Clumsy Leadership
The furor over Dubai's planned takeover of some U.S. ports is a sign of how out of control the ‘war on terror’ has become.

Feb. 22, 2006 - Revolutionaries need several ingredients to succeed: charisma, for one; organization, for another. But what they need most of all is an incompetent regime, one that makes their ideas look good by comparison. "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive," William Wordsworth famously wrote after the French Revolution, romanticizing the "enfants de la patrie" who marched on the Bastille. But no one ever quotes the next line in his poem about the "meager, stale, forbidding " old regime that collapsed so easily there. The early Bolsheviks were nobodies in Russia before the 1917 Revolution, but thanks to the combined ineptitude of Tsar Nicholas II and Alexander Kerensky—the first one representing bumbling monarchy, the latter the most indecisive sort of democracy—Lenin and Co. established their "dictatorship of the proletariat" with a swiftness that surprised even them.

Listening this week to the latest excerpts from Osama bin Laden's and Ayman al Zawahiri's taped messages, it is hard not to marvel at how lucky these would-be revolutionaries have been in their enemy. Who would have thought that, four and a half years on, facing down the mightiest power in history, this sociopathic pair would still be out there talking trash, their continued existence a daily desecration of the memory of the 9/11 dead? Or that bin Laden and Zawahiri would have been able to whip what had been a bare ember of “global jihad”—one barely smoldering on 9/10/01—into a global conflagration? Was that a smirk I detected on Zawahiri's face as he advised George W. Bush that it was not too late for him to convert to Islam? You could not miss the contempt in bin Laden’s voice when, in a tape said to be several months old, he mocked Bush's aircraft carrier-staged declaration in April 2003 that major conflict in Iraq had ended.

What a contrast to four years ago, when the rapid collapse of the Taliban caught bin Laden by surprise as he sought to escape the Afghan mountains of Tora Bora. It was probably the last time, we must now conclude, that the terror impresario was surprised at all. As Gary Berntsen, the CIA officer in charge of the operation, records in his new book "Jawbreaker," (Crown, 2005) bin Laden told his followers, "Forgive me," and apologized for getting them pinned down by the Americans (Berntsen's men were listening on radio). Bin Laden then asked them to pray. And, lo, a miracle occurred. As Berntsen stewed in frustration over the Pentagon’s refusal to rush in more troops to encircle the trapped “sheikh,’ bin Laden was allowed to flee. And not only did Bush stop talking about the man he wanted “dead or alive,” the president began to shift U.S. Special Forces (in particular the Arabic-speaking 5th Group, which had built close relations with its Afghan allies) and Predator drones to the Iraq theater.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11500950/site/newsweek/

So..... Bin Laden's going to take over the US government? :confused:

Where does it say that in the article?

i think the point is that Bush pretty much destroyed the "war on terror" by invading iraq.

The point is the help Bush has given to global "jihadists", and how his incredible ineptitude in the "war on terror" has made the problem ten times worse than it was when he took office.

how unbearably sad it is to cast one 's mind back to the eve of 9/11. As Wall Street Journal reporter Alan Cullison wrote in a too-little-noted article in The Atlantic in September 2004, Al Qaeda was then a small fractious group that could not even agree among itself about what its goal was. Members had been hounded from the Arab world, from Sudan, into the hands of a lunatic fringe regime in Afghanistan. Qaeda had one A-team, and one big roll of the dice to make, with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and his ace psychopath, Mohammed Atta. Cullison, quoting a remarkable series of letters he found on Zawahiri’s old computer in Afghanistan, wrote that jihadis who were members of Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad—the biggest component of Al Qaeda—still wanted to make Egypt the main enemy. One of them even compared the grandiose war against America to tilting at "windmills." Cullison is worth quoting at length on this:

"Perhaps one of the most important insights to emerge from the computer is that 9/11 sprang not so much from Al Qaeda’s strengths as from its weaknesses. The computer did not reveal any links to Iraq or any other deep-pocketed government; amid the group's penury the members fell to bitter infighting. The blow against the United States was meant to put an end to the internal rivalries, which are manifest in vitriolic memos between Kabul and cells abroad. Al-Qaeda’s leaders worried about a military response from the United States, but in such a response they spied opportunity: they had fought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and they fondly remembered that war as a galvanizing experience, an event that roused the indifferent of the Arab world to fight and win against a technologically superior Western infidel. The jihadis expected the United States, like the Soviet Union, to be a clumsy opponent."

