Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Worst.War.President.Ever.

It's been 2,226 2136 days* since a terrorist cell in the US hijacked 4 airplanes, killed over 3,000 Americans, destroyed two skyscrapers, damaged the Pentagon, and ushered in one of the darkest periods of fear and political maleficence in the history of this country. The leader of the people who attacked us, Osama bin Laden, must be presumed to still be at large. The person responsible for the failure to bring him to justice is George W. Bush.

Gone are the days of Bush's "Bring 'em on" bravado, gone the photo-op days of his "Mission Accomplished" arrogance...but very much still relevant, very much on my list of priorities, and I don't give a rat's ass whether it's naive or not, is his promise to bring in that son of a bitch who ordered the attacks, "Dead or Alive." Through all his incompetence as a Commander in Chief, that's one thing this lame duck of a loser could still do for his nation. But, as he's said, he "just [doesn't] spend that much time on [bin Laden]."

Well, dude, you had better begin to spend some time on it or get the f*ck out of that office, because Bin Laden is stronger than ever and there's no blaming Clinton for it this time:

President Bush’s top counterterrorism advisers acknowledged Tuesday that the strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden’s leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan had failed, as the White House released a grim new intelligence assessment that has forced the administration to consider more aggressive measures inside Pakistan.

The intelligence report, the most formal assessment since the Sept. 11 attacks about the terrorist threat facing the United States, concludes that the United States is losing ground on a number of fronts in the fight against Al Qaeda, and describes the terrorist organization as having significantly strengthened over the past two years.
Yes, yes, we know. It's not Bush's fault. Nothing is Bush's fault. This time the White House can't blame Clinton, though, so they're blaming Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who brokered a deal with tribal leaders "in an effort to drain support for Islamic extremism in the region." As Bush's people hammer away at the point in response to the intelligence report just keep in mind, though, Bush administration officials had endorsed Musharraf's cease-fire with tribal leaders to help prop up Pakistan's president.

If history tells us anything, we can expect our Commander in Chief to respond to this ominous National Intelligence Estimate by going on vacation. Squirreled away in Crawford with Cheney, he'll be focusing on how to manipulate available intelligence to justify and sell the next war they're already moving ahead with, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks, the one with Iran, distracting the resources, once again, that should be focused on preventing Bin Laden's folks from successfully killing more Americans here on the mainland.

Should Bin Laden succeed, though (and they say the odds are some attack is likely to), don't forget the man in the oval office will be very willing to manipulate our sorrow and fear in the aftermath, which is why more than ever we need to adopt a response similar to the one Britain does when attacked ("Keep Calm and Carry On"), so we keep our heads about us and don't let Bush lead us even further the wrong direction. He has proven he cannot be trusted as Commander in Chief. Nearly six years after the attacks, our enemy is stronger than ever. Bush must surely be the very worst war president ever.


*By my calculations, but I'm not all that good at math, so if you know better please let me know. Thanks to Frank for the real number.

Labels:

20 Comments:

Anonymous Frank van Eykelen said...

It is 2136 days from 9/11/2001 to today (but not including today) according to this tool.

Or 5 years, 10 months, 7 days excluding today.

7/18/2007 09:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've said this ad nauseum and i'll say it again: If this had happened under a Democrat's watch the media would be screaming every day for the past 5+ years "Where's Bin Laden?". The fact that they haven't been holding Bush's feet to the fire and the average American isn't screaming at their representatives tell you everything you need to know.

The media is now rigged and Americans take their cues from TV and newspapers, both now owned (because of the FCC decision under Michael Powell, Colin's son) by a small group of very powerful corporations.

Even here on the streets of New York there is no concerted effort to demand Bin Laden be found. Every time i hear people screaming about '9/11' and honoring the dead with a memorial i want to scream "Try honoring them by finding their killer".

7/18/2007 10:08:00 AM  
Anonymous sherie' said...

W is the real enemy. We have to stand up and bring down this administration. If we don't soon, we'll be at war with Iran. What's wrong with us?

7/18/2007 10:10:00 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

F-cking IMPEACHMENT! NOW.

7/18/2007 10:46:00 AM  
Anonymous bambino said...

Bush usual slogan "Go shop and we will Bin Laden"

One day in the future it would be really embarressing to tell young people that we lived through this and didnt do anyting

Everyday so many deaths in Iraq, can you imagine how many families are destroyed by loosing someone in the family and love ones.
Just put yourself in their shoes and imagine, someone you love goes to store and gets killed. And it happens everyday. Scary

7/18/2007 10:54:00 AM  
Anonymous ml said...

