Did George W. Bush End Up Giving Osama bin Ladin Almost Exactly What He Wanted?

I’m sure this might ruffle a few feathers, but I’m sitting here in 2014 and I just can’t shake this feeling that what we’re seeing right now might have been what Osama bin Ladin was hoping for all along.

Going back to September 11, 2001, the horrors we all felt that day seemed insurmountable. But as bad as those attacks were, they weren’t going to bring us down. They were horrifying and monstrous, but they were never going to “defeat” us.

Osama bin Ladin had to have known this. In fact, he had to have known that by orchestrating these attacks, it would undoubtedly pull us into war. And that’s exactly what it did.

But ultimately it’s a war we could never win – because you can never really “beat” terrorism. In fact, a war against terrorism typically only breeds more terrorists.

Now I don’t think Osama figured Bush would end up starting a war in Iraq (though I actually predicted he would find some reason to do it soon after he was elected), but I do wonder if his initial goal was to lure the United States into a war that he knew we could never win.

If you can’t directly defeat the United States, wouldn’t it make sense to try to make the United States defeat itself?

NYT blockbuster: Anti-Islam video had role in Benghazi attack, Al Qaeda didn`t

A blockbuster new story in the New York Times by David Kirkpatrick looks at the fatal attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya in 2012 and finds no evidence to back up the GOP talking points.

Specifically, Kirkpatrick found no evidence that Al Qaeda played any role in the attack, but he did find evidence that that anti-Muslim video, “Innocence of Muslims,” played a role.

Republicans have been claiming from day one that it was Al Qaeda Al Qaeda Al Qaeda.

And their more general point was that it was a ABSOTIVELY POSALUTELY A TERRORIST ATTACK.  And in fact, there’s still no evidence that it was.

They’ve also been claiming that the anti-Islam video played no role. It would seem the Republicans, yet again, got it wrong on that account too.

Before we get to the Times, let’s take a quick look at that video that the Republicans have been so intent on defending. Here’s how Vanity Fair described “Innocence of Muslims”:

Actual scene from “Innocence of Muslims.”

Exceptionally amateurish, with disjointed dialogue, jumpy editing, and performances that would have looked melodramatic even in a silent movie, the clip is clearly designed to offend Muslims, portraying Mohammed as a bloodthirsty murderer and Lothario and pedophile with omnidirectional sexual appetites. “Is the messenger of God gay?” one character asks rhetorically. “Is the master dominant or submissive?”

“Amateurish” is too kind. You have to see this thing.  It looks like Team America, but without the cartoons. Here’s a trailer:

More