Bush handed Bin Laden victory -- clueless Dems don't care

[niceypoo]

I really do not understand why democrats put up with the, "cut and run democratic appeaser," attacks from the republicans. In April 2003, while US forces were attacking Iraq, Bush quietly pulled US forces out of Saudi Arabia; this fulfilled Bin Ladens main demand which was clearly laid out in his fatwa or declaration of war issued in 1996: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

By august 2003 the US had completely left the "Land of the Two Holy Places," thus fulfilling Bin Ladens demand: The last American military unit in Saudi Arabia has left the desert kingdom http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/28/wsaud28.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/08/28/ixworld.html

In short Bush handed Bin Laden exactly what he was seeking when he launched the 911 attacks, a US military exit from the Saudi kingdom: Bin Ladens main demand is met http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/30/wsaud230.xml

Whenever I see republicans on tv attacking democrats and spewing their "cut and run appeasers" rhetoric I cringe because the democrat usually sits there clueless. WHY DON'T THE DEMOCRATIC PUNDITS NEVER EVER MENTION THAT BUSH MET BIN LADENS MAIN DEMAND? WHY DO NO POLITICIANS EVER MENTION IT? WHY IS IT NEVER MENTIONED ON AIR AMERICA? WHY HASN'T THE DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND HAMMERED THIS FACT HOME? WHY? WHY? WHY???

This drives me NUTS!!! BUSH CAVED TO BIN LADEN IN 2003 TO CLEAR THE AIR FOR HIS ATTACK ON IRAQ. NO BIN LADEN ATTACKS IN 5 YEARS? IT'S BECAUSE BUSH CAPITULATED AND GAVE BIN LADEN WHAT HE WAS SEEKING ALL ALONG!!!!!

[ellacott]

1. I don't want to call them clueless but........

They do appear to be lacking in aggressively defending their position.

I really bothers me also that they can't frame their message any better than they do now. I listen to the pundits on tv and they let the republican pundits run circles around them. I am screaming at my tv what they should say in response.

[niceypoo]

4. Its not about framing a message

Its about pointing out a fact. Bush caved in to Bin Ladens main demand that he so clearly laid out in his 1996 fatwa. Apparently Bush did this to get bin laden out of his hair thus clearing the way for attacking Iraq without distractions. No democratic politician, pundit pr layperson ever mentions this or even seems to care. It is the biggest piece of ammunition that the democrats could ever hope for but nobody seems to know it even exists.

[ellacott]

6. Of course it's about framing a message

Because they always go on these programs being on the defensive they need to be more prepared to counter the lies.

They is much more information that they could use besides what you've posted.

They could nail them on:

The lead up to war
The NSA spying program
PNAC
Khalizad's former employer, on and on and on.............

[Jon8503]

2. Agree, hopefully things will change but I believe if it does it will come

from the democrats more to the left then the centrist democrats such as Senator Clinton. All along, they have framed the democrats as weak on defense when it is the republicans that has decimated our military with Iraq.

Kerry received medals for his service in Vietnam and Bush hid in the National Guard by jumping over several others on this list to avoid going and look who was slammed.

The list will go on and on. I am keeping a positive attitude that the party will not allow these things to occur again and will attack right back. I also hope they can do something about the corporate media and how it does everything to influence elections such as ABC airing the 9/11 story which was a blatant attempt to help Bush and the republicans.

[havocmom]

3. Bookmarking in my 'DU threads to fight the right' file

Cuz I'm already hearing crap from Republican voters about 'We're gonna be fighting them here now'

Just asking if they mean the homegrown white terrorist we've always had here isn't enough. The don't get nuance, irony or even BASIC AMERICAN HISTORY. When one brings up bush getting rid of US military bases in Arabia and the fact that THAT is what Bin Laden wanted, they shut the fuck up ;)

Yep, the DEMS should have made a BIG ruckus about it as soon as bush/cheney caved into Bin Laden's demands.

And WE ALL should make a ruckus about it each and every time bush, cheney, rice or any of the Republican voters who mindlessly repeat the neocon rationalizations open their mouths and utter ANY of the talking point key words about terra and terraists

Make them ALL understand that THE GOP gave Bin Laden everything he asked for- they are the ones who appease terrorists. And never miss the opportunity to point out that Bin Laden wanted Saddam out of Iraq. Yeah, we did that for him too. Course, lots of corporations made billions on that little bit of appeasement, so it was win/win for the neocon corporate puppets.

Never miss the chance to bring this all up in casual conversation when a Republican tries to insinuate that we will be attacked and 'fighting them over here... now that the DEMS have been elected'.

Lay some facts on them and do it hard enough that they will NEVER want to mention the subject again. This is important because the far right rabble are already regrouping and arming themselves with talking points for 08. Shut them down NOW on the terrorist/fight them here now shit

[niceypoo]

5. I agree completely Havocmom

For me its like having a 10,000 lb elephant in the room yet I'm the only one who sees it. It is very frustrating trying to get democrats educated on this fact so they can scream it from the rooftops. In my political chatroom I mention it every time a republican starts in with their mindless "appeasers" rhetoric and, just as you mention, they either run away or shut up.

Now if AIR AMERICA or the dem sock puppets on cable news ever started using this it would shut down the GOP's whole basis for their position on Iraq AND the war on terror.

[bookman]

7. It is ....

...mentioned on Air America. I've heard Randi mention it, and I believe it was also mentioned by Sam Sedar and Ring of Fire.

[Nite Owl]

8. I don't know what they are

so afraid of and that is the way it appears that they are afraid of speaking out. It only furthers their 'weak on defense' image. It is all about framing the argument, how people perceive what is happening and the dems let the gop frame them. I don't buy the we were the minority line either. If they don't fight for themselves the image is that they won't fight for the people either. I get the idea that they don't want to be like the GOP and be so rancorous but as the saying goes you gotta fight the oppostion you got not the one you want to have.

[sandnsea]

9. Small number still there

They left just enough advisers in Saudi Arabia to be able to deny a withdrawal if anybody said it. And they're prepared to do so too. Mark Green mentioned it on Hardball once and the Republican just blatantly denied it. Green didn't have the exact numbers, so he had to concede the issue.

[ellacott]

10. It was John Fund who denied it n/t

[niceypoo]

13. John Fund? Its not being used as an issue because John Fund denied it?

Oh Fucking Brother. Who gives a rats ass what John Fund does or thinks? It's a fact. Arm yourselves with the details then wipe your ass with the likes of John "deny everything" Fund. Facts trump all.

[ellacott]

14. Just filling in the blank

Who said it wasn't being used as an issue because John Fund denied it? The person he was debating was not prepared. That's the point.

[indepat]

11. One could get the idea 9-11 was all about Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq

[havocmom]

12. Kick for this important issue

bushco does what terrorists want