A report out today includes a “highly placed source” as saying that part of the reason George W. Bush is not appearing with President Barack Obama at ground zero is that he feels he is not getting part of the credit in the killing.
The source stated “Obama gave no credit whatsoever to the intelligence infrastructure the Bush administration set up that is being hailed from the left and right as setting in motion the operation that got Bin Laden. It rubbed Bush the wrong way.”
Of course, it was Bush (like Clinton) who ignored warnings of the possible attacks and then it was Bush Administration that let Bin Laden slip out of Tora Bora. Bin Laden was nailed years after the departure of Bush and based on recent intelligence hits on the surveillance net. As noted earlier, I am not sure why there is not more discussion of the alleged failure of this and the prior administration to locate Bin Laden in such a conspicuous setting after alleged leads from Pakistan and India. It appears that much of our intelligence estimates on his location may have been wildly wrong.
Clearly, many of the people outside of the Administration (joining some Obama officials) citing torture as part of the success in this story are Bush officials — trying desperately not only to claim part of the success but to legitimate an act defined as a war crime.
This is all part of the spasm of celebration over the killing. I must confess a bit of unease in the scenes of people dancing in the streets and presidents fighting over credit for the killing. I have the same unease when people assemble outside of prisons with frying pans and signs to celebrate the execution of a murderer. Some scenes this month looked uncomfortably like images we saw in the Middle East after the 9-11 attacks. I am also glad that Bin Laden is dead. I will not deny it. However, all of these celebrations only elevate the importance of the man.
As I stated earlier, I have always found it bizarre that we give presidents personal credit for such operations. Whether it is Bush parading around on the aircraft carrier in his flight suit or Obama at ground zero, presidents claim credit for successes by others. Obviously, this order would have been given by Bush and Clinton once Bin Laden fell into our surveillance net. Ironically, presidents are very successful in basking in such glory of others, but do not feel the full brunt of their mistakes like Tora Bora or, more importantly, ignoring the warnings about an attack using aircraft. Those are simply dismissed as missed opportunities or confused circumstances.
What is equally fascinating is that we continue to define victory by Bin Laden’s death while insisting that nothing will change in light of it, as discussed in this week’s column.
Source: NY Daily News
Bring back the rule of law and prosecute all Bush regime members who participated in, or authorized the illegal torture of detainees and then we can discuss Bush the Second’s hurt feelings, through the bars of his jail cell.
Many fundamental questions remain unasked by the public. First, why does killing makes the US or a president, “great”. Both Bush and Obama have congratulated each other on being patriotic real men for this killing. Who are we as a people that we consider it a mark of greatness to have killed?
Why is it that Obama named this operation “Geronimo” after the stealing of Geronimo, a real man’s skull from Yale by someone in the Bush family? Isn’t that strange when supposedly the two men are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, yet Obama is “honoring” the Bush legacy with that name for his manful operation? Isn’t it also macabre?
Finally, even torture gets another boost. Panetta claims the killing was a success story for torture. So why doesn’t Bush deserve more credit? He (or rather Cheney) began the policies of torture and extrajudicial killing. Obama is only making them legal. They all agree on their use. Give them all the credit they deserve in a court of law.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/05/bin-laden-the-rules-of-engagement.html
James in LA: I second your motion. Well said, sir.
Michelle, it was a combat situation, not an arrest. This guy was 6’6″ tall, bullets were flying and he did not come out waving a white flag with his hands in the air. The assault team was not required to read him his Miranda rights or use minimum force necessary to apprehend. I have used the analogy before of the tracking and shooting down of Admiral Yamamoto during WW-II. Or of Marine sniper Sergeant Carlos Hathcock laying in wait for an NVA General officer and killing him during the Vietnam conflict. Bin Laden had declared a guerrilla war on the US and most of the western world. He was a belligerent, and under the rules of the Geneva Convention, it is within the guidelines to take out a dangerous enemy. I commented on this in another thread. Here is the link.
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/05/03/bin-laden-a-time-to-reflect/#comment-229179
I am utterly uninterested in how the former head of the previous criminal enterprise posing as a Presidency “feels.” I would be interested in a visit from federal law officials with a summons demanding his appearance before a civilian grand jury to answer for his admission on national television that he ordered torture.
Maybe NYC is too close to Vermont. Bench warrants for the arrest of this child-monster and his ilk are still in force.
I am glad he isn’t going. The stench would have been too much.
And please, st. jeebus h. vishnu, we beseech, may O’ccomplice rediscover law and order in his second term.
Michelle,
The above post is more your speed…
I think both rcampbell and Frank said it best. It is striking to me how Bush focused on his hard-on for Saddam from day one; ignored Richard Clark from day one; did his cowboy-best in preening and posturing after 9/11, and spectacularly did so on the flight deck of the USS Lincoln; colossally failed in Tora Bora; and said mere months after 9/11 that he didn’t even think about bin Laden.
