Palast: the REAL reason the US hasn't been attacked again

[welshTerrier2]

there's no denying that terrorists exist ... we certainly have our share of them right here in the US ... and it would be naive to think that US foreign policy hasn't incurred the wrath of people all over the world ... we do some pretty horrific things ... so, regardless of your views on 9/11 or on bush's exploitation of terrorism to promote fear for political purposes, i think it's wrong to think that anti-US terrorists don't exist ...

but bush likes to claim what a great job he's done putting the necessary security infrastructure in place ... yeah, right ... cargo containers coming into US ports are almost never inspected ... they'll take away your baby formula and your toothpaste but massive containers that could contain who-knows-what are brought into this country without any inspection at all ... the whole thing's a sham to crack down on civil liberties ... the main purpose is to push more and more power away from the people and into the executive branch ...

so, while terrorists really do exist, there isn't a real war on terror at all ... when right wingers challenge you with "if bush isn't busy making us all much safer, why haven't we been "hit" again?", feel free to offer this very plausible answer:

source: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/359

Note: Scroll down to "The Fear Factory"

I'm going to tell you something which is straight-up heresy: America is not under attack by terrorists. There is no WAR on terror because, except for one day five years ago, al Qaeda has pretty much left us alone.

That's because Osama got what he wanted. There's no mystery about what Al Qaeda was after. Like everyone from the Girl Scouts to Bono, Osama put his wish on his web site. He had a single demand: "Crusaders out of the land of the two Holy Places." To translate: get US troops out of Saudi Arabia.

And George Bush gave it to him. On April 29, 2003, two days before landing on the aircraft carrier Lincoln, our self-described "War President" quietly put out a notice that he was withdrawing our troops from Saudi soil. In other words, our cowering cowboy gave in whimpering to Osama's demand.

The press took no note. They were all wiggie over Bush's waddling around the carrier deck in a disco-aged jump suit announcing, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." But it wasn't America's mission that was accomplished, it was Osama's.

btw, take notice of the date that bush pulled US troops out of Saudi Arabia ... it was just one month AFTER he invaded Iraq ... kind of looks like he needed the Al Qaeda threat to remain "real" until he got his invasion underway ... so much for not linking the invasion of Iraq to 9/11 ... once the invasion was underway, there was no longer a need to keep the threat in place ... and then, in the 2004 elections, bush was able to point to how effective he was keeping the country safe ... it all ties together so nicely, doesn't it?

oh, and for you conspiracy theorists out there, consider this ... let's accept the idea above that bush "timed" the withdrawal from Saudi Arabia with his plans to invade Iraq ... and let's say that he agreed to withdraw from SA because he believed the US would be "hit" again if he didn't ... it would have been a politically devastating blow had bush "failed to protect the country" ... he needed to be able to show that he "was making us safe" ... did he keep troops in SA and take a risk we wouldn't be hit before he withdrew them? maybe ... or maybe just maybe he had negotiated a deal with bin Laden ahead of time that he needed to keep the troops there until he invaded Iraq ... he would agree to withdraw from SA only if bin Laden did NOT "hit" the US before he did ... it's nice to see that bush may well have given bin Laden a "date certain" ... does anyone else find this scenario plausible?

[tridim]

1. We don't negotiate with terrorists,

We just give them exacly what they want.

[welshTerrier2]

2. we're giving in to them over there ...

so we don't have to give in to them over here ...

[MessiahRp]

3. I never understood why nobody took note of the fact

that Osama mostly just wanted us removed from Saudi Arabia. Sure there are threats to us still but it seems the more credible ones aren't as committed to al-Qaeda as they are angry for the crap we've pulled in the Middle East as a whole.

Obviously al-Qaeda interjected itself in Iraq because they believed we were being intrusive there as well but I wonder if we pulled out of Iraq exactly how quickly al-Qaeda would fizzle. We wouldn't be the enemy so much anymore and Iraqis could rule themselves.

I don't know, just thinking aloud.

Rp

[DinahMoeHum]

4. Like I've said: OBL has been playing Bush like a cheap fiddle. ..

and a candy-ass pansy.

:evilfrown:

[AzDar]

5. Kick..........n/t

[maxsolomon]

6. and all the other bombings?

copycat jihadis inspired by 9-11 & enraged by THE INVASION OF IRAQ.

[samfishX]

7. Withdrawing Troops From Saudi Arabia

Was the ONLY thing Bush has done right since 9/11.
Of course, not ALL troops are gone. Bases are still there and staffed, but very lightly, last I heard.

I think it's dishonest and wrong of Palast and others to mock Bush for doing that, believe it or not. It ultimately only serves to advocate the false belief that fighting these people with military force is the only solution that will work.
...when the truth of the matter is that anything BUT military force is going to solve the problems that bin Laden and nearly ALL of the middle east has with the USA.

[welshTerrier2]

10. yes, it was right but you're missing the point ...

do you hear bush running around telling everyone how he withdrew the troops from Saudi Arabia to remove the main cause of terrorism? no, you don't ...

what you hear is a bunch of macho bullshit about how bush is "resolute" ...

the point of this thread is NOT that we shouldn't remove our troops from Saudi Arabia, the point is that bush's macho thing that he's gotten so much political mileage out of is total, contrived bullshit ...

and, btw, where exactly did those troops go?

[SpiralHawk]

8. Commander AWOL kisses bin Laden butt

As usual.

He flew the whole bin Laden clan out of the USA 24 hours after 9/11.

Guess Bush didn't want to be associated with his kissing oil cronies.

[Pierre.Suave]

9. What a good article

I loved it and hated it at the same time.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

11. somebody already sait it - deleting

[FlavaKreemSnak]

12. Ok Here is my problem with that. One, that's not all Osama wanted

If you go back and read about him it is interesting, he was supposed to be this big force who was against the Saudi royal family, because while here we think of them as our good friends, people over there, hm, well they think of them as our good friends too, and that is the problem, because the point of view is so different, you know how we think we have to do whatever it takes to keep pro-American leaders like the Saudi royal family in power, the people there just have such a really different point of view, if you read their papers or maybe you live in a town that has people you can talk to. The point of view is just so way different.

Anyway Osama not only did not want US troops there, he supposedly also does not want the Saudi royal family there, so OK that is one thing.

The problem is, this is one of those things that you can't talk about without it getting complicated, and you keep running into stuff that might be true, or it might not be true, and all you can do is hope really hard that it is not true like the last thing you hoped really hard was not true turned out to be. But anyway, if you start reading about Osama a long time ago, when we were helping keep Afghanistan from going communist, or maybe we tried to and they did a little bit anyway, or we decided to let them because we had some things up our sleeve if I messed up that history part, sorry, BUT back to my point, there is this really weird stuff you can read about Osama back then, stuff that makes you go hm.

But I think the real reason that we haven't been attacked is because it would be just too hard to do it without government help, maybe ours, maybe somebody else's but maybe also both? And all the other countries are too scared to, so that other part doesn't come up. At least not in the why we haven't been attacked question.

[rniel]

13. Osama also wanted

To racicalize the whole arab world against the US. He got just what he wanted there also.

[Disturbed]

14. Maybe it was the Saudi Royals who persuaded

Busholini to withdraw most of the US Troops out of Saudi territory?

Maybe they figured that al Q. would lighten up on their attacks of the Saudi Dictatorship if the US presence wasn't so visible in ther Kingdom?

[cal04]

15. U.S. to move operations from Saudi base

In January 2002, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told CNN that Saudi officials had asked the United States to reduce its military presence there. "I think it's in the long-term interest of both countries," Card said.

Exiled Saudi Osama bin Laden has cited the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia as a core grievance in his self-proclaimed holy war against the United States. Fifteen of the 19 September 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, according to the U.S. government.

In addition, anti-American and pro-bin Laden sentiment has been strong in some parts of the kingdom, home of the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

The Combined Air Operations Center has been operating from Prince Sultan since 1997, monitoring airspace operations across the region and conducting patrol missions in the former "no-fly" zone over southern Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/29/sprj.irq.saudi.us/index.html

[eridani]

16. Iraq was where the troops we had in SA were to be transferred n/t

[ComerPerro]

17. interesting argument. I also like to counter with

"hit again"???? WTF?

We shouldn't have even been "hit" the first time! That's Bush's fault!

I'm not gonna praise him for us not being "hit again" when he didn't even do his job the first time!

[The Wolf]

19. There's a great article by James Fallows in the August edition

of the Atlantic Monthly that talks about adopting a new strategy in the war on Terror. He states in the article his support for the war in Iraq, which is honestly one of the few negatives going on in this article. He analyzes the pluses and minuses from both sides and talks about basically trusting law enforcement to take on terror and to eliminate the moniker "War on Terror" completely and treat it like going after the Mob. Nothing groundbreaking, but it's refreshing to hear logical statements in this strange hallucinogenic nightmare we call our country. Here's the link to it:

http://www.theatlantic.com/200609/fallows_victory

As for Palast, he's one of the few newsmen I trust outside of Keith Olbermann. When he says we haven't been attacked because bin Laden got what he wanted in the first place, I tend to side in his direction. What he said along with Fallows' article syncs up well the punyness of these most recent terrorist plots (taking down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch for example). The recent attacks seem to be caused by those who are angry at the actions we've taken the past 3 years. Besides, el Jackass needs a way to make sure his War on Terror is fashionable with the American people. Enter in bin Laden, rush investigations to get the nice shiny press from them, connect the suspects to al Qaeda, and watch the base jump up gleefully and hump his leg with pride.

[ComerPerro]

20. well, yeah. As a nation we are scared shitless

and we even have liberals thinking its ok to use racial profiling, which gives Islamic extremists some more "evidence" to use when they attack us.

[Greyhound]

18. Thanks for posting this, I have tried to make this point several times in

the past. Further, is anyone surprised that al qaeda, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. have been able to "outwit" this barely functional fool that possesses, at best, room temperature IQ, coupled with a complete absence of knowledge of the rest of the world?

I don't know what disgusts me more, that millions of useful idiots voted for him, twice, or that those that are supposed to be watching and reporting what is done in our names, have totally abrogated their responsibility. Or maybe it's the fact that the "loyal opposition" has been neither.

[alvarezadams]

21. That hyperbole might just...

...up and bite him in the arse.

I have no doubt that we are still OBL's enemies despite our evacuation of S. Arabia. Palast makes a nice "in your face" point but I do not believe for a minute that this is the cause of the lack of further attacks... especially in light of the recent foiled plot.

I've said for quite a while that "why should he waste money and lives when he's ahead?". Just an anonymous phonecall or a blurb on a terror-friendly web is enough to drive our misgovernment to spend billions. Now OBL has the most successful franchise operation since McDonalds doing his dirty business anywhere from Madrid to London to Manila to Kuala Lampur. And his best advertising is provided by Uncle Sam - driving the "consumers" and "investors" into the franchises like lemmings over a cliff. He doesn't have to spend the big "9/11 television advertising" bucks anymore.