July 2, 2008
How Bush, Cheney and McCain Let bin Laden Escape (Brent Budowsky)
If Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) believes his prediction of a terrorist attack within a year, he is admitting the Bush-McCain policies have created these dangers and we should answer him with this:
It all began when the CIA briefed George W. Bush about the danger of Osama bin Laden flying planes into buildings and Bush reacted with arrogance, ignorance and contempt and did nothing.
It then continued throughout a six-year obsession with the Iraq war that let bin Laden off the hook at Tora Bora and tied down the American military in a war that should never have been fought, that prevented our winning the war that was necessary.
Barack Obama should spend less time maneuvering politically and more time attacking the essence of the failure of the Bush years that let our greatest enemy escape and regroup while doing grave damage to our military and intelligence services and our reputation around the world.
John McCain can claim he will chase bin Laden to the gates of hell, but McCain, Bush and Cheney have failed to chase bin Laden to where he actually is. McCain can chase bin Laden to the next political commercial; he can chase bin Laden throughout Iraq, where bin Laden isn't; now he can chase bin Laden to the gates of Cartagena, Bogota, Mexico City and the Republican National Convention.
Iraq does nothing to kill bin Laden and much to help bin Laden's cause. Torture has not killed bin Laden. Massive FISA eavesdropping has not killed bin Laden. The tough talk with failed policies from Bush, Cheney, Lieberman and McCain have not killed bin Laden.
All these mistakes, misrepresentations, blunders, falsehoods and miscalculations have done is gravely damage our Army, Guard and Reserves; created a probable trillion-dollar shortfall in long-term needs of American vets; and isolated America throughout the democratic world.
All these mistakes, misrepresentations, blunders and falsehoods have done is rob more than a trillion dollars from the American economy and help push the price of oil to record highs that benefit the oil companies that met with Cheney and now profit from the war alongside corrupt Middle Eastern despots who too often allow funneling of oil money to terrorists — that is, when they aren't using the money in sovereign wealth funds to buy depressed American assets on the cheap.
If Joe Lieberman actually believes there will be a terrorist attack next year, he is admitting that the argument here is true and accounting for the dangers resulting from the failures and fiascos of the Bush, Cheney, Lieberman and McCain policies that have made America weaker economically and militarily.
Barack Obama does not need to maneuver politically at the margins; he needs to make this case about why Bush and McCain have made America less safe and why our policies would protect our land while preventing further disaster to our economy.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 30 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Brent: You left out the part where they had Bin Laden in their sights and no one could find Bill Clinton for several hours when he was President. Under your line of reasoning, that means all this is his fault.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 2, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
That "McCain let bin Laden escape" is just a dirty smear not even supported by the useless drivel in this post. This is pathetic continuation of trying to link McCain and Bush, now without any pretense of factual analysis. On top of it "bin Laden off the hook at Tora Bora" is a misstatement of a serious battle where the enemy commander managed to escape in spite of applying the same tactics that had worked in much of Afghanistan to depose the Taliban quickly. This battle also had nothing to do with Iraq as it occurred before there was any US military redelployments for that war.
The Democrats, like a school of fish all changing direction at the same time are now attacking McCain's military record and judgment. This attempt here is even worse than describing what McCain did in Vietnam as "riding" in an airplane.
Comment by Igor R. — July 2, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
The reason for this post is just to continue linking Bush/Cheney with McCain by Brent on orders from team Obama.
I see no reason why McCain team should not shy away from the fact that whatever liberals say, there were NO terrorist attacks on US soil and McCain would not tinker with something that works.
American people need to be educated about Obama's intentions on treating terror plotters are crime suspects. That means notifying terror groups that they are under Federal investigations within a week. That single example of Obama's defense of homeland (may be it's not really his homeland anyway) should send shivers down our spine. I hope that helps.
Comment by Misha — July 2, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
Those who write that Bill Clinton could have got to Bin Laden, should have watched the film recently played on the dish Network titled, "The secret history of 911″ The film smacks of Moore's Fahrenheit 911, only puts the blame on the Bush administration.
Comment by John Bakalik — July 2, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
Thanks, Brent, for stating the obvious. Senator John Kerry took a dive in election 2004 (threw the election by not fighting a tough campaign) because he realized that not only would he give up the privacy of his multi-millionaire lifestyle with powerful senatorial perks (married to a billionaire at that), not only would he bear the responsibility for all those killed and wounded in the war, but he would be forever smeared with the Blame for Bush's war, not matter what he did!
