I am dumbfounded at the attempts by various people to repaint the Bush Presidency as somehow 'successful.'
Let's be blunt. The complete opposite is true. Bush has done more damage to the US than ANY foreign government or 'terrorist' organization EVER could have achieved on their own.
In fact it is clear that PRESIDENT BUSH has HELPED binLaden achieve his stated goals while FAILING to prosecute a war against him to the best of our ability.
If someone, ANYONE, can be shown to have directly helped binLaden accomplish his stated goals, shouldn't we be wondering if THAT person is himself a 'terrorist' or in league with 'terrorists'?
This is NOT a snark. It raises the direct question:
Has President Bush helped accomplish the stated goals of the person he claims is our nation's number one enemy?
It is clear that the Bush Administration WILLFULLY ignored clear warnings about a possible attack on the US by bin Laden.
The 'BinLaden determined to strike in the US' briefing was deliberately ignored. Reports of Arabs training in US flight schools were ignored.
There is a long history of personal relationships between the Bush family and Saudis - with Saudis being allowed to leave the US shortly after 9/11 WITHOUT any questioning. The US has YET to catch binLaden and 'botched' opportunities that DID arise. Why aren't questions being raised about these relationships and the clear support shown by various Saudis FOR 'terrorists'? In fact it appears thats the policy of the Saudi government has been to 'pay off' such 'terrorists.' The fact that binLaden was used as a conduit for funding in the struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan has to raise questions as well. Did not a
pre-existing relationship existed between the CIA under George H.W. Bush and binLaden? What aWAS that and did it continue? Were we not hosting Talian leaders in this country when seeking to build a pipeline through areas of their control?
President Bush seemed WILLFULLY blind to the threat posed by binLaden, intent on focusing attention on Iraq - where no direct threat was ever proven.
The Clinton Administration's efforts to brief the incoming Bush Administration to focus on binLaden fell on deaf ears - Bush was focused on Iraq - a 'non-threat'.
Shortly after 9/11 binLaden made clear his goals:
http://www.cnn.com/...
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.
He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."
"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.
He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."
"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.
It seems incredible that - even after being told that this was the GOAL of one's enemy - that someone would DO EXACTLY what their enemy SAID THEY WANTED them to do.
Bush rushed into Afghanistan - and then proceeded NOT to catch binLaden on numerous occasions. Seven years after 9/11 - longer than WWI or WWII - the US has STILL not caught binLaden. And after initial successes in Iraq, the effort there seemed to stall with the US instead focusing on IRAQ. Repeated opportunities to capture binLaden or defeat major Taliban forces were lost because of theis diversion of force.
President Bush's behavior has been EXACTLY as described above - rushing off to chase 'alQuaeda' - rising to every provocation, WITHOUT making any real progress in defeating this enemy.
Let's look at the GOOD Bush has done FOR binLaden:
Deliberate mistreatment of 'enemy combatants' and civilians - in violation of International Law - have CREATED more enemies of the US and served as a recruiting tool. The actions of George W. Bush have CREATED more 'terrorists' in the Islamic world. AbuGrahib and GITMO have infuriated the Islamic world (the world in general) and DIRRECTLY caused people to come fight the US.
In fact, Bush's actions in invading Iraq SQUANDERED the support of the world for the US in fighting terrorism. The policies of the Bush Administration have CREATED thousands of dedicated enemies that would never have existed otherwise. Bush has been binLaden's BEST recruiter.
Bush Administration policies have HAMPERED the military effort to defeat binLaden and alQuaeda.
In both Afghanistan and later in Iraq, Bush OVERRULED generals and sent too few soldiers into combat - with inadequate equipment. Is not such WILLFUL action sabotage? Is not such behavior traitorous? Does not such behavior AID our enemy?
Our troops were sent into combat without adequate body armor - and threatened with disciplinary action if they sought to obtain BETTER armor privately. Suppliers of inferior armor and helmets have NOT been investigated and held accountable - calls for such action have been suppressed and fought. The same goes for armored vehicles. Despite loud noises - shouts of 'supporting our troops' - too few troops were sent into combat WITHOUT the equipment that military leaders stated was needed to get the job done.
Functions like water purification - done competently BY the military in the past - have been 'privatized' at increased cost - while providing INFERIOR service. Troops have been made ill and even been KILLED by 'privatized' functions. Has anyone been held accountable for the numerous troops electrocuted in showers ON US BASES? Where are the investigations? A US ARMY Colonel - a professor of ethics at West POint committed suicide in despair of his inability to hold private contractors 'accountable.' Has not the behavior of this Administration in denying adequate equipment and providing inferior services been of DIRECT AID to the enemy?
Investigations into REAL threats have been stifled (why is Sibel Edmonds under a gag order? Why was Valerie Plame outed as a CIA agent when she was investigating nuclear proliferation?) - Is it not now MORE LIKELY that nuclear proliferation and the odds of a terrorist organization gaining possession of a nuclear weapon have WORSENED because of this President's actions?
Meanwhile trivial 'non-threats' (bringing down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch, 'attacking' a US military base while delivering Pizzas) have been overblown and portrayed as far more credible than they EVER were?
Now, as far as bankrupting the US........
Can ANYONE claim that the damage done to the US inder this President's deliberate and WILLFUL neglect has been anything BUT catastrophic?
BILLIONS of dollars in contracts have gone unaccounted for - but THAT has been minor compared to the increase in the deficit run up by this President and the TRILLIONS now being spent to 'bail out' a collapsed financial system.
And binLaden could never in his WILDEST DREAMS have hoped for the astounding damage done by a financial system run without oversight and regulation - despite repeated warnings of what was happening and what could happen, the Bush Administration WILLFULLY ignored all calls for oversight and regulation - leading to the literal collapse of Western Financial markets.
The Bush Presidency PROVED binLaden and other Islamic extremists correct in their claims that the West IS 'corrupt.'
It sure seems that George W. Bush did all he could to HELP binLaden achieve his stated goals. Is not such behavior TRAITOROUS?
from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/...
Main Entry: trai·tor·ous
Pronunciation: \ˈtrā-tə-rəs, ˈtrā-trəs\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 : guilty or capable of treason
2 : constituting treason <traitorous activities>
Main Entry: trea·son
Pronunciation: \ˈtrē-zən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Anglo-French traisun, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray — more at traitor
Date: 13th century
1 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
Is it not traitorous when you fail to prosecute a war against one's stated enemy to the best of your capability - and in fact HELP TO ACHIEVE YOUR ENEMY'S STATED GOALS?
Ignoring George W. Bush's violations of US and International Law, Have the actions of George W. Bush HELPED binLaden achieve his stated goals?
If this is the case, is Geoger W. Bush not guilty of treason for all that he has done to HELP binLaden achieve his stated goals?
Have not the actions of George W. Bush provided aid and comfort to the enemy?
Everyone is screaming "Send him to PRISON!" for a financier who's bilked a limited number of people of $50 billion.
Why aren't we as concerned over a person who's done FAR more damage to our nation - somone who's helped a sworn enemy of this country to achieve HIS goals?
You don't let such things go ignored, do you?