Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in The War On Terrorism
Could that be the title of the Presidential Daily Briefing today since a new audio tape warning of new attacks came out? Quite possibly. But is it Bin Laden? (UPDATE: The CIA says it is OBL)
Frankly, nobody knows yet, but this is some of what was said on the tape…
“Our mujahedeen were able to overcome all the security measures in European countries and you saw their operation in major European capitals,” the voice on the tape said.“As for similar operations taking place in America, it’s only a matter of time. They are in the planning stages and you will see them in the heart of your land as soon as the planning is complete.”
[...]
“Your President Bush has been misleading you. He has lied when he said that the people are behind him. Opinion polls have indicated that the overwhelming majority of you want him to pull the troops out of our land.
“We have the answer to these misleading information. The situation in Iraq is getting worse for you and the dead and the injured among you is on the rise.”
[...]
“Based on what I have said, it is better not to fight the Muslims on their land,” he said. “We do not mind offering you a truce that is fair and long-term. … So we can build Iraq and Afghanistan … there is no shame in this solution because it prevents wasting of billions of dollars … to merchants of war.”
Some are speculating that the last quote there is offering us a truce, although it seems highly unlikely any country would bargain with OBL. And by the way, if it is OBL, he knows that and he’ll simply use the lack of “cooperation” for more reasons to carry out terrorist attacks.
Quotes taken from CNN and the AP.
This entry was posted on Thursday, January 19th, 2006 and is filed under The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Is it just me, or does part of that read like the talking points to a MoveOn rally? I’m not saying the far left is acting like terrorists, just that the terrorists have clearly identified our far left as a good weak spot to aim for.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
The “truce” OBL speaks of is, it goes without saying, undoubtedly just a lame attempt to buy time for whatever remains of al Qaeda proper to recover and regroup.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
the terrorists have clearly identified our far left as a good weak spot to aim for.
Yeah, because after all, the “far” left is powerful and influential in the United States.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Phillip,
Well, I said THEY have identified it as a good weak spot. Not that it actually IS a good weak spot. I think OBL is trying to convinve people that the far left is correct. But I’m not sure who would take cues from that man.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
the key line in Bin-Hidin’s speach is this:
“The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. But the operations are happening in Baghdad and you will see them here at home the minute they are through (with preparations), with God’s permission.”
It seems he is tacitly admitting President Bush’s strategy is working: “We fight them in Iraq so we don’t have to face them here at home.”
I seem to recall a lot of lefties scoffing at that statement. Apparently not the top terrorist though.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Ehh…I think that’s stretching. Certainly they talk about Bush’s low approval ratings, but that’s certainly not simply relegated to any far left factions. You’d also have to lump Murtha into that group, and I’d guess you wouldn’t be too comfortable with that…
January 19th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
It was really just a humorous remark not meant for serious discussion. It was just that OBL called Bush a liar so many times, that’s all.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:09 am
It is completely silly to think that OBL does not fully comprehend and use every manipulation he can to increase his own power and stature. I’m just waiting for Osama to step in and broker a peace deal in Isreal — major Nobel contender in twenty years, trust me — the darling of the wacko left. Umm, who could I be thinking of. I don’t think Alan is very far off in his assessment. Obviously Micheal Moore does not want skyscrappers careened into with jets full of people — after all, he makes a pretty penny with the people in those buildings. The wacko left argue not only against the current policies, but also against the culture. OBL knows there is an anti-globalization movement and he knows that movements political profile. He attacked the World Trade Center! Yes, it does sound like a MoveOn rally at a WTO protest…in front the World Trade Center.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:50 am
DosPeros, still continuing the shock and awe campaign, eh?
And Alan, well taken. Too often on blogs I notice that people say something, somebody then reacts to it, and the original person says, “Jeez…you can’t take a joke?” I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing here, but I certainly thought you were being serious.
