May 23, 2007

Bush Finally Finds His al Qaeda-Iraq Connection, Albeit Post-Invasion

President Bush boarding Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base, AP Photo/Caleb Jones

President Bush, desperate to make the case that that Americans face an ongoing threat from terrorists, disclosed today that Osama bin Laden was working in 2005 to set up a unit inside Iraq to hit U.S. targets.

"Osama bin Laden calls the struggle in Iraq a 'war of destiny.' He proclaimed 'the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever,'" Bush told reporters. "We are determined to stop the world's most dangerous men from striking America with the world's most dangerous weapons."

Of course, this revelation involves a purported plot that occurred two years after the United States invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam Hussein, and destroyed the infrastructure of the Iraqi government. This is akin to laying off garbage collectors, allowing trash to pile up, and then pointing to the requisite members of the species Rattus rattus as "proof" of a pre-exisiting rodent problem.

Sorry, Mr. President. The presence of al Qaeda in Iraq is a direct result of your failed policies, and any radicals in Iraq who associate themselves with the loose al Qaeda network merely took advantage of the post-invasion chaos to entrench themselves.

The fact is that Iraq was a stable, though dictator-headed, nation when the United States invaded in 2003, and the result of that invasion has been an unqualified disaster. There have been nearly 3,500 U.S. troops killed during this conflict, tens of thousands of wounded military personnel, and perhaps as many as 600,000 Iraqi civilians killed in war-related deaths.

There is something almost pathetic about the decision by President Bush to trudge out the tired old specter of Osama bin Laden for consideration. Mr. Bush seems so dispirited, so bleak, so miserable; we are reduced to watching this President's ineffectual efforts to summon a ploy that has long since worn out its punch.


Anonymous said...

The only thing "miserable" is leftist punks like you who want America to lose!

historymike said...

A few thoughts, oh Anonymous drive-by poster:

1. I may indeed be a punk.

2. "Leftist"? Hmmm... my politics tend to be centrist, though some see me as a reactionary right-winger and others as a bleeding heart liberal. Guess it depends on your perspective.

3. America already won the war in Iraq. What we have now, though, is an American military stuck in the middle of a civil war, and a fighting force that is being asked to be more like police. Imagine if, say, Indonesian troops were occupying American cities, and think about how well received they would be.

4. Finally, even if we "lost" this war (by what I assume is your definition), would that really be such a horrible outcome? We "lost" Vietnam, but the last time I checked the good ole US of A seems to be humming right along. Maybe a few "losses" would give us some collective wisdom.

5. Oh, and kiss my ass.

John Spalding said...

amen to the post and the reply to anon aka "cowardice filled sissy to afraid to own up to his words".

I will put a link and a blurb on my blog.

MP said...

Better to be a "miserable leftist punk" than an anonymous twit incapable of standing behind his/her own misguided beliefs.

But I guess that's the most miserable thing of all: there are still people who will buy the President's lame excuses about this, and then consider themselves justified for backing him.

I guess we all need a security blanket. Mine is cheering for the Pistons.

microdot said...

You want miserable? I got your miserable right here! How did Al Qaeda become empowered in the first place? Who encouraged Al Qaeda with money and arms support in the philosophy that the enemy of my enemy is my ally in Afghanistan. Of course we know that it was a misguided strategy to defeat the Soviets with Sunni/Saudi backing. The Saudis claimed that they could keep[ Al Qaeda under control and they bit us in the ass!
The same personages who brought this deranged foreign policy strategy, the Cheney powered department of horribly wronbg ideas and the Saudis, notably Prince Bandar bin Sultan met in March. That was the purpose of Cheney's visit to Saudi Arabia to discuss funding of another Sunni Islamic Militant group called Sunni Fatah al-Islam who are active in Lebanon to combat Hezbollah who Washington percieves as gaving actually won the Israeli Lebanese war last summer. This provoked high anxiety in Washington and again, another case of US funded sectarian warfare under the heading of "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Ally". They did this to combat Shia influence on any level. They did it with the assurance of the Saudis that hey could keep the Sunni Fatah al-Islam group undere control. They have created another monster. The Lebanese army is now attacking the Sunni militants in the Palestinian Refugee camps because of the threat to the stability of Lebanon they now pose.
The money and arms they got from Saudi Arabia and America have flowed into Iraq and are fueling the sectarian violence that is killing American Servicemen.

You want miserable? I'll give you miserable...this story get's worse and it's anonymous punks who haven't got a clue who keep this miserable enterprise in motion!

M A F said...

What we have here is a self-fulfilling prophesy...and the "Decider" doesn't know the difference. Nor does the anon poster.

Hooda Thunkit said...


# 5 was uncalled for :-)

Then again, maybe not...

You bleeding-heart, Right Winged Centrist.