A symbol of the Bush's failure

[ProSense]

Osama Bin Laden: Terrorist and Political Pundit

The cost of Bush's failure: more than 150,000 Iraqis killed (who had nothing to do with 9/11), 4,199 U.S. troops killed and $610 Billion in war spending.

[BrklynLib at work]

1. His wonderful "LEGACY". I hope that history gives him his proper due.

:puke: :mad:

[nosmokes]

5. I think Baghdad, New Orleans, Abu Ghraib and Gitmo Symbolize his legacy pretty well.

Especially since his supporters hold those up as his triumphs.

[nosmokes]

6. I think Baghdad, New Orleans, Abu Ghraib and Gitmo

symbolize his legacy pretty well. Especially since his supporters hold those up as his triumphs. Some legacy eh? Destroyed two of the most remarkable cities on the planet pitted the populations of two of more diverse nations against each other like never before, but he did build two memorials to torture and curtailing human and civil rights.

[AndyA]

2. You'd think that Bush would be embarrassed that OBL is still out there loose,

making videos, and supposedly plotting his next attack.

To quote Keith Olbermann, "the man has no shame." (Both of them - Bush and OBL.)

[Sputnik55]

3. Seems they've both been entirely successful

... getting exactly what they want.

[blondie58]

9. you're absolutely right, Sputnik55

he has made a fortune for himself and some of his cronies. AND! he has gotten to play at being the fighter pilot, etc.

Welcome to DU.

[angrycarpenter]

4. his best friend more like it

as long as he is on the loose he is the all powerful boogey man to frighten the citizenry into rubber-stamping his agenda. He was used to scare people into voting for bush in 2004. The timing of the tape before the election was certainly a calculated effort to keep B+C in office.

[ProSense]

7. Kick! n/t

[H2O Man]

8. Nominated. n/t

[ProSense]

10. Kick! n/t

[ProSense]

11. Kick! n/t

[ProSense]

12. "Bush's presidency has been everything al Qaeda could have hoped for, and more."

A Rovian strategy gone awry

<...>

No such luck.

Last night on PBS' The NewsHour, New York Times columnist David Brooks compared 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden's latest video message to "lefty blogs," saying the al Qaeda head is like "one of these childish people posting rants at the bottom of the page."

<...>

I suppose this is all fairly predictable, and not worth getting too worked up over. Things haven't gone too well for the right when it comes to the military (stretched to the breaking point), counter-terrorism (increased terrorist attacks around the globe every year since 9/11), combating al Qaeda (which has used Iraq as a successful recruiting and fundraising tool), or U.S. foreign policy (our international standing has reached its lowest ebb in a generation), so I guess it makes them feel better to argue that fundamentalist terrorists and secular liberals share some kind of ideology. Whatever.

Having said that, it's probably worth noting, from time to time, that if Osama bin Laden were to sit down and write a gameplan for what he'd like to see the United States do since 2001, it would look rerily similar to the approach taken by the Bush administration over the last six years.

In this sense, Brooks' comments, and those from other far-right voices, are part of a classic Rovian strategy -- identify your rival's strength, and go after it vociferously. Indeed, the strident rhetoric and the nonsensical finger-pointing reeks of desperation, as if the president's political supporters hope that if they scream "OBL (hearts) Democrats" loud enough, no one will notice that Bush's presidency has been everything al Qaeda could have hoped for, and more.

It's kind of sad, when you think about it.