OBL Asks Smart Questions

I didn't really agree with Osama's case for tax cuts, but I have to admit that this part of his message (PDF) seems to me to be asking a good question:

Why are the leaders of the White House keen to start wars and wage them around the world, and make use of every possible opportunity through which they can reach this purpose, occasionally even creating justifications based on deception and blatant lies, as you saw in Iraq?

I don't think bin Laden's answer ("those with real power and influence are those with the most capital") really makes much sense, but it really is a good question.

Comments

Well that makes fodder for one month worth of postings by the uberboys at the Corner.

Anything to make them parrot idiotic 'libs are (Islamo) fascists' talking points.

Posted by gregor | September 8, 2007 8:16 PM

It is a good question. To answer I offer another relevant and time-honored question often presented in this sort of context:

Q: Why do dogs lick their huevos?

Posted by James Gary | September 8, 2007 8:28 PM

Ya know Matt, it's just plain stupid to use OBL to make your point that starting wars are bad. Just think about it for s second.

Posted by Dave | September 8, 2007 8:29 PM

Yeah, sorta like what Dave said. I don't see this as a particularly deep or relevant question. It sounds like something a hippie would ask.
Anyway, I don't think Bush's policy is to "start wars". It's to assert America's influence strongly, through wars if necessary.

Posted by Jonathan | September 8, 2007 8:34 PM

I was amazed by how much OBL is tuned-in to our current affairs. As I read it I kept thinking of the psy-ops context of his words. He is doing his homework studying his enemy. He knows the elevated importance we give him and the impact his appearances have. His words have a purpose. No one can say that Osama is dumb.

Posted by miguel | September 8, 2007 8:35 PM

Dave and Jonathan,

Relax.

Just because OBL says something doesn't make it false. Also, the diametric opposite of what OBL says is not necessarily true. Don't for a second give credence to the Fox news bullshit, "If Bin Laden doesn't want us in the Mid-East, then it must be a good policy!"

Posted by Mike | September 8, 2007 8:45 PM

I don't quite get the "Huh, great question, Osama!" attitude of the post. It may be a "good" question but considering the source I think -- in fact, I know -- bin Laden is not out for an enlightened political debate. He's not actually asking a question. If any of his "questions" are sufficiently answered to him, do you think he'll just decide, "Oh, I guess you're right. Maybe I should stop trying to kill thousands of innocents"? The guy's a murderous fundamentalist loon, and any questions of his should be treated with disdain, not open-minded debate.

Posted by Media Glutton | September 8, 2007 8:56 PM

It's similar to the disdain I would give Sean Hannity when he gives Democrats his "advice." Thanks, Sean and Osama, but no thanks.

Posted by Media Glutton | September 8, 2007 8:58 PM

Oh geez MY, you can't say that; you can't even THINK it.

Posted by jonnybutter | September 8, 2007 9:04 PM

Media Glutton,

The point is not whether OBL is genuine in his question or whether he really deep down has the best interests of the US at heart. The answers to both are no. The point is that you just can't dismiss a statement out of hand because you don't like the source - which is exactly what you're doing.

Posted by Mike | September 8, 2007 9:07 PM

"I don't think bin Laden's answer ("those with real power and influence are those with the most capital") really makes much sense"

bin Laden's question is correct and his answer is also correct.

The US government is organized for the benefit of the people who give campaign contributions and who run this country - which happen to be the people who have the most capital.

Anybody here think THEY run the country?

Of course, his answer makes sense. To suggest that those with the most money in this country DO NOT have the most influence is completely idiotic.

It's a "Duh!" question bin Laden asks - as Matt correctly notes - and it's a "Duh!" answer bin Laden gives.

But since Matt doesn't have the balls to admit it - because he WORKS for these people and gets a paycheck from these people and is trying to impress these people that he's a Very Serious Person - he doesn't try to understand the answer.

Note: I'm NOT saying that "rich people" by definition are "evil". And if bin Laden is just attacking the whole notion of capitalism and the free market - which supposedly he was - then he's wrong. (He's wrong if for no other reason than that there is no such thing as a "free market" in ANY national economy in the modern world. It's all run by the "corporate state.")

But it's a FACT that the people who run this country are the people who belong to the class with the most money in this country.

It's just stupid to suggest otherwise.

Ask ninety eight of the US population who aren't making over $100K a year and they'd give you the same answer.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 8, 2007 9:09 PM

I was amazed by how much OBL is tuned-in to our current affairs.

