So says the headline on CNN. The full story is here
From the story:
So, a mere 2 1/2 years after 9/11, we are ready to get serious in our quest for Bin Laden. Why wasn’t all of this technology utilized from the start? Why does it take a fucking election year before we are ready to get serious? Could it be because every time the president touts how much safer we are now, I have a hard time believing him considering that the one person who masterminded 9/11 still hasn’t been caught. Meanwhile, we invade another country with no known connection to 9/11, and add fuel to the fire of terrorism everywhere. We are safer now? Hardly.
Bush is realizing that his chances of winning this election become much better if he delivers Bin Laden. Now, the game is on. Up until this point, we had other priorities, none of which made us any safer.
I’ve said it before, but if Osama Bin Laden dies now by his own hand or as the natural consequences of his kidney disease, it would be a tremendous PR coup for Al Quaida.
Providing his remains are never recovered, he’ll become a myth and a hero to some. The elusive genius that outwitted and outplanned the might of the US.
Unverifiably deceased, he may be able to achieve more than alive. His confederates will have thought of this & so will he.
Saddam had no connection with 9/11, and the Prez never said that he did. Iraq had to be invaded purely on humanitarian grounds, because Saddam was killing Iraqis.
Any killing that happens in Iraq from now on is unimportant because either:
a) it’s Osama killing them, or
b) it’s just other Iraqis killing them
neither of which are the Prez’s fault, and anyway the Prez promises to fix (a) by finding Osama, and (b) isn’t anything for the US to worry about because those other Iraqis aren’t named Saddam.
Well, since you’re all clamoring for my opinion, I’ll gracefully accede…
As Mr. Seymor Hersh has it, in the latest New Yorker, the US has decided to let Pakistan’s Musharraff off the hook for peddling nukes to just about everybody. (Remember how we went to war with Iraq to prevent just such a proliferation. Well, stop remembering. That’s inoperative…)
Of course, there is a price. That price is real cooperation from Pakistan in searching for ObL. Which means that Musharaff has decided he has to risk civil war with the Islamist loonies to appease the Americans. If that comes to pass, and he loses, that means that real honest to goodness nukes plop right into the laps of our most fanatic and bloodthirsty enemies. Goody! Oh, happy day!
Clearly, this is a scenario we cannot possibly allow. Whatever means are necessary. We may very well have no option but direct military intervention. Nightmare scenario, even if we win, we lose. America vs. Islam isn’t the truth, but its what they’ll think, so it might as well be the truth.
The price is far, far too high. Screw Osama bin Laden. He’s only one man, however creepy and heinous. If the Bushiviks are willing to risk all this just to Bring Me the Head of Osama Garcia, they’re nuts. Just plain nuts.
You know, I feel the same way about Bush and Nixon. Every few decades, the United States needs a complete lunatic in office, just so we can say to the other countries:
“Yes, we’re bigger and stronger than all of you. Yes, we have nuclear weapons and an armed forces that will roll over you like a fat lady sitting on a poodle. And while, ordinarily, we’re quite reserved about all of this, content to bluster and threaten when we don’t get our way, this year we’ve elected a President who is crazy as a shithouse rat, full of righteous fury, and who just might do it, even if we tell him NOT to. So play nice, or we’ll re-elect that crazy sonofabitch.”
He’s served his purpose. Now let’s go out and elect us a peace-loving tree-hugging pot-smoking pinko commie hippie liberal Boston metrosexual lesser of two incredibly slimy evils.
Sorry, 'lucie, maybe I’m dumb, or perhaps I’ve had one too many gin and tonics tonight… but what are you talking about? Who is the Garcia that you reference? (I’ll probably feel really dumb once you tell me, but still!)
I don’t get why people are saying that if bin Laden is caught then Bush’s reelection campaign will be given a huge boost. What’s Bush got to do with it? Isn’t it the military’s job to try and catch bin Laden no matter who is in office?
Apologies for my ignorance here, just another outsider trying to keep up with US politics
You know, I’ve heard this ‘mad dog’ position a few times, but I think it’s based on a misunderstanding.
The terrorists who are ostensibly being targeted have made it clear that they’re ready to die for their cause (whatever that may be), and are unlikely to be intimidated by US military posturing - more likely to be further provoked.
As for the notion of state sponsored terrorism, it remains to be proven that terrorism requires state sponsors - so intimidating the putative terrorist states is unlikely to curb terrorist groups…
It may be that the main result of this ‘mad dog’ policy is to alienate allies.
You know, I’ve heard this ‘mad dog’ position a few times, but I think it’s based on a misunderstanding.
The terrorists who are ostensibly being targeted have made it clear that they’re ready to die for their cause (whatever that may be), and are unlikely to be intimidated by US military posturing - more likely to be further provoked.
As for the notion of state sponsored terrorism, it remains to be proven that terrorism requires state sponsors - so intimidating the putative terrorist states is unlikely to curb terrorist groups…
It may be that the main result of this ‘mad dog’ policy is to alienate allies.
Astroboy14
Re Garcia - in the movie there was a bounty for Garcia’s head, but he was already dead…
The US President is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. That is to say the President is the leader of the military. Successes and failures of the US Military are often credited/blamed on the President.
Ahh, but the intimidation is not meant for them. No siree, Bob. The mad dog is meant to keep the rest of the pack (France, Germany, Japan, China, Russia etc.) in line.