That's why John Kerry just stood there in the 3rd presidential debate like a punching bag, as President Bush sneered into national TV cameras, "My opponent is a FLIP-FLOPPER!"
ALL Kerry had to do to win the election in a landslide, is point out "President Bush has a lot of nerve calling _me_ a 'Flip-Flopper'! HE is the one who pleged on the tomb of 9-11 rubble to 'Get Osama bin Laden dead or alive' but here it is the eve of election 2004, Mr. Bush is practically BRAGGIN that Osama bin Laden VIDEOS from Afghanistan/Pakistan border, are a testament to his great leadership!"
The amazing thing is, even with Kerry pulling his punches, he STILL won the election, were it not for massive vote rigging in Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, possibly Nevada, and, yes, Florida again in 2004.
To see how Kerry COULD have run his damn campaign, just look at the DECLARATION OF INDENPENDENCE, two-thirds of which is a running list of the abuses of power and atrocities of King George III (including hiring Hessian mercenaries to terrorize and subdue the Americans) againt the colonists.
Comment by Lj — July 2, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Moore's film was for idiots.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 2, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
Thanks for stating the obvious, Brent.
President Bush had a lot of nerve calling Senator Kerry a "Flip-Flopper" in the 3rd debate in 2004, since Bush had pledged to America, standing on the tomb of 9-11 rubble, that he would "Get Osama bin Laden dead or alive!", but three full years later, President Bush was practically BRAGGING during the campaign that… Osama bin Laden SENDING VIDEOS to America was "proof" of Bush's great leadership in "the war on terra"!
Comment by Lj — July 2, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
Bingo Brent. Not only did the sissy-boy president respond to the attack warnings with arrogance, the moron went on vacation. Then he tricks the gullibles (neocons, Misha, Igor Rosencrut, Hillary) of our nation in to beleiving it was Saddam Hussein. Bush is an appeaser and Obama needs to take it to McBush hard and furious. Then you have the un-principled neocons that are the 3 stooges (Igor, Rosnenutts, Misha) of this web site talking like 3rd graders. Geez, you guys are sure void of reasoning and facts. How do you feel about Bushy negotiating with Kim Jong? Appeaser? Why do you neocons hate america?
Comment by Dwayne Mac — July 2, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
I suspect bin-Ladin is no longer among the living. And furthermore Iam not convinced bin-Ladin was even behind the attacks on 911 contrar to popular belief.
During an interview while discussing the threats on her life Benazir Bhutto stated Omar Sheik murdered Osama bin Ladin.
"Yes, well one of them is a very key figure in security. He's a former military officer. He's someone who's had dealings… and he also had dealings with Omar Sheikh (Ahmad Omar Saeed Sheikh), the man who murdered Osama bin Laden."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ
(if you don't want to watch the entire 14 minute interview move the slider over to about 5:55 minutes to hear her startling statement.)
Some speculated it was a slip of the tongue, a misstatement, but I have suspected for a long time that Osama was dead. In addition to several Middle-Eastern news papers asserting he was dead two personal observations that lead me to believe Osama is either dead or else he is no longer in the Middle East:
1) It defies logic to believe that hi-tech surveillance equipment, sensitive enough to read a newspaper from thousands of feet in the sky, has yet to find Osama bin Ladin, who is over 6′ tall, (taller than at least 90 % of Middle-Eastern people).
2) It is reasonable to believe that the last couple of Osama videos are suspect. It is ludicrous to imagine a man living in a cave would go to the trouble to dye his beard? Furthermore the videos stop each time bin-Ladin comments on current events, but the voice continues to be heard, amongst other discrepancies…
So, why wouldn't Osama's death be announced? Who benefits?
Bush's uses his bogeyman as justification to pre-emptively attack Middle-Eastern nations.
The WH never fails to quickly seize every opportunity to blame Al Qaeda when events, such as Bhutto's unfortunate death, occurs. And coincidentally a bin Ladin video or tape follows shortly thereafter.
An FBI agent when asked why bin-Ladin was not on its most wanted list for 911, replied saying they did not have the evidence to prove he was behind the attacks. Furthermore bin-Ladin has always denied being responsible for 911. Although the government released a video a few months later with someone (who they claimed was bin-Ladin, but clearly was not him — not even close) purporting to have carried out the attacks. An immediate public announcement always follows a terrorist attack. So it is odd no one ever claimed responsibility for 911.
