Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 29, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

WRONG MAN, WRONG TIME....Here's one more excerpt from The One Percent Doctrine. Sometime in the next few days I'll post some overall thoughts about the book.

This excerpt is from the very last couple of pages. It's late October 2004, a few days before the election, and Osama bin Laden has just released a long anti-Bush jeremiad. At the CIA, the men and women who know bin Laden best, who have been tracking al-Qaeda practically without rest for the previous three years, are sitting around a table discussing what it means:

What they'd learned over nearly a decade is that bin Laden speaks only for strategic reasons and those reasons are debated with often startling depth inside the organization's leadership. Their assessments, at day's end, are a distillate of the kind of secret, internal conversations that the American public, and by association the wider world community, were not sanctioned to hear: strategic analysis.

Today's conclusion: bin Laden's message was clearly designed to assist the President's reelection.

At the five o'clock meeting, once various reports on latest threats were delivered, John McLaughlin opened the issue with the consensus view: "Bin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President."

Around the table, there were nods....Jami Miscik talked about how bin Laden being challenged by Zarqawi's rise clearly understood how his primacy as al Qaeda's leader was supported by the continuation of his eye-to-eye struggle with Bush. "Certainly," she offered, "he would want Bush to keep doing what he's doing for a few more years."

But an ocean of hard truths before them such as what did it say about U.S. policies that bin Laden would want Bush reelected remained untouched....On that score, any number of NSC principals could tell you something so dizzying that not even they will touch it: that Bush's ratings [in the U.S.] track with bin Laden's rating in the Arab world.

The fact that we're doing what bin Laden wants doesn't automatically mean we're doing the wrong thing. But it sure as hell ought to give us pause, shouldn't it?

Kevin Drum 6:13 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (140)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

But we are doing the wrong thing!

Posted by: teejus on June 29, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

Why wouldn't Bin Laden want Bush re"elected"? Bush has been an absolute godsend to the Islamic terrorist bastards. Inept, incompetent, utterly unable to think strategically, in thrall to a group of Neocon clowns headed by Ultra Incompetent Cheney, the works. The occupation of Iraq, handled (at the top)incredibly badly on all levels (despite the genuine heroism of our fighting men and women) has dealt a crippling blow to the U.S. We diverted forces away from Afghanistan to fight it and we let Bin Laden himself slip away. To Bin Laden, Bush is a gift from Allah.

Posted by: Joe on June 29, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

mirrors within mirrors. The result of dealing with a civilization that rejected the tenets of the European Enlightenment. Our bases of reality are so far apart, it's difficult to believe that we ever could understand one another.

Posted by: moe99 on June 29, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

from The One Percent Doctrine: Their assessments, at day's end, are a distillate of the kind of secret, internal conversations that the American public, and by association the wider world community, were not sanctioned to hear: strategic analysis. Today's conclusion: bin Laden's message was clearly designed to assist the President's reelection.

Secret? Not to the readers of this blog. We've been saying for years that those two need each other (and they both know it).

Posted by: alex on June 29, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, let's not forget that this explains W's (in)action at Tora Bora. The smirking chimp thing is just a facade, W is really pretty shrewd.

Now if only he were on our side ...

Posted by: alex on June 29, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see now, that would be the civilisation that built the first universities in Europe and introduced algebra. Well, I guess I buy the concept that anyone who failed algebra in junior high probably can't understand Islam...Wow, it's a whole world of concepts that have no physical existence...like Alice in Wonderland....

And since when did the Spanish Inquisition become the Enlightenment?

Posted by: serial catowner on June 29, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

Nothing relevant here--it was a triple cross. Bin Laden knew that we knew that he knew a message appearing to favor Kerry in order to help Bush would in fact favor Kerry. Bottom line: Bin Laden wanted Kerry and we thwarted him.

Damn! These parodies are hard to write.

Posted by: American Parrot on June 29, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

...(t)he result of dealing with a civilization that rejected the tenets of the European Enlightenment.

Just to be clear: are we talking about modern fundamentalist Islam, or modern fundamentalist Christianity?

Posted by: SMurph on June 29, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

mirrors within mirrors. The result of dealing with a civilization that rejected the tenets of the European Enlightenment. Our bases of reality are so far apart, it's difficult to believe that we ever could understand one another.
Posted by: moe99

what an ignorant statement ... there would BE no european enlightenment without the preservation of the ancient texts by the arab empire.

it really isn't that hard ... stop installing dictators over the people, stop supporting despotic sheiks willing to sell us oil at a bargain price, address the issue of palestine and israel honestly, and stop fucking illegally invading their countries.

we're really not so different.

Posted by: Nads on June 29, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

The so-called war on terror is conducted with stupidity, paranoia and incompetence in such a manner as to consistently achieve the opposite of its purported objective: it promotes terror at every turn, by practicing it ourselves, by promoting hatred of the United States, and by devaluing "democracy." Of course Bin Laden wanted Bush not to be re-defeated. Osama couldn't do better with his own Charlie McCarthy as president.

Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on June 29, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

Amazing how many top secret conversations in books like this seem to have detailed transcripts, down to nodding heads.

Posted by: cia on June 29, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

You know - if foreign policy were being run by smart Republicans like Chuck Hagel or General Zinni or even Bush41, we would not be so easily sucked by bin Laden. But alas, policy is being run by those idiots who played in bin Laden's hand with that incredibly stupid decision on March 19, 2003. Of course, bin Laden wanted to make sure we did not change Administrations. It does not take a great deal of cunning to outwit Bush41 and his band of dimwits.

Posted by: pgl on June 29, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin:

Regardless of whether bin Ladin favored Kerry or Bush in the AMERICAN election -- we are never going to know that for sure -- when are you going to get to one of the frequent and "fairly sympathetic portrait[s] of [Bush and/or Cheney] as men who are reacting as well as anyone could to the furious real-time cascade of genuinely frightening and confusing events in the early days after 9/11"?

Posted by: Doug on June 29, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Bin Ladin promising not to attack states that voted for Kerry is startling evidence that he wanted Bush to win because... um, why again?

Posted by: American Hawk on June 29, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk, I don't know what kind of bizarre alternate Universe you live in, but could you not pollute the thread with your idiotic lies? I saw Bin Laden's message and there is no way it could have been interpreted to mean what you say it meant--at least by an honest and rational human.

Posted by: Joe on June 29, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

The GOP: Bin Laden's Choice

Our bases of reality are so far apart, it's difficult to believe that we ever could understand one another.

What a load of shit moe99. Have you ever had any Muslim friends? Have you ever been to the Middle East?

Posted by: snicker-snack on June 29, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

You know - if foreign policy were being run by smart Republicans like Chuck Hagel or General Zinni or even Bush41, we would not be so easily sucked by bin Laden.

As opposed to, say, Monica Lewinsky?

But alas, policy is being run by those idiots who played in bin Laden's hand with that incredibly stupid decision on March 19, 2003.

I'd rather we fight the terrorists in Iraq than Iowa.

Of course, bin Laden wanted to make sure we did not change Administrations.

I'm not so sure about that -- if "reverse psychology" was at play, why not "reverse, reverse psychology" -- plenty of other evidence weighs on why bin Ladin would have preferred Kerry in order to re-group and strike again once our guard was down.

It does not take a great deal of cunning to outwit Bush41 and his band of dimwits.

Well, make up your mind -- you like Bush41 or you don't?

Posted by: Doug on June 29, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

Joe:

I would argue that the tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to "each U.S. state," designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" (which means "each U.S. state") to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state.

This suggests some knowledge by bin Laden of the U.S. electoral college system. In a section of his speech in which he harshly criticized George W. Bush, bin Laden stated: "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: "This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy. By this characterization, Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people itself between enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and those who fight for us, so that he doesn't treat all American people as if they're the same. This letter will have great implications inside the American society, part of which are connected to the American elections, and part of which are connected to what will come after the elections."

Another interesting aspect of the speech is the fact that while bin Laden made his specific threat to each U.S. state, he also offered an election deal to the American voters, attempting to influence the election by these means rather than influencing it through terrorist attacks. [4] This peace offer is a theme that follows up on his April speech directed to Europe, in which he offered a truce. The Islamist website Al-Islah explains: "Some people ask 'what's new in this tape?' [The answer is that] this tape is the second of its kind, after the previous tape of the Sheikh [Osama bin Laden], in which he offered a truce to the Europeans a few months ago, and it is a completion of this move, and it brings together the complementary elements of politics and religion, political savvy and force, the sword and justice. The Sheikh reminds the West in this tape of the great Islamic civilization and pure Islamic religion, and of Islamic justice"

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sa&ID=SA1404

Posted by: Doug on June 29, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

Doug,

Are there more terrorists taking up arms against America now, or when W took office.

Isn't success in the war on terror measured by reducing the number of terrorists and the terrorist threat?

