September 14, 2007
We Should All Agree on Osama bin Laden (A.B. Stoddard)
I have waited all week, through Sept. 11 remembrances and a major crossroads in the debate over the Iraq war, for someone to question why President Bush’s own national security adviser called Osama bin Laden “virtually impotent” last weekend on Fox News.
Frances Fragos Townsend said that while the government takes the tapes seriously, bin Laden’s messages were largely “threats and propaganda,” and that “this is about the best he can do. This is a man on a run, from a cave, who’s virtually impotent other than these tapes.”
Osama put out his videos, which call for martyrs and recruits against us, but should we take comfort in the fact that he didn’t announce an imminent attack? They don’t give us warnings, remember? Terrorism REQUIRES the element of surprise. Frances, the last time I checked we weren’t living in a war zone.
Poor Fred Thompson, trying to get his presidential campaign off the ground, in more ways than one, also found the topic of bin Laden confounding. He called him “more symbolism than anything else” last week, only to be slapped down by Sen. John McCain who — rightfully — called bin Laden a “deadly” threat. Thompson did some Nashvillian square dancing and dosied-doed back to bin Laden “ought to be captured and killed.” Uh-oh, that didn’t work either, so he came up with a third assessment in as many days, saying bin Laden would get his “due process.”
I know Democrats and Republicans generally don’t agree on the Iraq war, but after six years could all of us — particularly members of the GOP — find agreement on bin Laden?
***
ASK A.B. — Please join me for my weekly Q&A video posts by sending useful, interesting and entertaining questions to askab@thehill.com. We want to talk politics and have a few laughs. Spare us the offensive, unGoogleable, unthinkable or otherwise useless. I look forward to hearing from all of you, often.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 13 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Hi A.B.,
I interpret that bin laden is impotent because he has lots control of his organization, wherever he is.
Comment by Cheryl O — September 14, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
oops typo: I interpret that bin laden is impotent because he has LOST control of his organization, wherever he is.
People read data and interpret according to the core of knowledge that they draw from.
Everyone has a specialty in today's world.
The press tries to make it look like deception for purposes of sensationalism and ratings.
Comment by Cheryl O — September 14, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Osama is a terrorist living in a cave and has no freedom of movement and you're a pundit writing for the Hill. That's one thing I can agree with.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 14, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
There isn't even an agreement whether the tapes are clever fakes with frame slicing and other tricks. There is a lot of evidence they are. Osama has not aged in three years, only his beard grew dark. But the tape represents a message from the Al Qaeda leadership regardless. What we can agree on is that this leadership sees Democrats as allies that are not currently fulfilling their responsibilities but are the best hope for Al Qaeda in their hopes of defeating the United States.
Comment by Igor R. — September 14, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
Poor Igor, still flacking for W's Neville Chamberlain-style appeasement of Usama bin Laden which happened when W decided going into Iraq far outweighed any interest in catching or killing the theological thug who gave the green light for the Sept 11 strikes
Igor, really, stop the "let's give bin Laden sympathy and understanding" canards you dish out whenever W's most glaring failure comes up
And consider this as well
By not crushing bin Laden, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and the Taliban when he had the chance, W left those entities free and clear to regroup in Pakistan, a country with highly placed officials in its military and intelligence services
bin Laden has a huge, personal bankroll, and Pakistan-unlike Iran-has an actual nuclear arsenal
If, because of W's idiocy in not crushing bin Laden, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and the Taliban, any of those entities acquire a nuclear payload from Pakistan, and actually use it in an anti-US attack, then W might as well trigger the device himself
But Igor, apparently, would be okay with that scenario coming to pass, seeing as how he supports W's complete appeasement of, and surrender to, bin Laden on an active basis
That this Administration constantly tries to get everyone to wet themselves in terror every time W blathers about al-Qaeda, but that rhetoric is instantly undercut by trying to yawn off bin Laden's influence at the same time
Decrying al-Qaeda while blowing off bin Laden is a logical impossibility, but little things like logic or facts clearly have no place in the world of terrorist-appeasing policies practiced by this Administration, it's bipartisan enablers, lunatic neocon Chickenhawks and their media lackeys
Comment by KingCranky — September 14, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
To finish the above quote-which means I need to check more effectively before hitting the "Submit Comment" button
By not crushing bin Laden, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and the Taliban when he had the chance, W left those entities free and clear to regroup in Pakistan, a country with highly placed officials in its military and intelligence services very sympathetic to bin Laden, al-Qaeda and The Taliban
Comment by KingCranky — September 14, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Does virtual impotence refer to virtual sex? I'm so confused, I don't know whether to be afraid or not, and that makes me even more afraid. The US does have a threat level of "elevated" — yellow, I think it is, so if the threat isn't from OBL in the cave then . . . I'd better leave the duct tape on the windows. What else can I do?
What's the purpose of these "threats" except to make us afraid? Isn't that the aim of terrorists, to make us afraid? So why do we do what they want us to do? Let's agree that OSB is just another one of the FBI's Ten Most Wanted, and that's it. Next subject.
Comment by Don Bacon — September 14, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
Bush family has ties with Osama family. And some believe he really didn't have anything to do with 9/11. However, even if he did, he has never been a prize for Bush, because he doesn't have any OIL WELLS.
Comment by Gary Anderson — September 15, 2007 @ 2:00 am
Igor I agree.
The recent scurrilous talk by Hillary Clinton (accusing Gen. Petraeous as a liar) at a time of war was, in concert with the full page ad by move on. as a springboard,alligns her with that left wing group.
I'll bet bin laden tries to give to her campaign too.
Hey, who was in Hsu's group of givers?
Comment by Cheryl O — September 15, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
King, I think you took Bill Clinton's strategy of "attack a man's strength, not his weakness" a little too literally. Neville Chamberlain was an enthusiastic proponent of peace with Nazi Germany, and George Bush is not a propent of a peace treaty with Osama, to put it mildly. Your over the top attack isn't fooling anyone. The 9/11 conspiracy nuts won't change their mind, and neither will those who know that George Bush is a terrorist hunter and every single one of the leading Democrats is a terrorist appeaser. Their base wants weithdrawal from Iraq and doesn't care about terrorism one way or another. All I hear them claim is that 9/11 is just an excuse for George Bush to suppress civil liberties and even hold on to power after 2008. What a bunch of America-hating nuts!
Cheryl, I suspect the Chinese, with good reason given Bill Clinton's history, Norman Hsu nationality, and his serving on the board of the same school with the CEO of Loral whose connections with China and the Clintons are well known. But I have no proof and don't claim it to be the truth, unlike the 9/11 conspiracy nuts.
Comment by Igor R. — September 16, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
Cheryl, Patraeous is a liar, and because we went into Iraq for oil, and voided the existing contracts, he is fighting an illegal war. Just ask Alan Greenspan why we went into Iraq. The voiding of the existing contracts proves it.
Comment by Gary Anderson — September 17, 2007 @ 2:10 am
Last week I watched MSNBC's re-broadcast of 9-11 as it happened. Anyone who believes that the government brought down those Towers need to watch that two hours of tape.
Comment by David Erlichman — September 17, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Igor: all interesting points
Gary: General Petraeous is responsible for executing the plan to implement, he did not come up with, nor is he responsible for the policy decisions of which you are speaking.
Alan Greenspan didn't recognize that subprime lending en mass to unqualified buyers, would lead to weakness in the housing market, but now he's all about knowledge now and still making speeches and lots of money!
Comment by cherylo — September 17, 2007 @ 4:12 pm