Not in their fondest dreams did they realize how clumsy.

Where does it say that in the article?

The article compared Bin Laden and Al-Queda to the Bolsheviks and the French revolutionaries, both of whom took over their respective countries.

So...what does that mean? Are you unable to see the difference between the situations, or are you contending that there are no similarities whatsoever?

just listen to what the president's own party is saying. Let's start with Donald Rumsfeld, the man we thought was in charge of the GWOT, the global war on terror. Speaking last week at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Rumsfeld lamented how much better bin Laden and Zawahiri were at understanding the nature of the war. He quoted Zawahiri as saying (way back in July 2005), "We are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of Muslims," and then proceeded to complain that "the U.S. government”—some entity the Defense Secretary is not on familiar terms with, presumably—“still functions as a five and dime store in an eBay world." Al Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, as if he were still head of some blue-ribbon commission questioning the competence of the Clinton administration, has made better use of the technologies we invented than we have. "Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but for the most part we, our country, our government has not adapted," he said.

Uhhh, that failure to adapt, wouldn’t that be your failure, Mr. Rumsfeld? Or the president's? But Rummy was his usual unflappable self, just as full of brio and self-confidence as he appears in Eugene Jarecki's new movie, "Why We Fight," when he raps the podium in prewar 2003 and says, "We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.”

Good ol' Rummy.

So...what does that mean? Are you unable to see the difference between the situations, or are you contending that there are no similarities whatsoever?

That's what I was asking you. Why does that author compare Al-Queda to the Bolsheviks?

It must be free advice time!

So here it is.......Drop the Bush hatred, his tenure in the WH will shortly expire, and continuing with it only hurts dem chances this year, and in '08.

It's time to 'move on'. :nice:

Questioning Bush's leadership and progress in the "war on terror" equates to hating him?

That's what I was asking you. Why does that author compare Al-Queda to the Bolsheviks?

Because you can compare similarities between two things which aren't exactly the same.

Al-Qaeda does indeed seek to overthrow the governments of their respective countries and install a pan-Islamic regime across the entire middle-east.

As the article aptly points out, they were a failing, unheard-of fringe movement (somewhat like the Bolsheviks were seen in Russia once upon a time) before they succesfully attacked the US on Bush's watch, and virtually every step he's made since then has only bolstered their prominence and destructive capability in the middle-east and the world.

Do you have anything to say about the rest of the four pages of the article? How about Rumsfeld's comments? What do you think about the man who's been Secretary of Defense for the last five years saying that "Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but for the most part we, our country, our government has not adapted," .

This guy is talking like he hasn't been in charge of the military for the last five years.

Is that why his administration seems like they are more pre-occupied with destroying the US government than with apprehending Osama Bin Laden?

Well,yes,DM-but addressing the other matter these people have had centuries of unrelenting poverty and no voice-to the man on the street over there Bin Laden looks a heck of a lot more credible than any American.
And btw the French Revolution was a horrible bloody thing headed up by scoundrels...

Danger Mouse is talking nonsense. He is basically trying to say with his attempt at humorous condescension that criticizing Bush's handling of the war on terror equals "hating him". Notice how he doesn't argue with anything in the article at all, but simply alludes to more "political consequences" for anyone who questions Bush.

That's just a lot of partisan baiting and claptrap.

Do you have anything to say about the rest of the four pages of the article? How about Rumsfeld's comments? What do you think about the man who's been Secretary of Defense for the last five years saying that "Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but for the most part we, our country, our government has not adapted," .

This guy is talking like he hasn't been in charge of the military for the last five years.


I can't speak for Rumsfeld. That statement is ambiguous at best, especially when taken out of context. I don't know what he meant by it.

