outsourcing the task or compromising the intelligence and operation to satisfy political sensibilities.

    continued…

  4. (Another comparison comes to mind; the missile strikes on Doha Farm (?) where Saddam Hussein was thought to be the day before Bush’s Iraq invasion deadline. It’s a lot easier to order attacks when none of “the good guys” are going to get hurt—Obama has done this regarding drone attacks into Pakistan—but a lot harder to order a dozen or so lightly armed men into hostile territory).

    In short, Obama acted as “the Decider” that Bush—always the blusterer—never was.

    It would be remiss of me not to note that whilst the killing of Bin Laden was IMHO in the service of justice, the raid and the result were, as I understand it, illegal according to US and international law and in that respect it actually deserves condemnation, in principle.

    As details surrounding Bin Laden’s residency in Pakistan have emerged thus far it would appear at present that he was effectively operationally retired since his ejection from Afghanistan—his role even as an inspiration to others reduced to occasional ‘YouTube’ appearances of significance only to fear-mongers (with every tape Bin Laden released how many times did we hear right wing pundits reference the 3/11 Madrid bombings and claim an elevated risk that Al Qaeda would attack during US elections? How many elections have we had since 9/11? Four up to 2008, and never any attack—because ‘influencing’ elections was never Bin Laden’s interest anyway, but invoking terror certainly was the GOP’s election interests).

    No doubt a host of pundits and journalists are already beavering away at their various ‘definitive’ Bin Laden biographies (Bin Laden—Behind the Beard? From Beard to Eternity—The Bin Laden Story? Allah’s Well That Ends Well?), with an eye on being published for Christmas 2011 and no doubt they will all be absolute crap.

    Consider this: If Bush had sent in a professional US team to get Bin Laden at Tora Bora instead of a bunch of amateur mercenaries, and if they succeeded or not, would he have been able to invade Iraq so easily, or at all? Think of the implications of THAT.

    end

    • I don’t think this is rocket science..
      I fully believe they (Bush/Cheny cabal) ALWAYS knew where OBL was, that in fact they aided his escape from Tora Bora. Without the big boogey-man, Osama bin laden, they wouldn’t have the main ingredient to keep up their never-ending war on terror, their never-ending fear-mongering of the American people, and they wouldn’t be able to continually push through their agenda (which all seemed to work well for them..). Without this never-ending war they lose the never-ending and ever-increasing military contracts, and the gravy train comes to an end, along with their ever-increasing profits. This never-ending war represents a hell of a lot of money for their corporate friends (their base..).

      That is the easiest explanation. It’s about whatever works. And these people, with no morals or conscience, are now trying to twist this success of Obama’s to benefit them as well.

    • 5th, have you ever read “The Terror Timeline – Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute” by Paul Thompson? It is fascinating reading. He has meticulously chronicled the road to 9/11 and America’s response. It starts back in 1979 and it is well researched. Every bit of it is based on news reports (listing publication and date for every detail) from all over the world. Kind of a fat book though.. Lots of odd and interesting details. All found in the press both home and abroad. Interesting how many things were NOT found in U.S. reporting.

  5. nwmuse…..

    I have not read that , or heard of it. I shall have to look for it. Thanks for the tip.

    And yeah, it makes more sense and the actions certainly point to the PNAC cabal /Cheney/ Bush/Rove/Rumsfeld conspiring to keep Bin Laden alive, literally and figuratively.

  6. 5th – excellent lay out. Delighted to read your thoughts on the subject.

    (you could’ve popped up on the open thread to let us know…no matter it’s always good to know you are doing as well as can be)

Comments are closed.