Funny, isn’t it, to watch leftists in the media and politics praise President Obama for catching an enormous fish like Osama bin Laden – all the while studiously ignoring the prominent monogram on his pole and tackle: a big flashing neon-red Dubya.
Don’t get me wrong. Our current president deserves credit for not flushing the seven years of intelligence that the Bush Administration doggedly gathered while Obama and his leftist cohorts repeatedly poked them in the eyes and whacked them on the knees – I’m just wondering whether the apology will be delivered to Crawford in person or by Western Union.
And yet, despite the garish irony of Obama accepting glory for harvesting a crop that he tried to dump salt on for years, it is a satisfying outcome — the old goat staring into the face of a true American hero just before being dispatched to his new digs atop history’s ash-heap of nasty dead… er… infidels.
Well, most of them, anyway: The usual — Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al. But bin Laden’s fellow global jihad aficionado, Saddam Hussein, is bound to be around as well – thanks to you-know-who.
Or not. It seems that when you have a whole passel of leftists canonizing Obama for practicing the same foreign policy that caused them to shriek and gnash their teeth when carried out by a Republican, a Bush-bashing reprisal may be in order to distract the public from their blatant hypocrisy.
So far, my favorite example of this came yesterday from Cenk Uygur, MSNBC’s insightful “Young[ish] Turk.” Uygur wrote:
…This comes, ironically, eight years to the day after President Bush declared Mission Accomplished in regard to Iraq — and can anyone remind me what that mission was?
We declared two wars to target Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. They were in Afghanistan and Iraq. We killed bin Laden in Pakistan.
In other words, if bin Laden was in Pakistan last Sunday, he clearly must have been in Pakistan since the beginning of time. And bin Laden was the only purveyor of terrorism on the earth. Therefore, Bush could have sent someone down to that tony Islamabad suburb to neutralize bin Laden and usher in world peace clear back in 2001, except he didn’t because he’s a warmonger and he preferred to bully poor, misunderstood eye-gouging, hand-drilling, mass-murdering Saddam Hussein instead.
The idea that Iraq had anything to do with Osama bin Laden and the attacks against this country was comical and tragic at the same time. Now that we have killed bin Laden in Pakistan, can we ask the incredibly wrong neo-cons what Iraq had with 9/11 again? And will they apologize for leading us into Iraq when it turns out we were right, the enemy was many countries away?
Well Young[ish] Turk, I don’t know about the “incredibly wrong neo-cons” but you could ask the U.S. federal court judge who evaluated the evidence and ruled that Iraq’s collusion with bin Laden constituted partial responsibility for the September 11 attacks.
And then, I have a question for you: When are you and your fellow leftists going to give up the fiction that Saddam Hussein was a harmless Teddy Bear and stop using him as your own personal Dubya club?
Like all propagandists, your success in vilifying Bush depends upon the ignorance of your target audience, which is the only reason I can figure why you and your media accomplices refuse to acknowledge the 600,000 documents captured in postwar Iraq – letters, memos, computer files, and audio and video tapes – and what they tell us: That Saddam Hussein had broad connections with al Qaeda and was a malignant purveyor of global terror with tools at his disposal that only existed in bin Laden’s wildest dreams.
Not that bin Laden wasn’t dangerous — at least until late 2001 when he was rendered impotent by the Bush administration — but he lacked the unfettered ability that Saddam enjoyed as a head of state to recruit, train, and outfit foreign terrorists with passports and official travel documents.
And only in bin Laden’s fevered fantasies could he have imagined the ease of distributing the tools of terror throughout the world in official diplomatic pouches and booby-trapped suitcases that Saddam enjoyed — as proven by letters and inventories found among the seized Iraqi documents.
So, Mr. Uygur, let me ask you this: Now that we have killed bin Laden in Pakistan, can we ask the “incredibly wrong” Bush-deranged leftists what bloodshed Saddam may have accomplished if Bush hadn’t stopped him — as opposed to what the Bush-neutered bin Laden was able to accomplish while cowering in his hidey-hole for the last eight years?
Oh, and while we’re at it, “will they apologize” for being self-serving, politically-motivated, dishonest hypocrites?