W has increased both, and by that standard is a failure, regardless of his bravado.

Posted by: exhuming mccarthy on June 29, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

there would BE no european enlightenment without the preservation of the ancient texts by the arab empire.

A bit of an overstatement (the Irish had a hand in it as well), and you're confusing the Arab world of some 500 years ago with the Islamist world of the ME that has changed dramatically since the formation of modern Israel and the creation of OPEC.

it really isn't that hard ... stop installing dictators over the people, stop supporting despotic sheiks willing to sell us oil at a bargain price, address the issue of palestine and israel honestly, and stop fucking illegally invading their countries.

Yup.

we're really not so different.Posted by: Nads

Actually, unless they all drink like fish and eat like pigs (and eat pig), love Internet porn, enjoy Adam Sandler movies (could he be the contemporary Jerry Lewis?) and "reality" TV, and watch dumb "sports" like NASCAR, they are in no way like us.

Posted by: JeffII on June 29, 2006 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

Of course Osama prefers awol. Bush is the guy that when osama was in the cross hairs that he chose to go attack Iraq. Osama couldn't hope for a better boob. Osama realizes that he, Osama, is now useful, alive, as a republican tool to stay in power. Osama knows repugs need him to scare out the votes. Osama's work is done, all he needs do is hang out now, awol will finish osama's work for him.

Posted by: Where's osama on June 29, 2006 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK


Bush is Bin Laden's recruitment officer.

Posted by: a on June 29, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

How come all contacts betwen our politicians and foreign entities in the years divisible by four end up benefitting the GOP (Kissinger with NV in 1968, GHWB with Iranians (?)in 1980)?

Posted by: nut on June 29, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

At least the American public is doing its part by driving down bin Laden's rating in the Arab world, then.

Posted by: Elton Beard on June 29, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, the old 'for whom would Osama have voted?' debate. If the CIA story is true, then it constitutes some evidence for the 'Bush vote' theory. I still don't have a strong opinion either way, and am suspicious generally when most everyone's conclusion about something like this breaks down along ideological lines, since everyone wants to believe Osama would have voted for 'the other guy'.

To oversimplify, here are two views of bin Laden. The Bush-voting Osama is strategically shrewd, more concerned with the long term benefits to fostering conflict between the U.S. and the Muslim world, both to his own (and his followers') popularity and to the prospect of long-term victory. He believes Bush's bellicose blundering will spark a wider war. This Osama understood the American electorate well enough to wager that threats over the reelection of Bush would actually help Bush (as I believe it almost certainly did, in actuality).

The Kerry-voting Osama believes that Kerry will begin the process of capitulation, beginning with withdrawal from Iraq. He believes that the U.S. has already lost the stomach for conflict, and sees short-term victory as a possibility. This Osama looks at the U.S. as cowardly and decadent, eager to avoid further casualties (civilian and military), and believes that threatening the American electorate will help Kerry's election.

Personally, both of those Osamas sound plausible to me. Certainly Osama has proven willing to raise the stakes and go for the long fight, supporting the Bush-voting hypothesis. But he also seemed genuinely surprised at the speed of the attack on Afghanistan, otherwise he presumably would have moved to Pakistan prior to 9/11, which supports the 'weak, cowardly view of America', and the Kerry hypothesis (no flames please, I'm not saying Kerry or his voters actually are weak or cowardly), which fits with the long-term rhetoric of al Qaeda (and some of the American right-wing, as well).

So, could someone tell me why it's 'obvious' which Osama we're actually dealing with (or a better way to describe him)? I don't see how it's at all obvious. I mean, I don't know the guy (hear that, NSC?), and don't really know that much about him. I doubt any of us do.

Posted by: ChiSox Fan in LA on June 29, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

Doug--If Bin Laden did indeed mean that, it is an amazingly ignorant view of how American federalism actually works, inasmuch as individual states don't control foreign policy. It seems bizarre that Bin Laden's people, versed as they are in American politics, would not understand it. As you say, it wasn't translated in that way to the public.

Be that as it may: Bin Laden is sophisticated enough to understand that an anti-Bush tirade would work in Bush's favor. He's evil--he's not stupid. Bush's campaign in Iraq has been a recruiting goldmine for terrorists, drawing in new Muslim "warriors" from all over the Middle East. And there is the naked, undeniable fact that remains: Bin Laden himself remains free.

Bin Laden wants a worldwide religious war, and Bush and his right wing fundamentalist followers are just the people to give it to him.

Posted by: Joe on June 29, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

"The result of dealing with a civilization that rejected the tenets of the enlightenment"

Sorry, I'm afraid the Bush base is largely comprised of people who reject western enlightenment.

I think that Islamic fundementalists and Christian fundementalists understand each other perfectly well. They basically embrace the same ideology.

Let's see if they have some common goals.

Establishment of a state religon.
Denegration of women to the status of reproductive slaves.
Persecution of sexual minorities.
Persecution of religous minorities.
Legal system based on a single religon.
Suppression of dissenting viewpoints.

Well, by crackey, they do.

Of course, in the manner of all religious fanatics, they will still cheerfully try to kill each other over the 'details'.

Equally obvious to any rational observer is that the USA (aka Bush Regime) responded exactly as Bin Laden wanted them to.

A measured, rational response would have been disasterous to the agenda of the Al-Qaeda... which is promoting and inciting conflict with the west.

Reagan created Bin Laden.
Bush resurrected his career.
Nice going gents.

Posted by: Buford on June 29, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, unless they all drink like fish and eat like pigs (and eat pig), love Internet porn, enjoy Adam Sandler movies (could he be the contemporary Jerry Lewis?) and "reality" TV, and watch dumb "sports" like NASCAR, they are in no way like us.
Posted by: JeffII

they drink some pretty shitty yoghurt-based stuff, they do eat like pigs (but not, of course, pig), they do like the internet porn ... but that could just be my family, they like the simpsons and seinfeld, and watch cricket ... fucking cricket.

Posted by: Nads on June 29, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

The Mother of all Brain Farts:

"The fact that we're doing what bin Laden wants doesn't automatically mean we're doing the wrong thing"

Kevin, get your head out of that echo chamber you call your ass.

Bin Laden wants to BLEED the United States to death in the desert.

That is EXACTLY what is happening.

And that is EXACTLY why he wanted Bush to win in 2004.

All of this has been painfully obvious for several years.

Posted by: koreyel on June 29, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

Bin Laden's back handed endorsement of Bush did not surprise me. Afterall, both bin Laden and Bush take their orders from the same people.

Posted by: Hostile on June 29, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

If you're not going to stand up and admit the miserable failure of the "We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" strategy when we get hit again, then you ought to just shut up about it now.

Posted by: Monkey on June 29, 2006 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

Joe:

I think your beef is with ChiSox Fan in LA. I already admitted I'm not so sure who bin Ladin was for -- although I noted that if "reverse psychology" was at play, why not "reverse, reverse psychology"? There's plenty of other evidence which could be argued shows that bin Ladin would have preferred Kerry. It is, at the very least, far from "obvious".

exhuming mccarthy:

Since 2001, I don't know of ANY terrorists taking up arms in America -- that's another "measure of success" -- I would also argue the terrorist threat in America has lessened.

pgl:

You still around?

Posted by: Doug on June 29, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

Buford, you also left out:

Heavily armed due to their fear of sex.

Disdain for the creative arts.

Worship of authority figures

Posted by: One more on June 29, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that we're doing what bin Laden wants doesn't automatically mean we're doing the wrong thing.

Oh, really? What other interpretation is there?

Posted by: craigie on June 29, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

Monkey:

If fighting them there prevented another WTC-scale attack every single year in the U.S. since 2001, how exactly would what should have been the 6th such attack be considered a failure?

Posted by: Doug on June 29, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting that this thread lacks any counter-gibberish from Hawk and Al and the rest. Is this particular Bush fuckup just too hard to spin?

Posted by: craigie on June 29, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

. but that could just be my family, they like the simpsons and seinfeld, and watch cricket ... fucking cricket. Posted by: Nads

Cricket? Hmmm . . . Pakistani or Indian?

Posted by: JeffII on June 29, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

Since 2001, I don't know of ANY terrorists taking up arms in America -- that's another "measure of success" -- I would also argue the terrorist threat in America has lessened.

WEll duh, why would they? After all in Iraq it's hands on training on how to kill US soliders. Learn explosives, sniper fire, misdirection, influence, intelligence gathering, all in the field with the help of the locals. We have 140K troops over there in a land where we aren't wanted. There's no need to spend massive amounts of time, money and energy for another huge attack when for free they can pick off our troops a few each day.

And the only homegrown terrorists? Loser white men who never got laid enough and all of whom happen to all vote republican, isn't that quaint.

