Bush told he is playing into Bin Laden's hands

[thew]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1242638,00.html

Bush told he is playing into Bin Laden's hands

Al-Qaida may 'reward' American president with strike aimed at keeping him in office, senior intelligence man says

Julian Borger in Washington

Saturday June 19, 2004

The Guardian

A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands.

Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, due out next month, dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are "on the run" and that the Iraq invasion has made America safer.

In an interview with the Guardian the official, who writes as "Anonymous", described al-Qaida as a much more proficient and focused organisation than it was in 2001, and predicted that it would "inevitably" acquire weapons of mass destruction and try to use them.

He said Bin Laden was probably "comfortable" commanding his organisation from the mountainous tribal lands along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Pakistani army claimed a big success in the "war against terror" yesterday with the killing of a tribal leader, Nek Mohammed, who was one of al-Qaida's protectors in Waziristan.

But Anonymous, who has been centrally involved in the hunt for Bin Laden, said: "Nek Mohammed is one guy in one small area. We sometimes forget how big the tribal areas are." He believes President Pervez Musharraf cannot advance much further into the tribal areas without endangering his rule by provoking a Pashtun revolt. "He walks a very fine line," he said yesterday.

Imperial Hubris is the latest in a relentless stream of books attacking the administration in election year. Most of the earlier ones, however, were written by embittered former officials. This one is unprecedented in being the work of a serving official with nearly 20 years experience in counter-terrorism who is still part of the intelligence establishment.

The fact that he has been allowed to publish, albeit anonymously and without naming which agency he works for, may reflect the increasing frustration of senior intelligence officials at the course the administration has taken.

Peter Bergen, the author of two books on Bin Laden and al-Qaida, said: "His views represent an amped-up version of what is emerging as a consensus among intelligence counter-terrorist professionals."

Anonymous does not try to veil his contempt for the Bush White House and its policies. His book describes the Iraq invasion as "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantage.

"Our choice of timing, moreover, shows an abject, even wilful failure to recognise the ideological power, lethality and growth potential of the threat personified by Bin Laden, as well as the impetus that threat has been given by the US-led invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq."

In his view, the US missed its biggest chance to capture the al-Qaida leader at Tora Bora in the Afghan mountains in December 2001. Instead of sending large numbers of his own troops, General Tommy Franks relied on surrogates who proved to be unreliable.

"For my money, the game was over at Tora Bora," Anonymous said.

Yesterday President Bush repeated his assertion that Bin Laden was cornered and that there was "no hole or cave deep enough to hide from American justice".

Anonymous said: "I think we overestimate significantly the stress [bin Laden's] under. Our media and sometimes our policymakers suggest he's hiding from rock to rock and hill to hill and cave to cave. My own hunch is that he's fairly comfortable where he is."

The death and arrest of experienced operatives might have set back Bin Laden's plans to some degree but when it came to his long-term capacity to threaten the US, he said, "I don't think we've laid a glove on him".

"What I think we're seeing in al-Qaida is a change of generation," he said."The people who are leading al-Qaida now seem a lot more professional group.

"They are more bureaucratic, more management competent, certainly more literate. Certainly, this generation is more computer literate, more comfortable with the tools of modernity. I also think they're much less prone to being the Errol Flynns of al-Qaida. They're just much more careful across the board in the way they operate."

As for weapons of mass destruction, he thinks that if al-Qaida does not have them already, it will inevitably acquire them.

The most likely source of a nuclear device would be the former Soviet Union, he believes. Dirty bombs, chemical and biological weapons, could be home-made by al-Qaida's own experts, many of them trained in the US and Britain.

Anonymous, who published an analysis of al-Qaida last year called Through Our Enemies' Eyes, thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place.

"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now," he said.

"One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president."

The White House has yet to comment publicly on Imperial Hubris, which is due to be published on July 4, but intelligence experts say it may try to portray him as a professionally embittered maverick.

The tone of Imperial Hubris is certainly angry and urgent, and the stridency of his warnings about al-Qaida led him to be moved from a highly sensitive job in the late 90s.

But Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of operations at the CIA counter-terrorism centre, said he had been vindicated by events. "He is very well respected, and looked on as a serious student of the subject."

Anonymous believes Mr Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction Bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam under the banner of spreading democracy.

He said: "It's going to take 10,000-15,000 dead Americans before we say to ourselves: 'What is going on'?"

[Thiebear]

Thats Funny...

They just got the top guy in Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan just killed a Warlord that harbors Alqaeda

And the US just rolled into Bagdad and got approx. 100 bomb makers using Yahoo chat rooms and informants...

Ohhh! and Bush wants the Bunker Buster Nuke...

Hmmmm, I wonder what for?

The spies who pushed for war

Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force

Hostilities Force Bush Into Deep Hole

Julian Borger

The Guardian U.K.

Thursday 20 May 2004

Strategy pushing US into 'abyss'.

The Pentagon was attempting the difficult task of digging itself out of the hole dug by the Abu Ghraib prison outrage when it suffered yet another potentially serious setback in Iraq.

Bush makes poor pay for military might and tax cuts

Schools and health lose out as US public services endure worst crisis since 1930s

Quagmire! Quaqmire! Doom, Gloom, ohhhh my.....

You have got to be the Oddest Conservative I've ever met.

Gloom and Doom is not normally our speacialty.

At a minimum I would expect the Grass is Greener on the other side. Because then at least your putting forth an alternative as to where I can go graze, as opposed to just burning the grass under my snout....

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Thiebear

Thats Funny...

They just got the top guy in Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan just killed a Warlord that harbors Alqaeda

And the US just rolled into Bagdad and got approx. 100 bomb makers using Yahoo chat rooms and informants...

Ohhh! and Bush wants the Bunker Buster Nuke...

Hmmmm, I wonder what for?

Quagmire! Quaqmire! Doom, Gloom, ohhhh my.....

You have got to be the Oddest Conservative I've ever met.

Gloom and Doom is not normally our speacialty.

At a minimum I would expect the Grass is Greener on the other side. Because then at least your putting forth an alternative as to where I can go graze, as opposed to just burning the grass under my snout....

Evidently Bear, you've never read Bin Ladens teachings or bothered to learn them. Bush IS playing into Bin Ladens hands and he DOES want him to stay in power. It's not doom and gloom, but reality and we've got to fix the problem. Setp one, get rid of Bush. . . nuff said.

[Thiebear]

Ok Chomerics what are the teachings of Bin Ladden?

He says treat those who attack with reward.

AND make those that ignore us suffer?

No really give me the 101 on how Bush is playing into Bin Laddens Cave Cramped, Living like a dog hands...

[chiefhogskin48]

Never mind... this thread isn't worthy of response.

[jbooma]

getting rid of about 20 of the high ranking leaders is playing into his hand :doh:

[phishhead]

Nope.. Bush isn't playing into Bin Ladin's hands. And I'll tell you why:

First of all, these terrorists don't like war... well, wait, yes they do. But, at least the war on terror won't be a recruiting tool for islamic terrorist groups... oh wait, it is.

But still, at least we have a strong leader who can bravely lead us to victory....right?

[Ax]

http://www.hoptechno.com/paranoia.htm

[Larry]

Oh, as far as I'm concerrned, we (the country, not just Bush) are doing exactly what Ben Laden wanted.

Just ask yourself: When OBL was planning the 9/11 attacks, what did he think our reaction would be?

I don't think he was under the impression that if he destroyed two buildings in NYC, that the american economy would collapse, and some country like Saudi Arabia would become the world's #1 economic power.

(I'm not even certain that he expected the buildings to colapse. Aparantly, nobody here thought they would. He may well have simply expected a bunch of people to burn to death, and expected the buildings to still be standing, scorched. But that's not really important.)

I don't think he expected that, even if he destroyed the Pentagon, that the US military would become powerless, and would cease to exist.

I don't think he's stupid.

