A Friend in Need

Guess who agrees with John McCain and George W. Bush about the need to take a paranoid attitude toward Iran? That's right, it's Osama bin Laden in a new taped message:

Bin Laden singled out by name Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, whose 2006 war against Israel boosted the group's popularity among Shiites and Sunnis. Bin Laden said Nasrallah claimed he had enough resources, such as money and combatants, to fight Israel. "But the truth is the opposite," he said. "If he was honest and has enough (resources), why then he did not support the fight to liberate Palestine." He also attacked Nasrallah for allowing the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers in southern Lebanon "to protect the Jews." Sunni al-Qaida has also stepped up its criticism of Shiite Iran, the main backer of Hezbollah, accusing it of trying to dominate the Middle East.

Again, the reasonable course for the United States is to attempt a rapprochement with Iran in order for us to deal with our common enemy, al-Qaeda. Alternatively, we can prattle on about "Islamofascism" in a desperate effort to find new allies for al-Qaeda while alienating potential friends.

Comments

Hmmmmm, I choose "B". Yay, do I get a popsicle?!?!

Posted by Dubya in Paradise | May 20, 2008 10:14 AM

the reasonable course for the United States is to attempt a rapprochement with Iran in order for us to deal with our common enemy, al-Qaeda.

But I heard on conservative talk radio yesterday afternoon that Iran is more dangerous than the USSR ever was because they murdered 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001! (No lie; I really did hear that. Sometimes I listen just to get pissed off.)

Posted by mark f | May 20, 2008 10:22 AM

Decision 2008: Will we elecct the candidate of Hamas or the candidate of al-Qaeda?

Posted by Leo | May 20, 2008 10:38 AM

It would be a Crime* for Obama to play defense on national security in this campaign. I know he can't phrase it this way, but the point is that Bush/McCain is a threat to the country.
The Bush (and bush) response to 9/11 represents a gigantic national failure of nerve. It will be remembered as a signal failure in our history. I get a little impatient with even 'George Bush's failed policies have made us less secure than we should be'. How strong is it to get psyched out - over and over - by bin Laden? Bush is dangerous. McCain is dangerous.

Fucking Karl Rove demonstrated it for the Democrats, and still there is timidity: polarize the Republican's 'strength'. Say it straight out: 'Bush and McCain have made us weaker and more vulnerable'. (Yes, you are therefore inciting a bit of fear, but not for its own sake; there is such a thing as *healthy fear*). Not only does polarizing an opponent's strength *work*, but in this case it would have the added feature of being true.
I liked Obama's speech the other day, asking what Bush and McCain 'are afraid of'. That's the right idea. But I think the dems have to go on offence, rather than always responding. It's preposterous that a record as uniquely bad as Bush's should continue to have even vestigal 'strength' value. His failure is precisely a failure of strength, a failure of character.

*capitalized a la a pamphleteer

Posted by jonnybutter | May 20, 2008 10:42 AM

I see Ezra is thinking along the same lines, sort of. The answer to his question - can you be strong and right? - is: you *have* to be strong and right.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 20, 2008 10:55 AM

The Bush/McCain line on Osama has always been that his world view is basically correct and that's exactly why he's so important.

Posted by neil | May 20, 2008 10:57 AM

One has to find Mr. bin Laden a somewhat amusing fellow. He excoriates Hamas and Hizbollah for allegedly being soft on Israel. This from a man whose organization has launched terrorists attacks agains Spain, Great Britain, the United States, Saudi Arabia, etc. but has yet to launch such an attack against Israel. It should thus be obvious to all, especially Mr. Don Williams and his sockpuppet, Richard Steven Hack. Mr. bin Laden must be a Mossad agent, an agent provocateur attempting to stir up anti-Muslim prejudice in the West! What else could explain this startling discrepancy? Surely, if Mr. bin Laden has no fear of the mighty US military, the rather less mighty Israeli military should not cause him pause.

Posted by SLC | May 20, 2008 11:03 AM

Mark F,
What station, talk host,were you listening to? It's worth someone calling them on this.

Posted by TACreader | May 20, 2008 11:11 AM

It was Michael Graham filling in for Jay Severin on WTKK 96.9 out of Boston. For some reason conservatives are pervasive on the radio here, even on sports and music progamming.

Posted by mark f | May 20, 2008 11:23 AM

Remember when Israel invaded Lebanon last year to drive out Hezbollah and Bin Laden couldn't decide who to support? He actually hesitated!

Yeah, a week or two later he grudgingly offered Nasrallah some help, but this is one of the main reasons why asinine GOP rhetoric on the Middle East is so unhelpful. I'm actually optimistic enough to believe that the US military and many current Republican policymakers really do know there are many factions with competing interests to use and exploit and don't buy the 'all brownies are the same and bad' line.

Posted by mike | May 20, 2008 12:10 PM

I'm actually optimistic enough to believe that the US military and many current Republican policymakers really do know there are many factions with competing interests

I have no doubt that there are sane people in the military and in the bureaucracy, but do they set policy? They may *formulate* policy, but they don't really choose what to impliment, do they? I mean, the Bush Administration has been at war for years with, and has pretty successfully short circuited, 'established procedures/channels', no? They let Rice and Powell do a few things at the margin, but..they seem to have choke points all through the Executive branch. McCain might be either less or more crazy than Bush (presumambly he wouldn't have Cheney as VP), but we (and he) would regardless be stuck with the platform he actually ran on, which is daft, and not different from Bush's. Our only hope would be that McCain would be less good at imposing organizational discipline. Doesn't warm my heart.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 20, 2008 12:41 PM

a rapprochement with Iran in order for us to deal with our common enemy, al-Qaeda

Wait, I think you mean "a rapprochement with al-Qaeda in order for us to deal with our common enemy, Iran." Better?

Posted by The Modesto Kid | May 20, 2008 1:02 PM

In grand American tradition, let's fund the enemy of our enemy!! That way, they'll destroy our enemy and solve all our problems!! Surely we can borrow a few tens of billions more from China to do this!!

Now, the hard part: deciding whether to give the $$$$ to al-Qaeda or to Iran.

Posted by BobN | May 20, 2008 7:14 PM

^^^If you can't decide, give cash to one side, weapons to the other side.

Posted by Audient | May 20, 2008 8:27 PM

Concerning Bush's policies being the real threat to security and claims on conservative talk radio that Iran is responsible for American deaths on 9/11:

"the Bush administration is pledging to support Saudi Arabia’s nuclear power program, including supplying enriched uranium for nuclear reactors. The agreement came out of President Bush’s visit to the Saudi kingdom last week, during which Bush also pledged new US assistance in guarding Saudi oil reserves."

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/20/as_us_threatens_iran_over_enriching

Posted by Morgan | May 20, 2008 9:25 PM

Concerning Bush's policies being the real threat to security and claims on conservative talk radio that Iran is responsible for American deaths on 9/11:

"the Bush administration is pledging to support Saudi Arabia’s nuclear power program, including supplying enriched uranium for nuclear reactors. The agreement came out of President Bush’s visit to the Saudi kingdom last week, during which Bush also pledged new US assistance in guarding Saudi oil reserves."

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/20/as_us_threatens_iran_over_enriching

Posted by Morgan | May 20, 2008 9:26 PM

Yeah, Morgan gets that right. I sent Matt an email on that, which of course he ignored.

Here's Bush, screaming that Iran must never be allowed to have even nuclear energy despite being an NPT signatory, whereas Israel never has been and never will be, then turning around and offering Saudi Arabia precisely what the NPT REQUIRES the nuclear nations to do - support development of nuclear power.

It's called "chutzpah", I think, SLC, help me out here...

Meanwhile, if bin Laden wants to take on Israel, hey, such a deal I have for you, Osama! Pay me two billion US in advance and I will drop the state of Israel - not the country, the state - within 24 months. The Arab nations or the UN can clean up what I leave.

If Osama can't come up with the bread, I'm sure Iran can - or maybe a coalition of Arab states. I don't care who comes up with it, just come up with two billion in advance and the job will be done. No more Zionist state to screw things up in the ME. Their nukes will be history, their military screwed up, their politicians and scumbag Zionist freaks all dead. No problem.

Hey, nobody paid me one billion to deliver bin Laden, so now he can be a client!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 20, 2008 10:33 PM