Bush's First "War on Terror" Blunder

[babylonsister]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/6112

Bush's First "War on Terror" Blunder
by Peter Dyer | Mar 15 2007

Published at Consortiumnews.com, March 15, 2007

There is universal agreement that the events of September 11, 2001 altered the course of history. However, the response of the Bush Administration to 9/11 eventually had a far greater impact than the original tragedy. Seen in that light, October 14, 2001 was an even more momentous day.

That was the day President Bush rejected an offer by the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 terror.

Afghanistan’s deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, had announced that if the United States stopped bombing Afghanistan and produced evidence of Bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".

President Bush responded: "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty...Turn him over.” (Guardian Unlimited Update, Oct. 14, 2001)

Some U.S. officials had doubts about the sincerity of Kabir’s offer as well as the ability of the Taliban to deliver bin Laden. But according to Milton Bearden, a former CIA station chief who oversaw U.S. covert operations in Afghanistan in the 1980s: “We never heard what they were trying to say. We had no common language. Ours was, 'Give up bin Laden.' They were saying, 'Do something to help us give him up.'... I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him. He was a pain in the neck.'' (Washington Post, October 29, 2001)

The President’s October 14 decision to continue the bombing closed the door on any possibility of a peaceful, legal and relatively rapid resolution of the shocking terror of 9/11. It essentially cemented a course of American military aggression in the region which was to lead to the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and to the threat of invasion of Iran.

more...

[unblock]

1. blunder? why blunder?

until perhaps the 2006 election, war has been an unmitigated bonanza for the bushies and their cronies. OF COURSE they took action that cemented a course of american military aggression in the region.

this was no mistake on their part. a disaster for the rest of us, sure, but no mistake on their part.

[babylonsister]

2. Don't you think, in their infinite hubris, they thought this would be a

'slam-dunk'? I realize they all got rich, but there were so many countries on their agenda they haven't conquered yet.

[damntexdem]

3. No, an earlier blunder was not listening to Clinton Admin warnings.

But the first blunder was stealing the 2000 election.

[CJCRANE]

4. We have to have the same starting point

to even agree on what their blunders were.

If you take the official story at face value - that Bushco are incompetent - then I could agree with some of these conclusions.

But if we look at the possibility that Bushco colluded in allowing 9/11 to happen to provide political capital for their pre-emptive war policy aborad and power-grab at home - then it seems clear that capturing bin Laden or even fighting terrorism was never a priority, before or after 9/11.

On edit: but I accept that the incompetence/negligence angle is much easier to prove and use against them.