I think, when he planned 9/11, he expected the US to react the exact same way that I expected us to react. (One thing I've noticed, and I wonder if psychologists also have observed: People, in general, tend to assume that other people are like them. People who run their lives around the theory that everybody in the world is a chisling liar who're constantly trying to get ahead at others' expense, tend to be chisling liars (just to protect themselves, of course). But that's also another issue.)

I think he expected that the US's first reaction would be to demand that Congress do something (without a really clear idea as to what 'something' they wanted), and that the result would be "obviously, we need to get rid of some more pieces of that pesky Constitution. More searches, more waiting at the airport, more police searching people for simply being in a 'sensitive' area." I, at least, expected these security measures to have a much greater impact on the american people than the attack did.

And, I expect, he expected some reflex military action against a poorly-picked target, just because we needed to bomb somebody. He had to expect some kind of retaliation agsinst Afghanistan (he hadn't exactly hiddin his ties there). He may have expected attacks against Iraq, or maybe not, but he had to expect some military action in the mid-east.

And he had to expect, based on our previous reactions to anything that looks like a problem, that part of our response would be to "help" our "allies" to suppress their opposition, by encouraging a bunch of thugs (but they're our thugs) to become more repressive on their citizens.

[funnyperson1]

I do agree that Bush is playing into OBL's hands.

The war in Iraq has only helped him recruit more people willing to die for their cause.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by funnyperson1

I do agree that Bush is playing into OBL's hands.

The war in Iraq has only helped him recruit more people willing to die for their cause.

true, but killing their own is starting to wake up the rest of the world, those beheadings also have changed a lot of what some muslims thought

[Zuck]

Originally posted by jbooma

true, but killing their own is starting to wake up the rest of the world, those beheadings also have changed a lot of what some muslims thought

I agree, I think that is waking up a lot of people in the middle east. I think Al Qaida is also damaging themselves by attacking Saudi Arabian targets.

People definately think more about terrorism when it happens to them. We as Americans do, when something happens overseas we don't have nearly the same reaction as when it happens at home. I'm talking generally, there are obviously a few people who care when things happen overseas.

With that being said, countries overseas weren't nearly as devastated with 9/11 as we were.

[Thiebear]

Larry,

Can you break that down a little better...

I lost you about 1/2 way through.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Thiebear

Larry,

Can you break that down a little better...

I lost you about 1/2 way through.

I guess the short version is:

Unless you think OBL is an idiot, and completly misjudged the US (which is not unheard of), then he had to believe that our reaction would be pretty much what we did, in fact, do.

Therefore, I have to assume, when he was deciding whether to "go" with this mission, he looked at our expected response, and decided that the expected (and actual) result was desirable. (If he didn't want this reaction, then he wouldn't have executed the mission.)

In short, he wanted us to do pretty much what we did do. (At least, in general).

(Just like, by the same reasoning, whenever some Palestenian blows up himself and some Israelis, he's doing it because he wants Israel to react the same way they reacted to the last 50 attacks.)

[Thiebear]

(Just like, by the same reasoning, whenever some Palestenian blows up himself and some Israelis, he's doing it because he wants Israel to react the same way they reacted to the last 50 attacks.)

So by your own reasoning....You do realize at the time it was probably expected we would lob a few missiles.

You have to look at the past and study that to see what we would do with the future.

We lobbed missles in the past. We said (WE WILL NOT FAIL to bring them to justice! then we would fail...

We had a debacle of a Presidential Election. And a President that was a complete IDIOT on Foreign relations. That had NO moral authority.

And you say (IT was expected) Wow that 20/20 hindsight is kicking in strong for you...

Didnt Saddam also think we would never actually attack also...?

I think its funny how people look BACK and dont see what we have done to date is SOOOO out of character for them to think this would make them the amazing Kreskins of the Terrorist world.

[phanatic]

Originally posted by Larry

I guess the short version is:

Unless you think OBL is an idiot, and completly misjudged the US (which is not unheard of), then he had to believe that our reaction would be pretty much what we did, in fact, do.

Therefore, I have to assume, when he was deciding whether to "go" with this mission, he looked at our expected response, and decided that the expected (and actual) result was desirable. (If he didn't want this reaction, then he wouldn't have executed the mission.)