Posted by: One more on June 29, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

craigie:

For one, it is not even a fact that electing Bush was doing what bin Laden wanted -- assuming it was, the most likely alternative explanation would be that bin Laden cannot foresee his own demise very clearly -- kinda like Pharaoh chasing Moses and the Jews through the Red Sea.

One more:

As I said, better to fight them in Iraq than in Iowa. Also, I didn't know Padila and that Mohamed sniper guy voted GOP -- link?

Posted by: Doug on June 29, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

They aren't "white" either -- not sure how much they got laid though.

Posted by: Doug on June 29, 2006 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

something so dizzying that not even they will touch it: that Bush's ratings [in the U.S.] track with bin Laden's rating in the Arab world.

Does anyone have a link to bin Laden's rating history in the Arab world?

Posted by: Peatey on June 29, 2006 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

Doug: If fighting them there prevented another WTC-scale attack every single year in the U.S. since 2001, how exactly would what should have been the 6th such attack be considered a failure?

By there, where do you mean? Afghanistan? I think it's pretty safe to say that seriously disrupted al Qaeda's capabilities. Iraq? Don't think that affected al Qaeda at all. Luckily for us there's no indication that all the insurgents that have mobilized have any interest in taking the fight beyond Iraq, but that's a bit of gamble.

Posted by: cyntax on June 29, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

Timothy McVeigh
Eric Rudolph
Whatever cracker at Ruby Ridge
wacko right to lifers who shoot doctors
Neo Nazis in Idaho and elsewhere

All Liberals for sure.

Posted by: One more on June 29, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

Doug said: "I'd rather we fight the terrorists in Iraq than Iowa."

I say: You're a dumb, America-hating pussy. Real Americans want to fight the terrorists everywhere - in Iraq AND in Iowa! And under the glorious leadership of our (err, my) Commander-in-Chief, we will soon be fighting thousands millions billions of terrorists on every street corner!

Posted by: El Al on June 29, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that we're doing what bin Laden wants doesn't automatically mean we're doing the wrong thing. But it sure as hell ought to give us pause, shouldn't it?

Look, if we don't do what bin Laden wants then the terrorists will have won.

Posted by: Stefan on June 29, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

cyntax:

You guys are going to have to pick ONE story and stick with it -- either:

(a) "in Iraq it's hands on training on how to kill US soliders. Learn explosives, sniper fire, misdirection, influence, intelligence gathering, all in the field with the help of the locals. We have 140K troops over there in a land where we aren't wanted. There's no need to spend massive amounts of time, money and energy for another huge attack when for free they can pick off our troops a few each day", or

(b) "Iraq? Don't think that affected al Qaeda at all."

Posted by: Doug on June 29, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

I understand that the U.S. is fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't fight them in Iowa. But why then are the British fighting the terrorists in Iraq?

Posted by: David on June 29, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

El Al:

I would disagree about your definition of "Real" Americans then -- none would actually "want" another 9/11 -- I understand some Democrats want that during Bush's term though.

Posted by: Doug on June 29, 2006 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

Doug sounds like dumb enough fuck to be Charlie, all right.

Posted by: Where's osama on June 29, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

David:

Because Blair is Bush's bitch -- don't you read the Huffington Post?

Posted by: Doug on June 29, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

Doug. Most of the people killing Americans in Iraq are not Al-Qaeda. So Iraq can be a training ground for asymmetrical warfare against Coalition forces, and have little effect on Al-Qaeda at the same time.

Duh.

Posted by: enozinho on June 29, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

Osama thought awol might come after him at first by attacking in Afghanistan. But then Bush lost sight of the goal or made a deal with osama and instead attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Quaida. Then osama knew that awol was his true sole mate. And that osama was safe as long as awol was in the white house.

Posted by: Where's osama on June 29, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

Where's osama:

Does that mean "ChiSox Fan in LA" is Charlie too -- he / she posted the following:

"I still don't have a strong opinion either way, and am suspicious generally when most everyone's conclusion about something like this breaks down along ideological lines, since everyone wants to believe Osama would have voted for 'the other guy' . . . Kerry-voting Osama believes that Kerry will begin the process of capitulation, beginning with withdrawal from Iraq. He believes that the U.S. has already lost the stomach for conflict, and sees short-term victory as a possibility. This Osama looks at the U.S. as cowardly and decadent, eager to avoid further casualties (civilian and military), and believes that threatening the American electorate will help Kerry's election.

Personally, both of those Osamas sound plausible to me. Certainly Osama has proven willing to raise the stakes and go for the long fight, supporting the Bush-voting hypothesis. But he also seemed genuinely surprised at the speed of the attack on Afghanistan, otherwise he presumably would have moved to Pakistan prior to 9/11, which supports the 'weak, cowardly view of America', and the Kerry hypothesis . . ."

Posted by: Doug on June 29, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

Doug: You guys are going to have to pick ONE story and stick with it -- either:

(a) "in Iraq it's hands on training on how to kill US soliders. Learn explosives, sniper fire, misdirection, influence, intelligence gathering, all in the field with the help of the locals. We have 140K troops over there in a land where we aren't wanted. There's no need to spend massive amounts of time, money and energy for another huge attack when for free they can pick off our troops a few each day", or

(b) "Iraq? Don't think that affected al Qaeda at all."

Since I never wrote (a) that you cite above Doug maybe you can explain to me first why I should defend that assesment of Iraq. Or does this sort of rhetorical bait-and-switch pass for actual argument where you come from?

Posted by: cyntax on June 29, 2006 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

P.S. -- I thought the SHOE bomber Richard Reid was Osama's true SOLE mate?

Posted by: Doug on June 29, 2006 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

I understand that the U.S. is fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't fight them in Iowa. But why then are the British fighting the terrorists in Iraq?

So we don't have to fight the British in Iowa?

Posted by: Stefan on June 29, 2006 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

No chisox fan sounds way to logical. Charlie/you lack any realistic logic but produce mass quantities of manure. Chisox fan makes some sense; Charlie/you rarely do.

Posted by: Where's osama on June 29, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

Cricket? Hmmm . . . Pakistani or Indian?
Posted by: JeffII

pakistani ... most indians I know don't identify as completely with the mideast. ... some do, but not most.

Posted by: Nads on June 29, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

cyntax:

Perhaps I need to explain first the definition of "you guys" -- so far on this thread, that includes cyntax, One More, Hostile, Monkey, koreyel, Buford, Joe, and now enozinho -- once "you guys" get your stories straight, I will be more than happy to shoot it down.

Posted by: Doug on June 29, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

But why then are the British fighting the terrorists in Iraq?

It's a clever ruse aimed at getting British patrons a better seat at the pub during Cricket matches. If all the Pakistanis are in Iraq, they won't eat all the curry before tea.

Posted by: enozinho on June 29, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

I can't recall if the British get all the way to Iowa in Harry Turtledove's alternative Civil War history novel How Few Remain. I will look it up and let you know.

Where's osama:

You won't be surprised, then, if I feel the same way about your posts?

Posted by: Doug on June 29, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

Kerry-voting Osama believes that Kerry will begin the process of capitulation, beginning with withdrawal from Iraq.

LMAO! Yeah, I'm just sure that Osama gets all his info about Kerry from Faux News.

Posted by: Disputo on June 29, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps I need to explain first the definition of "you guys" -- so far on this thread, that includes cyntax, One More, Hostile, Monkey, koreyel, Buford, Joe, and now enozinho -- once "you guys" get your stories straight, I will be more than happy to shoot it down.

Aw Doug, why didn't you just say you were overwhelmed? I'll go have a beer and check back tomorrow to see if you've managed to explain the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Posted by: cyntax on June 29, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

pakistani ... most indians I know don't identify as completely with the mideast. ... some do, but not most.

Every Pakistani and Indian I have ever met identified as South Asian or from the "subcontinent". Never talked to one who thought of theirself as from the "Middle East".

Posted by: Disputo on June 29, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

pakistani ... most indians I know don't identify as completely with the mideast. ... some do, but not most. Posted by: Nads

I figure because of cricket that it could have gone either way.

Posted by: JeffII on June 29, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

Every Pakistani and Indian I have ever met identified as South Asian or from the "subcontinent". Never talked to one who thought of theirself as from the "Middle East". Posted by: Disputo

Nads, you want to jump in here?

I figure the farther north you go or the closer you get to the border with Afghanistan the more likely someone might identify with a larger "anti-infidel" pan-Islamic "movement."

BTW, your given name isn't Go, per chance?

Posted by: JeffII on June 29, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

Every Pakistani and Indian I have ever met identified as South Asian or from the "subcontinent". Never talked to one who thought of theirself as from the "Middle East".
Posted by: Disputo

hello, disputo, I'm Nads. nice to meet you. ... but I see your point.

