Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Why Did Bush Protect Bin Laden

God help me, I'm back to reading Where Are My Keys again, I guess to see what kind of spin is coming out of the events of last weekend. Yeah, you know which events.

If I'm not mistaken, Bin Laden wouldn't have been found and killed at all if it hadn't have been for the enhanced interrogation techniques used on prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. If that's not the spin, please correct me. My feeling is that Leon Panetta (who was my congressional representative when I was in Junior High! Go, local boy!) is going out of his way in this clip to point out that the information obtained was duplicated in other, less odious, less Darth Vadarish sources. We would have found Chez Bin Laden without tossing away the moral high ground, and we managed to kill him without doing that other Bush standby, bombing the entire country of Pakistan in case he's around there somewhere.

In fact, the whole operation seems to have been accomplished by thinking how Bush would handle it and doing the opposite. Small strike team, detective work, verifying before acting. And success instead of failure.

But let's assume that the vital clues were obtained through torture, like my usual suspects are claiming. How are they crowing about this? Bush had this information for six years! And if so, why didn't he do anything with it? I can understand failing to act on the intelligence preceding 9/11, because there is always a high noise level with terrorist threats. But Bin Laden's whereabouts? Like the right is saying, HE KNEW WHERE THE COMPOUND WAS! And don't tell me Bush was afraid to attack a house - he took out an entire country on a tip from a single source. This is not a cautious man.

The only way it makes sense is if Bush was protecting Bin Laden. Bush obtained the intelligence and sat on it.

Puts this clip in a whole new light, doesn't it?

No comments: