George W. Bush: the legacy

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Estimations of Al Qaeda's strength aren't an issue of neocon propaganda, but of intelligence analysis.

LOL - What like the neocon view that the Soviets were responsible for all International terrorism and convince William Casey, the then head of the CIA of this. Even the people in the CIA tried to tell Casey that the 'intelligence analysis' was CIA black propaganda but he wouldn't have it. Melvin Goodman the Head of Office of Soviet affairs in the CIA (1976-87) has gone on video admitting this.

Or like the 'intelligence analysis' of, wait for it, Saddam's WMDs??

An analysis that concluded that Al Qaeda was a large and dangerous organization before Bush was even elected, done by analysists who aren't all (or even mostly) neocons. If you want to provide evidence that their analysis of Al Qaeda was all just propaganda, feel free to do so, but you have not as of yet provided any evidence to that effect.

What analysis? Even the British government's select committee on foreign affairs understands what Al-Qaeda actually is.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmfaff/441/4050402.htm

"There is no central command, or a single individual, controlling all the terrorist groups but there is a central ideology, the destruction of the democratic and secular world. Al-Qa'ida should not be perceived as an organisation, but as a world movement,"


And it's silly bringing up people who aren't neocons but are either sympathetic to the central neocon view or hoodwinked by it to say it's not a neocon thing.


If you wanna believe the propaganda that Al-Qaeda is some large worldwide structured organization then that's your problem.

Al-Qaeda is nothing more than Bin Laden and Zawahiri and a few hangers on. the notion that AL-qaeda is a huge organization is a Western propaganda designed to fool the Western people into their being a huge threat.

There are lots of little Islamist groups, but they are mostly involved in fighting against what they perceive as injustices in their own locales and have no interest in attacking the West. Every time one of these groups attacks something in it's locale the Western media say it's Al-qaeda based upon some vague allegation that one fo them crossed paths with the uncle of the next door neighbor to Zawahiri or Bin Laden's grandmother or something.

The classic media BS is "The attack has the hallmarks of Al-Qaeda" - hallmarks which are so vague that anything could be attributed to Al-Qaeda if the media wanted it to

 

[Ziggurat]

What analysis? Even the British government's select committee on foreign affairs understands what Al-Qaeda actually is.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmfaff/441/4050402.htm

"There is no central command, or a single individual, controlling all the terrorist groups but there is a central ideology, the destruction of the democratic and secular world. Al-Qa'ida should not be perceived as an organisation, but as a world movement,"

Hmmm... wonder what the rest of that sentence might say.

"... and, even if in the past the groups it included had only regional ambitions, in the last few years it has been raising the banner of a global terror movement. Its leaders thus harbour ambitions going far beyond the narrow borders of regional affairs."

The part you quoted speaks to the structure of Al Qaeda. It says nothing about the size of Al Qaeda, or the magnitude of the threat posed by them. On that point, he doesn't seem to agree with your position at all:

"Terrorists are becoming more sophisticated and advanced in their tactics. Tragically, it is only a matter of time before we witness an atrocity involving a CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear) component. Statements by bin Laden in recent years have encouraged such fears. Al-Qa'ida and affiliates view the acquisition of such weapons as a ideological obligation."

So is this guy part of the neocon conspiracy or not? If he is, well, why are you citing him in support of your position? If he isn't, doesn't that undermine your claims?

If you wanna believe the propaganda that Al-Qaeda is some large worldwide structured organization then that's your problem.

My position never depended upon Al Qaeda having a unified command structure. It's not my fault if you read something into my posts that was never there.

 

[Kestrel]

Slight diversion, but I am sick of the grief the right wing gives Clinton over the Cole bombing.

Date of the USS Cole bombing – October 12, 2000

Date of the next Presidential election – November 7, 2000

Date of actually deciding who would be the next president – December 12, 2000

Bill Clinton’s last day in office- January 20, 2001

So, by any standard you want to go by, Clinton had a little over three months to respond to the Cole bombing, two of which were spent not knowing who the next president would be. What exactly, was he supposed to do? Start a large scale war just before an election? Start a war during the Bush vs Gore mess?

It also took some time for the investigation to determine who was responsible for the Cole attack.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Bush and cohorts rightful place in history is to be swinging from the end of a rope.

Dude... you should totally go for that.

Then the next time the republicans win, they can kill Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Then 4 to 8 years after that, the democrats can kill Palin, Romney and/or Jindal. And then we can just keep going and going...

What could possibly go wrong with a system like that?

 

[Pardalis]

Dude... you should totally go for that.

Then the next time the republicans win, they can kill Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Then 4 to 8 years after that, the democrats can kill Palin, Romney and/or Jindal. And then we can just keep going and going...

What could possibly go wrong with a system like that?

This sounds exactly like Saddam's Iraq.

 

[Tricky]

Slight diversion, but I am sick of the grief the right wing gives Clinton over the Cole bombing.

Date of the USS Cole bombing – October 12, 2000

Date of the next Presidential election – November 7, 2000

Date of actually deciding who would be the next president – December 12, 2000

Bill Clinton’s last day in office- January 20, 2001

So, by any standard you want to go by, Clinton had a little over three months to respond to the Cole bombing, two of which were spent not knowing who the next president would be. What exactly, was he supposed to do? Start a large scale war just before an election? Start a war during the Bush vs Gore mess?

Indeed.

According to Dr. (Condoleeza) Rice, the decision not to respond militarily to the Cole bombing was President Bush's. She said he "made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies.'" The administration instead began work on a new strategy to eliminate al-Qaeda.

Pity we never heard anything else about that "new strategy". Wonder if it was "wait until they do something big."

 

[Crowlogic]

"That said"? You can't just say something like that and move on to another point.

This was an utterly disgusting and undemocratic thing to say.

Well the "Lads" did some pretty disgusting and undemocratic things when they were at the wheel.

 

[Texas]

indeed.

pity we never heard anything else about that "new strategy". Wonder if it was "wait until they do something big."

lihop?