There was a lot of recent attention over the fourth anniversary of Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" photo op announcing the end of major combat operations in Iraq. The day before, however, is the anniversary of an equally significant, if under-appreciated event.
Before 9/11, what I knew about Osama bin Laden was:
- he came from a wealthy Saudi family
- he had been a client of the CIA in Afghanistan fighting the Russians there
- he was generally about "global jihad"; and
- he specifically sought to have the US military -- "infidels" -- to be ejected from the Saudi kingdom that house 2 of the 3 major Islamic holy places.
From one perspective, you could say that 9/11 was, in part, about forcing the US to leave Saudi Arabia. That was certainly some of the rhetoric that came from the Al Qaeda camp post-9/11.
So is it a surprise that this article, dated April 30, 2003 notes that Mr. bin Laden's most fervent interim goal had been accomplished? Three weeks after the statue of Saddam was torn down, and one day before George Bush strutted on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, our government announced that the Saudis were kicking us out of the military bases that we had built in their country. Does this timing seem a bit strange to you?
My real question is this: is there a Democratic politician who will stand up and tell the truth -- that the oil companies and other moneyed interests in this country sponsored the invasion of a sovereign country, under a series of false pretenses, for the purpose of establishing a permanent military presence in Iraq to replace the one we lost in Saudi Arabia?
Of all the craven and manipulative things that this administration is guilty of, I find the fact that the announcement that US military was required to leave Saudi Arabia occurred the day before Bush's magisterial turn to be about the most depressing. Osama bin Laden got exactly what he sought, and he is still -- as far as any of us know -- around to chuckle about it. I don't know about you, but this fact makes me very unhappy.