Friday, September 01, 2006

Republicans Admit bin Laden Controls Our Wartime Strategy

Huffington Post
Steven G. Brant
Republicans Admit bin Laden Controls Our Wartime Strategy

Like it or not, George W. Bush is our Commander in Chief. And Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, et al love to argue that Republicans must maintain control of our government so that our Commander in Chief can continue to do the masterful job he is doing fighting the War on Terrorism.
Right? No arguement so far?

Well, what if George Bush really isn't our Commander in Chief?

What if Osama bin Laden really is?

What? Sounds crazy? Well, I've got proof...straight from a Republican's mouth on a major national news show.

But first, let's get our definitions straight. If you are the "commander", that means you direct the strategic planning that determins what those you are commanding do. Right?

You obviously have help from the strategy development team that "serves at your pleasure" (as Don Rumsfeld says whenever he's asked why he is still Secretary of Defense). But ultimately it's you who are giving directions to your troops. Right?

Well, tonight we have conclusive proof that our Commander in Chief, President George W. Bush, is taking his direction from someone other that hand-picked team.

Tonight we have proof that President Bush is actually taking his direction from Osama bin Laden. And not just bin Laden alone, but from his lieutenants too. In other words, Osama bin Laden is effectively the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.

This fascinating admission comes from Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), the Republican chosen by her party to debate the issue of the global war on terrorism on the PBS Newshour. According to Rep. Blackburn, the reason we are in Iraq now is because Osama bin Laden has told us we must be there.

When you watch the video below, at about the 50 second mark you will hear her say, "When you have Osama bin Laden and his lieutenents saying the centerpiece of the War on Terror is in Iraq...then we know it would be foolish of us to leave and to let them take that battlefront. It would be a foolish move for us to do that."

Here's the video...

Before making this astounding admission - which I think you'll agree she says with a kind of directness that lets you know this is a clear policy position she and her party have thought about, not just some off-the-cuff remark - Rep. Blackburn gives a new twist to the Republcan's "Nazi sympathizers" talking point by saying "There are people who are always going to be against fighting for freedom." But what really blew me away was her claim that we must continue to see the war in Iraq as the battlefront of the war on terrorism because bin Laden says we should...and that it would be "foolish" to do otherwise.

Well, the word "fool" is what came to my mind, not "foolish".

Since the Republicans are using World War II analogies these days, can anyone imagine what would have happened during that war if an American politician had said "We're going to keep fighting in such and such a place because that's where Hitler and his lieutenants say the battlefront of the war is."???

Congressman Marty Meehan (D-MA) was debating Rep. Blackburn and failed to pick up on her statement. I think he did a great job of putting forward the Democrat's talking points, but for some reason he didn't recognize the gift Rep. Blackburn was handing to him when it happened.

But that's okay. We still can.

On a major national news program, the Republicans have admitted that George W. Bush is reacting to what and where our enemies tell him the global war on terror is. Our enemies say "It's in Iraq." and he says "Okay. Well then, we'll fight you there." He is the Responder in Chief, not the Commander in Chief.

I wish I knew enough to tell if George W. Bush...and Rep. Blackburn...and the whole team controlling our wartime strategy...can now be declared "Enemy Combatants". I'm guessing they can't. That would just be too "Twilight Zone" weird.

But then what can we declare them to be?

How about this?...

"Incompetent"..."Toast."..."Done"..."You're out of here."...or an old expression from my college days that just popped into my mind" "Sh*t for brains".

Or my two favorite declarations of the moment: "Soon to be checked by a Democrat-controlled Congress" and "Completely out of power after the 2008 elections."

Three footnotes:

1. When you're trained in the science of organizational strategy as I am, you learn that reactive strategic thinking of the kind the Bush Administration constantly uses (always fighting "yesterday's battles") is the least effective strategic planning methodology there is. Sure, you need to put out fires when they happen. But the optimal approach to creating a safe and prosperous future is to be proactive, not reactive. And proactive thinking does NOT mean "reacting really fast to something you see is happening." Proactive means "preventing fires from happening in the first place by steering future events into healthier, non-lethal behavioral dynamics patterns." And this requres the ability to think creatively and systemically, the way designers and inventors think. I regret that the Bush Administration does not appear to have a creative bone in its entire body. They are pretty much all-reactive, all-the-time. They really aren't working to design the better world we are capable of having. They do get creative when it comes to their use of language to justify their actions. I'll give them that. Although some might just call what they are doing then "lying". But just watch. If we wind up going to war with Iran in 2007 or 2008, the Bush Administration will have said "We had no choice but to respond with the use of force to what Iran did." They will be in complete "reactive mode", having failed to use one iota of creative thinking in what they claim today is an effort designed to "make war the choice of last resort" when dealing with Iran. Just watch.

2. Truth be told, I don't know how Rep. Blackburn was chosen to appear on the Newshour. But given the well-coordinated nature of the Republican Party, I'm sure she didn't just volunteer to do so all by herself. So I think it's safe to say she was her party's choice to be on the Newshour.

3. Also, when I think about Bush taking direction from bin Laden, I can't help but think about the financial connection through the Carlyle Group between the Bush and bin Laden families. I'm just not sure what to make of it, but there it is all the same.