Bush and Bin-Laden Were Sittin' in a Tree . . .

[bigtree]

K-i-s-s-i-n-g

Can there be any doubt at all that al-Qaeda *hearted* Bush and his republicans? How could they not love they way Bush and his republicans spread their messages of fear and hatred while, at the same time, campaigning to continue the Iraq diversion which enabled bin-Laden and his associates to run free.

The Iraq invasion and occupation was the realization of a conservative dream which surfaced during Ronald Reagan's term that envisioned a federal budget which bled the social programs and entitlements dry by directing almost every dollar to defense spending and corporate welfare.

After 9-11, Bush and his republicans perfected the art of the 'national security' con game to the point where the money for their military adventurism was almost automatic, while the rest of the country's needs got nothing more than a miserly pittance of attention.

Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq had to be the realization al-Qaeda's dream, as well. Bush, and his republican apologists today, can twist the facts every which way they want, but their diversion from the hunt for bin-Laden and his accomplices in Afghanistan to invade and occupy Iraq had to have been the single, most blundering appeasement of terrorist violence by our government EVER; certainly the largest since Reagan and Bush were caught in Iran trading arms for hostages.

Consider the argument that Bush and his republicans are making after years and years of letting bin-Laden run free; after years and years of shifting justifications for diverting to Iraq; and years of flip-flops regarding the importance of capturing or killing the rebel leader and his band of thugs. They are now arguing that, although they actually waged the bulk of their 'war on terror' in Iraq, (as Bush put it, Iraq was the "center" of his terror war) ANYONE would have done as our Democratic president did. Why didn't they, then?

Why was Iraq more important to them than pressing forward with the search for bin-Laden? "Because bin-Laden (said so)," according to Bush at the time.

Bush and his republicans were more than content to listen to the terrorists, and they wanted us to listen too. "Don't believe me," Bush told Americans in a Rose Garden news conference.

"Listen to the enemy, or listen to Mr. Zawahiri, the number two of al Qaeda, both of whom made it clear that Iraq is central in their plans."

"I take the words of the enemy very seriously," Bush said, "and so should the American people."

Nothing must have thrilled al-Qaeda more than to hear Bush read off passages of propaganda from the terrorists' very own speeches and dispatches -- nothing . . . except maybe the slick campaign commercial the republican party put out featuring the terrorist's words lovingly super-imposed against the smiling image of bin-Laden.

"What is yet to come will be even greater," the announcer quotes bin-Laden as saying. "These are the stakes," was the hook; strangely reminiscent of the '64 'Daisy' ad Johnson ran in his campaign which featured a countdown to a nuclear explosion.

All of Bush's emphasis on bin-Laden and al-Qaeda didn't have any effect at all on eliminating any imagined threat their re-election campaign was promoting. How tragic and sad for the American people, and how utterly wonderful for al-Qaeda that Bush and his republicans were parroting the terrorists' appeals to fear.

The legacy that would come from allowing the republican party to remain in power would be that bin-Laden and his accomplices would be able to continue to run loose in Afghanistan/Pakistan for years while the administration continued to direct the bulk of our defenses the other direction, to Iraq.

Did Bush and his republicans ever consider that al-Qaeda might be saying that Iraq represents something important to them just to keep the bulk of our nation's defenses bogged down there while they enjoy their freedom from prosecution in Afghanistan/ Pakistan? Do they understand the tragedy of their misguided strategy, even today?

What made more sense? That al-Qaeda would rather we had the 145,000 U.S. troops Bush had deployed in Iraq, instead, along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, or, would they rather have the piddly 20,000 troops we had there defending the mayor of Kabul, Karsai?

For as long as Bush and his republican enablers held the White House and the majority in Congress, al-Qaeda had to be just loving it all. Why on earth would they have wanted the relationship to end? In the face of Bush's retreat from the hunt in Afghanistan they managed to greatly expand the numbers of those who would associate themselves with their 'organization'; just by the fact of resistance against our violently repressive military adventurism.

You can't help but imagine any number of appropriate responses to the 9-11 attacks -- which would have focused directly on catching the perpetrators -- that would not have embroiled our nation in an "ideological struggle" in Iraq; passed on to future presidents. The thugs in the leadership of al-Qaeda had to be loving the gullible instincts of Bush and the republicans as their party of failure and fear rose to the terrorists' every utterance.

All of their mutual support paid off big when republicans managed to hold the majority and continued to enable Bush's imperial presidency with impunity.

Al-Qaeda *hearted* Bush and the republicans. The American fools gave them life, meaning, and elevation. In return, the terrorist goons provided the fear for our leaders to exploit and lord over us. They were "two bodies with one soul inspired." Beloved and inseparable.

[zbdent]

1. Bush: "Thank you, Osama bin Laden, for getting me re-elected."

ObL: "Thank you for making my recruitment easy ..."

[Atman]

3. Stop using 9/11 for political gain!

So many of use cried out loud about his scenario from day one, but no one wanted to listen. America is a stupid, stupid country. I know many people who still believe everything Bush said. It's very sad.

.

[Uncle Joe]

2. That's cosmic bigtree!

Just a few minutes ago, I almost posted

"Bush and Bin Laden sitting in a tree

K i s s i n g

First comes love then comes marriage

Then comes Zell Miller with the baby carriage"

on this thread of yours, in response to Art's video.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=631552

Thanks for the thread, bigtree.

[bigtree]

5. ha!

like minds . . .

[LASlibinSC]

4. Well said!

You have given me a lot to consider. Thank you.

[The Magistrate]

6. Very True, Sir: Bush Did Exactly what Bin Laden Wanted A U.S. Leader To Do

And indeed, did what he could to help Bush emain in power.

[bigtree]

7. k