Saturday, March 13, 2004

Bush's strong leadership 

Reason # 2 for posting this: It shows that other bloggers--including smackdown superstars like kos--borrow and spread the word from their brother bloggers. Like atrios.

Reframing Bush's national security record

by kos
Sat Mar 13th, 2004 at 15:47:16 GMT

Atrios gets it right. To defeat Bush on the issue of national defense, the issue must be reframed. No more talk about Bush's "strong leadership" post-9-11. There was none.

1. Bush took power

2. Bush ignored the threat of terrorism

3. 9-11 occured

4. Bush was indecisive in that kindergarten class

5. Bush then hid out in Nebraska while his staff invented a "threat" to Air Force One to justify his absence

6. Bush went to war against Afghanistan (so far okay)

7. But instead of finishing the job, he let Bin Laden, Omar Mullah, and lots of Taliban and Al Qaeda escape

8. Why did they get away? Because they diverted intelligence and military assets to fight a non-threat in Iraq

9. And how do we know Iraq was a non-threat? Because they invented evidence to justify the war and lied to Congress and the American people

10. They botched the occupation of Iraq, and close to 700 allied and countless Iraqis have paid the ultimate price, and more continue to do so*

11. They botched the occupation of Afghanistan, as the US-backed government controls nothing more than Kabul, and the rest of the country is a haven for terrorists, religious fanatics, opium producers, and regional warlords

12. And now, over two years after 9-11, the administration is finally training all of our intelligence and military resources toward capturing Osama Bin Laden

I wouldn't call that a successful run.

*Let's not forget that the only parts of Iraq that are truly "under control" are the Green Sections--15-foot-high walled-off blocks with razor wire, tank sentries and 'round the clock armed patrols. Just like Kabul.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com