Bye, Bye, Bushie
I don't like piling on President Bush, and I do think he's a decent enough guy. But c'mon, Gail-Tz, I think he couldn't have caused much worse damage to us if he actually tried. He's been Osama's best friend, wasting American resources in a futile effort to get the world to bend to our will. Osama in 2004 said he wanted to bankrupt us the way his movement bankrupted the Soviet Union, and you implicitly agree that he damn near did it, if not for the "orchestrated bailouts" that he performed. I'm not ready to credit The Decider for bailing us out of a mess that he presided over for eight years, while he kept telling us just to stay the course.
Rob, do you really believe that al-Qaeda had anything to do with defeating the Soviet Union in Afghanistan? I don't think his organization was anything more than a minor nuisance back in the day. Al-Qaeda is now a threat, to be sure, but Osama bin Laden blusters a lot in order to attract and retain talent - this has been his MO for many years now.
John -- the American- and Saudi-funded mujahideen beat the Soviets, and Al Qaeda and the Taliban morphed out of the remains of that movement.
I'd also add that you're right -- bin Laden's bluster is worse than his bite. That's exactly why a $600 billion war in Iraq (with a few trillion dollars more in indirect costs in coming years), ostensibly to crush bin Ladenites, is a nice way to rush toward bankruptcy.
Rob, no point in further debating the merits or demerits of Iraq - I think we both know where the other stands. I want to ask you this, however - if Osama bin Laden's goal is to bankrupt America, does it not stand to reason that he actually favors US engagement in the Arab world? And if so, how would his fellow Arabs feel about such a revelation?
Most of his fellow Arabs would prefer a U.S. that plays no role in the Mideast to one that tilts so totally to Israel.
But bin Laden doesn't really favor U.S. engagement -- in fact, it was the U.S. presence of troops in Saudi Arabia that launched him on a crusade to get the "infidel" out.
Saudi Arabia's corrupt regime has been the fondest Arab client of the U.S. That has only diminished America's standing in the eyes of that region and of Europe; China huffs about why it's taken to task for its support of Sudan when we prop up the crooks in Saudi Arabia.
Rob, I agree with most of what you say, but here's what I'm driving at - if the US doesn't dedicate itself to a "$600 billion war in Iraq" how can bin Laden ever claim to be responsible for bankrupting our country? We can bankrupt ourselves any number of ways - getting entangled somewhere else in the world, for instance, or increasing the size of the federal government - but bin Laden wouldn't be responsible for such events, of course. So, how is bin Laden supposed to achieve his goal and, at the same time, legitimately claim at least some of the responsibility?