It's not "ambiguous", if anything it's inscrutable and bizarre. He is plainly criticizing the area of government which has been under his direct authority for the last five years, and somehow blaming it for "failure".

But the failure is his, and Bush's.

Danger Mouse is talking nonsense. He is basically trying to say with his attempt at humorous condescension that criticizing Bush's handling of the war on terror equals "hating him". Notice how he doesn't argue with anything in the article at all, but simply alludes to more "political consequences" for anyone who questions Bush.

That's just a lot of partisan baiting and claptrap.

I didn't read it that way,though you might be right- the article was good-anything that brings a critical eye to the situatuion is good-we ARE wasting time chasing Bush around-making some decisions about the war effort is productive.

Who is "chasing Bush around"? What does that even mean? Bush has fundamentally failed to make this country safer. He started a "war" with a specific, stated goal in mind and he has fundamentally failed to accomplish that goal by any possible interpretation, on every level.

How is something like that "not worth discussing"? What is more important, politics or reality?

Who is "chasing Bush around"? What does that even mean? Bush has fundamentally failed to make this country safer. He started a "war" with a specific, stated goal in mind and he has fundamentally failed to accomplish that goal by any possible interpretation, on every level.

How is something like that "not worth discussing"? What is more important, politics or reality?

the point is to be forward looking-you can discuss,you can stick him in jail-I don't care but don't forego moving ahead-he's a lame duck-if we sit around for 2 more years trying to trap him the sky will fall in...

Mike, why are you co-signing DngrMse's totally meaningless diversionary partisan rhetoric?

Who here is not "looking ahead"?

Does "looking ahead" mean totally ignoring everything that is happening around you right now? Bush's squandering of American wealth and lives on his absolute, staggering failure of a foreign policy should be the number-one topic in America right now. I don't like the fact that it's happening any more than you, but it has already happened.

It must be free advice time!

So here it is.......Drop the Bush hatred, his tenure in the WH will shortly expire, and continuing with it only hurts dem chances this year, and in '08.

It's time to 'move on'. :nice:

Ya guys..common...its just a War!!!,..just 2 200 of ours dead...just an entire nation tricked....just our civil liberties being infringed on....just torture going on......just american hatred growing around the world....just letting the worlds most wanted terrorist escape!...COMMON,,,ITS NOT THAT BAD!!
MOVE ON!!!

Mike, why are you co-signing DngrMse's totally meaningless diversionary partisan rhetoric?

Who here is not "looking ahead"?

Does "looking ahead" mean totally ignoring everything that is happening around you right now? Bush's squandering of American wealth and lives on his absolute, staggering failure of a foreign policy should be the number-one topic in America right now. I don't like the fact that it's happening any more than you, but it has already happened.

Wait,Partner-I interpreted his post differently but that doesn't matter-constructive criticism is a good thing-I do feel this discussion is constructive.
It's meaningful to point out what needs to change and how.\
The media is focussing on issues of culpability and so are a lot of people here.I get tired of the silly back and forth (on both sides) "wmd's!" "nu uh"
"uh huh!" "are too!" "are not!"

Does "looking ahead" mean totally ignoring everything that is happening around you right now? Bush's squandering of American wealth and lives on his absolute, staggering failure of a foreign policy should be the number-one topic in America right now. I don't like the fact that it's happening any more than you, but it has already happened.

See, your problem is that NO ONE CARES about your hate-America first, capitalism sucks, the US deserves to be killed point of view. So, all your screaming in the wilderness wondering why everyone doesn't see the world in the black light YOU see it in is all rather funny.

Bush has fundamentally failed to make this country safer.
- He introduced Patriot act, given authority more power to detect terrorist, which makes the country safer.
- He use his power to listen to terrorists, give us opportunity to identify threat, which also makes the country safer.
- He invade Iraq, removed a dictatorship, hope to establish a democratic goverment, which is succeed, will make ME safer, and possibly reduced the chance Israel being attacked and US will need to save the world again (remember WWI and WWII ?).

Yes, our soldiers die every week, but the loss is still minimum compare to any war US entered in the past. They die fighting terrorists, so that we can be safe. Or maybe you believe let Saddam leads them in their fight with US is a better choice? Based on what you conclude the country is less safe then before 911?

