Osama’s Swan Song

The latest taped message from UBL, the terms our cousins across the pond use for Osama is very close to a message of defeat. UBL is following in footsteps of Prophet Mohammad, exactly as required of a dutiful true Muslim by asking for negotiations when faced with a sure defeat. His hope is to sue for a truce, resulting in a treaty for say ten years, while regrouping and strengthening his forces and then violate the treaty at will just as Muhammad did in the trouncing over the ten year Treaty of Hudaibiyah, 18 months after signing it.

US immediately came down with the reaction. No way, Osama. We will stop when we are finished with the job of destroying you and your organization. It is just like the mid 1940s: the terms of your surrender is the only thing we will consider for negotiation.

It is interesting that this offer of a truce came so soon after his deputy almost got blown away by an apparent CIA inspired rocket attack in Damadola, Pakistan. He is clearly rattled that the CIA is getting closer and closer to him. No more dinner parties outside the caves anymore. He feels the noose is getting closer and closer so best sue for a truce. No and do not ask again.

It is also very curious how he exhorts President Bush in his message to pay heed to the anti-war polls in the US. I am relieved that Bush does not make all his decisions based on how the wind is blowing unlike his predecessor. If anyone did not believe that loud anti-war sentiments help encourage the enemy, let them read the text of his message. Full text of his tape is
here.

Posted by Krishan Kumra at January 20, 2006 5:16 AM
Comments
Comment #114836

(Ignoring the unwarranted attack on us anti-war folks for a moment…)

Am I the only person who heard this tape and thought of the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

“All right… we’ll call it a draw!”

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 20, 2006 8:05 AM
Comment #114840

Remind me again why OBL is still alive? Oh yes… Shrub went after Iraq instead of flooding Afghanistan with 100,000 GIs. So now we have OBL promising an attack in the US… again.

What will the Right say when Al Queda succeeds? Will we allow the WingNuts to put survellance cameras in our Houses then? Or maybe they will blame the “Liberals” for “weakening” America?

What excuse do you say for stupidity, incompetence and failure?

Oh, I remember… It was the CIA’s fault.

Posted by: Aldous at January 20, 2006 8:36 AM
Comment #114841

Krishan:

OBL is using a classic psychological method in trying to use our own words and questions (in the form of polls) against us. This method is used as an interrogation technique in that it hopes to make one question his/her own beliefs, and feed into their concerns about whether their beliefs are valid.

**He puts in bits of truth (there is anti-war sentiment in the US) among his fantasy (“our situation, thank God, is only getting better and better”).

**He tries to placate us, by suggesting that it is not the American people who are at fault, but that the fault lies with Bush alone (“the repeated errors your President Bush has committed”;”The sensible people realize that Bush does not have a plan” etc).

**He tries to allow the American people to ‘save face’ by putting the blame solely on the administration (“There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America who have supported Bush’s election campaign with billions of dollars which lets us understand the insistence by Bush and his gang to carry on with war.”)

**He tries to divide and conquer by pitting the American people against Bush (“And so to return to the issue, I say that results of polls please those who are sensible, and Bush’s opposition to them is a mistake.) He says that the people of America are sensible, but that Bush is not.

It is true that different viewpoints about Bush exist within the United States, and that some oppose the war while others see it as necessary. The freedom that allows these diverse opinions to be presented is one of our greatest strengths. With this comes the responsibility to recognize how and when our free speech can hurt our country. Honest dissent is acceptable and even desirable. But let us recognize the implicit goal of OBL’s speech, and that is to make us waver in our decisions, which weakens us. Regardless of our beliefs, we cannot allow our enemies to control our thinking.

OBL’s tactic will only work if we allow it to. If Americans take this information and conclude that we must follow OBL’s desires, then that will certainly benefit our enemy. But I believe that Americans are smarter than that.

Question: IFF things were going as well as OBL claims, IFF “The mujahideen, thank God, are increasing in number and strength”, IFF the US were headed towards certain defeat, why would OBL choose now to issue a truce option?

Rob:

Tooooo funny!! I hadn’t thought of that, but I won’t be able to get that out of my head now…

“Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow
bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you. I’ll bite your legs off!

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 20, 2006 8:39 AM
Comment #114842

Aldous,

Shrub? That is soooo mean-spirited and intolerant. Isn’t that what your side accuses everyone of being when the wrong word is used?

Al-queda will only succeed if they think we are weak or if our leadership is weak (Anti-War Activists or Democrats in the White House). I suggest you read some history of the region before you spout again.

Posted by: Mark at January 20, 2006 8:45 AM
Comment #114846

JBOD,

I’m glad you liked the reference! On your other comments:

Regardless of our beliefs, we cannot allow our enemies to control our thinking.
…and…
OBL’s tactic will only work if we allow it to. If Americans take this information and conclude that we must follow OBL’s desires, then that will certainly benefit our enemy. But I believe that Americans are smarter than that.

Remember, though, that automatically rejecting an option just because OBL advocates it is also “allowing our enemy to control our thinking”. I’m sure we both agree that we’re better off thinking for ourselves.

Anyone who has been around WatchBlog for a while knows that I was anti-war from long before the word “go”. I still think that invading Iraq was a bad idea…

… however …

Now that we’re there, and have created a huge mess, WE NEED TO STAY AND CLEAN IT UP! Colin Powell was exactly right with his “Pottery Barn” comment — we broke it, so we bought it. Just because we failed to do the responsible thing BEFORE the war doesn’t mean that it’s too late to do the responsible thing now.

Osama would love for us to pull out of Iraq early. We already did him one favor by breaking it; let’s not do him another by failing to put it back together.

Aldous:

Yes, Bush went after the wrong enemy. He was so eager to kick Saddam’s butt that he let himself lose sight of Osama. That was a major failure on his part.

Again, though, that doesn’t change the fact that we’re in Iraq now, and that Al Queda (the REAL enemy) will be the only ones to benefit from an early withdrawal.

My biggest fears now are…

(a) …that Bush will be too unwilling to let go of control of operations in Iraq, and will undermine the authority of the new government in the process, and/or…

(b) …that Bush won’t learn from the lessons of Iraq when dealing with its neighbor, Iran.

Either one would play right into Osama’s hands.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 20, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #114849

If I had a nickel for everytime a Republican called a battle “over” before it was even close to ending, I’d be Jack Abramoff.

Posted by: Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout at January 20, 2006 9:41 AM
Comment #114850

Ravi, this simplistic arm-chair analysis of OBL’s motives and intentions is entertaining, but, lacks the kind of analysis that would be applied by a psychologist or military analyst. It also underestimates the sophistication and complexity of al-Queda, a very dangerous thing to do; underestimate the enemy.

9/11 was an act of war, but, in no way, shape, or form was it an act of conventional war. Throw out all you know about WWII, Korean War etc. This is a very different kind of war, it is a psychological war. al-Queda leadership is quite well aware that they cannot win a conventional war of arms with the US or the UN. There goal is not to overwhelm populations or militaries with bombs, rockets, and guns.

There goal is to create a war of ideology, to win over hearts and minds of 100’s of millions of Muslim peoples, to resist, aid and abet their efforts to pursue this war of terrorism. Stiking on 9/11 had precisely the intended effect they chose. They caused a fearful giant to RE-ACT in a manner that left Muslims around the world shocked and dismayed at the hypocrisy of the mighty west. They won their first battle. With Bush’s trashing of American law and worldwide reputation in torturing prisoners, setting up secret prisons, arresting and detaining Americans without due process and bombing, maiming, and killing civilians in their pursuit of al-Queda, Bush handed UBL and al-Queda victory after victory. Victory in the sense that Muslims by the 10’s of millions were appalled by the US response.

And a victory they could not have foreseen, but, which was far greater than hoped for, was the invasion of Iraq based on premises which proved false as a means of striking back at al-Queda terrorists. By invading a country having nothing to do with 9/11 using 9/11 as premise for the invasion, al-Queda won sympathizers and recruits to their cause in numbers not possible otherwise.

The best one can hope for when fighting a force of superior numbers and armament, is to provoke such an indefensible and irrational response from the mighty opponent that the mighty opponent becomes its own worst enemy and loses the support and favor of onlookers. al_Queda’s victories defined this way were greater than even they dreamed possible thanks to the inept, uneducated, and ignorant responses of the Bush administration to 9/11 and in the name of 9/11.

The U.S. has lost such trust in the world, that she will never regain her leadership role in world affairs enjoyed prior to Viet Nam, and partially regained between Viet Nam and Iraq wars. The coalition of the meager and puny, save Great Britain and the US, was a joke that many Muslims still laugh about today.

Italy is withdrawing from Iraq, following the path of others who have seen that Iraq never was, and never will be, a united nations war, but, a US war. For the US to have achieved victory in Iraq, the US would have needed Middle Eastern and European nations to establish the occupation in Iraq for as long as it took to insure Iraq’s democratic future. But, that victory option is long gone. As long as the US remains an occupier, the insurgency will not abate. And if the US leaves, so does every other nation, leaving Iraq to fail in establishing anything even remotely close to what we in the West would call a thriving democracy and integrated nation.

To defeat an enemy, one must learn its objectives, methods, and goals. The Bush administration has to this day, shown an utter lack of understanding or learning of al_Queda’s objectives and goals, as is obvious by the growth of Islamic terrorism throughout the world. They grasped the methods, and the methods are the only front which the Bush administration has fought al_Queda on, until recently when they attempted to wage a psychological media war in Iraq. And they even botched that.

So, what is this negotiation by OBL really about? Very likely, it is not about capitulation. It is more likely an attempt to appear to Muslim’s everywhere more reasonable and rational than Bush. Will OBL succeed? Depends upon whether one is a Brit or American in the West, or a Muslim in Indonesia or Yemen.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 20, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #114854

Rob,

Great pull on the Monty Python bit. I do not think that the President wants to keep any more temporary control in Iraq than is absolutely necessary.

And I believe he did learn from the walk up to Iraq and has let the U.N., E.U. and others take the lead in Iran. For which, he is now being told he dropped the ball by “farming out-Iran.”
“Can’t win for Losing” as it were.

Aldous

One man hiding in a region that is more or less borderless and lawless can do so with impunity. The tribes in those areas where he is truely thought to be are no fans of The Pakistani Government, The US, and the Afgahni government. In comparison, Pablo Escobar, the billionaire drug lord of the Medillin Cartel in Colombia, actually stayed hidden in the City and general vacinity of Medillin for three years while the colombian government and the US looked for him.

Also, Pres. Clinton turned down capture of the bearded goober in Sudan. Was this a case of rejecting the Silver Platter because it wasn’t Gold?

Posted by: Scott at January 20, 2006 10:08 AM
Comment #114858

Al Qaeda is just not registering with the American people anymore; the libs can’t even use them to get at Bush, like they used to. And, the ones that are using the “Why didn’t Bush go after OBL”, “Tora Bora” lines just think about this, OBL’s speech actually makes him look weaker and weaker each and everytime he goes on tape and or video.

In 2004, right before our election, he spoke (literally parroting what Michael Moore said in his movie), to no avail; Bush won! In 2005, he spoke to the Iraqi people telling them not to vote in the elections; once again, all to no avail, the Iraqis voted bigtime! Now, in 2006, just days after his top lieutenants were killed in that US attack in Pakistan, he comes out and asks for a truce. Uhhhh, don’t think so, jerky!!! Noboby is listening to him anymore and he’s “not on our minds; we don’t think about him anymore”. Ha! Ha! The President was (definitely) right when he made that comment a few years back.

Posted by: rahdigly at January 20, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #114859

Scott,

Great pull on the Monty Python bit. I do not think that the President wants to keep any more temporary control in Iraq than is absolutely necessary.

I don’t know about that. He’s more than happy to hand the day-to-day running of the government over, but what about military matters? Is he really going to be content to let Iraq deal with terrorists in its own borders?

And, when we do withdraw, will it be a full withdrawal (which the US has basically never done), or will we leave behind forces indefinitely like we did in Germany, Japan, Korea, Kosovo, etc.? Do you really think Bush can resist keeping a military presence that close to Iran’s border?

And I believe he did learn from the walk up to Iraq and has let the U.N., E.U. and others take the lead in Iran. For which, he is now being told he dropped the ball by “farming out-Iran.” “Can’t win for Losing” as it were.

First, Hillary can kiss my ass. Her brand of partisan politics is only making the situation worse.

Second, Bush has a lot to learn about international leadership. He seems to think the only options are (a) let others decide what to do, or (b) decide for yourself. The idea of working WITH other nations to determine a course of action isn’t in his gamebook.

That was the big problem with the “walk up to Iraq”. Bush never approached the international community to DISCUSS what should be done. He made a decision, and then demanded a yay/nay on that decision, without discussion or debate. By the time he approached the UN, it was clear that the US was going with or without approval. Discussion was never an option.

I seriously hope he doesn’t do the same thing in Iran.

Also, Pres. Clinton turned down capture of the bearded goober in Sudan. Was this a case of rejecting the Silver Platter because it wasn’t Gold?

Clinton screwed up, and Bush failed to learn from his predecessor. I still find it humorous that Republicans will defend Bush by saying, “Clinton did it, so it must be right!” Since when has Clinton been the model for Republicans to live up to???

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 20, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #114860
Noboby is listening to him anymore and he’s “not on our minds; we don’t think about him anymore”. Ha! Ha! The President was (definitely) right when he made that comment a few years back.

Yeah… Clinton didn’t listen to him either, and look what happened on 9/11. Maybe Bush shouldn’t underestimate the guy….

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 20, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #114864

Mark wrote:

Al-queda will only succeed if they think we are weak or if our leadership is weak (Anti-War Activists or Democrats in the White House).

I guess those of us who oppose the President’s policies (about half the country) just have to shut up or Osama wins.

OK. I’ll stop speaking out for what I believe is right. Osama wins that way too.

Bobo

Posted by: bobo at January 20, 2006 10:32 AM
Comment #114865

OBL is merely telegraphing his friends in congress, a clear message. You must negotiate the surrender of Iraq or OBL is lost. I’m sure Kerry, Reid , Pelosi, Kennedy etc will redouble their efforts to save Iraq for OBL.

Posted by: pige at January 20, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #114867

Rob,
“Yeah… Clinton didn’t listen to him either, and look what happened on 9/11. Maybe Bush shouldn’t underestimate the guy…”


Bush isn’t underestimating OBL at all; that was my point. Bush’s tactics with Al Qaeda was to get them on the run, keep them on the run, dismantling their network and freezing their finances/ paper trail. And, that’s exactly what’s been done and now OBL is completely worthless; he’s definitely not the mighty “Freedom fighter” that the muslim world once thought he was and the MSM/Libs (still) think he’s now. No way!


Clinton’s problem was that he didn’t do anything and he was the one that, not only underestimated him, didn’t deal with him at all. In addition to his incompetence and ignorance, Clinton gutted the CIA/FBI and the Military; making intelligence gathering and fighting terrorism extremely tough for our country.

Posted by: rahdigly at January 20, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #114869

Hi all,

When I first read about this latest escapade from Osama I had several thoughts:

1. We (the United States) have a long standing policy that we DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS! EVER!

2. Hmmmmm, why would this “offer of a truce” come now when we are having serious discussion of an exit strategy? Hmmmmm.

We must remember, Osama Bin Laden is a highly intelligent, well educated man (with the BEST training in terrorist tactics the US could provide), as are all the other top Al Qaida Leaders.

3. With our Military: engaged in a war…in a place far AWAY from our homeland…physically exhausted…Morale down…casualties up…resources depleted… etc., etc., we are more vulnerable than if we had our Military here, at home…with loved ones nearby…Morale up…protecting the homeland IN the Homeland!

Why would they offer to negotiate a truce for us to leave when we are ALREADY discussing an exit if they really wanted us to leave?
Conclusion:

4. Osama and Al Qaida want us to forget any plans for an exit strategy and remain right where we are.

I think we should do just as we would do with any other demand Osama or any of his faction should make….go on with our plans to discuss an exit strategy as though we hadn’t received this “offer”.

I also feel we created our problems in Iraq and we can’t just up and leave. We need to continue to explore options to exit, but NOT because Osama says so.

Aldous:

Remind me again why OBL is still alive?

Exactly!

sassyliberal

Posted by: sassyliberal at January 20, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #114870

As much you might want to think that no one listens to Al Qaeda, you must remember how the situation may look to Muslims worldwide who are not sure whether or not to support this guy. Tactically, he is worth nothing, but symbolically he is worth more than everything else we have done to fight this war against Islamic Fundimentalism. One crucial mistake this administration has had is its unwillingness to stay the course it had in Afghanistan and kill this symbolic speaker. Each time he opens his mouth, new recruits show up at the door, ready to blow themselves up. We need to silence this man once and for all.
Also, I heard that there is usually a delay of at least two months before OBL can get these communications to Al-Jazerra, so I doubt this tape is in reaction to the recent bombing in Pakastan that either killed more than a dozen civillians or some of OBL’s leutenants. I bet this was produced right after the bombings in London this past summer and the offer of truce was presented in case the British had the same reaction the Spanish had and decided to give up the fight.

Posted by: Warren P at January 20, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #114874

Warren P.,

Of course there’s a delay in these communications. If OBL just gave the tape to Bob, and Bob took it to Al-Jazeera, the US would just grab Bob and ask him where Osama was. The time delay allows OBL to stay hidden.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 20, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #114875

David Remer — spot on.
Aldous — you too.
Rob — I’ll be thinking about the Black Knight all day!

Posted by: Adrienne at January 20, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #114876

Remer’s argument is well made, but doesn’t deserve to be the Last Word. Here are some holes in his posting:

1. Poor grammar really weakens its “face value”.

2. The basis for his thinking is false: namely that “There [sic] goal is to create a war of ideology”, which is horse feathers. Their goal is dominion by their Islamic faction using any means possible, including twisted ideology, insidious deception, and worst of all, using the wretched victims of their failed society who want to commit suicide as human bombs for murdering innocent neighbors.

3. His only real point is that the war is already lost. He and others like him have bought Osama’s empty rhetoric hook, line and sinker.

My own thoughts:

As to the President: I hope, whether he is inept or not, he has the good sense not to cave in now, when Iraq needs our presence more than ever. I’m reminded of Pontius Pilate, who knew full well that Jesus was innocent, but did not stand up for His rights, capitulating to the will of the “majority” and handing him over to be crucified. This is a picture of what will happen to Iraq if we don’t stand up for her now.

As to the war: I assert that there are truly times when a dictator or occupier are better than the status quo. Saddam kept the rest of Iraq’s (and Syria’s and Arabia’s and Iran’s visiting) madmen in order with pure fear. Al Capone did the same at one time. To withdraw now would leave Iraq in a far worse situation than under Saddam. It would be the most irresponsible course of action the US could possibly take.

The Seal and State Flag of Virginia has this inscription: Sic Semper Tyrannus, or in English, “Thus Always to Tyrants”, beneath a depiction of Tyranny (a king) under the feet of Virtus. The point: Americans (or at least Virginians) will not be subject to terrorism, we will destroy tyranny or die trying.

So our temporary occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq is idealogical. Our ideology is worth fighting for, and worth sacrificing to advance. The “sword” has brought Osama to fear for his life because his ideology is purely selfish. He CANNOT lay down his life for what he believes, but is only a coward, hiding in a cave like his friend Saddam. Such cowards cannot last long.

Would the AP or Gallup Organization PLEASE poll the averge Muslim on Osama or Saddam, alongside every poll on Bush or Tony Blair? Do average Iraqis and Afghans approve what Saddam or Osama is saying and doing? I highly doubt it.

Posted by: Chris Kelly at January 20, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #114880

Krishan, that’s an interesting interpretation of OBL’s message. You need to follow Sicilian Eagle’s advice and know your enemy a little better. A good place to start is, “Imperial Hubris” by Michael Scheuer.

It’s Muslim custom to ask an opponent to surrender before attacking them. Muslim’s dinged bin Laden for not issuing a warning before 9/11. When he offered a truce to Europe, it’s rejection was followed by attacks in Madrid and London.

Richard Clark said of the tape, “I think it’s designed to make him look more reasonable in Arab and Muslim eyes. He’s a very sophisticated reader of world opinion.”

“…the only new element in his statement is that they are planning an attack soon on the United States. Would he say that and risk being proved wrong, if he can’t pull it off in a month or so?”

Interesting.

In 2004, right before our election, he spoke (literally parroting what Michael Moore said in his movie), to no avail; Bush won!

Right. Bin Laden got exeactly the result he wanted. Al Qaeda openly endorsed President Bush’s re-election

“because he acts with force rather than wisdom or shrewdness, and it is his religious fanaticism that will rouse our (Islamic) nation, as has been shown. Being targeted by an enemy is what will wake us from our slumber.”

It is not possible to find a leader, “more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom. Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.”

Mission accomplished from bin Laden’s point of view.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 20, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #114887

The offer for truce is simply politicking to the Arab world, so that after does whatever he’s doing he can say he offered a truce.

The last thing I thought ANYONE would do was take a victory dance and use this threat to suggest that Bush’s tactics are working. Me, I am outraged this guy is still out there and we are no safer.

Posted by: max at January 20, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #114890

Sass
“4. Osama and Al Qaida want us to forget any plans for an exit strategy and remain right where we are”

Could also be a way for him to take credit for the withdrawal, at least in the eyes of muslims.
“I forced the US to leave, join me in my fight” would be a great recruiting slogan.

Posted by: kctim at January 20, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #114897

Krishan,
To follow up, the author of “Imperial Hubris,” Michael Scheuer, was interviewed on O’Reilly yesterday. Here is a link to the trascript:

http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C168863457/E20060119205838/index.html

Scheuer was a former CIA analyst who followed OLB & Al Qaida. As AP mentions, OBL is providing a warning of attack, as required by his religion.

Having said that, in my opinion, Scheuer overestimates the current effectiveness and numbers of Al Qaida. Consider the source- a former CIA analyst watching OBL & Al Qaida, and writing about them, and giving televised interviews about them, has a natural tendency to see them everywhere he looks.

The events of the past two years bear out what I have been saying: The War on Terror ended in 2003.

Consider the latest bomging of ‘high-level Al Qaida’ members in Pakistan. Their “expert” on chemical weapoons/poison died. He was blown up without ever apparently making a chemical weapon. Since then, the media & government have dropped the initial suggestions about chemical weapons & poisons, and now say he trained “hundreds” of Al Qaida members about explosives.

Really? So, uh, where are these “hundreds” of bomb makers?

Personally, I believe the War on Terror ended some time ago, and events support me. OBL & Zawahiri remains a tremendously important symbolic target, as pointed out by Warren. However, in practical & operational terms, Al Qaida is irrelevant.

Posted by: phx8 at January 20, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #114898

kctim:

Also a possibility. sass

Posted by: sassyliberal at January 20, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #114905

I think what has to be looked at closely, even with all the right and left banter is simply; Osama is advocating ‘talks’ and ‘truce’.

There is little doubt, that Osama, or Al-Queda would have talked about ‘truce’ if what was going on wasn’t working. To take it as a charity, or pity, on the American people affected by the losses of loved ones is silly. Osama’s war isn’t with ‘the Administration’, as this tape would like us to believe. It is against Americans. Lest we forget the previous babble released by this dolt asking all Muslims to kill Americans. Not attempt to kill Bush, or Administration members - kill Americans. This is typical divide and conquer tactical crap.

Unfortunately, I fear we’ll be faced with some of the Left, or Bush haters in general, somehow advocating a truce with a terrorist group that is governed by no international laws or even impotent UN sanctions. I truly fear this talk of ‘truce’ will be entertained by the Sheehan backers, and anti-war mongers. Forgetting all we’ve done and we’re accomplishing in both of these nations Osama contends that we’re destroying. (before you pop off saying ‘We are destroying them - we’re dropping bombs!’; we’ve done damage, but we’re now repairing the infrastructure, save the topic for another post)

In closing - I’m scared, not of these idiots, but of Americans siding with the banter this maniac is offering up.

- Boggzie
boggzilla.com

Posted by: Boggzie at January 20, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #114906

When I heard about the tape, after I cleaned up the water I spit out from laughing so hard at the truce offer, I thought to myself, “Hmm…3 days. 3 days until Republicans use this to call anyone that’s not a republican or for the war unamerican.” I guess I was 2 days too generous.

I’d like to remind people that just because someone’s against the war in Iraq does NOT mean that they’re against the war against terror, or even the war against Afgahnistan. I’ve said it here before I was against the war in Iraq because I thought we should’ve used those resources elsewhere (like Afgahnistan and Iran).

Posted by: chantico at January 20, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #114907

boggzilla,

Osama said that he was offering a truce only because he his religion demands he do so before an attack… I don’t see this as him giving up.

Posted by: max at January 20, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #114908

We have a very simple decision with bin Laden and his truce.

If he stops terrorizing that will be good. We are trying to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. If the terrorists stop killing people and destroying infrastructure, it will be so much the better. Our goal is not to occupy Iraq. If the old fart is really interested in getting us to leave sooner, he just has to let us alone.

Besides that, what kind of truce is he offering? It is like a criminal calling for a truce with the police department. The truce is within the criminal’s hands. All he need do is stop breaking the law.

I am sorry to learn Osama is still alive. I was hoping that God dropped a rock on him during the recent earthquakes. But he is scared, so maybe it shook him up.

Posted by: Jack at January 20, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #114915

Hmm. Can’t find much information on that battle or treaty, can you give me your referance to that? What I did find described the incident as a “Pilgrimage”

Thanks,

Posted by: Marty Martinez at January 20, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #114920

The point that we stopped looking for OBL because of the Iraq invasion is the most ridiculous point anyone could make. Do you really think that with and extra 80,000 troops that it would have been any easier to find OBL? He just would have gone to Pakistan sooner. I think our military is good enough to have been doing both at the same time. Even with 150,000 troops in Iraq and 20,000 in Afghanistan, there were still plenty of troops left over for other duties as well as rotating troops into both theaters of war. I guess WWII is not a good example of how to fight two enemies at once. Please stop making the argument that “we took our eye off of OBL to fight the war in Iraq”. It is just not a good argument.

Posted by: SWMichiganConservative at January 20, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #114923

SWMichiganConservative,

So, you’re saying that our troops aren’t overextended? That we’re not extending tours of duty, sending NATIONAL GUARD units overseas, calling up reserves, etc.? That troops aren’t complaining about being stretched too thin?

If it’s happening in Iraq, you can bet it’s happening in Afghanistan, too. I would find it hard to believe that Bush would have the best, brightest, and most well-rested working in Afghanistan, and lesser troups in Iraq. No, the work in Afghanistan has indeed suffered because of the war in Iraq.

As for your Pakistan argument, maybe it’s time we stop kissing up to Pakistan and start demanding some results. They’re in a sweet position right now, getting all sorts of perks from the US in exchange for handing over Al Queda’s #4 man every six months or so. It’s funny that they never seem to be able to catch anyone more important than that, isn’t it?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 20, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #114927
Please stop making the argument that “we took our eye off of OBL to fight the war in Iraq”. It is just not a good argument.

Posted by SWMichiganConservative at January 20, 2006 01:54 PM


You’re right, it’s not an argument. It is a strongly held opinion. That is, it is the opinon of many Americans that there should have been 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and none in Iraq (of course by now there would be very few since we would already have captured OBL). Maybe you don’t agree with it, but that doesn’t make it invalid. As for we have “plenty of troops etc…”, that’s just inaccurate. The armies are depleted and demoralized and only fools think it’s because of some nascent anti-war movement. Posted by: Dave at January 20, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #114931

Rob:

Remember, though, that automatically rejecting an option just because OBL advocates it is also “allowing our enemy to control our thinking”.

Agreed. We do not want our policies unduly influenced by our enemies. We need to not try to best understand the potential meanings of OBL’s message, and then take the most educated guess as to which of those potential meanings is the correct one.

We know that in war, misinformation can be an important ally, and its possible that OBL is engaging in this. During WWII, one of the reasons D-Day succeeded at Normandy was the misinformation campaign showing the invasion to be elsewhere. Even after the invasion started, German forces were unsure if it was the true attack or just a feint.

Very good point, Rob.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 20, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #114933

Sassyliberal:

“Osama and Al Qaida want us to forget any plans for an exit strategy and remain right where we are.”

I think you got it exactly right. You too, AP.

Osama bin Laden’s tape is a calculated attempt to keep Bush from getting our troops out of Iraq. He tries hard to make Americans look like whimps if they do not stay.

As long as we stay in Iraq, America will be prevented for going after Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Exterminating Al Qaeda is what we whould be doing, not getting Americans and Iraqis killed in Iraq.

We must get out of Iraq as soon as possible.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at January 20, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #114934

After the invasion of Afghanistan, the US vowed to rebuild Afghanistan. Never again would a failed state serve as a training ground for terrorists.

Unfortunately, the money to rebuild Iraq was diverted to Iraq. And unfortunately, the troops to keep a lid on the Taliban were also transferred to Iraq.

Today, the head of the AFghan government, Karzai, is called ‘The Mayor of Kabul.’ His power extends no further than the capital. Karzai cannot trust his fellow Afghans for security; he is guarded by Americans.

With the exception of the Communist rule during the 80’s, Afghanistan has been ruled by the majority Pashtun tribesmen throughout its history. Karzai represents The Northern Alliance, a band of minorities which was very nearly defeated by the Taliban.

Karzai has offered an olive branch to the head of the Taliban government, Mullah Omar. The Mullah refused the offer. In the recent election, warlords and former members of the Taliban were elected. The US and the media here have been very, very quiet.

