Larry Johnson:More Horse Hockey from President Bush

[cal04]

Perhaps the only thing more pathetic than a President who insists on an Alice in Wonderland view of terrorism is a media eager to lap up his nonsense. How long must we endure factual errors and misleading statements? The latest whoppers from George Bush in describing “progress” in the war on terrorism are not new, but the breathless media is reporting them as such.

George Bush, with Iraq firmly in mind, once again insisted today that:
"When terrorists spend their days working to avoid death or capture, it's harder for them to plan and execute new attacks on our country. By striking the terrorists where they live, we're protecting the American homeland."


The facts are indisputable. Since the U.S. invaded Iraq in March of 2003, international terrorist attacks in which people have been killed and injured have almost quadrupled. The number of countries hit by lethal attacks has also increased to unprecedented levels. Bush is right that the United States has not been hit since 2001, but that is little consolation to the Brits who died in July of 2005 or the Spaniards who died in March of 2004 in Al Qaeda bombings. Moreover, despite Bush’s initial pledge to get Bin Laden dead or alive, Bin Laden and his chief deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, are still very much alive and still planning new mayhem. And who is the person Bush has put in charge of finding Bin Laden? I don’t know and neither does the Administration.

No one has been put in charge of this supposedly important task. Bush’s preference to play politics with terrorism rather than achieve concrete results is underscored by the “news” released today of a 2002 plot to fly a plane into the Library Tower in Los Angeles. The White House is leaving the impression that this plot was uncovered thanks to the illegal domestic spying program. That is bunk. If the United States did discover such a plot was underway thanks to listening in on conversations not covered by FISA— conversations in which specific terrorists met with Bin Laden in 2002—then I have one question. Why didn’t we get Bin Laden? He disappeared after escaping from Tora Bora in December 2001. Is President Bush now saying that we took people into custody through intercepts in 2002 who knew the whereabouts of Bin Laden? Or, are they saying, these guys met with Bin Laden in 2001, before we started our offensive in Afghanistan, and were later apprehended? If the domestic spying op was really generating “actionable” intelligence, then where are the terrorist scalps?

more
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/26473

[Flabbergasted]

1. This is not completely fair but if people really want to play the

"we haven't had another attack here" card, my first thought is we've only had two speculated Al Qaeda attacks. With eight years in between them we are not exactly beating any odds by not having another since 2001. In fact if we had one more within two years in the US you could say that the attacks are increasing or atleast consistant.

[Mythsaje]

2. To add a thought...

Why would they attack the Library Tower in L.A. anyway? Their issue has always been with NY, as our financial capitol, and, maybe, Washington D.C. as our political capitol.

Now, while L.A. may be considered our "cultural" capitol, I still smell a rat. A big one in a crappy blue shirt with his sleeves rolled up.

No offense to rats.