- He introduced Patriot act, given authority more power to detect terrorist, which makes the country safer.
- He use his power to listen to terrorists, give us opportunity to identify threat, which also makes the country safer.
- He invade Iraq, removed a dictatorship, hope to establish a democratic goverment, which is succeed, will make ME safer, and possibly reduced the chance Israel being attacked and US will need to save the world again (remember WWI and WWII ?).

Yes, our soldiers die every week, but the loss is still minimum compare to any war US entered in the past. They die fighting terrorists, so that we can be safe. Or maybe you believe let Saddam leads them in their fight with US is a better choice? Based on what you conclude the country is less safe then before 911?


^^^ I was simply going to post one of those "rofl" smilies but this is more sad than anything.

Revolutionaries need several ingredients to succeed: charisma, for one; organization, for another. But what they need most of all is an incompetent regime, one that makes their ideas look good by comparison.If this is the premise to the entire article then why read further? Does AQ possess a charismatic leader? Hard to say since the soft-spoken whacko is hiding in caves and only releases a grainy tape a couple times a year. Organized?...I doubt that since since many of his top dogs or gone and he doesn't have the financial freedom nor the freedom to communicate. Incompetent regime? I'm assuming this is pointing at the BA....the examples above seem to indicate more competence then the AQ regime but if there is a perception of incompetence then I'd say it comes from the non-stop whining, bitching, moaning from the left and the eagerness with which they attack the BA over anything possible not to mention overkill with things like Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, NSA-gate, Plame-gate... Yup...this article points how how the perception of incompetence does nothing but aid the enemy. keep it up lefties :nice: ..............:rolleyes:

You admit you didn't read it so why are you even offering an opinion? Your post was longer than the portion of the article you claim to have read. You saw someone criticizing Bush, stopped reading and came back here to post some rant about "lefties". 'Nuff said.

I admitted no such thing, I asked a rhetorical question. Then I supported my reason for asking the question which was to show the entire premise to his OPINION piece was wrong therefore his opinion was a POS and it wasn't necessary to comment on any more of the article

post some rant about "lefties".
Bad leadership? Make the country less safe? Here is how it is done:
Ironically, some Democrats who objected to National Security Agency wiretaps in December actually championed provisions that step on privacy in the name of stopping meth. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-Calif.), who voted for a filibuster after the revelation of the National Security Agency's domestic spying program in December, co-sponsored the CMA and helped insert it into the PATRIOT Act conference report after failed attempts to pass it through other legislation.

Hmmm....I'd say that the Commmander-in-Chief choosing to let Osama Bin Laden go free, then shifting resources to a costly and unnecessary war in the relatively secular state of Iraq, which then degenerates into a civil war, which then conflagrates into a rallying cause for Islamic men to fight the US all over the middle-east, then selling US port security to the UNited Arab Emirates, etc. etc. are all a *tad* bit worse ways of "fighting terror" than fillibustering some stupid bill designed to allow DHS agents to storm-troop libraries or whatever your deflection regarding Fenstein is all about.

Just my opinion.

Goodness he IS criticizing Bush! OMG...

Hmmm....I'd say that the Commmander-in-Chief choosing to let Osama Bin Laden go free,.
We have a bigger problem than Bin Laden if people believe this is true.

then shifting resources,.
Do you feel like to double resouce in Afganistan? Why? Bin Ladin is not there.

bump.

Only an idiot would believe that Bush let bin Ladden go free!

Are the black helicopters chasing you... are they filled with Jeeeews and international Bankers.... maybe the aliens from planet rectum is after ya, bunkie?

I admit the title is a bit of hyperbole....to claim Bush has shown "poor leadership" in the war on terror would imply that he has shown any leadership at all.

In reality, all he has done is use 9/11 as an excuse to implement policies he had in mind before he was even elected.

In reality, all he has done is use 9/11 as an excuse to implement policies he had in mind before he was even elected.

**Warning** Showing advanced stages of aluminum poisoning

Very clever, caddis.