It seems OBL and Zawahiri are just over the border, in Pakistan. US troops and resources would unquestionably make an enormous differnce in ending the Taliban threat, and perhaps the threat from OBL, assuming he & Zawahiri and alive and in that area in the first place.

Posted by: phx8 at January 20, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #114935

Jack, boy, you missed the mark on your last comment by a long shot.

First, do you think OBL would believe that if called for a halt to hostilities all would be forgotten as you implied? NOT EVEN!!! The man has committed his crimes and regardless of what he does now, he must be brought to justice and he damn well knows that is the reality. So your suggestion that perhaps he is just tired and wants to go away in peace is absurd.

Our war is ideological. We must STOP the growing spread of anti-western sentiment and hate, and one does not accomplish that by continuing aggression upon civilians in Muslim countries. We must stop it because the means for wreaking havoc by those who hate what we do in the world is on the internet and the internet is spreading even into poor and backward countries providing the means to anti-western leadership in al-Queda’s decentralized network.

We need another Reagan who can wear a white hat while fighting our enemies, instead of donning the same black hat they wear, confusing the hell out of the world as to just who the good guy is. Our president is judged by the world on his actions, not his bullshit. Regrettably, half of American voters judge him by his bullshit instead of his actions and their consequences.

Just another fine mess he’s gotten us into, along with a bankrupt future government, growing divisions amongst our own, and social spending reforms that end up costing us more, instead of less (Medicare Rx drug plan).

What numbskull would fail to protect and shore up defenses to the boundaries of his home knowing attackers are coming to attack it? The Numbskull named Shrub, that’s who.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 20, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #114936

Wow. OBL sounded a little bummed. Holy Crap - we’re kicking his ass now. Give it another 4 years and he might be down right suicidal.

Is this truly how we define victory or success?

Posted by: tony at January 20, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #114943

B.S.
Remy,

Realization required on your part.
WE WON’T STOP UNTIL OBL IS CONFIRMED DEAD!!!

Prediction: OBL WILL DIE

When: WHEN IT HAPPENS

Remedy for your cowardice retreative position: STOP WHINNING

I find it ironic that OBL has the power of persuasion that he does with the left (weakest on the ship) wing and how they are so quick to believe the guy who blew up the WTC killing 3500 innocent Americans with new language that suggests his fight isn’t with the American People it is with a Burning Bush. How does that happen? So the 3500 people killed at WTC was an oops? OBL didn’t mean to kill American citizens at their workplace? He apologizes without saying sorry and you left-wingers want to forgive him and call a truce? R U NUTS? The US Government and It’s citizens have a strict rule: No Negotiations with Terrorists. Why? Because terrorists don’t honor their word. Terrorists live on killing innocent humans. Religion plays no part in this debacle as they claim, Allah willing, because they kill other muslims. Terrorists are addicted to killing. They will never be a peaceful terrorist organization because a peaceful terrorist is an oxymoron and any one believes who believes there can be a peaceful terrorist is just a moron.

Sure, I am disappointed at how long this is taking but it is no surprise given the resistance we face in our own congress, with our own people. We have people that scream with fear for our government to protect us and then threaten to take the tools away that would allow the government to do so. And, with that same scream of fear, comes the very firm position of the Gov’t being too intrusive.

Is it a bad thing the crime is getting harder and harder to commit? Or is your definition of a free society include the freedom to murder innocent americans by the droves without ever being punished because finding the culprit might intrude on his precious privacy.

It is my contention that a Government cannot protect a people who are unwilling to be protected. So, in retro, I believe that America will be attacked again. Not because our government failed to protect us, but because we did not allow our government to protect us. You can’t eat a whole cheesecake every day for a month and not expect to gain weight. Just like, you can’t not spy on known Alqeada contacts making international calls and expect to know what they are planning.

Spying is an outrage! Spying is terrible! Spying with probable cause is a protective action.

I think you are lost in the dream that the world can be a peaceful place. History will note, there have been wars since the dawn of human existence (which I happen to believe we were created and not spewed from some pale apes loins) and the pre-existing determination that all will not get along.

So, Keep praying for peace! I will do the same and the safe return of our men and women in uniform and for our President.

Oh, I almost forgot. The bankrupt future government comment was a nice touch. Unfortunately our debt is what gives our dollar value. Take away our debt and our money would only be backed by gold. We don’t have enouph of that so our money would become worthless.

It is easy to knitpick a sitting president. I know I had a blast with the last one, so I can see where the desire comes from. Those growing divisions you speak of are not growing. They have always been there. Democrates just whine louder than Republicans. I guess that’s how you force your way of life on the rest of us.

Posted by: Jason at January 20, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #114949

Jason:
“Not because our government failed to protect us, but because we did not allow our government to protect us.”

Bullshit. Read the report. They’ve had plenty of money and plenty of time, but they’ve blown both.

“Spying is an outrage! Spying is terrible! Spying with probable cause is a protective action.”

Sure spying is a protective action. Just get a warrant so it’s legal and there will be a record. They could have even filed them retroactively, but couldn’t be bothered. That is the terrible outrage.

David,
Another good post.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 20, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #114954

Adrienne:

There’s an interesting article about the wiretapping that talks with Mike Chertoff about why the FISA warrants wouldnt work in this situation. I’m not looking to discuss it with you—just thought it would give you a different viewpoint and additional information on why the Bush admin did not go through FISA on this.

The link is below.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_20_06_MK.html

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 20, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #114961

David

Glad you like Reagan so much. I supported him in 1980 and in 1984. I recall many of the same things said about him that people say about GW Bush. Even the cowboy and chimp things. Of course, they all knew that the Soviet Empire would last forever.

Lucky for us Reagan didn’t listen to them. That is like Bush too, come to think of it.

You are right that we would continue to chase Osama, but we may never catch him. I recall Dr. Mengle turned up dead of natural causes after being chased for forty years. But if he was interested in rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, all he has to do is nothing.

Posted by: Jack at January 20, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #114974

Bobo,

Osama’s comments in his latest tape prove that he is listening and trying to exploit the divide. Let’s at least try and be civil about our discussion and more importantly let’s not have “leaders” go anti-Bush when traveling outside the country.

Posted by: Mark at January 20, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #115000

Good story! In the news report the drone attack killed 17,4 were Al Qaida leaders. I just hope they don’t find some of our Liberal Senators or Congress people to be in the number of the other 13.

Posted by: Daniel Younger at January 20, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #115012

When the news came on about the newest video of Binny, and they were playing it with the interpreter speaking, I was in the computer room of my house with the door open so that I could hear the news on TV. At first I thought the Demmocratic leadership in the Senate was holding a new conference. Whew!! I was wrong. Close call.

Posted by: tomh at January 20, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #115016

Here’s what I’m gathering having read that, disagree if you like (BTW the first time I read it in it’s entirity). This sounds to me he was shaken up by the assassination attempt on Al-Zawahiri. He wants truce as is stated but doesn’t want to appear weak so he keeps firm to the line of jihadism etcetera.

He trying to convince the US that this was a mistake, why? It’s not just for troop demoralization, there’s another answer. why do I say that? Because NOTHING GLORIFIES THEIR CAUSE MORE THAN WAR. This is getting bigger than intended and there might be factions that could be turning on him. There have been alot of people attacked that were not part of Al Qaida obviously. Could it be backlash and disfavor? Or my second answer, ARE WE GETTING CLOSE WHEN WE WENT AFTER AL-ZAWAHIRI?

That’s what I’m assuming with all this “Gee you guys really don’t want to do this” talk. This is NOT indicative of any man in a power seat, if so the message would be “Ha ha you fools” basically as he was recording earlier.

This is a man on his last legs reading from non-fiction in hopes of swaying us. We are hitting into his neck of the woods somehow and are too close for comfort. He’s weary not us, the talk of suicides reinforces his own personal thinking in “this has to stop” and the question is why? His closeness to the leftism in the US is bull-sh*t. He’s broken bad and scratching for anything he can get his hands on to justify us leaving, this says “uncle”.

I say we got close somehow, his whole message has turned 180*. Anyone care to disagree?

This is not a sign of any man in a power position

Posted by: Novenge at January 20, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #115023

Jason-
I would be shocked as you would be to see one of of my people actually suggesting we take Bin Laden’s truce. Fortunately, I don’t find myself so astonished all that often.

You folks are so good at whipping yourself into a lather over our naivete, our weakness. It’s all pretty stupid, really. You had half a country that wasn’t about to start an argument about going after Bin Laden, and you managed to alienate all those people just to prove how tough you guys were. Good job.

How do you think this all got so dark, so cynical? Do you think the Democrats would have gotten this angry, this outraged just for the hell of it? No, we would loved to have stayed in that wonderful state of grace we had post 9/11, when we knew who our enemy was, and we knew that enemy wasn’t some other American. I vastly preferred that.

Unfortunately the right had to make us into their scapegoats. They had to restart all that lousy Cold War shit about liberal traitors and weaklings. Good God, you folks could have been original about it, at least.

You could have been original about civil liberties and committed to them, rather than dismissing them as the luxury of better times. They are not. They are the necessity of two centuries of American government, in wartime and peace. It’s what we are, and it’s what we should respect and defend even at the cost of our lives. There are ways to protect a free people that don’t compromise their freedoms, and Bush had those at his disposal.

As for the deficits, actually the truth is quite the opposite. The National debt puts us in a position where we either try to swallow the debt by printing more money(causing inflation), or by taking it out of circulation with high interest rates. If you’re wondering what ruined our economy in the Seventies, it was just the kind of overspending and undertaxing that Bush is doing now.

This isn’t about nitpicking. Nitpicking is when things aren’t important. These issues will determine the shape of our future.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 20, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #115028

Daniel Younger,
You’re misinformed. No bodies of Al Qaida leaders were recovered. Were bodies removed without our knowing? Maybe, but I find it hard to believe. Post-strike assessment is routine after the strike, indeed, it is critical. Since this strike was apparently based upon intelligence, rather than being a strike against a spontaneous target of opportunity, an educated guess would be that considerable resources were concentrated upon this target, including infrared surveillance.

Until we find something, we have nothing, except a lot of Pakistanis very upset over murdered civilians, including women and children.

Posted by: phx8 at January 21, 2006 12:20 AM
Comment #115035

This is how Republicans fight the War on Terror:

_________________________________________________
Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Dragon Skin or Lose SGLI Death Benefits
By Nathaniel R. Helms

Two deploying soldiers and a concerned mother reported Friday afternoon that the U.S. Army appears to be singling out soldiers who have purchased Pinnacle’s Dragon Skin Body Armor for special treatment. The soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported that their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.

Posted by: Aldous at January 21, 2006 12:44 AM
Comment #115042

Aldous,

Sad, tragic, seemingly unfair yes! A soldier killed is a Hero Fallen.

But this is government, regardless of party affiliation, in action. The military spends hundreds of millions of dollars testing every piece of equipment. They are covering their rears in instances of liability. Again, seemingly unfair. However, what if the soldiers were wrong and the private body armour although well intentioned had a fatal defect?

Again, I am not diminishing the need for better or more efficient body armour. In the 60’s the M-16 rifle was introduced and was not the most dependable weapon in the theater of operations. In fact the Ak-47 although less accurate was the superior weapon for the battlefield of the time. It was simple and hard to jam.

The choices a military makes, or any organization for that matter, have both intended or unintended consequences. Unfortunately, in the military, every decision either saves or kills lives.

Posted by: Scott at January 21, 2006 1:42 AM
Comment #115047
We know that in war, misinformation can be an important ally, and its possible that OBL is engaging in this. During WWII, one of the reasons D-Day succeeded at Normandy was the misinformation campaign showing the invasion to be elsewhere. Even after the invasion started, German forces were unsure if it was the true attack or just a feint.

JBOD,

This is a good point. Many believe that the NSA spying program is a vital tool in protection America, but I believe some are putting too much stock in it’s worth. Even if the program would have been run legally and kept secret, it is not reasonable to believe that OBL and his terrorist network didn’t know they were already being spied on. What is to stop al-Qaeda and OBL from creating a dangerous diversion by discussing false plans and misinformation? We can pick up all the “chatter” we want, but that doesn’t make it credible, and could possibly be used against us. Just a thought.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 21, 2006 1:57 AM
Comment #115049

Suffice it to say, Bush’s reign of terror has proven to be one horrific mess. Those programs that he did manage to push through are a disaster — Iraq and Medicare, and those he could not change are doing just fine, like Social Security reform.

What I don’t understand is why can’t the Medicare “reform,” which is now a major malaise, just be repealed? Are too many of our congresspeople beholding to the pharmaceuticals?

Posted by: Cookie at January 21, 2006 2:31 AM
Comment #115050

Scott:

Dragon Skin Body Armor is in use by the Secret Service, Private Security Guards, Journalists and SEVERAL ARMY GENERALS touring the Region!!!

Posted by: Aldous at January 21, 2006 2:57 AM
Comment #115052
Are too many of our congresspeople beholding to the pharmaceuticals?

Your a smart Cookie! :^)

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 21, 2006 3:17 AM
Comment #115053
Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said the new audio tape of Osama bin Laden threatening attacks on American soil “is a vivid reminder why we must continue to intercept communications between al-Qaida overseas and potential operatives in the United States.”

Here we go again, more scare tactics from the Repubs. If I didn’t know better I would say they are in bed together. OBL always seems to hit it out of the park for the Repubs when they are down. Funny that. No offense intended, just an observation.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 21, 2006 3:22 AM
Comment #115055
Embattled White House adviser Karl Rove vowed Friday to make the war on terrorism a central campaign issue in November. He also said Democratic senators looked “mean-spirited and small-minded” in questioning Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

“Republicans have a post-9/11 view of the world. And Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world,” Rove told Republican activists. “That doesn’t make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong — deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong.”


Rove is encouraging Repubs to use the “war on terror” to win votes. OK, but how are they going to do that, by talking about a plan to win or by using it as a scare tactic? If what we are seeing now is the Republican’s idea of a post-9/11 world, I want no part of it. What is the Republican plan to win the “war on terror” anyway?

A large part of the “war on terror” can be won simply by ending our desperate dependence on Middle East oil. Do Americans realize how much damage can be done to this country by way of an oil embargo? We are so much more dependent on foreign oil today than we were during the ‘73 embargo. If sanctions are placed against Iran, which they should be, they have threatened to sanction oil supplies to the outside world. While the U.S. does not import any oil from Iran, the countries that do will start competing for other oil supplies that will in turn push the price ever upward. We’re not talking about $3 a gallon here either, more like over $5 or $6. It really wouldn’t take much to reach those levels either. The only party that has proposed an energy independence plan is the Democratic Party. link text">New Apollo Energy Act of 2005’(Unless, of course, you count Bush’s hydrogen fuel cell project, that will do nothing to end our dependency on foreign oil when you consider that it relies heavily on fossil fuels.)

When we think about the war on terror it is important to not to lose our sight out of fear. We need to have short-term protections that allow us to reach long-range goals that ensure true long-term safety and security. Everything this administration has done has been a Band-Aid on a gaping wound, pouring salt on it every so often to remind us that we are wounded, but offering no plans for true healing.

I hope the Repubs do make the “war on terror” a real campaign issue in November, and not just a scare tactic, I am curious to see what their plan is, exactly.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 21, 2006 4:26 AM
Comment #115056

oops!,

Here is the link that is missing from the post above:

New Apollo Energy Act of 2005

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 21, 2006 4:32 AM
Comment #115264

WE don’t need more educators to educate us,we need to get to the oil under our soil and build refineries and keep the oil for ourselves and our faithful allies.Our allies include those who know that human life is most inportant and plant and animal life is for our use,to sustain human life.We have spent billions of dollars on science and education and the oil we need is still underground in our back yard.We need the oil to run the limos and supply electricity to the Congress People who take money from environmental people and buy great big houses in several states and the environmentals who take tax money for research they never complete and come to conclusions that contridict other learned educated poeple who come to a different conclusion from the same evidence.Meanwhile we are all paying high prices for gasoline and electricity and the oil we need is still in the ground in our own backyard and there are people who could work at the new refineries to refine oil and increase the supply and lower the price and if we use the oil in our own back yard we could sell to American refineries for less and lowering the prices more. The Democratic Congresses of the past are why prices are so high because they passed laws to prevent the drilling here in our back yard and new refineries from being built and this causes a shortage of both and we pay higher prices the ones responsible vote themselves higher pay so they can keep up with their standard of living.Right now,the Repub Congress wants to allow drilling and new refinreies and the Dems are still blocking this legislation.The are paid by environ mentals who are making billions in an industry which makes everything more expensive and does almost no good.’Big Oil’is being helped by environ mentals because they help keep oil in shorter supply and many of the Dems and Repubs own oil stock and are making believe they care about the environment when they only care about their investment.We need to pay more attention to what they do not what they say they do.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at January 21, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #115313

RDAVIDC,

Say what? I take it you own stock in big oil. Where is all this oil at in our own back yard? Even if ANWR were opened to drilling, no one really knows how much oil is there. Surveys carried out by the U.S. Geological Survey suggest that ANWR may contain about ten billion barrels of recoverable oil. An ANWR oil field operating at full capacity could satisfy perhaps 3 or 4% of the U.S. daily demand. There is not enough oil here “in our own back yard” to be profitable. Even the Gulf of Mexico that was once thought to be very promising has turned out to be a disappointment.

According to Lee Raymond, the chairman and chief executive of ExxonMobil, “the company would have done better financially if it had given up after sinking a single well there.”

If the United States were forced to rely on its own resources, it would run out of oil in four years and three months. -BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy

4 years and 3 months? Hardly seems worth the effort and damage to the environment.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 21, 2006 9:29 PM
Post a comment