In otherwords, smileys are our friends ;-)
January 20th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Was it the substance or the style that shocked and awed, Justin? Perhaps the use of the adjective “wacko” was both shocking and awing — so in an effort to be less of something, please replace “wacko” with either a) “loopy”, b) “cognitively bonged” or c) the “fizzily dizzled”.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
“Ehh…I think that’s stretching. Certainly they talk about Bush’s low approval ratings, but that’s certainly not simply relegated to any far left factions. You’d also have to lump Murtha into that group, and I’d guess you wouldn’t be too comfortable with that… ”
Then you would be guessing wrong…
I think that Allen is correct in his statement – The Democrats want power so bad that they are constantly painting anything that Bush does as wrong… So on that score they are helping Bin Laden on the PR front. It really doesn’t make any difference if you say that you aren’t for Bin Laden if your actions end up helping him… actions speak louder than words.
Just out of curiosity, I’ve been away for a few weeks, can anybody tell me what the difference is between this NSA program and the Programs Eschelon and Carnivore is? I keep hearing about these other programs and I’m not sure what the difference is between the current one in use.
From what I have found, the only difference is that the current one isn’t so wide spread. Surely that can’t be right?
Another question: I’m also not sure how the bolded text of ‘in the United States’ changes any meaning to the statute. If you have members of the enemy here, are you saying that the administration shouldn’t be able to do anything to them??? How would this make them an less of an Al Queada member and being such exactly the person that the statute was referring to? How does their geographical location change their ‘identity’ in any way?
January 20th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
First of all, let’s get this “truce” idea out of the way. If Osama and his Jihad are doing so well against the United States, then why would he want a truce? Losers ask for a truce in order to save face.
It is quite apparent that OBL is well-versed in US politics. He’s well aware that he has his own brigade of “useful idiots” within the US. Many of them are members of the Democrat Party, while others are members of the news media. Add the Hollywood elite, the university campuses across the country and so-called civil liberties groups such as the ACLU and you have a very powerful block that spews propaganda on a daily basis.
Look for the left-wing of the Democrat Party to begin pressuring the Bush Administration to negotiate a truce with this madman. No matter what Bush does, he’s faces a tough up-hill battle.
Senator Hillary Clinton’s comments today prove my point. The complaint with the run up to the Iraq war is that Bush “went it alone.” That Bush didn’t work with our allies (France, Germany). That he didn’t give the United Nations a chance.
Today Senator Clinton complained that Bush is mishandling the Iran crisis. That he outsourced the problem to our allies — the British, French and Germans. That he’s allowing the problem to go to the United Nations instead of dealing with it himself. And not one reporter took her to task on this complete contradiction.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
So by your logic, dissent against a President during wartime is helping the enemy? Whatever. Terrorists use anything to their advantage, including trying to lump themselves in with the opposition party of the country in question. It’s a common strategy, and I find it particularly frustrating that so many on the right cry, “You’re helping the enemy!” Jeezus people, it is the very fact that we can and DO dissent that makes us different from them.
And DP, the only thing that’s a) “loopyâ€Â?, b) “cognitively bongedâ€Â? or c) “fizzily dizzledâ€Â? is your “Bin Laden as the darling of the left” scenario. Give me a break.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Justin,
I don’t think you understand my point… I probably didn’t say it very clearly. Since Clinton had projects Eschelon and Carnivore which were ‘reported’ by news agencies to be even more far reaching than the current NSA program – where was all of your concern then??
I don’t understand the ‘logic’ behind saying that Bush doing it during a war is ‘illegal’ and Clinton doing it during peacetime and its ‘hunkey dorey’…. I also don’t understand how the ‘geographical location’ of an al Queada member changes the fact that they are Al Queada and as such are exactly what the authorization to use force was speaking to.
Since there wasn’t any ‘massive outcry’ during Clinton’s NSA eavesdropping programs and we weren’t at war then – it seems just a bit disengenious to listen to the ‘outcry’ now directed at Bush and not just think that it is political crap which is being used by Bin Laden to shore up his followers and embolden the enemy in their fight…. Now if there was this hugh outcry during Clinton’s programs and there was still a huge outcry now – there wouldn’t be this HUGH inconsistancy and there wouldn’t be any reason to point out the ‘aid’ to Bin Laden… but there wasn’t – was there? So, why not??? Is this ‘dessent’ true or political??? It certainly sounds political to me…. because when ‘your’ guy was president – there wasn’t this hugh outcry and talking about how it is illegal….
January 20th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
debsay, please read this whole thing. It took a while to put together. ;-)
First, concerning the ECHELON thing, read this…
Also, there’s been no evidence that Carnivore – which has since been abandoned for better commercial products made by private companies – has been misused by either Clinton or Bush.
In short, just because Clinton had the technology to do these things does not mean he actually did the things Bush is now accused of. And if you believe George Tenet, you should believe Clinton did nothing wrong. So that should give you some more context to this whole Echelon/Carnivore stuff.
For the last time, they did not do the same thing. The Clinton thing was regarding warrantless physical searches and Bush’s scandal is about warrantless wiretapping. The law even stated that they were two different things when Clinton had the physical search conducted. It wasn’t until later that the law changed to restrict warrantless physical searches. And when the law changed, so did the Clinton administration’s policies.
So, that argument should be moot. Sure, the right-wing will keep spreading the whole, “Well, Clinton did it too!”, but it’s not accurate.
Because Congress thought that this language would open the door for just the type of thing that Bush is now accused of, i.e. monitoring peace activists, etc.
Here’s what Tom Daschle said about it in December after the wiretapping story broke…
Whether or not you agree with Congress taking the words out is not the point. Obviously Bush wanted it in there for a reason. That’s the important point.
However, what if Clinton did do something wrong? Let’s just suppose for a second that happened. Debsay, it would still be ILLEGAL. And it certainly doesn’t excuse Bush’s actions. Two wrongs don’t make a right. You’re looking at this as if somehow partisanship equals illegality.
Also, I’ll glady say that most of this dissent you’re so unhappy about is both political AND genuine. Of course it’s political. People want things to change. They can feel genuine about that.
Getting back to your original point, whether or not a terrorist like OBL uses it for his own devices should be of little consideration to the dissenters. Democracy THRIVES on dissent. In fact, it’s why our system works. And it baffles me when all of these right-wingers talk about not supporting the war is hurting the troops and giving comfort to the enemy, when they know damn well how intellectually dishonest that argument is, and how it attacks the very foundation of our union.
Hope this has been helpful.
January 23rd, 2006 at 3:17 am
Justin haha you shut him up. I’m impressed. It seems to me that you have your own shock and awe campaign. Only yours is intricately mixed with intelligence and facts, unlike the self-righteous people who resort to petty name calling. Thank you my friend.
OBL doesn’t expect us to negotiate with him or make a truce. He expects this continued bickering among the Democrats and the Republicans. He is hoping that certain name-calling people will side him with the left so that we keep wasting valuable time arguing rather then solving anything. So if anyone’s supporting the terrorists – it’s people who do just that. Think about that next time you call open-minded people like me fizzily dizzled DosPeras. Or the next time you associate Micheal Moore with that murdering Muslim. Because in essence, the only thing you are accomplishing is weakening this nation. If you disagree with an issue, by all means, state your case! If you lose, lose with dignity! Don’t call liberals names just because that makes you feel better about your position as a blind follower!
Not only are we draining our military strength by occupying Iraq, we are wasting our time fighting amongst each other! Bush is illegally wire-tapping American citizens and Clinton got a blowjob! Ok now that that’s established, what is more important to you people? Our unity or calling open-minded citizens of this country ridiculous names.
Sorry- I really had to get that off my chest, now then….
My father said something interesting to me today. He said that OBL was not talking to the American people or the fat-cats in Washington about anything regarding the war. He was talking to the radical Muslims in America! What do you guys think? I think that my dad may be right.
Do you believe that tape was meant for infidels or the Islamic army regouping in America?