Posted by: Nads on June 29, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

Doug, then I'm honored. That's quite an endorsement from you. If you think I'm wrong then I must be right. Thanks, Charlie.

Posted by: Where's osama on June 29, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo said: LMAO! Yeah, I'm just sure that Osama gets all his info about Kerry from Faux News.

I highly doubt Osama's watching Fox, although I think he does listen to Sean Hannity (kidding...). But I find it plausible (which is not to say it's necessarily or even likely true) that Osama's view of the U.S. overlaps somewhat with our right wing's view. For one thing, Osama is undeniably part of a religious right wing, albeit of a different political and cultural background. Views equating 'nuance' or 'negotiation' with 'weakness', or the belief that a country that doesn't attack with everything it has at the slightest (even feigned) provocation come what may, are likely held by both right wings. Color me skeptical, in general, that relgious fundamentalists make for strategic masterminds.

That doesn't prove anything, of course. All I'm saying is, I find it roughly as plausible that Osama did believe that threats to the American public would produce a win for Kerry as he believed it would for Bush. I mean, at some point this descends into a 'You think that I think that you think...' game. If Osama publishes his tell-all biography in 20 years maybe we'll know what he really wanted, but until then I find all this 'of course he wanted the other guy to win' stuff to be speculative at best. If you know what Osama's thinking please contact the administration and let them know, as clearly they could use the advice...

Posted by: ChiSox Fan in LA on June 29, 2006 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that we're doing what bin Laden wants

I think that you credit the source unreasonably.

Nobody knows what bin Laden wants, but I doubt that he intended to finish out his natural life living in caves, while Yemeni women and Iraqi women vote in elections.

Posted by: republicrat on June 29, 2006 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

Oops, I meant "views equating 'nuance' or 'negotiation' with 'weakness', or the belief that a country should attack with everything it has at the slightest (even feigned) provocation come what may, are likely held by both right wings."

Maybe I should write shorter sentences...

Posted by: ChiSox Fan in LA on June 29, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

ChiSox Fan: actually I would agree to the extent that Osama wouldn't actually want to or care to swing the election one way or the other. Osama could be smart, average, somewhat dense but which ever the case I would consider that he really wouldn't care about or understand the nuances of US politics and would make statements that would be difficult to find intent. Which is more or less what he did. He wouldn't want US citizens to think he supported Bush because they might vote for Kerry or think that he actually wanted them to vote for Kerry and then vote for Bush. Or vice versa. Osama actually would/could have little meaningful decisive influence upon the US electorate so intellectually he would need to state ill-defined messages that would be difficult to determine his choice. Sort of like what he did.

Posted by: Where's osama on June 29, 2006 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK

You have to hand it to Suskind. He has managed for a second time to pilfer another group of moonbats with this Bush-bashing pile of nonsense. I think when history looks back on this period, this business model will stand in the top 3 most profitable industires of the decade.

Posted by: BlaBlaBla on June 29, 2006 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINK

I just wish the media would ask the obvious question:

Why was bin Laden around to voice an opinion on the 2004 election in the first place?

Posted by: Irony Man on June 29, 2006 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

oops, I meant Kuwaiti women, not Yemeni women.

Posted by: republicrat on June 29, 2006 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

Check your facts, BlaBlaBla-

The top 3 most profitable industires are Goodyear, Uniroyal, and Michelin.

Posted by: reason, t on June 29, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

Bin Laden saw the US election as a chance to grab the headlines and challenge Al Zarqari for primacy. So he took the opportunity and released his video just days before the election. He got the headlines he wanted.

Only a dimwit would draw the larger conclusion, that Bin Laden wants Bush to keep fighting terrorism.

Anybody who believes that is a moron.

Posted by: Down goes Frazier on June 29, 2006 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

Where's osama: That's possible; would the goal then be just to stir things up, and see how the voters react? Or maybe just taunt us a bit and remind us he's there? I'm pretty much agnostic on the whole issue, I think we know a lot less about bin Laden than we did about most any other foreign leaders or revolutionaries over the last hundred years. And the contemporary conventional wisdom in many of those cases turned out to be mostly wrong, in the light of later research and events.

Posted by: ChiSox Fan in LA on June 29, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

The people who think Osama is infallible or understands his enemy are the ones that don't understand him. I've spent a lot of time in the 3d world and many don't get us at all. Osama did Pres Bush a favor, but it doesn't mean he meant to. He read the garbage in the press about the weakness of America, how divided it was about the war, its decadence, and he believed we would be like the Spanish. We'd vote the President out based on fear of a threat. Osama misunderstood America in 9/11 and misunderstood us in 2004.

Posted by: neil bacon on June 29, 2006 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

Doug wrote: "I'd rather we fight the terrorists in Iraq than Iowa."

I can think of several reasons that fighting in Iowa would be a better deal - logistics, climate, IDing the enemy, insentives for citizen participation...

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on June 29, 2006 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that we're doing what bin Laden wants doesn't automatically mean we're doing the wrong thing. But it sure as hell ought to give us pause, shouldn't it?

Kevin, you're sidestepping the real dizzying implication of Suskinds passage. One might conclude that bin Laden is doing what Bush wants.

Posted by: Boronx on June 29, 2006 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

What Doug means is that he'd rather someone else fight them in Iraq than he fight them in Iowa.

Posted by: Boronx on June 29, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, neil, your general experience in the 3rd world trumps the knowledge of the countries best Osama experts.

Posted by: Boronx on June 29, 2006 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, that's not what happened in Spain. Better do some reading and study of the Spain election, Neil. It's quite possible that osama is unfamiliar with US politics and it's variables. As Irony Man says, by all rights osama should have swung the election by being alive. If a democrat had failed in all that time to actually find our true enemy the right would have been screaming. Sort of indicates the hypocracy of the right doesn't it. They not only don't scream about it, they prefer that we'd just sort of forget that awol has failed after all this time to achieve anything with respect to osama. The right doesn't seem to make much sense on this issue. In this same amount of time the Japanese were conquered. I quess it's a good thing awol wasn't in charge in the 40's.

Posted by: Where's osama on June 29, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

What give me pause is that bin Laden wasn't lying out on some Afghan hillside with a knife in his eye four years -- or seven years -- ago.

Posted by: Zathras on June 29, 2006 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

Nads (I think this name refers to his area of medicine, JeffII; is that right, Nads?): what an ignorant statement ... it really isn't that hard ... stop installing dictators over the people, stop supporting despotic sheiks willing to sell us oil at a bargain price, address the issue of palestine and israel honestly, and stop fucking illegally invading their countries. we're really not so different.

Well, we're not, meaning you and me and our Arab or Muslim counterparts. But we're very different from our two sets of leaders, who have their own agenda that has everything to do with serving their own joint interests and nothing to do with their own citizens'/people's.

This thread really took me back to the day the bin Laden tape came out. Was sitting in Manny's Deli in Chicago watching the news and said to my husband, "That's it, then. He just gave Bush the election, which is exactly what he wants." We were so innocent then. Wait, no, we weren't.

Posted by: shortstop on June 29, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

I wish you all would stop talking about fighting terrorists in Iraq. The main undercurrent to the violence against US forces in Iraq is an insurgency, insurrection, rebellion, resistance, war of liberation, etc. If a small proportion consists of people from outside Iraq, it doesn't change the nature of the beast.

The violence between the Sunnis and Shias is civil disorder, sectarian violence, violent power struggle, civil war, etc.

Most of the people we are killing in Afghanistan are Taliban trying to get back the power they lost. They are not really terrorists either as far as the USA is concerned.

So lets stop conflating any convenient violence in the world as "terrorism". Let's get our eye on the ball and make sure that those who would do harm to the USA, its citizens, and its allies are unable to and systematically destroyed.

In the mean time, due to the unfortunate confluence of PNACnuts and 11th September, Osama bin Ladin has become a side show to the on going tragedy of Iraq: $500 billion wasted (or fallen into the pockets of the undeserving), god only knows how many thousands maimed and permanently injured, and the many tens of thousands killed. All wasted.

The responsibility for all that stops undeniably in the oval office. Whatever OBL wished for, he can hardly have had a better ally.

Posted by: notthere on June 29, 2006 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK

Doug: "I'd rather we fight the terrorists in Iraq than Iowa."

You want a side of freedom fries with that cliche?

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on June 29, 2006 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that we're doing what bin Laden wants doesn't automatically mean we're doing the wrong thing.

Since when?

Posted by: Gregory on June 29, 2006 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

Boronx: "What Doug means is that he'd rather someone else fight them in Iraq than he fight them in Iowa."

And I'll lay you 2:1 odds that Doug would probably have a very hard time finding either place on a world map.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on June 29, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

BlaBlaBla: "You have to hand it to Suskind. He has managed for a second time to pilfer another group of moonbats with this Bush-bashing pile of nonsense. I think when history looks back on this period ..."

It'll surely take note of such stirring quotes like the following:

"You never know what your history is going to be like until long after you're gone." George W. Bush (Washington, DC, 05 May 2006)

Keep playing the fool, BlaBlaBla. Dubya's depending on you.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on June 29, 2006 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK

I'd rather we fight the terrorists in Iraq than Iowa.

Ah yes - the Ol' fight them over there before we fight them here malarkey

To me both Iraq and Iowa are 'over there'.

BTW, no one has explained to me why Islamic terrorists would be the least bit interested in attacking Smallville, in Hayseed County Iowa.

Maybe they want to try cornbread with their falafels?

Posted by: floopmeister on June 29, 2006 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

falafels???

Excuse me
But I have to ask you to watch your language.
There are ladies present.
Sheesh, talking about lurid shower sex toys on a family blog.

Next thing we'll be trying to secularize Christmas in June!

Posted by: Pierre Asciutto on June 29, 2006 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINK

"Ah yes - the Ol' fight them over there before we fight them here malarkey"

Not only that, but most right-wingers seem to be cheering for al-Qaeda or one of their other favorite religiously-motivated terror organizations to take out a big chunk of NYC, San Francisco, or LA. Makes you wonder just whose side they're on, doesn't it....

Posted by: Irony Man on June 29, 2006 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, no one has explained to me why Islamic terrorists would be the least bit interested in attacking Smallville, in Hayseed County Iowa.

Silly, they want to mess up the straw poll.

Posted by: shortstop on June 29, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

The only thing more silly than Suskind's view of our largely inept (with respect to Osama) CIA figuring out Osama's inner thoughts is our blog posters telling us all about how smart or knowledgeable or tactical Osama is.

Neil Bason has it exactly right "The people who think Osama is infallible or understands his enemy are the ones that don't understand him. . . . Osama misunderstood America in 9/11 and misunderstood us in 2004."

Our press make our evil adveraries into genuiuses. Osama is cowering in a cave somewhere managing to get out an audio tape 6 to 8 months with deranged statements and you folks think he is a genius strategist.

Only an idiot would not recognize that U.S. voters tossing Bush out would have been great pr for Osama.

If this Jami Miscik talked about Osama "clearly understood how his primacy as al Qaeda's leader was supported by the continuation of his eye-to-eye struggle with Bush," then she, stupid Osama and everyone else should realize that victory over Bush in the form of him being kicked out of office would have been great for Osama.

Posted by: brian on June 29, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

Silly, they want to mess up the straw poll.

LOL!

Is that when all the wingnut strawmen gather together to decide who gets to be the biggest non-existent threat?

Our press make our evil adveraries into genuiuses. Osama is cowering in a cave somewhere managing to get out an audio tape 6 to 8 months with deranged statements and you folks think he is a genius strategist.

I think Brian just described the Bush WH modus operandi. Next he'll be telling us that Zarquawi was just a small time Jordanian thug who was hyped up into a giant boogeyman.

By the liberal press, of course. The Whitehouse had nothing to do with it.

Posted by: floopmeister on June 29, 2006 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

Band of the Week: diRTyWoRMz

Posted by: elmo on June 29, 2006 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINK

floop,

No, Zarquawi was a small time Jordanian thug whose evil progressed to the command of a group of terrorists killing innocent men, women and children. The people who made him into a genius were wrong. He was stupid enough to get blown up visiting with his "spiritual advisor" and leaving behind a treasure trove of information. Yeah, he was important to get because he was killing people.

As to Bush, he is not the one currently obsessing about Osama -- it is the Bush haters trying to score points. As far as we know, while it would be nice to bring justice to Osama, he is not very important at this point because he is not directing the killing of folks.

Posted by: brian on June 29, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

As far as we know, while it would be nice to bring justice to Osama, he is not very important at this point because he is not directing the killing of folks.

You know, I killed a whole bunch of Boy Scouts a few years ago. Massacred a whole troop. But while it would be nice to bring me to justice, I suppose, it's not too important because I'm not killing any Boy Scouts at this point....yet.

Posted by: Stefan on June 29, 2006 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINK

...and he believed we would be like the Spanish. We'd vote the President out based on fear of a threat. Osama misunderstood America in 9/11 and misunderstood us in 2004.

Posted by: neil bacon on June 29, 2006 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

I think this is a misrepresentation of the Spanish.

Like the UK, a majority of the nation were against going to war with Iraq. The Madrid bombing came a sahort time before their elections and the government-in-being tried to make political hay by lieing to the electorate. They claimed that eta were behind the bombings.

In their local elections recently, UK voters gave labor a sharp reminder of who counts in a democracy. Likewise, in Spain the electorate spanked a government that ignored the people's judgement and deliberately lied to them.

If only in the US we had an electorate with the same good judgement and half as concerned with dishonesty in government.

Then again, I'm glad that Bush is having to sit (and that's about all he's done) through 4 more years of his own disaster.

Pity it has to affect so many others.

Posted by: notthere on June 29, 2006 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, he was important to get because he was killing people.

Well, the US should have offered him an amnesty then, I guess.

Posted by: floopmeister on June 29, 2006 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, no one has explained to me why Islamic terrorists would be the least bit interested in attacking Smallville, in Hayseed County Iowa.

It's not just Hayseed County,Floop. Don't discount the threats to Prarie, Queensland, Birdsville or Long Reach. There are no safe havens. It's every bit as real as the threat of Chechen rebels crossing the Rio Grande with the other illegals to blow up schools in Hudspeth County - though concern about this danger seems to have died down as Beslan fades from memory - unwarranted laxity.

Posted by: snicker-snack on June 29, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

Stevens is an 86 year old guy who has well served his country and should have retired long ago. He is captivated by the power. I don't know if he was in combat in WWII but it hardly seems to be of any significance on legal issues 60 years later.

But I have problems with both extreme liberals and extreme conservatives on the court. It is ridiculous that we know how the four liberals are going to vote in virtually every case and the two conservatives are almost as bad. It results in "swing" judges (what a terrible concept) having in ordinate power. I would prefer nine justices like Kennedy or even O'Connnor who have an open mind about each case. With 9 of them, they would get most cases right.

Posted by: brian on June 29, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

notthere,

you analysis about Spain may or may not be correct, but that does not mean osama in his cave shares your anlysis.

stefan,

your perspective reflects the criminal justice mentality of liberals regarding terrorism, that we need to catch the murderer rather than we need to win the war.

Posted by: brian on June 29, 2006 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

...He was stupid enough to get blown up visiting with his "spiritual advisor" and leaving behind a treasure trove of information. Yeah, he was important to get because he was killing people....

Posted by: brian on June 29, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

The first story I read about the resulting raids after Zarqawi's death was due to the intelligence gained from the sole survivor of the raid. Then we had the treasure trove of intelligence.

I see. NYT gets kicked in the nuts for exposing an administration intelligence gathering program, the nuts and bolts of which are in the public domain and terrorists would have to be pretty naive, at this point, not to realize the US would be gathering all similar information.

But the administration puts all al-Qaeda members who have ever had any contact with this man on notice to tighten their personal security.

Brilliant!

Posted by: notthere on June 29, 2006 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

Coincidently doing what bin Laden wants is potentially benign. Doing as bin Laden directs ought to much more than give us pause.

Posted by: Scott on June 29, 2006 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

Republicrat:

"Nobody knows what bin Laden wants..."

I am not going to do your reading or your web searches for you.... but here's a suggestion:

Go read some of Osama's early missives written right after 9/11. You will see he writes very clearly that he wants to bleed America to death in the desert.

Those might even be his EXACT words.

How many billions has he bled away so far?

292 billion and the counter is spinning wildly.

Posted by: koreyel on June 30, 2006 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

brian --
that's why I'm not getting involved in the whole "Osama thinks..." argument. I don't know him, never met him, haven't ever read anything that convincingly put me inside his mind. It's all speculation. More interesting speculation would be to figure out what his next move, or moves by groups controlled by him, might be.

Re "War on Terror":
And the trouble with this administration is it has half the nation believing that fighting in Iraq has something to do with fighting terrorism. Hence the "fight over there" motif we still hear that is such bunk.

If it had been the Montana Militia waging a terrorism campaign in the US, we might have ended up using military assets to "defeat" them, but we wouldn't have declared war.

Just because we have to use our passports doesn't put terrorism beyond the criminal pail.

I'll call it the Hollywood effect, but it's this inclination to over-dramatize that lifts what should be a cold, calculating, relentless purpose into theatrics.

Look at what the Israelis have done over the last 30 years with a variety of threats. Look at the UK v IRA "war". Eta, red brigade, etc. Tamils and Chechens fall more into resistance/liberation, i.e. civil war.

It is just this manufacturing by this administration, trying to put terrorism in some area between criminality and war, that has muddied the issue. Very convenient for Bush because he gets to play commander-in-thief. Not good for the US, the constitution, or the world.

Posted by: notthere on June 30, 2006 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know if he was in combat in WWII but it hardly seems to be of any significance on legal issues 60 years later.

Whereas that jackass Thomas' complete lack of service does qualify him to make comments about the "realities of warfare"? Unbelievable. Sorry brian, but reasonable people don't accept the notion that you can grasp the realities of warfare from watching porn movies or sexually harrassing women.

Posted by: Irony Man on June 30, 2006 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK

It's every bit as real as the threat of Chechen rebels crossing the Rio Grande with the other illegals to blow up schools in Hudspeth County - though concern about this danger seems to have died down as Beslan fades from memory - unwarranted laxity.

Well, they should be more concerned about Canucks coming south and setting fire to the White House, right? Going on past experience I'd say that's 'unwarranted laxity' too...

Can't trust those Canadians!

Posted by: floopmeister on June 30, 2006 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINK

but i read a Bumper sticker that said Osama would vote for Kerry, or something like that...

Posted by: stress on June 30, 2006 at 12:44 AM | PERMALINK

As to Bush, he is not the one currently obsessing about Osama -- it is the Bush haters trying to score points. As far as we know, while it would be nice to bring justice to Osama, he is not very important at this point because he is not directing the killing of folks.

Can you say "Shill?"

I knew you could.

Posted by: Thumb on June 30, 2006 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINK

Irony man,

Is Justice Thomas your expert on racial discrmination law because he suffered through vicious racism in the south? After all, how can white judges like Ginsburg, Stevens and Bryer be expected to now the "realities" of racial discrmiation?

See where your selective game gets you when claiming Stevens or others like that old fool Murtha have particular expertise based on their expeirence?

Posted by: brian on June 30, 2006 at 1:30 AM | PERMALINK

Nads (I think this name refers to his area of medicine, JeffII; is that right, Nads?)
Posted by: shortstop

Nads is a contraction of my name. I work with kids ... although I do have a soft spot for ambiguous genitalia and babies whose 'nads don't develop properly.

Posted by: Nads on June 30, 2006 at 1:50 AM | PERMALINK

See where your selective game gets you when claiming Stevens or others like that old fool Murtha have particular expertise based on their expeirence?
Posted by: brian

pure sophistry ... repubs whores like yourself would smear anyone and anything that interfered with your cult of bush worship. it wouldn't matter if stevens or murtha had served or not, you'd still consider their opinions less than that of armchair chickenhawk cowards like cheney, rush, or yourself.

Posted by: Nads on June 30, 2006 at 1:53 AM | PERMALINK

吉祥三宝铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 吉祥三宝铃声 免费铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 吉祥三宝铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 吉祥三宝铃声 不得不爱铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 吉祥三宝铃声 手机铃声 不得不爱铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 文秘写作 竞聘演讲稿 个人工作总结 八荣八耻演讲稿 手机铃声 免费歌曲铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 搞笑手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 铃声图片下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 中国文秘网 治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药 工作总结 工作汇报 牛皮癣治疗 脂溢性皮炎 斑秃脱发炎 白癜风,外阴白斑 鱼鳞病 脂溢性脱发 阴虱病 治疗疱疹 各类皮癣 湿疹,皮炎 青春痘,痤疮 螨虫性皮炎,酒渣鼻 烧伤烫伤 八荣八耻 开业开幕讲话 竞聘演讲稿 就职演讲 心得体会 工作汇报 2006年入党申请书 思想汇报 癌症肿瘤新药

Posted by: aacxmmc on June 30, 2006 at 2:29 AM | PERMALINK

Still Just Wondering . . .

Is there a specific reason Palestine-Israel is not raised as a topic? Is Kevin Drum allergic to it?

It's the main plank missing from Bush's foreign policy. The odd semi-coherent mumble every once in a while. But it should be at the heart of winning the war on terror.

Peace in the Middle East would remove the main source of discontent between Islam, more particularly the Arabs, and the USA.

From Kevin's silence you'd think all the goings on in Gaza and the West Bank had no importance at all. Certainly not for the USA.

Posted by: notthere on June 30, 2006 at 3:15 AM | PERMALINK

This is alas one of those things one cannot determine for certain until and unless it is heard from Osama himself in some irrefutable way, be it from his lips or some document clearly of his or some such. However, that being said one can look at the respective arguments for each and see which one appears to more closely fit with his history (as he had one for many years prior to 9/11/01 as a declared combatant against America) and the propaganda he was releasing in the service of that cause from both before and after 9/11/01.

As I understand it the main argument for Osama wanting to influence a victory for Kerry is that he believes showing America is weak willed and "cuts and runs" at the first opportunity (like in Somalia, Beirut, etc) will be the most powerful advantage he would gain in his battle against America. That by showing that his small and relatively weak resourced outfit can stand toe to toe with the one remaining superpower and cause them to blink first will encourage more of the same throughout the world. On its own without context this argument on the surface appears to have real weight to it.

But does it really?

Let's look at the arguments from Osama wanting Bush to win instead of Kerry. First off, you have to understand that one of the core claims Osama was making about America was that it would invade oil rich Islamic M.E. countries under false pretenses to control the oil and maintain a power base within the region to intimidate others as well as to back its "puppet regimes" in the other oil rich countries, especially S.A. That for all the talk of being a civilized people and respecting other cultures than just its own that America was really all about power and the abuse of it. That America secretly tortured and murdered those that wanted nothing more than freedom for their countries (as of course they defined freedom, one of the most subjective words around when in the context of revolution from within) and would stop at nothing to do as it pleased, especially if it felt threatened. This I remind you was what he was trying to convince his fellow Muslims was truth *PRIOR* to 9/11/01.

This was all available to the public *IF* they were curious enough to both pay attention and do some degree of inquiry, yet despite the clear increase in terrorism and worries about it from the beginning of the Clinton Presidency to the end of it this threat was mocked extensively by the American political Right as wag the dog and severe exaggeration of any possible threat. I know, I was following this throughout most of the 90s because I feared something like this could be a result of leaving Afghanistan to itself after the Soviet withdrawal was asking for trouble. One did not have to be a prophet or a highly trained intelligence analyst to see that one coming, just someone with a basic understanding/awareness of both human history and human nature. Yet for the political Right in America this was just one more way to fight their true enemy in their mind, liberals and their current standard bearer Clinton.

So it was clear that Osama knew the political Right underestimated his ability to hurt America and to disrupt her economic health. Then we get to the months from Bush being sworn in to 9/11/01 itself. Osama sees this man and his team dismiss him as a top level threat despite being told he was by the outgoing Administration. He sees no reaction to the Cole attack by the new Administration despite all the tough rhetoric about it domestically from the political Right. Then he sees his attack succeed on 9/11/01 despite the clear odds against it working as well as it ended up doing simply in terms of pulling off the degree of coordination between multiple targets to first hijack and then use as missiles.

However, what I am sure he did not expect was what happened next. After a few days of shock Bushco came back to hit him and his group hard and fast with incredibly well planned out detail work. The reason this was available was thanks to the CIA, not the Pentagon. Indeed, as the Frontline "The Dark Side" covered in excellent thoroughness was the reality that the Pentagon resisted working under the CIA despite the CIA having an operational plan ready and the Pentagon coming up empty in that department despite that supposedly being a primary duty of theirs. Anyway, in a matter of a few months his supportive regime the Taliban was deposed, and he was being crowded into a smaller and smaller part of Afghanistan, and instead of the locals resisting heavily they instead welcomed the new occupiers for the most part, which given their history of such was truly remarkable.

Then we get to Osama being cornered in Tora Bora and his eventual escape because the political decision in Washington by Bushco was that Saddam was more important at that moment then Osama was, this despite Osama having killed more Americans than Saddam ever managed in GWI let alone doing so on American soil. Because of this redirection of focus not only does Osama escape, but far worse was that he and his organization was given precious time to regroup, reorganize, restructure and decentralize. Indeed they were able to become more of a movement and hydra headed in operational nature than they had been before. Then they were given the propaganda tool for recruitment of having Osama turning out to be a prophet as an oil rich Islamic country was invaded under false pretenses (and nuclear weapons and links to Osama were clearly just that, and Osama especially had to know he was not in league with Saddam but in competition with him as de facto leader of the region) and appear to plunder the natural resources/wealth of that nation. Which America under Bushco has done with the deals they made while running the CPA and the signing into the Constitution various transfers of ownership of some significant economic resources of Iraq.

Then he gets Abu Ghraib, a true bonus to work with and the subsequent choice of excusing it in actions while condemning it in words, and punishing low level flunkies instead of those responsible for creating the lack of clearly defined rules of engagements and Geneva protections truly responsible for a systemic problem. So by the time the elections rolls around he has been given many major tools by Bushco to weaken and defeat America as listed above. Even better from his POV is that this Administration has been incredible incompetent at using all that brute force in actually doing him and his followers serious harm as well as massively bungling the follow-up occupation of Iraq after the clearly well executed and planned defeat of the Saddam regime and its military forces.

Clearly the idea of having Bushco stay in power because of the animosity globally built up against him and America because of his actions appeals greatly as well. Not to mention that the longer he stays in power the longer and deeper the stains of his actions become, as well as by winning "reelection" Osama can say that the majority of Americans *ENDORSE* his actions and wear that stain as well. Far more effective weapons than the weak cut and run argument and overall does far more damage to America and her interests globally. Not to mention the weakening of America's military might in terms of ground forces as well as using it to train recruits in urban combat warfare against American troops and equipment for later use elsewhere in the world. After all the vast majority of the Iraqi opposition fighting the occupation are native Iraqis fighting an occupying power, a far cry from the terrorists like Osama and company. No, that is something well understood and recognized as a legitimate tool of an occupied nation/people against its occupiers throughout human history in all cultures.

However some say how could Osama understand American culture well enough to understand that insulting Bush the way he did would cause a rallying effect? Simple, all he had to do was watch that effect in play from 9/11/01 right up to that election and how much it had worked for Bushco already. Not something requiring deep understanding of the America psyche when it is so clearly and blatantly on display for three years straight you know. Also, Kerry was a prosecutor, he would use the tools of law enforcement like tracing financial records to find terrorists (after all he did so with BCCI before and showed he got that one long before many others did) as well as military force when appropriate and that is a far greater threat to the operational capabilities of Osama and his followers than what Bushco has presented to date.

Therefore, while one cannot say with absolute certainty that Osama intended that recording to influence the election to help Bush win, one can present a very strong and compelling argument for it, and one far better and more substantive than the one for Kerry to win. This is why I wanted him defeated in 2004, I saw the gains it gave Osama and company and the damage it would do to the American peoples image (instead of just its government and policies) far outweighing the satisfying notion of Bush finally having to take responsibility for one of the messes he has created throughout his life and be responsible for cleaning it up. If I had any belief that this might have been doable by this crowd I would have preferred he win, but the damage he does and the amount of aid that gives the man and movement that brought down the towers is what should matter to people the most, especially Americans given it was mostly their blood and their monuments/symbols/buildings that were specifically targeted and hit/destroyed.

That this is really even an argument at this point has much the same feel to it as those that continue to argue against the reality that we are experiencing significant climate change that is being affected by human actions. That no matter how many facts, how well constructed, how well reasoned and how much stronger an argument is over their own it always comes down to whether it comes from an ideologically correct source than anything else. That is the most damning thing of all in todays America, that ideology is the primary basis of identification, as in liberals are traitors despite being fellow Americans, conservatives are fascists (although there is unfortunately too much truth in that where the current leadership of that part of the politico spectrum is concerned) and not first thinking of themselves as Americans first. It is the Right which has been doing the majority of defining fellow Americans as unpatriotic and traitors because of their political beliefs over the past decade, especially since 9/11/01. The Left has finally started reacting with some offense (amazing how a good defence is a strong offence is only acceptable to the Right when it is from their side, hmmmm?) against this, although much later than they should have.

Unfortunately they actually were willing to set their partisan beliefs aside after 9/11/01 and trust the GOP to not abuse that response to 9/11/01 for their own partisan purposes first. Silly Dems, although what it says about their willingness to do so and to have thought this about their political opponents shows that they (at least back then, now is possibly a different story because of those actions) saw the GOP as a loyal American opposition first and not an enemy which must be wiped out. This is what Osama got to see in America and Americans and one does not have to be an American expert to have watched this happening. It was after all quite brazenly done in full public view. It is the willingness of the political Right in America and especially Bushco to further internally divide America and to usurp the traditional balances of power in America society/government with massive powergrabs under false pretenses of security that is the most important/significant victory Osama won on 9/11/01, especially since it is the gift that has kept on giving to this day.

Posted by: Scotian on June 30, 2006 at 3:30 AM | PERMALINK

Gret post, Scotian.

Posted by: Boronx on June 30, 2006 at 4:52 AM | PERMALINK

Just think if the Democrats had taken a page out of Karl Rove's play book and run an ad in 2004
with a big picture of Osama B. with the words
underneath:
Vote for George W. Bush.
It's important.
Osama bin Laden
I wonder how things would have played out then?

Posted by: anthony v. cuccia on June 30, 2006 at 5:20 AM | PERMALINK

"I understand that the U.S. is fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't fight them in Iowa. But why then are the British fighting the terrorists in Iraq?"

Speaking as a Brit, I'd rather be fighting them in Iowa. The climate's nicer, the plumbing works, and the population would be on our side. Plus, it's further from Britain.

Posted by: ajay on June 30, 2006 at 5:32 AM | PERMALINK

brian: As to Bush, he is not the one currently obsessing about Osama

currently?


FLIP
The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him. -- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

FLOP
I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority. -- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 30, 2006 at 6:14 AM | PERMALINK

I think this definitely confirms my thesis: the so-called intelligence community is nothing but a big faculty lounge circle jerk.

Posted by: minion of rove on June 30, 2006 at 7:42 AM | PERMALINK

brian,

If Stevens dissented with something Thomas wrote (assuming Thomas was awake) because Thomas was not familiar with the "realities of racial discrimination", then Stevens would be just as much of a jackass as Thomas was just now.

Thomas wasn't contending Steven's unfamiliarity with a narrow, specific entity - he was contending Steven's unfamiliarity with warfare, a very broad definition, and as such is patently untrue in this instance.

See the difference? Sometimes you shouldn't bother trying to defend the indefensible. But don't worry, I'm not suggesting that anyone poison Thomas' creme brulee.

Posted by: Irony Man on June 30, 2006 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINK

See where your selective game gets you when claiming Stevens or others like that old fool Murtha have particular expertise based on their expeirence? [sic] (emphasis added)

brian likes to strike a reasonable, moderate tone in coveying his GOP talking points, but with this post, the mask is off.

As Nads pointed out, he doesn't hestiate to smear Murtha, who does in fact have particular expertise based on his experience, and moreover maintains extensive contacts within the Marines, many of whom are still honarable warriors disgusted with the incompetent and dishonorable so-called "leadership" of Bush and Rumsfeld.

It's interesting how a Supreme Court decision that undercuts the Bush Administration's claims of supreme Executive authority drove brian to reveal himself as a rabid Bush cultist. Memo to brian: Shilling for an unchecked executive is neither a reasonable nor moderate position, it's the mark of an apologist for tyrrany. And when one justifies it in terms of an external threat (even if you do give Bush a free pass for his manifest failure to bring bin Laden to justice), it's also a mark of cowardice.

So much for brian's pose of reasonableness.

Posted by: Gregory on June 30, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

um....Kevin, these is the same CIA that got everything wrong according to you re: WMD's, Al Qaeda's connection with Iraq, failing to uncover the 9/11 plot and underestimating the strength of the insurgency. But since this is a topic that supports your world view, well, this one they probably got right huh?

Secondly, considering UBL is most likely hiding in caves and or mud huts with most of his previous cohorts dead or at Gitmo (oh the crime of it all), I don't think he views GW as an adversary worthy of keeping around. I think you're desperately trying to find a reason why GW was elected by more than 3.5 million popular votes, because you don't want to have to blame your party or their pathetic platform, right?

Posted by: Jay on June 30, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

Starry Decisis, are you familiar with that Gregory? It is what keeps Roe V Wade alive and is what the left screams about everytime Roe v Wade is entered back into the public discussion. Well, apparently with your selective, and partisan views, starry decisis does not matter in this decision. There is plenty of precedence to allow a President to conduct military tribunals for enemy combatants.

So does starry decisis matter or not?

Posted by: Jay on June 30, 2006 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

Please, please, spare me! I've heard it all now. I thought Bush was to have "STOLEN" the last two election's;..... now I find out it was Bin Laden who put Bush in office. Do you mind telling me "who told Jami Miscik of the McLaughlin Group"
how and what Bin Laden is thinking?

Keep drinking the kool-aid and author's like this will keep cranking out the BULL-SH_ _!!!!

Posted by: TexasLady41 on June 30, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK
Starry Decisis, are you familiar with that Gregory?

If you were familiar with it, you'd probably know it was stare decisis not "Starry" anything.

There is plenty of precedence to allow a President to conduct military tribunals for enemy combatants.

Well, there are precedents that allow that in certain cases and under certain conditions; unfortunately for Bush the military commissions he has ordered do not conform to those precedents.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 30, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

"Secondly, considering UBL is most likely hiding in caves and or mud huts with most of his previous cohorts dead or at Gitmo (oh the crime of it all)..."

By the way, I have absolutely no way of verifying any of this. In fact, UBL could be in the parking lot right now, and I'd have no idea.

Gotta go, "Reba" is on.

Posted by: jay on June 30, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely has already neatly disposed of Jay's rabid idiocy.

But I'd also observe that Bush's unilateral assertion of Presidential power is, in fact, unprecedented. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has undermined the legal justification in the so-called Yoo doctrine, so Yoo's feverish advocacy of Executive tyranny will not, at least for the moment, enjoy the status of stare decisis.

Posted by: Gregory on June 30, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

Starry Decisis. Wasn't she a torch singer who used to open for Sinatra?

Or am I thinking of a Van Gogh painting?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 30, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

This is alas one of those things one cannot determine for certain until and unless it is heard from Osama himself in some irrefutable way, be it from his lips or some document clearly of his or some such.

You ought to have stopped there. the rest is rather fanciful, except for the much disputed (in the U.S.) notion that Kerry would have ordered withdrawal from Iraq almost as soon as taking office. You omit the likely possibility that bin Laden expects his threats to carry real weight as threats, not as bluffs -- that is, he expected Americans to heed his threats rather than react defiantly.

The presence of American forces in Iraq in 2005 permitted elections of people to government and the ratification of a democratic constitution. This can't have been what he wanted. the principle effect of al Qaeda in Iraq has been to make all of the Iraqis hate them and kill them; another outcome he can't have wanted. Furthermore, his followers in Saudi Arabia are being killed in large numbers, and women are voting in Kuwait; both probably facilitated by American forces in Iraq, and both outcomes that bin Laden can't have wanted. Taliban in Afghanistan are suffering almost 10 times the casualties that they are inflicting, another outcome that bin Laden can't have wanted (but it is less clear that a Kerry win would have ended the NATO presence in Afghanistan.)

Posted by: republicrat on June 30, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Scotian has a good post, however in my darker thoughts I find it a very small step to imagine that the Tora Bora horrendous mistake was not so much a blunder as it was deliberate. The Bush family and extended family has very close ties to the Bin Ladens. I do not find it a big leap that Bush let him live, he certainly quit suddenly with the wanted dead or alive meme or even uttering the name of Bin Laden in associating with his war. Saddam became the message and the endgame and the convenient excuse for the resaon troops weren't focused intently on Bin Laden by the time Tora Bora happened. The chance to kill Bin Laden was farmed out at a good price to the Afganis that simply did not have as much allegiance to Bush as they did to Bin Laden. Monumental incompetence probably, deliberate hole for Binny to snake through? One can be left with that impression.

Posted by: tb on June 30, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that we're doing what bin Laden wants doesn't automatically mean we're doing the wrong thing. But it sure as hell ought to give us pause, shouldn't it?

But the fact is Bush is doing just what the Islamicist want.

You don't nock down the world trade center and not expect a reaction. The reaction is precisely what they wanted, and precisely what they got. But better then expected. Bush 'split his forces' first by chasing away all of our allies, and world sympathy, second by invading Iraq while still fighting in Afghanistan. Somehow Bush is losing two wars in the third world while draining the treasurey of $500 billion. Money doesn't grow on trees.

Bin Laden's strategy is parallel to Mohammeds strategy at Medina against the Meccans.

Mohammed kept picking on the Meccan's caravan trade until finally the Meccan's had to do something about it. They then attacked Medina by laying seige, the most expensive kind of warfare because its long and drawn out. Eventually the Meccan's seige dwindled down because their soldiers couldn't stay very long. When the seige failed Mohammed started attracting people to his his side. A year later and Mohammed was in Mecca, two years later he dominated all of Arabia. Four years later, but then dead, his deputies controled Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Eqypt.

The point of 911 was to pluck America's beard, then ride out the reaction, and when America was all spent, then go on the offensive. It is taking time, but Bush is falling right into the trap.

Part of the problem is Bush/Neocons and Bin Laden want the same thing. The Neocon's want to go back to sixth century medievel fuedalism. Bin Laden wants to go back to seventh century medievel islam. They both want a society run by elites and controled by religion. Bush is bungling the war because he doesn't want to win it.

Why would Bin Laden want someone else to be President of the United States. Why would Bin Laden want to go from winning the war to loosing it.

From Bin Laden's perspective, things are going along swimmingly.

Posted by: Bubbles on June 30, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

It just occurred to me that Bush is to Bin Laden what Commadant Klink was to Colonel Hogan in Hogan's Heroes.

Everytime Klink got in trouble, Hogan would bail him out. The rationale "how could they guarantee that the next commadant would be as incompetant as Klink?" They couldn't, so they always bailed him out.

Same with Bin Laden - Why would he want to replace the Kommadant Clink of Presidents with someone who might be more competant?

If Islamisist had Saints, Bush would be canonized by now.

As for Iraq, it is a self inflicted wound, in the war against Islamisist. It may have permenantly hampered our ability to get Bin Laden, and that alone makes Bin Laden stronger and us weaker. He killed 3000 Americans and lived to tell. Then again, so did Bush, well 2500 Americans.


Posted by: Bubbles on June 30, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

"It just occurred to me that Bush is to Bin Laden what Commadant Klink was to Colonel Hogan in Hogan's Heroes.

Everytime Klink got in trouble, Hogan would bail him out. The rationale "how could they guarantee that the next commadant would be as incompetant as Klink?" They couldn't, so they always bailed him out.

Same with Bin Laden - Why would he want to replace the Kommadant Clink of Presidents with someone who might be more competant?

If Islamisist had Saints, Bush would be canonized by now. "

Posted by: Bubbles on June 30, 2006 at 5:48 PM

I read this and found it fit frighteningly well. The similarities between the relationship of Hogan and Clink to Osama and Bush are disturbingly on the mark, well with the exception of the former is the good guy covering for the bad guy to advance the good guy agenda where the latter is the bad guy helping the "good guy" (had to do it, calling Bush43 a good guy in this context is really difficult for me) to advance the bad guy agenda. Yep, just what America needs in a leader, someone that helps the terrorists (the real ones at that and not the rhetorical hordes too many GOPers claim are around every corner out to kill Americans) advance their goals at the expense of America's resources, be they human, monetary, or credibility/moral authority.

I posted earlier that I truly believe that the purpose of Osama's tape in the week prior to the 2004 vote was to tip things for Bush precisely because of that relationship dynamic you so brilliantly summed up in your use of Hogan's Heroes to illustrate it with. Thank you very much for that, I may well start using it since it is clear, simple and very accessible for most people, unlike alas too many of my long winded and terribly verbose missives here...:)

Posted by: Scotian on June 30, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

我向大家推荐:您想要了解 企业名录 吗?请到中国企业名录网来寻找企业名录。北京 山西企业名录 厂向广大客户提供山西企业名录产品及山西企业名录服务。安徽企业名录 网上批发市场,为您提供优质低价的安徽企业名录,丰富安徽企业名录行业资讯助您成交。北京 江西企业名录 厂向广大客户提供江西企业名录产品及江西企业名录服务。上海 广西企业名录 公司专业生产广西企业名录产品,欢迎选择广西企业名录。您想要了解 湖南企业名录 吗?请到中国湖南企业名录网来寻找湖南企业名录。您想要了解 福建企业名录 吗?请到中国福建企业名录网来寻找福建企业名录。您想要了解 辽宁企业名录 吗?请到中国辽宁企业名录网来寻找辽宁企业名录。中国 四川企业名录 网,打造四川企业名录领域专业搜索平台,提供全球四川企业名录品牌公司及产品展示。您想要了解 河南企业名录 吗?请到中国河南企业名录网来寻找河南企业名录。您想要了解 河北企业名录 吗?请到中国河北企业名录网来寻找河北企业名录。北京 山东企业名录 厂向广大客户提供山东企业名录产品及山东企业名录服务。上海 浙江企业名录 公司专业生产浙江企业名录产品,欢迎选择浙江企业名录。中国 江苏企业名录 网,打造江苏企业名录领域专业搜索平台,提供全球江苏企业名录品牌公司及产品展示。中国 北京企业名录 网,打造北京企业名录领域专业搜索平台,提供全球北京企业名录品牌公司及产品展示。上海 企业名录 公司专业生产企业名录产品,欢迎选择企业名录。

Posted by: FF on July 1, 2006 at 2:31 AM | PERMALINK

mirrors within mirrors. The result of dealing with a civilization that rejected the tenets of the European Enlightenment. Our bases of reality are so far apart, it's difficult to believe that we ever could understand one another.
Posted by: moe99 on June 29, 2006 at 6:21 PM |

- Er, I thought that the current Admin and its pals had "rejected the tenets of the European Enlightenment" - No?

Posted by: Neil' on July 1, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly