Like DNC chairman Howard Dean, bin Laden assures us that the Iraq situation "unwinnable." He concurs with Ted Kennedy that President Bush "lied" us into the war in the first place. He supports Representative John Murtha's contention that America's best strategy is to cut and run from the conflict.
No doubt, he is as outraged as Pat Leahy and Nancy Pelosi that he cannot "reach out and touch" members of his sleeper cells in this country without risking the possibility of the NSA monitoring the calls and thus violating his privacy. Evidently, Osama and the Democrats are, strategically speaking, on the same page.
Now Democrats may be forced to scramble in order to accomplish the real goal of their rebuttal (which is to undermine any encouraging news the president might have to offer America), without sounding like minions of the Islamist madman. On the other hand, they were never distracted by such considerations in the past, so perhaps their agenda will proceed as originally planned.
It would seem to be immediately obvious to those on the left that their constant denigration of the American effort in the war on terror rings eerily similar to the words of the murderous fanatic who started the conflict and remains at its ideological center. Indeed, Bin Laden delivered what could easily pass for a current Democrat policy statement, touching on many of the major points of the liberal agenda.
Moreover, his diatribe might have been written by virtually any one of the big three news anchors, the leadership of the Democrat party, or those talk-radio liberals from Air America (admittedly, the last comparison is a bit unfair to Bin Laden's intellectual honesty).
Yet he seems to have overlooked a few critical items. For example, he did not have any advice to offer on the Alito confirmation, but it is probably a safe guess that on that issue he sides with the left as well. Democrats relentlessly rail against Alito for his possible antipathy towards Roe v. Wade, which they claim he will seek to overturn at his earliest possible opportunity. Certainly, Bin Laden does not want to risk such a sea change in American law. This country of "infidels" is currently aborting one fourth of its next generation. What could make an Islamic terrorist happier than that?
Also conspicuously absent from his commentary was any endorsement of Brokeback Mountain as the "clarion call" for what America ought to be. Yet by so doing he could have greatly furthered his cause, since the expression of such sentiment has virtually become a requirement for credibility among the left, and would have forever endeared him to the counterculture.
Clearly, if he is going to remain as the preeminent spokesman for the Democrat National Committee, Osama Bin Laden will have to "grow" in certain areas of his thinking. But, then again, collaboration with the infidels does have its limits.
On a more serious note, while the inanities of American liberalism are good for an occasional chuckle, the dangers represented by militant Islam are every bit as deadly serious as they have ever been. Also in Bin Laden's speech was the admonition of another impending attack. And whether his threats represent empty bluster born of desperation and futility, or a grave warning, it is inarguable that they indeed reflect the real desires and goals of Islamists.
It was criminally negligent of the government to not take similar warning signs seriously as they mounted during the 1990s. In the wake of 9-11, when all doubts of their actuality have been erased, it is no less than treasonous to trivialize them, for the sake of politics, and thus to distract America from effectively confronting them.
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been active in local and state politics for many years.
What happened to Osama Obamma? I thought he was the next "rising star".
Democratic rebuttal formula:
If Bush does A, say he should have done B. If he does B, say he should have done A.
Example: If the Bush Pentagon goes with a theory of less is more in Iraq, scream that we "need more boots on the ground". But always be ready, in case Bush actually does send in more troops, to scream "quagmire and escalation! quagmire and escalation!"
Anything he does --- even if it's something we advocated --- be ready to scream that he should have done the opposite.
Also, paradoxically, we Democrats must always demand that Bush do things that he was going to do anyway, and then claim credit for it. Such as demanding that he draw down troop levels when we know that's part of his plan.
In other words, demand that the sun come up in the morning and when it does, take credit for it, unless we get a sunburn, in which case we blame Bush!
These democrat responses to presidential speeches are getting to be quite tiresome. I, for one, have been simply turning them off, along with all of the pundits presuming to tell me what I just heard.