Sunday, February 12, 2012

Why did the Bush Administration ‘appease and embolden’ the terrorists?

March 25, 2010 by  
Filed under Yemen News

‘Over the years, bin Laden and his fellow terrorists launched numerous strikes against U.S. targets with the stated design of getting American forces out of Saudi Arabia — including the twin embassy bombings in East Africa; the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, and, eventually, 9/11.’ (CNN)

‘The United States has said that virtually all its troops, except some training personnel, are to be pulled out of Saudi Arabia.
The decision was confirmed by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a joint news conference with Saudi Defence Minister Prince Sultan.’ (BBC)

Comments

13 Responses to “Why did the Bush Administration ‘appease and embolden’ the terrorists?”
  1. civil_av8r says:

    All the terror attacks mentioned in the CNN blurp happened under the previous administartion.

    The 2nd blurp by the BBC said that we haven’t completely moved out.

  2. inuyasha_xxxxxxx says:

    “RANT”???

    Send the “Bush Administration” to IRAQ!!!

  3. janice h says:

    I think this had nothing to do with terrorists and a lot to do with the Saudi government. Perhaps if earlier Presidents had gotten Bin Laden the Saudis wouldn’t have asked us to leave.

  4. kevw25 says:

    I think the point trying to be made is that if we are not leaving Iraq becuase it will ‘embolden the terrorists” then why are we leaving Saudi Arabia?

  5. cbmttek says:

    That action really does not have much to do with the terrorists. It is almost 100% related to requests on the part of the Saudi government.

  6. justgoodfolk says:

    Short answer he wants to appease the Saudi regime who own a big part of America and the Bush administration.
    His Neocon administration went after Iraq leaving too little forces to deal with al quaida.

    The CIA field commander for the agency’s Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught…
    In his book—titled “Jawbreaker”—the decorated career CIA officer criticizes Donald Rumsfeld’s Defense Department for not providing enough support to the CIA and the Pentagon’s own Special Forces teams in the final hours of Tora Bora, says Berntsen’s lawyer, Roy Krieger. (Berntsen would not divulge the book’s specifics, saying he’s awaiting CIA clearance.) That backs up other recent accounts, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a “strategic disaster” because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members. Maj. Todd Vician, a Defense Department spokesman, says the problem at Tora Bora “was not necessarily just the number of troops.”
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek
    It’s like this.Neocons get into the white house with an agenda to attack Iraq
    http://zfacts.com/p/775.html
    The threat of Alquaida and OBL is ignored until he attacks on 9/11.After that the Neocons did everything in their power to convince Bush to attack Iraq even before Afghanistan
    By the afternoon on Wednesday [after Sept. 11], Secretary Rumsfeld was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and “getting Iraq.” Secretary Powell pushed back, urging a focus on al Qaeda. Relieved to have some support, I thanked Colin Powell. “I thought I was missing something here,” I vented. “Having been attacked by al Qaeda, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor.”
    Powell shook his head. “It’s not over yet.” Indeed, it was not. Later in the day, Secy. Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq. Instead, he noted that what we needed to do with Iraq was to change the government, not just hit it with more cruise missiles, as Rumsfeld had implied.
    Source: Against All Enemies, by Richard Clarke, chapter 1
    http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Against_All_Enemies_War_+_Peace.htm
    Bush attacked Afghanistan anyway,he couldn’t really do anything else with the eyes of the world on him but forces inside the administration were and are still focused on their PNAC agenda and in that agenda OBL isn’t important.It’s about states,think Iran.It also benefits them having him out there to keep people afraid and more willing to go along with war retoric.

  7. dixiedog1999 says:

    Did you read this off of moveon.org’s website? Bush and our great military has succeeded far more to combat terror than Clintoon ever thought about doing. At least Bush has the balls to confront terror. Clintoon ran from it…

  8. maur911 says:

    You have to understand most decisions unfortunately are “POLITICAL” in nature and not always what is best for the USA. Many times our foreign policy was flawed and became over time the worst decision we could have made, but 20/20 is hind site! As far as the war in Iraq we should be fighting the war to “WIN” not the “DON’T SHOW AGGRESSION” tactics that are only prolonging and causing more deaths to our men and women! We had the right idea with SHOCK & AWE and never should have gone to a ground only fight!

  9. Joe U says:

    The terrorists, indeed ALL enemies of the USA, were ‘appeased and emboldened’ but by Nancy Pelosi, Mrs. Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, and the other cut and run cowards NOT by President Bush.

  10. aaron says:

    security lapse, improper surveillance, overconfidance of the govt administration

  11. vtjames7433 says:

    First, we should have more troops in Afghanistan after OBL. Second, the only reason OBL was even alive to cause 9-11 is because the previous president (who I supported in 1992 much to my later embarrassment) failed to take him when offered and did nothing to respond to the numerous attacks during the 1990s. OBL himself credited our hasty withdrawal from Somalia and lack of response to the attacks as proof he could defeat the US because the American people did not have the resolve or will to fight. He said that in 1998/1999

  12. redwingnut16 says:

    You are ignorant : why don’t you ask yourself why Bill Clinton did not take O B L into custody when given the chance talk about emboldening the enemy. He was handed to him on a Silver platter but did not want to taint his administration. Which he ended up doing in more than one area( perjuring himself in front of a grand jury,lieing about his stand on family values,and jeopardizing our countries future by not accepting O B L)

  13. Butterbar Bob says:

    Considering that we never had any intention of remaining in Saudi Arabia permanently, it was a silly and stupid reason for the Islamowankers to have attacked the US.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers