PDA

View Full Version : Are we doing Bin Laden's bidding?



Norman Bernstein
10-04-2006, 06:47 AM
We've been talking, discussing, and arguing about Iraq for years now..... and I recall way back at the beginnig expressing the opinion that American involvement in Iraq was actually working to Al Queda's advantage, as opposed to their disadvantage. Well, the point is certainly debatable... but the following posting, courtesy of www.washingtonmonthly.com (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com), is worthy of pause and reflection:






WHOSE INTEREST?....Marc Lynch draws our attention to a letter sent last year from al-Qaeda's high command to Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq. It was recently translated and released by the Counterterrorism Center at West Point and suggests that al-Qaeda is extremely eager for the war in Iraq to continue: (http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2006/10/the_atiyah_lett.html)
The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God's permission.

This shouldn't come as a big surprise. The Iraq war is al-Qaeda's best recruiting tool, and as Ron Suskind noted in The One Percent Doctrine, the CIA has known for some time that Osama bin Laden wants the war to continue and deliberately times public messages to help George Bush's electoral chances. Here's a description of a CIA meeting in October 2004, right after a bin Laden tape had been released to al Jazeera: (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_06/009102.php)
What they'd learned over nearly a decade is that bin Laden speaks only for strategic reasons — and those reasons are debated with often startling depth inside the organization's leadership. Their assessments, at day's end, are a distillate of the kind of secret, internal conversations that the American public, and by association the wider world community, were not sanctioned to hear: strategic analysis.

Today's conclusion: bin Laden's message was clearly designed to assist the President's reelection.

At the five o'clock meeting, once various reports on latest threats were delivered, John McLaughlin opened the issue with the consensus view: "Bin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President."

Around the table, there were nods....Jami Miscik talked about how bin Laden — being challenged by Zarqawi's rise — clearly understood how his primacy as al Qaeda's leader was supported by the continuation of his eye-to-eye struggle with Bush. "Certainly," she offered, "he would want Bush to keep doing what he's doing for a few more years."

But an ocean of hard truths before them — such as what did it say about U.S. policies that bin Laden would want Bush reelected — remained untouched....On that score, any number of NSC principals could tell you something so dizzying that not even they will touch it: that Bush's ratings [in the U.S.] track with bin Laden's rating in the Arab world.

Iraq has been so mismanaged that almost anything we do now will be disastrous. But some things are more disastrous than others, and it's well to keep in mind that al-Qaeda seems pretty certain that a continuing war there is in their best interests. Is it in ours?

LeeG
10-04-2006, 08:07 AM
western country occupying Arab country,,,nahhh how could that galvanize anti-west terrorism,,I don't get the connection. oh look, pretty lights!

PatCox
10-04-2006, 08:57 AM
Bin Laden was very disappointed that the US did not attack after the Cole bombing, and 9/11 was his further attempt to lures us into the briar patch.

Of course, he needn't have bothered as Bush was determined to invade Iraq anyway.

LeeG
10-04-2006, 09:16 AM
maybe terrism isn't that important in the big neo-con picture.
If they can lie about the basis for war is it possible they could lie about a few other things ? I know that's a shocking thought but the fubar-no-post-invasion-plan should make one pause.

I know, I know, 9/11, terrism/9/11/terrismalquadaafghanistanterrism9/11/Iraq/terrismterrism.

but look at what is actually happening. Couldn't terrorism be an acceptable thing like the looting in Iraq was an acceptable reflection of change and freedom?

Just asking for a little thought.

If terrism is acceptable or at least on a short term, like whacking the hornets nest as a metaphor occupies ones mind for a short term, is acceptable but an insufficient force in a destroyed Iraq gov't fosters long term instability and chaos, and occupation breeds revolt,wouldn't that make you think it's ok to have some terrorism around ?

can't we just learn to love terrorism ?

troutman
10-04-2006, 09:38 AM
bin Laden was a nobody before we elevated him to Hitler status. Think about it. What was so hard about 9/11. You can get on the simulator with a credit card, no one asks for proof of a job with an airline, we let anything onto planes. In fact we're the most hated country on the face of the earth and we took no precautions to reflect that. We check carry on luggage, still don't screen checked luggage and where is the follow up to 9/11. Cream Afganistan sure, had to do it but making this guy a Hitler or Stalin??? Please. 9/11 became Reep political hay. the muslims would rather kill their next door neighbor than us.

Keith Wilson
10-04-2006, 09:42 AM
If I fancied conspiracy theories, I'd say that a certain amount of terrorism, a moderately but not too active violent Islamist movement, is very useful for the radical right. "The Long War", right? And in wartime, we can't be too concerned about things like due process, or civil liberties. Who do folks vote for when they're frightened? What 's the threat level color code today? We whacked the hornet's nest and are fighting the terrists over there so we can stay in power over here.

I don't think this is all that likely, although way back in some unacknowledged corner of Cheney's mind, the thought may have formed once or twice. One should never assume a conspiracy for something which can be explained adequately by blundering.

LeeG
10-04-2006, 09:46 AM
oh oh,,,sounds like terrism is acceptable blowback .

The old neocon guard are going to have to move to Texas behind lonnnng driveways. And shoot quail until there's none left.

LeeG
10-04-2006, 09:49 AM
my vote is for the deadly sins lasting longer than any particular operation directed by a few individuals.

troutman
10-04-2006, 10:18 AM
No conspiracy alleged but if a kid snatched a purse in center city philly the cops would talk to his mom, dad, aunts and uncles to catch him but on 9/12 didn't 26 members of the Bin Laden family fly out of the us. FBI didn't need to talk to them. Walks like a duck. . . .talks like a duck. . . .

but you know, with all this fear talk, I don't know one American who acts afraid. The fear is a Reep media adventure. Fear sells but we aren't afraid. Are any of you?

Norman Bernstein
10-04-2006, 10:24 AM
If I fancied conspiracy theories, I'd say that a certain amount of terrorism, a moderately but not too active violent Islamist movement, is very useful for the radical right.

I'm not in the least bit fond of conspiracy theories, but you don't have to be a conspiracy nut to see that your statement has, at the very least, a glimmer of truth to it. As a political/rhetorical tool, having an enemy is a useful thing.

PatCox
10-04-2006, 10:25 AM
Troutman, the citizens of Saudi Arabia fund al queada. They contribute all the operating money that Bin laden has. Saudi Arabian clerics are the base of support for Bin Laden. I think the legend of Bin Laden's fortune was just cover so people wouldn't ask where he got his money.

17 of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian. One of the hijackers was given a check for $1,000 by the wife of Saudi Arabian ambassador Prince Bandar a couple of months before 9/11. The Saudi Royal Family gives a bonus of $25,000 to the family of every palestinian suicide bomber.

Saudi Arabians planned, directed, funded, and carried out the attack on the US on 9/11.

Saudi Arabia thwarted the investigation of the Cole bombing by killing the suspects before we could question them.

Thats why we invaded Iraq, and why Bush has his picture taken strolling hand in hand through the flowers with his great friend the despotic king of Saudi Arabia.

uncas
10-04-2006, 10:29 AM
Of course we are. He is sitting on some rock in Afganistan not spending a dime while we are spending billions. I think he has the upper hand.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-04-2006, 10:39 AM
Implying the Neocons have ginned up a conspiracy is silly. THEY AREN'T SMART ENOUGH FOR THAT.
In the future many Phd's will be granted to those that have studied what went wrong. Can you imagine? A dissertation that's nothing but a 300 page list of errors!

troutman
10-04-2006, 11:35 AM
Since this thread is peopled by sane people like me, let me ask; does anyone think that Denny Hasert has the ba--s to sit on that page thing without telling Rove about it?

JimD
10-04-2006, 11:55 AM
...Bush was determined to invade Iraq anyway.

Unfortunately there are still many millions of Americans unable to see the obvious. Ironically it might have worked out better for Bush if he'd invaded Iraq before 9/11 instead of after, at least in terms of spin.

Osborne Russell
10-04-2006, 12:00 PM
Implying the Neocons have ginned up a conspiracy is silly. THEY AREN'T SMART ENOUGH FOR THAT.

The GOP probably isn't. Richard Perle et al certainly are. The GOP knows a good thing when it drops in their lap.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-04-2006, 12:08 PM
Getting back to Norm's original premis, if the money spent on this war destroys our economy we are just as defeated as if our armies were defeated in the field.
Bin Laden will be more than happy either way. He knows that massive power in the hands of fools can be wasted just by goading the fools on.

Norman Bernstein
10-04-2006, 12:10 PM
Since this thread is peopled by sane people like me, let me ask; does anyone think that Denny Hasert has the ba--s to sit on that page thing without telling Rove about it?

I have no idea... but it makes no difference. Since even if he did, there's guaranteed to be no proof that he told anyone in the White House, so it's academic.

I think it's bad enough that Hastert apparently knew about Foley and tried to keep the lid on... the Reeps are getting absolutly hammered for this. There's no reason (or evidence) to pile on.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-04-2006, 12:13 PM
Osbourne,
I wish you hadn't brought that up. The idea that our current leadership is under the influence of Perle, Wolfawitz and Henry "defeat is not an option", Kissinger fills me with dread.

Charlie

Meerkat
10-04-2006, 12:42 PM
Terrorism is tailor-made to replace the Cold War. The defense industry and the right wing just luuuv it.

Osborne Russell
10-04-2006, 12:44 PM
Osbourne,
I wish you hadn't brought that up. The idea that our current leadership is under the influence of Perle, Wolfawitz and Henry "defeat is not an option", Kissinger fills me with dread.

These other dudes talk about it; Kissinger's done it.

Nicholas Carey
10-04-2006, 01:31 PM
The GOP probably isn't. Richard Perle et al certainly are. The GOP knows a good thing when it drops in their lap.What was it GW said?
Lucky Me...I won the trifecta!" -- GW Bush, 22 September 2001That was just 11 days after the WTC/Pentagon attack. It didn't take them long to figger it out.