President created terror mess he describes

[chomerics]

An article from the Capitol Times. . .

John Nichols: President created terror mess he describes

By John Nichols

October 11, 2005

It is fair to say that a good many Americans perceive George W. Bush to be a doltish incompetent who does not know the first thing about fighting terrorism.

But whatever the president's actual level of competence may be, it is now clear that he has even less respect for the intelligence of the American people than his critics have for his cognitive capabilities.

As the president struggles this week to make a case for staying the course in the Iraq quagmire, he is, remarkably, selling a warmed-over version of the misguided take on terrorism that he peddled before this disastrous mission was launched.

Apparently working under the assumption that no one has been paying attention over the past two and a half years, Bush delivered a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy Thursday in which he dismissed calls for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. "Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now," the president argued, before concluding, "It's a dangerous illusion refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe or less safe with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people and its resources?"

That's a scary scenario.

Unfortunately, it is one that the president created. And it is one that the president still fails to fully comprehend.

To hear the president tell it, the U.S. went to Iraq to combat bin Laden's al-Qaida network. Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party cadres were a lot of things, but they were never comrades, colleagues or hosts to the adherents of what Bush referred to in his speech as "Islamic radicalism," "militant jihadism" or "Islamo-fascism."

If any individuals on the planet feared and hated al-Qaida, it was Saddam and his allies. The Iraqi Baathists were thugs, to be sure, but they were secularist thugs. Indeed, many of the most brutal acts of oppression carried out by the Iraqi regime targeted Islamic militants and governments aligned with the fundamentalists. The eight-year war between Iraq and Iran pitted the soldiers of Saddam's secular nationalism against the armies of the Ayatollah Khomeini's radical vision of Islam. That is why, while the United States remained officially neutral in the war that lasted from 1980 to 1988, it became an aggressive behind-the-scenes backer of Saddam.

As it happened, the U.S. was reading Saddam right. In a region where the common catchphrase is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," Hussein was not merely someone who was fighting a neighboring country. He was fighting the spread of the radical Islamic fundamentalism that the U.S. so feared because he was a committed secularist. Saddam promoted the education of women and put them in positions of power. Under Saddamn, Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims enjoyed a greater measure of religious freedom than they have in most Middle Eastern countries in recent decades.

There was a paranoid passion to Saddam's secularism. He and his vast secret police network remained ever on the watch for evidence of Islamic militancy, and when it was found the response was swift and brutal. It was an awareness of the fact that Saddam was a bulwark against militant Islam that led key aides to President George H.W. Bush to argue against displacing him after the liberation of Kuwait by a U.S.-led force in 1991.

Nothing about Saddam's Baathist ideology changed during the 1990s. So it came as no surprise to anyone who knew the region that the 9/11 Commission, after aggressively investigating the matter, found no operational relationships existed between al-Qaida and Iraq before the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam.

Now, after having removed the bulwark against militant Islam, Bush describes an Iraq that is rapidly filling up with followers of al-Qaida, and warns that the withdrawal of U.S. forces would allow the militants to "use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against nonradical Muslim governments."

What Bush did not say in his speech Thursday was that his own actions had created the dire circumstance he described.

The president's refusal to face reality has isolated him from those who are serious about fighting the spread of terrorism.

Gen. Peter Cosgrove, the former head of Australia's Defense Forces, rejects the notion that staying the course is the smart response. In fact, the well-regarded former commander of the military of a key U.S. ally says that withdrawal makes sense because it will "take one of the focal points of terrorist motivation away, and that is foreign troops."

It is Cosgrove who suggested the late 2006 withdrawal date that has been taken up by U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., the first member of the Senate to urge the development of an exit-strategy timeline.

For those who do not trust the assessment of an Australian, consider Porter Goss, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who says, "The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has become a cause for extremists. Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraq conflict to recruit new, anti-U.S. jihadists."

The president who argued that Iraq needed to be invaded in order to fight terrorism has instead opened up a new country to al-Qaida's machinations.

The president who argued that the U.S. must continue to occupy Iraq in order to prevent the spread of terrorism has instead contributed to it, according to the head of his own CIA. Now, George Bush argues for staying the course.

Perhaps Osama bin Laden would agree with that strategy.

But the American people are wising up.

The latest Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll tells us that only 32 percent approve of Bush's handling of the war. A remarkable 59 percent now say that the invasion was a mistake. And an even more remarkable 63 percent say they want to see some or all U.S. troops withdrawn.

[Larry]

Unfortunately, while I was one of those who "had a bad feeling" about invading Iraq, I also have to admit: If I were Osamma, I couldn't ask for a better gift from Allah than to have the Great Satan invade a mideast country, and then leave in defeat.

[Fred Jones]

Nothing new in this article. I have heard from more than one person that the U.S. Government at times over the last two years has known the exact location of Bin Laden. Bin Laden, however, has become a figurehead and some of his LT's have become far more dangerous. They are leaving him alone to go after the more dangerous LT's. I find that information very interesting.

I hope one day this information becomes public and the view of Bush changes. I also hope the story of Iraq sinks in and more citizens grasp what Iraq has done. Maybe the fog will be lifted and it won't be unpatriotic to question the mistakes.

[chomerics]

Unfortunately, while I was one of those who "had a bad feeling" about invading Iraq, I also have to admit: If I were Osamma, I couldn't ask for a better gift from Allah than to have the Great Satan invade a mideast country, and then leave in defeat.

You know, I've been complaining about this for quite a while, well over a year now. It finally seems like others are starting to understand this. . .

[airborneskins]

Nothing new in this article. I have heard from more than one person that the U.S. Government at times over the last two years has known the exact location of Bin Laden. Bin Laden, however, has become a figurehead and some of his LT's have become far more dangerous. They are leaving him alone to go after the more dangerous LT's. I find that information very interesting.

Well think about it. If you had a chance to track some-1 in order to capture more targets, would you? especially if they didn't know that you were tracking them?

[chomerics]

Well think about it. If you had a chance to track some-1 in order to capture more targets, would you? especially if they didn't know that you were tracking them?

Not if the person was Bin Laden. That would be a HUGE victory for Bush, and I am really suprised he hasn't stepped up the effort to get him.

[Chief skin]

Bush is an international embarassment for our country, not my fault I did not vote for the incompetent, out of touch boob. Too bad the public is a year too late in seeing him for what he is

[Mad Mike]

Repeat after me.... "OPINION".

This is NOT an "article". :doh:

[twa]

Repeat after me.... "OPINION".

This is NOT an "article". :doh:

From a "progressive "paper no less

And Chom complains about the Washington Times :laugh:

[Thiebear]

You know, I've been complaining about this for quite a while, well over a year now. It finally seems like others are starting to understand this. . .

You actually said this 11 or 12 times now... Like with the Stadium section could you just link this to one of your previous posts instead of starting a new one?