Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The partisan theory of Osama bin Laden's freedom
The wire service that shall not be named is reporting that Barack Obama said that Osama bin Laden is still free because of Republican "failed strategies." Perhaps. But that is no different than saying he was both free and able to attack the United States in 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2001 because of Democatic "failed strategies." Free he may be to live in his cave under constant fear of betrayal, but for the last six years -- since Bali, really -- the only targets he has been able to hit are unarmed Muslims or hardened Western military targets that are ready to face him. That is one rather large difference between Republican "failed strategies" and Democratic. I mean, if we're going to be partisan about it.
22 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Jun 18, 10:07:00 AM:
Partisan is all we seem to get. Some politicians understand very little about what war is and how to wage it, so they attack the Republicans, because they think of us bitter, Bible clutching types as being the "real" enemy.
By , at
Wed Jun 18, 10:52:00 AM:
I certainly hope McCain will point out that, if Obama is elected, the US will be attacked again within week's of Obama being sworn in.
Obama's fellow muslims KNOW that he would not strike back and that the attack, no matter how many thousands are killed, will be used by Obama as the reason he'll sit down and discuss the terrorists' reasonable grievances, not against America, but against the Republicans.
By , at
Wed Jun 18, 12:54:00 PM:
so they attack the Republicans, because they think of us bitter, Bible clutching types as being the "real" enemy.
Yes this occurs. Many of the Dems believe that the US is invulnerable, so they find it hard to take jihadists seriously.
I am an agnostic once atheist, never a churchgoer, who has been appalled at the invective that some Dems hurl at the Bible types compared to what the same Dems will say about the jihadists. Example: Al Gore, who equated Wahabis w Christian fundamentalists. Al should back up his opinion and move from Nashville to Mecca.
By , at
Wed Jun 18, 03:08:00 PM:
Much as already been written about this comment. A fundamental difference between the first and second bombings that I guess he has overlooked is that the guys in the first bombing were not suicidal. There were fewer people alive in this country to arrest and prosecute.
Was the most important goal of WWII to bring Adolph Hitler to justice or to defeat Nazi Germany? Of course, the latter – that’s a no brainer. In the end, he hunkered down in his bunker with his world crumbling around him and took his own pathetic life. Could killing Hitler have shortened the war? Perhaps, but unlike OBL, I don’t think that Hitler would have been viewed as a martyr for the cause. More on that later. Our best guess is that Bin Laden is now down in some cave in Northern Pakistan, watching his demented dreams crumble. I have no problem with him living long enough to recognize that his cause and his life have been complete failures.
Killing him risks making him a martyr and furthering the jihadists’ cause. Capturing him and putting in trial will create a media circus that will put the OJ trial to shame. He will “lawyer up”, the case could take years (a la Milosevic), and a lengthy appeal process is sure to follow if he is convicted. All the while, he will be a constant source of inspiration to his cause, and it is not too difficult to anticipate his followers taking hostages or committing other acts of terrorism in his name or even to gain his release. And that’s if he is convicted. Could you imagine if he is acquitted outright, or if his conviction is overturned on appeal? We may just see a preview of this with the Quantanamo detainees as a result of the Boumediene decision. In their case, I wonder if we can expect civil lawsuits to follow if any of them are acquitted or simply released.
No, all things considered and as much as I would want many unpleasant things to happen to OBL, we may be doing the worst to him (and the best for us) by letting him simply rot in his cave and letting him watch it all come to an end.
"Not" getting OBL is not a failure, and may have been the preferred course. Getting OBL and then simply declaring that the war on terror over, on the other hand, would have been a travesty. Perhaps it would have netted the Administration a short-term political victory, but as we have seen from the 1990’s, it sometimes takes a few years before the deadly consequences are fully realized.
a.moral
By , at
Wed Jun 18, 04:11:00 PM:
I'd like to believe that we catch him, and keep it secret. Cut little pieces from him physically, emotionally, spiritually, and extract all we can from him. When he's used up, throw him in the sewer where he came from to rot.
The WOT will not be over any time in our lifetimes. These people hate us, and the more technology and funding they get, the more opportunity they have to keep it going. Like the Palestinians and the Israelis. Clearly Israel has better forces, arms, technology, more money. Yet they are still vulnerable, and have to fight every day to maintain their country in relative safety. So too do we.
By 
davod, at
Wed Jun 18, 04:47:00 PM:
WRT the 1993 bombing. Obama said we caught them, put them on trial and locked them up. The mastermind was never caught and ended up in Iraq. He was the same guy who masterminded the failed attempt to blow up airliners over the pacific.
I am surprised the conservative talking heads have not brought this up.
By Purple Avenger, at
Wed Jun 18, 05:43:00 PM:
The WOT will not be over any time in our lifetimes.
In reality it didn't start during our lifetimes either. Jefferson was the first US president to deal with Arab terrorist problems.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Jun 18, 09:30:00 PM:
I am surprised the conservative talking heads have not brought this up.
Andy McCarthy, who prosecuted the 1993 bombers available to be prosecuted, was rather clear on the point.
By , at
Thu Jun 19, 12:31:00 AM:
What kills me, is BO follows up with the comment that we must not make a martyr of OBL. Now, this must be a tenant of HIS policy. What does it mean? It seems to mean that we should be careful not to humiliate OBL if we catch him.
Who's side is Barak on anyhow?
By Fen, at
Thu Jun 19, 08:13:00 AM:
Dear Barack,
Osama bin Laden was already indicted in 1998. How did that work out?
By LifeTrek, at
Thu Jun 19, 08:14:00 AM:
... It took 18 years to catch the Unabomber, again here in America and as Obama is fond to point out about Osama he too continued to send messages to the media up just a few months before caught.
DKK
By , at
Thu Jun 19, 08:46:00 AM:
I'm wondering (a) what those failed "Republican" strategies are, specifically, and (b) what, specifically, Obama would do to improve on them. I am glad to hear he's committed to bringing Osama to justice. It's nice to know that there's one Islamofascist he's willing to take some action againt.
By , at
Thu Jun 19, 09:14:00 AM:
Historically, one of the reasons the New World was settled by Europe was in order to spread Christianity. That was done in part to keep Islam was spreading there first. It took Spain 800 years to drive out the Moors, and Islam still thinks that land "belongs" to them. Too few politicians today have an education that goes beyond the last 50 years or extends beyond this countries borders.
A US Marine sniper in Iraq said, "You guys have different rules of engagement than we have." To which the Polish sniper said, "We have been fighting this war longer than you have."
Not all Muslims want to rule the world, but enough of them want to kill us, enslave us or convert us that this war will be going on long after everyone who reads these words is gone.
By , at
Thu Jun 19, 10:29:00 AM:
Law enforcement is by nature reactive to law-breaking, not preventative, so Obama's strategy is to wait until after any and every attack to prosecute the perps.
Mmmm OK.
I can hear the laughter already, coming from the madrassas and mosques in the mountains of western Pakistan.
Obama's campaign of 'change' is to advocate the tragically flawed, proven-to-have-failed, policies of the Clinton years.
Obama is neither brilliant nor experienced enough to be President.
By Patm, at
Thu Jun 19, 12:01:00 PM:
I'd like to think McCain will point this out. But I won't hold my breath.
By , at
Thu Jun 19, 01:49:00 PM:
So how many ribbon magnets do you each have on your cars?
Many of the Dems believe that the US is invulnerable, so they find it hard to take jihadists seriously. No, we know it is all too vulnerable. But we can differentiate between percieved risk "they're gonna kill you in the shopping mall" and real risk which, like the WTC, will happen regardless of what you may do. Honestly, if someone wants to hurt you that bad, they will find a way, but I am not going to live in fear, as you all do, that it is going to happen every day.
Obama's fellow muslims You seriously have got to be kidding.
I came in here to check things out but wow! you guys are for real. I had heard there were people as ignorant as that but wow!
Good luck with all that. And by the way, it's 2008.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Jun 19, 01:57:00 PM:
So it's not worth the effort to interdict or otherwise engage the Islamist enemy, because they'll eventually succeed anyway? Is that it? Because that's what it sounds like you're implying.
By , at
Thu Jun 19, 02:11:00 PM:
I am not implying that at all. It is well worth the effort, where there is any type of fundamentalist enemy, to engage them. But don't get distracted (Iraq). And don't fabricate enemies where there are not (Iran). That is where this administration went so wrong. They have no clue about the middle east and it demographics. How many of the WTC terrorists were Iraqi or Iranian? How many were Saudi? What country do we continue to suck up to?
By , at
Thu Jun 19, 02:58:00 PM:
...I am not going to live in fear, as you all do...
Oh yes you will! As soon as your guy becomes Prez. all that bravado will vanish immediately. 01-20-09 you'll be the fearest thing alive. As soon the responsibility to protect becomes yours, you'll be singing completely different tune. Unless you are a complete lunatic, of course.
By , at
Thu Jun 19, 04:08:00 PM:
Sparky ... I think Iran proved where we stand in their eyes when Obama's boy Carter screwed the pooch. And the "statesman" in Iran was right there at the time.
So I'd say they're most certainly on the enemy list, even if Carter and Clinton were too feckless to call them out.
By Peter, at
Thu Jun 19, 07:56:00 PM:
Dear Anonymous, so, you don't have the courage to post your name on your diatribe. Just, whom is living in fear?
By the way, you have the politics of fear all backwards. The leadership of the Jihadis are hiding in caves. I'm sitting in my study. Yes, I love the politics of fear. I like those SOBs hiding and fearing for their lives. I like it that they say that we love life and they love death, then we catch them wearing women's clothes, trying to get away. Politics of fear my a**.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Jun 19, 11:21:00 PM:
"They have no clue about the middle east and it demographics."
I do, however.
"How many of the WTC terrorists were Iraqi or Iranian? How many were Saudi? What country do we continue to suck up to?"
You're thinking in nationalist terms. Islamists don't work that way. If they did, why would Arabs sign up to fight jihad in Afghanistan? Chechnya? Bosnia? They think in terms of religion. They don't even hide it. You'll see the word "umma" thrown around all the god damned time and translated as 'community.'
It doesn't mean 'community.' It means 'nation.' When they say that the islamic "umma" is under attack, they don't mean that their sense of collective well-being is offended; they literally mean that their country is under assault and they must rally to defend it against the enemy.
So it doesn't matter where they are born or what language they speak. Modern Islamists believe earthly governments to be unholy anyway. A jihadi is committed to his faith and his co-religionists.
"A bunch of hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so why do we kiss ass to Saudi Arabia?!"
is a common question, that betrays a total lack of understanding of how the enemy identifies himself, operates, and thinks. Besides, starting in 2003 the Saudis have arrested or killed literally hundreds of Al-Qaeda fighters and associates in their country. Those fights were triggered by the Iraq invasion.
The Saudi government is with us, and relatively strongly so. It is elements of their population (who hate the Saudis about as much as they hate us) who are the problem there.