I figured that his mentioning of recent event was not primarily to show off his psy-ops studies but rather to prove that he is presenting a contemporary video, not one created months or years ago for later release. I was almost ready to hear him say, "You tasteless American fools allowed the talentless Sanjaya to persist with his continued presence on American Idol!"

Posted by Tyro | September 8, 2007 9:13 PM

The point is that you just can't dismiss a statement out of hand because you don't like the source - which is exactly what you're doing.

No, you can't dismiss the statement, but you certainly can dismiss the person. Anything that puts bin Laden in the light of a "questioner" instead of being a cruel and proud murderer of innocent people is, to me, a bad thing. I don't think he deserves a deep study of his thoughts about the American political system which he's actively tried to blow up. It puts bin Laden in the realm of editorializing -- a realm he should be permanently exempt from due to his past actions. He's simply a propagandist; his actions show that.

Posted by Media Glutton | September 8, 2007 9:19 PM

It's not clear to me why that answer should be ignored (though of course anything that sounds like leftism is routinely treated as though it were theoretical kryptonite). The answer is both obviously true and a complete explanation of both why the war was started and why supposedly spineless Democrats refuse to end it.

Posted by Vincent | September 8, 2007 9:20 PM

"I don't think he deserves a deep study of his thoughts about the American political system which he's actively tried to blow up."

That is short-sighted. Analysis of propaganda is perfectly reasonable if it gives insight into the mind and intentions of the propagandist. Not to mention that it provides the opportunity for counter-propaganda.

More importantly, by pointing out bin Laden's alleged reasoning, it counters the simplistic view put forward by the neocons that bin Laden just "hates us for our freedoms."

bin Laden is NOT just a "loony-tune Islamist", as those who have interviewed him in person will tell you.

It's as wrong to dismiss him as such as it is to dismiss George Bush as a "crazy, drunk Texas cracker" which liberals tend to do. Bush may be all that, but he has other motivations and influences as well that are important to consider in order to determine his next actions.

So does bin Laden.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 8, 2007 9:25 PM

Anything that puts bin Laden in the light of a "questioner" instead of being a cruel and proud murderer of innocent people is, to me, a bad thing.

Really? Anything? Any question he asks is, ipso fact, illegitimate? That really makes no sense. C'mon, MG. You're allowed to be pissed, but try to be rational at the same time. OBL's past actions are neither here nor there.

Posted by Mike | September 8, 2007 9:29 PM

Richard, I see your point. I should have been more clear on the "dismissing" of bin Laden. We shouldn't ignore him. But I think we ought to react to him in a way that puts him in the context of what he is. Treating him as in, "Well, Osama raised an interesting point today" is giving him credit as a person who actually cares about the results of a philosophical conversation. He's already decided on his path of killing innocent people. Anything he says should be put into that context. I guess that's what I'm trying to say.

And Mike, I'm really not angry. I'm just saying that, yes, any question he asks is raised in bad faith and therefore is illegitimate. It's not a true question. It's like a concern troll (except more terrorist-y). "Oh, you Democrats should really do x, y, z or else you're going to lose." Well, since the concern troll WANTS Democrats to lose, they aren't legitimate points. Why should we respond to them as if they are?

Posted by Media Glutton | September 8, 2007 9:36 PM

I think it's funny to imagine Bin Laden as a populist. "Tired of pig-dog, fat cat capitalists with their hands on your wallet? Tired of bloody wars fought for the benefit of a cabal of rich industrialists? Try Islam! The overhead is low, the cause is righteous, and Muhammed awaits you with outstretched arms!" It's like he's running for president of the world, and just like all the other major candidates, he's framing his policies in opposition to the Dubya, because he has become the most useful and recognizable straw man on the planet.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | September 8, 2007 9:38 PM

I guess irony really did die on 9/11.

Posted by Mark | September 8, 2007 9:41 PM

Yeah, but irregardless of the source, it's a navel-gazing, sophomoric, cheese-dick question.

Why are the vicious capitalists in the White House so keen to start wars with their devious deception? Honestly, I'll wager all the money in my pockets that Matt would've been too ashamed to ask anything like that in his Harvard poli-sci classes.

Posted by southpaw | September 8, 2007 9:42 PM

obviously, Mr Yglesias is just trying to generate publicity for his own blog. He wants the Corner to attack him.

Posted by EH | September 8, 2007 9:46 PM

In defense of Matt, the part that he quotes is a question about why Americans continue to support a president that seems to enjoy war and lies us into them, not so much the "cheese-dick" answer that bin Laden postulates.

Posted by Media Glutton | September 8, 2007 9:47 PM

C'mon, it's funny. Nothing hurts worse than scorn. Treating OBL like satan is just what he wants. Treating him like Pat Buchanan is funny and hurts him the most. Seeing him played by Will Ferrell was just the ticket.

Posted by chris | September 8, 2007 9:51 PM

"The guy's a murderous fundamentalist loon, and any questions of his should be treated with disdain, not open-minded debate."

Wait, why are we talking about Bush? I thought this thread was about bin Ladin.

Posted by Joel | September 8, 2007 9:52 PM

You guys are too worried about the smears from the petseles of the GOP.

Posted by gregor | September 8, 2007 9:58 PM

The irony is deep with Osama making this critique; a scion of the generally unfavored
Hadramauti tribes of Yemen with Syrian parentage he was subceptible to conspiracy theories since his father died when he was only ten years old.
He was adopted by the royals but his political views were shaped by the Salafi philosophy of Mohammed Qutb (Syed's brother) and Abdullah Azzam.
However let's look at the political model he has
most experience ; the aspiring Wahhabi merger with
the Saud clan. The latter derive their authority and the bulk of the security services from the former; that's why its distressing that the names
Al Ghamdi, Al Uteibi, Al Quahtani proliferate among the lists of Gitmo detainees, martyrs in Afghanistan & Iraq, organizers in Chechnya and
other locales. There is no democracy, no real source of appeal the Majlis is a figurehead. If
the revolution came and one of this faction were
to prevail; the lure of corruption would bring about the same effect upon them in a generation.

The Sauds and the watered down Nasserist in Mubarak's entourage play a dangerous double game they seem to forgotten from the last time they used this stratagem in Afghanistan in the 80s. They count on the Americans to get rid of their
'dissidents' in Afghanistan & Iraq. If we retreat
we will validate Osama's belief of America as a
'weak horse' and they will proceed accordingly to the softer targets of Egypt, Jordan, and the great prize itself on the Arabian penisula. Then the fun really starts.

Of course we make fun of Osama; but it's really fun at your expense; not Matt and Ross's obviously. But the Stoogeman, Don the antisemite
and their analogues at Huff Po and Kos.

Posted by narciso | September 8, 2007 10:12 PM

Media Glutton: Your point is correct that bin Laden shouldn't be treated as some sort of "equal participant" in the discussion of "what's wrong with America" BY AMERICANS.

But I don't think Matt intended that. It seems to me to be one of Matt's "throwaway" posts that he does frequently (and used to do at TPM as well.)

And most of those aren't worth taking too seriously because they're almost always "Duh!" points.

I think Matt gets stuck or just waffles during the day, or just has a random thought, and he sticks it on the blog just to maintain a certain level of output.

No point in treating them like they're his more well-considered posts.

Now his post about "Edwards on terror" - that was a disaster that deserves to be heavily criticized and reacted to. Matt is just WRONG there.

On the other hand, though, bin Laden SHOULD be treated like someone raising a serious philosophical point - because that's what he is for the Islamic jihadist movement. He has to be taken seriously for that reason alone, if for no other.

You can't dismiss his points as mere "trolling" because he both believes them and he is using them both for propaganda to the US AND to his adherents.

You are correct that he really doesn't care or believe that the Democrats are going to do anything. But he does care that the US public - and more importantly, his adherents - believe that his points are legitimate.

Thus, they deserve a more comprehensive response than just "he's an asshole, don't pay any attention to what he's saying."

Now, when George Bush speaks, it's valid to do that - because Bush does NOT believe what he says and doesn't care what anybody thinks he says. BUT you STILL have to take into account what his beliefs and influences actually are in order to try to determine his next actions.

It's just his words that aren't important - except when they indicate what he will do, as when he said the US military will confront Iranians in Iraq. That was a deliberate ratchet up of tensions with Iran. But that is qualitatively different from his random crap about "democracy", etc.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 8, 2007 10:24 PM

"Anyway, I don't think Bush's policy is to "start wars". It's to assert America's influence strongly, through wars if necessary.

Posted by Jonathan | September 8, 2007 8:34 PM "

This is probably partly true, but it does seem to me that part of the reason for his desire to be a war president is to ensure a permanent Republican majority. The electorate may regret getting into a war after the fact, the logic goes, but once we're there they won't trust the Democrats to end it without hurting the US's collective ego, so they'll support the Republicans. This probably explains why he never tried to embrace the entire country instead of just his base.

Posted by Reality Man | September 8, 2007 11:28 PM

what is striking to me about OBL 's rant is how closely he obviously has been following the detailed domestic political debate including naming neo-cons by name and even mentioning Noam Chomsky. Wherever it is he is hiding it would seen that he has broadband. . .

Posted by just noting | September 9, 2007 12:35 AM

It seems to me to be one of Matt's "throwaway" posts that he does frequently

I don't agree at all. I see continuity, and actually see a connection between the Edwards post and this one.

The foundation of good Western policy vis a vis terrorism is: Terrorists must not decide our policy, either directly or indirectly; we don't merely react to them and their agenda and we don't emulate them. As should be pretty obvious to anyone who lets go of their pickle for a moment, this is essentially an ideological 'war' (how many divisions does OBL have?). What matters is how we think and behave. Bush and Cheney have consistently chosen the craven, bad-character, reactionary tack. Actually, I really don't think Bush really cares very much about fighting terrorism compared with domestic politics, an approach which makes a certain amount of sense if you are a sociopath. I totally believed him when he said that he really wasn't particularly concerned about OBL.

Forbidding certain thoughts (like cool analysis of OBL's statements, for example), as do people in the Corner adn elsewhere, is fundamentalist/terrorist behaviour. The liberal approach, on the other hand, would be to bolster intellectual freedom all the more, as part of overall freedom.

Pick your own examples of our current government's letting the enemy set the agenda - there are so many.

Posted by jonnybutter | September 9, 2007 12:59 AM

Bush and Cheney have consistently chosen the craven, bad-character, reactionary tack.

Sorry, I get carried away with adjectives. The operative one is 'weak'. The correct sentence is 'Bush and Cheney have consistently chosen weakness'.

Posted by jonnybutter | September 9, 2007 1:12 AM

Dave and Jonathan,

Relax.

Just because OBL says something doesn't make it false.
Posted by Mike | September 8, 2007 8:45 PM

Absolutely. As some people have pointed out, anything bin Laden may have relevance because it is he who said it, so maybe this quote has relevance because of that.

In principle, I believe it's possible that something he says could stand on its own as a good argument or question. However, this question simply doesn't make the cut. As Southpaw said: "it's a navel-gazing, sophomoric, cheese-dick question". It's just completely simplistic and unilluminating.

Anyway, though, I'm not going to bash on MY too hard. He makes a lot of great observations that I'd miss (but this isn't one of those times).

Posted by Jonathan | September 9, 2007 1:32 AM

"Wherever it is he is hiding it would seen that he has broadband. . ."

You're behind the times.

Everybody in the world except maybe the Sudan and Darfur and Somalia has broadband faster and cheaper than the US.

A slight exaggeration, but, hey.

But your comment does point out that this notion that we "can't find OBL because he's hiding in a cave" is ridiculous.

That is, of course, assuming he didn't die of renal failure five years ago and all this is a CIA front...I have no position on that.

As Matt has said, though, it's amazing how OBL and Bush seem to support each other...

Not that it's not normal human behavior for enemies to mirror each other, but in this case...

I mean, that IS WHY we "can't find bin Laden." Bush NEEDS him.

Of course, once Bush has his war in Iran, maybe we'll suddenly "find" bin Laden because Bush decides he doesn't need him any more...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 9, 2007 1:41 AM

I seriously doubt OBL has broadband. They say this speech was written for him by the American Al Qaeda douche Adam Gadan, who provided the timely references.

FWIW, I thought the Chomsky and 'Das Kapital' stuff was an incredibly ham-handed way to appeal to lefties. But maybe I overestimate lefties and OBL knows better.

Posted by Fred | September 9, 2007 2:53 AM

I seriously doubt OBL has broadband. They say this speech was written for him by the American Al Qaeda douche Adam Gadan, who provided the timely references.

FWIW, I thought the Chomsky and 'Das Kapital' stuff was an incredibly ham-handed way to appeal to lefties. But maybe I overestimate lefties and OBL knows better.

Posted by Fred

I could see the Gadan hypothesizing, because to me it seemed very different from other released scripts and transcripts by bin Laden.

But I think it's wrong to think he (the writer, whoever it may be) is attempting to 'appeal' to lefties -- the point was to take on the strongest explanations for the state of the world as he sees it which do NOT invoke Islam, and then attempt (badly) to show that ONLY Islam can really explain things.

This is, after all, supposedly the bin Laden who went to war in Afghanistan to overthrow a secular, Marxist-leaning government, precisely because (ostensibly) they were non-Islamic, and therefore, anti-Islamic.

Islamic fundamentalists have generally not been very in favor of secular leftists -- and by that I don't mean individual, foolish, tender-minded dupes who can easily switch their search for "The Answer" from any strong or extreme appeal, changing from revolutionary leftism to Islamic fundamentalism as they feel the wind blow. That's your standard cultist's appeal to the eager & somehow desperate, it's not whether they are leftist or not.

Maybe OBL really is fairly bad off, and so they let this hack writer cobble together this disparate crap, and passed it through their extra-Islamicizing process, and, poof, here ya go, the latest rantscript.

Posted by El Cid | September 9, 2007 4:10 AM

Though I will give it a bit of credit for consistency, as if I recall correctly, bin Laden's writings often differentiate to a degree between the U.S.' leaders and its population, and then also often blames each for each other.

P.S. I don't really think that bin Laden asked any smart questions. These are the same kind of question you would often hear in discussions of US foreign policy in many 3rd world conversations. Those conversations usually start off discussing why the U.S. or other great powers have and have always had what they view as an imperial character to it.

Posted by El Cid | September 9, 2007 4:16 AM

Media Glutton, the Republican blogosphere is that way ----->

Only iduiots respond to something intellectual and go "But that's bad politics". No fucking shit, But matt isn't running for anything. Therefore, the only purpose of your posts is to directly shut down the conversation.

Posted by Soullite | September 9, 2007 8:41 AM

A good question, to my mind, has certain attributes:

- It contains as few controversial premises as possible. OBL's question involves at least 5 disputable claims.

- If the question is non-rhetorical, it honestly seeks interesting information or illuminates a logical inconsistency:

"What did the president know and when did he know it?"

"If you ordered that Santiago wasn't to be touched, and your orders are always followed or people die, then why did he need to be transferred off the base?""

-I'm not entirely convinced that a rhetorical question like this one could ever truly be a good question. (If you accept the premise, the only plausible response seems to be: "Well, they're evil fucks, that's why!").

. . . But the rhetorical questions I admire, the ones with the power to persuade people, at least allude to some virtue or shared value that the listener can embrace:

"Have you no decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?"

"Who stands if Freedom fall? Who dies if England live?"

"Aye, fight and you may die, run, and you'll live, at least for awhile. And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing, to take all the days from this day till then, to come back here and tell our enemies, they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom?!"

I don't really see any of that in OBL's tendentious harangue. I'd be interested to hear why others think it worthy of praise.

Posted by southpaw | September 9, 2007 9:36 AM

Hitler shut down the Bauhaus preferring Germanic kitsch.

But at least he had Leni Riefenstahl.

You'd think this Bin Laden character would at least be able to afford a good videographer.

Posted by Linus | September 9, 2007 12:22 PM

Too funny. As informed internet readers wait to see if Bush really will strike Iran without consulting the Congress, and whether a massive unprovoked American attack will be followed by Israeli nuclear strikes, Matt's readers debate....say, just what is it you're debating here, anyway? Whether OBL can write a question for a senior philosophy exam? Whether we are prohibited from asking any question OBL asks?

Say, maybe y'all kinda forgot that the only reason OBL is alive today (metaphorically if not in actual fact) is that George Bush was so eager to start a pointless war that he resorted to lies and fooled the Congress and the American people.

Having almost died a few times, I sure as hell will never forget the people who saved my life. The fact that OBL pops up just when Bush needs him the most, secure in the knowledge that his appearance will actually help Bush, instead of emphasizing a major Bush failure, is one of the best arguments for his continued actual existence.

Considering how dangerous this warmongering has become to our national existence, the question is a good one. Alternately, you could take the OBL stance that provoking American attacks is a good way to bleed down our military and mobilize world opinion against us.

It's your future. Discuss it wisely.

Posted by serial catowner | September 9, 2007 12:38 PM

Re Media Glutton's comment "The guy's a murderous fundamentalist loon, and any questions of his should be treated with disdain, not open-minded debate "
------------
I'm confused -- are we talking about Osama Bin Leden or George Bush?

Posted by Don Williams | September 9, 2007 4:52 PM

Re Media Glutton's comment " I don't think he deserves a deep study of his thoughts about the American political system which he's actively tried to blow up. It puts bin Laden in the realm of editorializing -- a realm he should be permanently exempt from due to his past actions. He's simply a propagandist; his actions show that."
-------------
In my opinion, this is bullshit. It is the same approach that has allowed special interests to manipulate us into disaster over the past 6 years --- for the benefit of their selfish agendas.

As I've noted before, to find and neutralize the Al Qaeda insurgency, we need to recruit spies and informers in the Islamic World. To do that, we need to isolate Al Qaeda from the common citizens of the Islamic World.

To do that, we need to neutralize the legitimate grievances that Bin Laden is using to recruit for Al Qaeda --especially since those grievances do not even require a compromise or tradeoff of US national interests.

The problem is that George Bush/Dick Cheney and the Neocons have been lying through their teeth from day 1 -- and the news media and some Democratic leaders have been complicit in helping Bush/Cheney do so. Because the news media and the Democratic leaders whore for some of the same plutocrats that Bush /Cheney court.

Bush's Big Lie after Sept 11 was that the attack occurred "because they hate our freedom". That was deceitful bullshit -- Bin Laden ,in several interviews with US TV networks in 1997-98, explicitly cited THREE reasons why the Islamic world should launch jihad against the USA.

Reason one was that the US government killed 600,000 children in Iraq in the 1990s -- by bombing water treatment plants and then blocking Iraqi import of water purification chemicals -- triggering an epidemic of killing diseases as the Iraqis were forced to drink polluted water. The most casual research will show US aid and physican groups agreeing with Bin Laden's assessment.

Reason two is that the US government has kept the Saudi kleptocracy in power for decades -- with both overt and covert military support. Again, the most casual research will show that this is true.

Reason three is that the US government has supported Israeli aggression and bears direct responsibility for the holocaust that has befallen the Islamic Palestinians. Again, it takes little research to show that this is true.

What is really scary is the obvious way in which US news media openly lied to the American people in the weeks after Sept 11. There was little to NO examination of why the attack occurred --much less any mention of Bin Laden's 1997-98 warnings.
The New York Times in fact tried to deny that US support for Israel was a factor in the attack -- with a deeply deceitful article on Sept 22 titled "Israel as Flashpoint not Cause".

A few weeks after Sept 11, Condi Rice censored the American people from hearing the truth -- by going to the CEOs of the 5 major networks and twisting their arms to not broadcast Bin Laden's speechs.

Condi Rice's two-faced excuse for this extraordinary act -- that Bin Laden might be sending secret codes -- was bullshit. As I've noted, anyone familar with insurgencies knows that the command of such insurgencies can easily communicate with their agents in the field by sending messages encrypted with the unbreakable one-time-pad over shortwave radio.

Condi Rice ,who had a Chevron oil tanker named after her, was not in a panic over what Al Qaeda agents would hear. She was scared over what would happen if the American people learned what --and who -- had provoked the attack.

As always, citations and references available on request.

Posted by Don Williams | September 9, 2007 5:20 PM

Re narciso comment "The irony is deep with Osama making this critique; a scion of the generally unfavored Hadramauti tribes of Yemen with Syrian parentage he was subceptible to conspiracy theories since his father died when he was only ten years old."
----------
So was Osama the person spreading the story that Saddam had nuclear bombs??

Posted by Don Williams | September 9, 2007 5:28 PM

Re southpaw's comment "Why are the vicious capitalists in the White House so keen to start wars with their devious deception? Honestly, I'll wager all the money in my pockets that Matt would've been too ashamed to ask anything like that in his Harvard poli-sci classes."
--------
Then I'll ask it.

Why did we invade Iraq -- how was it in the interest of the AMerican people?

Why do we spend roughly $38 per GALLON of Middle East gasoline and spend almost nothing to develop alternative energy technologies?

Why is the US Congress and the WHite House such craven whores for Israel -- a small country on the other side of the world who gives us nothing.
Why did we allow Israel to develop nuclear weapons ,knowing that that would motivate her neighbors to try to do the same? Why do we veto almost EVERY UN resolution against Israel? What FOREIGN CITIZEN was the biggest campaign donor to the Democratic Party in 2000-2002?

Why did George Bush lie to us after Sept 11 and why did Condi Rice censor Bin Laden broadcasts?

How much of the $600 Million plus the Republicans and Democrats receive each election comes in the form of $25 checks from the little people?

What do the big donors --who contribute most of the campaign funds --want for their money?

Posted by Don Williams | September 9, 2007 5:37 PM

Sorry Joel -- I had the same thought you did and put up my 4:52 pm post before seeing that you had made the same point earlier.

Posted by Don Williams | September 9, 2007 5:40 PM