doomsday scenario

This little anti-Bush-ite has got to give them props for potentially pulling off the turnaround of a lifetime. Facing a more than likely ousting in November and pathetically low poll numbers, G.W.B. has spent the days leading up to the anniversary of 9/11 reminding Americans that they've been unsuccessful at catching bin Laden, they've created a safe haven for terrorists by invading Iraq and not able to secure it, they've been unable to fight off the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and this whole time the CIA has been holding onto prisoners in secret detention camps.

Why am I impressed?

It might work.

One would think that reminding us bin Laden is still on the lam would make us outraged or at the very least make some of us stand up and say "What the fuck have you been doing these past 5 years besides making the world a more dangerous place for Americans?!" Oddly this doesn't seem to be the case. He's using the tried and true scare tactics that have worked so well in the past: bin Laden's a dangerous man who is out to destroy the U.S. Has anyone else noticed that bin Laden is better for G.W.B. alive and on the loose than he would be either dead or captured?

Regarding Iraq: the only chance the Republican Party has at using what the Democrats will most likely be campaigning on this fall-the public's lack of support for the Iraq war-is to turn it into part of the War on Terror. Will the American people fall for it? Will we look past the obvious which is that we created that situation in Iraq by ousting a dictator? Will we look past the fact that this is, what, the 3rd justification for this war? First it was WMD's. Next it was liberating the Iraqi people. Now it's the War on Terror. If you're incapable of justifying your war, mayhaps you're not equipped to run it.

Remember Afghanistan? The original reason we invaded Afghanistan post-9/11 was that the Taliban was harboring al Qaeda (and we were pissed and needed to bomb the shit out of someone). Remember how quickly we accomplished that mission? Remember how very shortly after our victory we invaded Iraq? Here's a quote from his speech on August 31, 2006:

"In Afghanistan, we saw a vicious tyranny that harbored the terrorists who planned the September the 11th attacks. Within weeks, American forces were in Afghanistan. Along with Afghan allies, we captured or killed hundreds of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters; we closed down their training camps, and we helped the people of Afghanistan replace the Taliban with a democratic government that answers to them. Our enemies saw the transformation in Afghanistan, and they've responded by trying to roll back all the progress. Al Qaeda and the Taliban lost a coveted base in Afghanistan and they know they will never reclaim it when democracy succeeds. And so they're trying to return to power by attacking Afghanistan's free institutions. And they will fail. Forces from 40 nations, including every member of NATO, are now serving alongside American troops to support the new Afghan government. The days of the Taliban are over. The future of Afghanistan belongs to the people of Afghanistan. And the future of Afghanistan belongs to freedom."

And here's a news report from today stating that NATO's top commander is asking for more troops. NATO just took over operations at the end of July and have been surprised just how strong the opposition has been.

I don't think G.W.B. and the NATO commander are even talking about the same universe let alone the same country. I'm guessing America is going to be more likely to buy G.W.B.'s description of events as we're not too fond of being told we failed.

Finally: yesterday's revelation that there are secret prisons being conducted by the CIA seems like kind of stupid move by the White House. Think again! It forces Congress to come up with some sort of court/tribunal that will comply with the SCOTUS ruling earlier this summer. And if the Democrats put up too much of a fight over what the administration wants (ie not allowing defendants access to the evidence against them) the Democrats get painted as looking soft on the War on Terror. In G.W.B.'s perfect world, the U.S. could prosecute them with evidence that was obtained under conditions just short of torture--and wasn't it a nice touch to have the Defense Department come out with new guidelines restricting the use of, some might say, torturous methods like waterboarding just as the CIA is turning over 14 prisoners who have been subject to just such interrogation techniques?

So a recap:

They don't have bin Laden (and they want to keep it that way)
Iraq was a mistake as there were never WMD'S, the sectarian conflict was something we foolishly never foresaw, we've essentially created a safe haven for terrorists, but it's the front lines of the War on Terror so we can't leave.
Afghanistan is just fine unless you actually look at what's happening.
Detaining individuals at secret prisons has done wonders for our international credibility (see the first 3 recap items) and I'm sure will somehow continue to keep America safe.

Mark my words:
the American people are indeed that dumb.
The Republican Party has a real shot at holding onto Congress.