Pity Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the Republican right wing led by the forlorn slate of candidates gearing up to challenge Barack Obama in the next presidential election. They lost their cherished patriotism card as a means of deflecting attention from an economy that exploded on their watch. Beating up on Medicare won't cut it as a platform when you don't have the specter of Osama bin Laden to scare voters.
Unfortunately Obama, too, was quite willing to rush off to escalate unnecessary wars, as in the ramped-up conflict with the Taliban in Afghanistan, while bin Laden was being protected by our ally Pakistan. But for the moment there is joy in witnessing the more zealous Republican hard-liners humbled by the success of a president they continuously derided as weak on defense.
There is no sane way for them to explain away how the brainy Democrat with the questioned citizenship and the oddball, Muslim-sounding name, who had dared originally to doubt the wisdom of invading Iraq, ended up succeeding where a warmongering, patriotism-on-my-lapel, Republican president had failed so miserably.
The death of bin Laden in Pakistan renders ever more ludicrous that iconic image of then-President George W. Bush strutting aboard an aircraft carrier under a banner proclaiming "Mission accomplished." What mission had this Wrong Way Corrigan accomplished except irrationally invading Iraq, a country that had banned al-Qaeda, while he cozied up to a Pakistan that had long provided bin Laden and his Taliban sponsors with critical support?
Just how long was revealed in a State Department memo declassified in 2007 that said the Pakistani government had been supporting the Taliban at least since 1995 -- even under ostensibly pro-U.S. Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, whose husband now runs the country. "Pakistan has followed a policy of supporting the Taliban," noted one State Department cable, adding, "U.S. intelligence indicates the ISI is supplying the Taliban forces with munitions, fuel and food." ISI refers to the hugely powerful and secretive Inter-Services Intelligence agency, which backed bin Laden from his first emergence in Afghanistan and is the most likely explanation for his having received such secure sanctuary in Pakistan after 9/11.
It was always Pakistan's secret service agency that guided bin Laden from the first days, when the CIA recruited him to be one of the "freedom fighters" whom President Ronald Reagan bragged about supporting when they were our Cold War pawns in battling the Soviets. And, as should have been expected, it was Pakistan that provided him with a hiding place when he went on the run after the 9/11 attacks. Not only did Bush not challenge Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the two other countries that diplomatically recognized the Taliban government while it harbored bin Laden, but he dropped the sanctions that the U.S had imposed on Pakistan in response to its developing nuclear weapons.
Remember those weapons of mass destruction that were the excuse for invading Iraq, even though President Bush knew full well that Saddam Hussein didn't have any? Well, Pakistan did and has more today. Thanks to our providing its people with advanced aircraft, Pakistan also has the means to deliver those nukes on targets far and wide. The scary thing is that the same Islamic militants in the Pakistani military who protected bin Laden have access to that nuclear arsenal.
It was also Pakistan -- through the efforts of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the "father of the Islamic bomb" -- that supplied North Korea, Iran and Libya with the means to attempt to build nuclear arsenals of their own. Khan's vast nuclear smuggling network could not have flourished without the support of Pakistan's military. Even after his network was exposed by U.S. intelligence, Khan was protected under house arrest by Bush's ally Prime Minister Gen. Pervez Musharraf and then was granted a full pardon.
Pakistan's nuclear program had caused President Bill Clinton to impose sanctions in retaliation, so why did Bush lift them after the 9/11 attacks? Because, Bush claimed, Pakistan was an indispensable ally in the hunt for bin Laden. Some ally, given that bin Laden was in that country most of the time he was on the lam and in the last eight years lived in its most fortified military town, a kilometer away from Pakistan's equivalent of West Point.
Clearly, the critique of the Bush policy provided by candidate Obama proved correct; terrorism is to be defeated through skilled intelligence and surgical strikes, not colonial invasions and conventional war. Obama needs now to apply that wisdom to bringing Bush's folly in Iraq, and his own escalation in Afghanistan, to a swift end.
HUMANITARI.WORDPRESS.COM
Wow, well said and I could not agree more. Come to think of it, really, at this piont, the US is funding Pakistan's nuke program. $20B since the start of 9/11.
This is just madness.
Don't worry about the Republicans. They have plenty of cards left in their hand. They have the Southern Strategy card. Although they cannot come right out and say what their true feelings are they can be against voter registration, affirmative action and anything perceived as helping you know who. They have the protection of marriage card. They can pound away at this minority with impunity. They have the pro life card. They can bring in the usual suspects by trampling on women's rights. They have the fiscal conservative card. It hasn't been true since the death of Everett Dirksen in 1971 and 93% of the National debt has been run up since the advent of Reaganomics this is the facts are optional Party. Finally they have the economy card. Never mind that they are the ones who crashed the economy in 2008 as was demonstrated in 2010 Americans have an attention span of 15 minutes.
The Downing Street Memo spelled it out very succinctly.
The Downing Street "Memo" is actually the minutes of a meeting, transcribed during a gathering of many of the British Prime Minister's senior ministers on July 23, 2002. Published by The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005 the document was the first hard evidence from within the UK or US governments that exposed the truth about how the Iraq war began.
Since that time, much more information has come to light through leaks of secret government documents and the accounts of an increasing number of people who have witnessed the administration’s wrongdoing firsthand.
There is now in the public record a large body of evidence that vividly illustrates:
Bush’s long-standing intent to invade Iraq since the Summer of 2002.
Bush’s willingness to provoke Saddam (in a variety of ways) into providing a pretext for war.
The fact that the war effectively began with an air campaign nearly a year before the March 2003 invasion and months before Congressional approval for the use of force.
The administration’s widespread effort to crush dissent and manipulate information that would counter its justification for war.
IMHO, the lack of planning for the war’s aftermath and the fundamental lack of understanding of the Iraqi society, is a war crime even w/o Abu Grahib Prison.
O.I.L. = Operation Iraqi Liberation Iraq no longer has a National Oil Company.
So, OBL attacked the USA twice to blow up the twin towers killing many people and upsetting the ideal that America was untouchable. That was the main push to create fear in the streets, change the way Americans did things at home, have the soccer moms fear for their children. In fact we did this, accomplished it so here he was successful.
Now he is dead. His organization lives on-the king is dead-long live the king- and the politicians are acting as if it equaled the end of WW2! It is not- it is a small footnote in a wider world picture that requires the USA be the wolf at the door to billions of people.Yes my Dear, across the world the USA is feared more then OBL was ever feared in the USA.
To be truthful and real, the rebels in Libya need the bad wolf as does the government in Libya. In Pakistan the USA is seen as evil by many and negative to many more. In Afghanistan we are seen as puppet masters to a corrupt government and stupid money holes to the war lords and by the people but also as not allowing them self determination.
By your point of view, many big bad wolfs are needed, who will be ours?