Osama bin Laden, the terrorist leader who financed the 9/11 attacks, is an individual who Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) considers a personal hero. In fact, Dennis frequently goes out of his way to defend Mr. bin Laden, arguing stridently against a course of action that could have resulted in bin Laden being taken into custody and tried for his role in the attacks that brought down the World Trade Center towers.
Just as recently as today (3/31/2014) the dead-horse-beating Dennis complained about this blogger's support for a plan that could have brought OBL to justice shortly after the attacks, as opposed to the ten years it ended up taking to hunt him down...
| Dennis Marks: Derve found an obscure but extreme columnist who named this organization of Khadaffy, Assad, Saddam Hussein (at the time), the leader of Sudan (and many other butchers and despots) as a "moderate" organization. When it is nothing more than the worst sort of terrorist cabal. Turning Bin Laden over to them for "justice" would be akin, to, say, turning Eric Rudolph over to the KKK for them to handle it. Derve is also hung up on the idea that the bungling George W. Bush intentionally let Osama go, despite a complete lack of evidence on this. The only evidence here is of Dervish's maniacal (and sometimes murderous) hatred of our duly elected 43rd President. He is willing to shove all facts aside for that bright and shining hatred. But you are right. Dervish wanting Bin Laden to have been handed over to his fellow terrorists really really takes the cake, doesn't it? (3/31/2014 AT 10:00am EDT). |
The "obscure but extreme columnist" Dennis refers to is Gareth Porter. Mr. Porter is actually an investigative journalist and historian specializing in US national security policy, and not "obscure" or "extreme". (SWTD #76).
Dennis' claim that this blogger wanted OBL to have been handed over to his "fellow terrorists" is complete bullpucky. I would have been very much opposed to such an idea, if anyone ever put it forward. But the fact is that nobody ever did. At first the Taliban suggested it would turn bin Laden over to the OIC, which is a moderate Islamic organization (I'll take the word of a historian specializing in US national security policy over that of the ad-hominem-slinging Dennis' uninformed opinion any day). Finally the Taliban (desperate not to be bombed) said that any neutral third country would do.
Who that third party might have been is something bush could have negotiated with them on. Those negotiations may have broken down, sure, but we'll never know, as bush dismissed the offer out-of-hand (because he always intended to invade, no matter what).
As for the bush administration letting Osama go, there is NOT a "complete lack of evidence". There is evidence, and the evidence is a fu*king Senate foreign relations committee report that says "Donald Rumsfeld had the chance when he was US defense secretary in December 2001 to make sure Osama bin Laden was killed or captured, but let him slip through his hands".
According to the report there is "a mass of evidence that points towards the near certainty that Bin Laden was in the Tora Bora district of the White Mountains in eastern Afghanistan" and that "fewer than 100 American troops committed to the area were not enough to block his escape".
bush demanded that the Taliban hand over bin Laden, responded to their YES to that demand with a refusal to discuss terms, and then (via Rumsfeld) sent a clearly inadequate number of troops to capture him? The obvious conclusion is that bin was allowed to escape.
As for the complete nonsense about turning Eric Rudolph over to the KKK - this comparison simply does not hold up - as the US authorities captured Eric Rudolph. Why the hell would the US authorities turn Rudolph over to the KKK? That wasn't the case with bin Laden. WE DIDN'T CAPTURE HIM. He was never in our custody. That bin Laden be turned over to a neutral third party for trial may not have been ideal, but it would have resulted in bin Laden being taken into custody.
What Dennis argues for is a course of action that resulted in 10 extra years of freedom for OBL. When I cite a course of action that may not have worked, but represented a chance to capture and hold bin Laden accountable, Dennis ridicules me and argues strongly in favor of bin Laden remaining free. And he makes a ludicrous comparison involving turning over a criminal we HAD IN CUSTODY to the KKK... when we NEVER HAD OBL in custody!
The ONLY reason for considering the Taliban's offer was because we did not have OBL in custody. All I argued in favor of is that any path by which OBL might have been brought to justice should have been considered. Who the hell would oppose that? Someone who wanted OBL to go free, obviously. And the dead-horse-beater continues to argue for OBL to have not faced justice for his involvement in the 9-11 attacks. That, IMO is a cake made of poo and lies that Dennis has been trying to get people to eat for 12+ years.
Finally, preznit bush was not "duly" elected, as an election being decided by the Supreme Court is not how our presidents are to be selected according to the Constitution. It's never happened before or since. Even if you believe bush got the most Florida votes (which he did not), the Supreme Court's involvement immediately nixes "duly". bush's SCOTUS anointing wasn't "duly" at all.