In most banana republics, when the civilian leadership goes nuts and the legislature is powerless to do anything about it, the military steps in with a coup to restore balance. The Democrats, lacking the magical number 60, cannot do anything because of consistent Republican obstruction. When Bush and Cheney order the military to bomb or invade Iran, will the military follow those orders?

7/18/2007 11:00:00 AM  
Blogger RichardTScott said...

The national security estimate places the core of Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Which is not new information. We were aware that Bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora into tribal Pakistan. And the greatest amount of money contributing to Al Qaeda is coming from Saudi Arabia, yet both of these countries are our allies and what is the result? This is where we should have been focusing all along: take out the money and take out the leadership.

7/18/2007 12:47:00 PM  
Anonymous jason said...

Worst.War.President.Ever.

I don't know, he's pretty bad, but Bush is up against some pretty stiff competition from his true historical counterpart, the Democratic President Lyndon Johnson. Consider that LBJ started the ground war in Vietnam (without permission from the Senate), escalating the troop presence there from 16,000 to 550,000, resulting in 1,000 American deaths per month and the deaths of millions of Vietnamese (including 4 million civilians). Oh yeah, and did I mention Agent Orange?

As much as we all hate Bush, LBJ's practically makes him seem like a teddy bear in comparison.

7/18/2007 12:49:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Was the likelihood of an attack on US soil greater because of LBJ's actions, Jason? Isn't protecting the homeland Job #1 for the Commander in Chief? I still vote for Bush as worst ever.

7/18/2007 12:54:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

At the least, I think it may be a good reason to avoid presidential candidates that hail from Texas.

7/18/2007 01:06:00 PM  
Blogger friknidjit said...

YOu are forgetting: LBJ was the civil rights president.

7/18/2007 01:14:00 PM  
Blogger friknidjit said...

things are never so black and white (okay, okay, bad bad pun):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B_Johnson#Civil_rights

7/18/2007 01:16:00 PM  
Blogger prettylady said...

*snaps fingers* Focus, people, focus! Such relativistic noodling is mere distraction from the Issue at Hand.

To my mind, the issue is: Do we go ahead and impeach Cheney first, then Bush (for if we impeach Bush right now, then we get Cheney as President, which would be EVEN WORSE) or do we instead concentrate on getting the best people for the job into the next administration?

Hillary rather frightens me, but at least she's had some freakin' experience...

7/18/2007 02:00:00 PM  
Blogger Sunil said...

Ultimately it is all 'gut' feel - as Mr. Chertoff so wisely put it recently...

7/18/2007 02:59:00 PM  
Anonymous -j. said...

Do we go ahead and impeach Cheney first, then Bush (for if we impeach Bush right now, then we get Cheney as President, which would be EVEN WORSE) or do we instead concentrate on getting the best people for the job into the next administration?

Had we the will (the royal we, meaning the American people and our elected officials), we should start with Gonzales, move on to Cheney and finish with Bush. This is only because our cases against Cheney/Bush are being actively obstructed by both the Whitehouse and the DoJ. But the DoJ is in theory supposed to be impartial enough to uphold the law, such as those congressional subpenas that the Whitehouse is stonewalling!

7/18/2007 03:52:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Impeach both, now. They must be held accountable - before the next election and reinstate the seperation of powers! No matter who is the next president, they must not assume the same corrupt power that this bunch has claimed.

The Constitution might have some relevence here, just a thought.

7/18/2007 03:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Johnpherson said...

signed yesterday

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported,

withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the

receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose

of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:

(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;

(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets

instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.

Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.

Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

7/18/2007 05:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Johnpherson said...

threat of detention, seizure of assets, why would anyone criticize the war?
what's next

Why would Republican warmonger Rick Santorum say on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that "between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's (sic) going to have a very different view of this war."
Paul Craig Roberts

7/18/2007 06:06:00 PM  
Anonymous -j. said...

johnpherson,

That executive statement is pretty difficult to digest fully. Do you have any links (such as a Kos diary) to further analysis and debate over exactly what the legal ramifications and scope are of this document? I'd be interested in reading more.

Cheers,
-j.

7/18/2007 08:14:00 PM  
Anonymous -j. said...

Answring my own Q:

FWIW, a diary, sadly a bit short on clear analysis, has percolated up into the rec list on Daily Kos.

Discussion can be found here.

7/19/2007 08:42:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home