There is no reason to believe Osama is alive nor is there solid proof he is dead. Nevertheless Bhutto clearly stated Osama was murdered. Whether true or not or simply a mistaken statement, your guess is as good as mine. But there is reason to believe Osama is no longer earth-bound. Maybe he is in China, who knows.
In any event, if alive, killing Osama without a trial, proof or evidence is untoward, uncivilized and undemocratic.
Comment by serena1313 — July 2, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
Here are the facts:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52256
Scheuer, the ex-CIA man, resigned in 2004 after 22 years and published a critique of efforts by both Bush and Clinton, throwing in his opinion (low) of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Scheuer told CBS that Clinton's claim the CIA could not verify bin Laden was responsible for the earlier attack on the USS Cole is a denial of the facts.
"He defames the CIA … and the men and women who risked their lives to give their administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden," Scheuer said.
He said the Clinton administration had eight to 10 chances that the decision-makers just refused to take, while the Bush administration had one chance at Tora Bora, which failed.
His conclusions aren't going to be put in campaign ads for either party, however, Novak noted.
"Both President Bush and President Clinton have been very misleading to the American people, telling them we're at war because of our freedoms and our liberties and because of gender equality and because of elections. None of that is true," Scheuer said. "We're at war because of what we do in the Islamic world."
As WND reported earlier, Wallace said when Clinton lost his temper it felt like a "mountain was coming down in front of me."
Wallace said he'd asked Clinton what he considered a non-confrontational question about whether he could have done more to "connect the dots and really go after al-Qaida."
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 2, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
It's a no brainer that Bush never wanted OBL. He even stated he had no interest in him. Why? Had OBL been taken out at Tora Bora (or anywhere else for that matter), Americans would never had stood for the Iraq invasion and would have adamantly demanded a swift return home. Fear and anger was well and alive in the people. As long as you can keep the boogieman in the attic, under the bed, or in a taxi, you always have that fear option to use when needed. And we all know, Bush has played that fear card to no end. We all now know (well, the 70 some % that understand that the world is not flat) that the fear card was all the Bush Regime ever had in the Iraq invasion.
Comment by andy42302 — July 2, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
Looks like Mike Coleman is in the process of launching a new brand - "Dwayne Mac". Impressive stuff, Mike.
Comment by Misha — July 2, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
I think it's a stretch to blame Bin Laden's alleged escape on McCain. It's a cheap tactic. We don't need that.
However, Robert, as usual, your facts are wrong. The event you describe did not quite play out the way you describe. I suggest you try reading books rather than getting your information off TV movies.
At any rate, the event occurred before Bin Laden was determined to have been behind the Cole bombing. The intelligence community determined his responsibility in the last few days of Clinton's presidency. Clinton chose not to enact military activities in his last few days and left it to his successor.
Unfortunately, his successor dismantled the observation posts set up to spy on Bin Laden, took no action on the Cole bombing, and demoted the individuals in the FBI and NSA who were primarily engaged in hunting Al Qaeda.
Sorry, son, but those are the facts.
Comment by mkochinski — July 2, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
Dwayne, after I compare your tactics to a 3rd grader on another thread you immediately accuse me (and others) of talking like a 3rd grader. Does that pass as an intelligent discussion where you are?
Comment by Igor R. — July 2, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
And still, nobody could point out how McCain let bin Laden escape. That's such an outrageous smear that I can't get over it. Why does Brent feel empowered to go this route??? If it's now possible to accuse McCain of things he isn't even remotely connected to, what have the standards here come to?
Comment by Igor R. — July 2, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
funny how the very first response here goes straight to blaming bill clinton….
Comment by vernon dent — July 3, 2008 @ 2:36 am
Politicans are supposed to be skillful enough to negotiate , filled with lots of charisma to charm and win friends. Apply careful judgement in dealing with foes.
Bush and Cheney never really did any military training nor strategic command. Mc Cain with due respects but was prisioner of war during his youth.
Hardheaders argues with other heardliners which breaks each onthers heads apart.
War is failure of Head of State and Head of fate. If they cannot do their jobs then they need to be replaced by those who can.
War is no sunday football show. It is real . Real sons and daughters dies. There is no glory in that. It is not defending home land this war it is defending that oild spike skyhigh so haliburton and all all compnies generates enough wealth during short period of time.
Comment by Cameron — July 3, 2008 @ 6:37 am
Dfending Iraq should be done by Iraqi , same goes with Afghan must defend their own , that is the only way their war can ever be won.
Majority of those who did not like Sadam is already out in W.Europe and Syria over 3 million of them.
If they fight for their home land why should American fight for theirs?
Comment by Cameron — July 3, 2008 @ 7:23 am
Brent, in case you haven't heard, McCain isn't President yet. He had as much of a role in chasing down bin Laden as Hussain Obama did. If McCain "failed" then so did Obama.
Comment by John Simmons — July 3, 2008 @ 9:35 am
Iraq does nothing to kill bin Laden and much to help bin Laden's cause.
"Much to help"? That's a understatement.
Bin Laden had three things at the top of his wish list:
1) US troops out of Saudi Arabia
2) Saddam Hussein deposed
3) The price of oil substantially raised.*
All three of those have happened, courtesy of the Bush "administration." The time has long since passed to ask whether that is mere coincidence.
_______
*According to Greg Palast, in Armed Madhouse.
Comment by Roddy McCorley — July 3, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
Bin Laden has been dead for quite some time now. McCain, like Bush is just using his image to continue to scare people into voting Republican against their better judgement. I don't know why anyone would want to perpetuate the bin Laden legacy. We still need to find out what actually happened on 9-11.
Comment by Al V. — July 3, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Another good article from a Clinton negotiator about how the Clinton White House let Bin Laden slip through their fingers. This is from a supporter of Clinton.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 3, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
Misha;
That was funny but I think Dwayne Mac can talk for himself. By teh way, can you refute the points that he made. Also take a look at the FBI wanted poster for OBL;
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
If you noticed he is not wanted for 9/11. So all of you dittoheads ask W, why not, especially you, Misha.
Comment by Mike Coleman — July 3, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
Yeah Timothy "Misha" McVeigh, what about that FBI wanted poster. All I hear from you is crickets. Thanks Coleman.
Comment by Tyson — July 3, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
John Simmons, thanks for noticing Brent's blatant, unsupported assertion. Everybody else is talking as if Brent made a coherent argument. Why not blame McCain for the Vietnam War or Space Shuttle disasters? Anything is possible with Brent's logic here.
Comment by Igor R. — July 3, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
Wow! Thanks Brent for opening our eyes to the truth. Here I thought that with the first World Trade Center bombing, the barracks bombing in Riyadh, the embassy bombings in Africa, and then the USS Cole bombing that Clinton should have known. I thought he even went so far as to create a special team to track OBL because he was such threat. Must have taxed the resources of the CIA since it was working on a gutted federal budget and half the manpower. Oh and by the way GWB originally sought the permission to enter Iraq through the policies of regime change and a bill called the Iraq National Freedom Act that officially made it US government policy to change Iraq's leadership either by diplomacy or force. This policy and bill were actively sought and fought for by the Clinton administration who by the way told GWB's team that Al Qaeda was active in Iraq. Thanks Brent.
Comment by Winfield — July 3, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
OBL has been quite the useful boogeyman for fear-mongering reblicrats.
With the fall of communisim, we didn't have any "bad guy" to "unify" against, as we did with the Soviets.
OBL is probably already dead and is perpetuated for the political interests of goverments around the world. If the U.S.A. can invade a sovereign nation just by claiming links to terrorism, any government can call opponents terrorists and eliminate them.
Sounds more like fascism to me.
Comment by Skram! — July 4, 2008 @ 11:21 am
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that it's pretty obvious that McCain thinks he can use bin Laden to his political advantage. Regardless of your opinion on the matter, it's pretty sad and disgusting to see politicians like McCain continue to weaken our country by politicizing national defense.
However, Brent, pinning the blame squarely on McCain is pretty much a staw man argument and not particularly accurate. If anything, the complicit, cheerleading MSM and pundit-idiocracy helped Bush tie us up in the mess in Iraq, which did destract us from our true enemmy, making us much less secure.
Comment by Skram! — July 4, 2008 @ 11:29 am
Since Bin Laden did not like our freedoms then he should like our freedoms now. Since this concocted statement was made our freedoms have lessened and more people are in prison and more people have been executed.
So, Bin Laden should be happy now that his agenda is near and Bush should bring him home and congratulate him for being so alusive and hidden from view until when needed for video shots and messages near election time.
Comment by makesenseofit — July 4, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
Some nut said Bush was not interested in obtaining Bin Laden. Here's a link to the FBI's 10 most wanted and the reward, up to 25 million.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 7, 2008 @ 7:58 am