In watching the news last night (but in a fog, not remembering which program), someone brought up the point that IF finding bin Laden due to information gleened from torture, which we – apparently – discontinued in 2003-2004, why did it take five to six years later to finally root him out and kill him? Wouldn’t “actionable” intelligence indicate immediacy?? I’m sorry, but IMHO, this is a slap in the face to those who do the actual work McFlightsuit wants to take credit for.
Well, McFlightsuit, you had your opportunity and you – like everything else you touched in eight years – blew it. And blew it big time. Snooze, you lose, sport.
Turns out that binLaden was unarmed and was not attacking any of the team who broke into his residence, but they shot and killed him anyways. Guess I missed the trial where he was sentenced to an immediate death by firing squad. Are the team members going to be charged with crimes they did for the murder?
I understand he is also rightly indignant that he was not given credit for discovering Antarctica, developing penicillin, and authoring the laws of universal gravitation.
Personally I am deeply offended by the mob scenes celebrating death. But my guess is 90% of the crowd would have been there had the local sports franchise just won whatever trophy is given after the last game of the season. An excuse to drink to excess and run screaming through the streets hoping some girl will flash her boobs for you.
And just like those victory celebrations there was a lot of chest thumping & shouting “we’re #1” sort of bullshit because we are the bestsest and baddest mofackees around.
We need to focus on what’s taking place domestically under the guise of “fighting the war on terror”… When the truth outs, as it inevitably will, Bush won’t want the credit, I’m quite sure of it, but he certainly deserves the lion’s share… (He and some others, of course.)
“Bloodlust” is an appropriate term…
Did he still hold the key to the Magical Box of WMD….. It has to be some place…..Are the Bin Ladens’ still doing construction for Haliburton….. or the Carlyle Group….
Tony Blair, bin Laden, Carlyle Group, Halliburton.
~
The Bush family and the bin Ladens are linked to the Carlyle Group.
Tony Blair may go to work for Carlyle.
What links are there between UK politicians and Halliburton?
Where might the Israeli-Russian Mafia come into all this?
http://www.uni-muenster.de/PeaCon/global-texte/g-notes/BinLaden-Carlyle.htm
The Wall Street Journal, September 28-29 2001, reported:
“Mr. bin Laden’s family… is an investor in a fund established by the Carlyle Group.”
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2005/08/tony-blair-bin-laden-carlyle-group.html
I wonder if this is another partnership that is messed up…
Mike A.,
“One would think that Mr. Bush would be more than satisfied with the tens of thousands of American, Iraqi and Afghani scalps already lining the walls of his hunting lodge.”
And all this time I thought they were nailed to the walls of Dick Cheney’s torture dungeon!
Good points Professor Turley.
When our “national joy” is composed of blood-lust we have devolved into the depths of some strange darkness.
This is what our mentors warned us about.
To quote the father of the Constitution, who spoke of the cause of cognitive diseases within national government, he summed up with the statement: “Those truths are well established.”
http://powertoxins.blogspot.com/2009/11/greatest-source-of-power-toxins.html
Some people can’t ever be pleased. One would think that Mr. Bush would be more than satisfied with the tens of thousands of American, Iraqi and Afghani scalps already lining the walls of his hunting lodge.
Saw this earlier on Morning Joe:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/4b3afc5c2f/president-bush-reacts-to-osama-bin-laden-s-death-with-will-ferrell?playlist=featured_videos
(Tried to embed it…)
I see a bit of a contradiction in you making a point about how Obama is taking credit for the actions of others, but giving Bush the blame for what is arguably the same thing. The two things you cite were not Bush’s personal failures any more than killing bin Laden was Obama’s personal victory.
I do agree that Presidents take credit (and get blamed — e.g. gas prices) for things that they don’t have much to do with.
I also agree that it’s in very bad taste to have rallies in the street celebrating a death.
“I truly am not that concerned about him,” the president said, according to the official White House transcript. March 13, 2002
“But I want to assure you, the objective is not bin Laden” L’il Boots n January 22, 2002
Check those dates. 5 months after 9-11. Boy Blunder was not interested in eliminating Bin Laden, he had bigger F-ups to focus on. NOW he wants some credit? Like everything else in his life, no effort on his part but always first in line for the credit.
I watched the President give quite a lot of credit to the intelligence community. He’s pissed that everyone in the world knows Obama succeeded where he failed and standing on a stage next to the President would only emphasize that and diminish him further in the public eye.
I hope he’s seething. I hope he feels humilated. He certainly deserves to feel he’s been abandonned, shunned, ignored and generally viewed as a failure and an embarrassment to America—because that is the case and will be forever. That’s the only legacy he earned during his disasterous terms in office.