In short, he wanted us to do pretty much what we did do. (At least, in general).

(Just like, by the same reasoning, whenever some Palestenian blows up himself and some Israelis, he's doing it because he wants Israel to react the same way they reacted to the last 50 attacks.)

Larry, was the expected reaction of the US what he was seeking? The damage that was inflicted upon the worlds economy had nothing to do with it? The fact that he was able to pull this off was and is a recruiting tool for his malitia. he also succeeded in making some of the American population waiver in their desire to actually fight for their freedoms and qustion the thought of actually being proactive in their fight to maintain them.

Where lies the logic in not responding? What would have happened if we had done nothing? Theres a very simple answer to that question. Their ranks would have grown exponentially. The thought of doing nothing in response was never even an option. In either of the scenarios, Osama wins. he gains more members regardless of our actions. Not acting, however, increases their membership and allows for their movement to spread faster and gain speed at a much more rapid pace.

It really is sad when we, as Americans, entertain the thought of appeasement. There is and was no other course of action then the one we chose. When dealing with an individual whose sole purpose is to be in control, you must fight. You have no choice other than to completely enhilate your adversary. To think otherwise is foolish. Jim Jones easily led hundreds to their deaths, what makes you believe you could have changed his mind? Vernon Howell(David Koresh)? You're dealing with people who hide under the cloak of religion, sucking the weak and angry into ther ranks. Action or incation will not stop that act from occuring. Action will however, lessen their ranks and make their efforts extremely difficult to reach fruition.

[Larry]

Originally posted by phanatic

It really is sad when we, as Americans, entertain the thought of appeasement.

Why is it, whenever anyone suggests that "invade somebody at random" might not have been the correct action, people invariably respond that "appeasement doesn't work"?

Y'know, I haven't ever heard a single person, at least on this board, suggest appeasment. It's simply a boogyman that people who support this war try to label their opponents with. (Just like the traditional "Well, if we'd tried to appease Hitler . . . " Just because you don't like Saddam does not allow you to immediatly jump to "the only options are our invasion, or he conquers the world".)

(I'll grant, I have heard suggestions from some folks "out there" that what we should've done was crack down on Israel, and give some aid to the Palestenians, and this wouldn't happen again. I'm not saying that "appeaser" is never justified. I'm simply pointing out that the "appeaser!" label, like "traitor", or "war for oil!" shouldn't be automatic, knee-jerk reactions to anybody who fails to agree.)

I'll point out that, on 9/12, I predicted that our response would be to reduce civil liberties, conduct more flamboyant searches on airline passengers, some other beaureaucratic crackdowns on travel, and some military action against some country that may or may not have been involved, with such action managed to produce a political benefit. (I've had this image in my head since Bush2 got elected: Daddy is talking to W "Y'know, W, I had the highest job-approval ratings of any President in history, but I didn't get re-elected. By the time the election rolled around, the voters had forgotten about all that glory. If I had the whole thing to do over again, I'd attack Saddam in my third year. Or, better yet, pick a nebulous "enemy" that can be re-defined at will.")

So, while I didn't predict everything that's happened so far (I didn't expect Bush to alienate our "allies" so quickly. I expected the 'military' phase of involve a lot more casualties, but still be over by now. I didn't expect the Iraqi people to be resisting us as much as they are: I expected them to wait 'till we mount a puppet on the target range and then open fire. At which time, then we'll begin helping our puppet suppress the 'rebels' and 'insurgents'. And when the puppet begins the crackdown on his own people, then the place'll really be an Al Qeda recruiting ground.) I do think the events are pretty close to my expectations.

And I don't see why, if I could predict this, OBL couldn't.

[Thiebear]

edit:

And I don't see why, if I could predict this, OBL couldn't....

Show me a link to your prediction or give me an example as to how you came to this the day after 9/11..

I gave you SEVERAL reasons why it was NOT expected. Give me some to say it was...

[Larry]

Although, I'll admit,

• Saddam aparantly thought he could conquer Kuwait and the world wouldn't do anything about it.
  
• Just before the "deadline" for Desert Storm, Saddam had a news event where he posed with several cjhildren of various diplomats, which he was refusing permission to leave the country before the war. He pointed out what a tragedy it would be if something should happen to these children, if there should be a war. He rubbed the head of one child who looked to be about 10.
  He aparantly thought this would make him look better in the West, or that it would prevent a war.
  

So, yeah, it's certainly possible that OBL mis-calculated what our response would be.

I simply prefer never to assume that our enemy is dumber than me.

[Thiebear]

I'll point out that, on 9/12, I predicted that our response would be to reduce civil liberties:

, conduct more flamboyant searches on airline passengers,

****** I dont have an issue with this ***** It is stronger in every other country..

some other beaureaucratic crackdowns on travel,

***** what *****

and some military action against some country that may or may not have been involved,

******* You came to this conclusion on 9/12, your a freaking Genius..

with such action managed to produce a political benefit.

**** o.k. aluminum foil hat starting to show its ugly head ****

(I've had this image in my head since Bush2 got elected: Daddy is talking to W "Y'know, W, I had the highest job-approval ratings of any President in history, but I didn't get re-elected. By the time the election rolled around, the voters had forgotten about all that glory. If I had the whole thing to do over again, I'd attack Saddam in my third year. Or, better yet, pick a nebulous "enemy" that can be re-defined at will.")

****** Aluminum Foil Hat out in FULL force now *****

******* are me.... ****

Done with line of thought its just silly with that qoute...

I unfortunately cant see into Bush1's head and Bush2's head and OBL's head the day AFTER 9/11.. But Larry can so I unfortunately can not compete with him...

[DonMagicJuan]

"Anonymous believes Mr Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction Bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam under the banner of spreading democracy."

"He said: "It's going to take 10,000-15,000 dead Americans before we say to ourselves: 'What is going on'?"

good point!!! ^^^

[Larry]

Originally posted by Thiebear

Show me a link to your prediction or give me an example as to how you came to this the day after 9/11..

Well, this isn't from 9/12, but it is from before the Iraq invasion, is this old enough for you?

(BTW, thanks to our sponsors for that really nifty search tool.)

[mardi gras skin]

Originally posted by Larry

Oh, as far as I'm concerrned, we (the country, not just Bush) are doing exactly what Ben Laden wanted.

Just ask yourself: When OBL was planning the 9/11 attacks, what did he think our reaction would be?

I'm sure he thought we would go to war against terrorism. Just as I'm sure Japan thought we would go to war against them after Perl Harbor.

Like Japan, I'm sure OBL expects to win.

[Henry]

Actually Larry, I disagree with you as well.

I think OBL expected a similar reaction to the first WTC attack, the bombing of the US embassies, the bombing of the Cole and the loss of soldiers in Somalia. He though we'd talk long and hard about how mean he is, launch a half-hearted attack against a few of his camps, and forget about it. I doubt he expected such a strong and sustained response from us, and I seriously doubt he expected us to attack Iraq, of all places. I think Iraq put him in an odd and unexpected position, because he really didn't get along with Saddam, and it was very hard for Al Queda to show support for Saddm's regime without looking hypocritical themselves. But a pro-US democracy smack-dab in he middle of the ME is probably the LAST thing OBL wanted. If anything, I think Iraq was a curve ball to OBL.

He may have wanted to pick a fight, but I don't think it was THIS fight. Not these rules and not this arena.

[Riggo-toni]

I don't mean to get personal here, but a lot of the comments here show that many of you really DON'T know what OBL taught/claimed. OBL said defeating the US would be much, much easier than defeating the USSR had been, because the US would run at the first sight of bloodshed. He preached this over and over. He believed the shock of the WTC would frighten us into pulling out of the Middle East, just as rocket attacks and suicide bombers had frightened us out of Lebanon and Somalia. If anything, he was hoping to provoke us into a conflict with Saudi Arabia, which is why he picked as many Saudis as he could to be on the flights. Henry is right; he probably expected a few half-hearted missile attacks, NOT an unrelenting invasion into Afghanistan.