… I’m starting to think Bush not only knows where bin Laden is and refuses to capture him (which I think falls into the category of extremely well-established fact), but that there is some sort of communication going on between the world’s arch-terrorist and the executive branch of the United States.
I can’t prove this, of course, but it’s an interesting development that he just happens to release a tape now. Sure, the sixth anniversary of 9/11 is Tuesday, but it’s been almost three years since anyone in the civilized world, allegedly, has heard from him. If you recall, the last tape was released right before the 2004 election and basically told us not to re-elect Bush, echoing the administration’s efforts to paint their opponents as terrorist-appeasers. Not surprisingly, we got four more years of this FUBAR presidency. Now here we are in September, the month that Bush has been talking about since January where Gen. Petraeus would present a report (notably, the White House’s report, not actually his own) and Congress would debate the state of the war (even though Bush has already decided to stay the course). Guess who reappears to frighten the American people with the specter of 9/11 at exactly that time, pushing people toward making that nonexistent connection between it and Iraq once more? It’s auspicious for Bush, to say the least.
Bin Laden, notably, is someone who is now a figurehead and a propaganda symbol more than a day-to-day “evildoer,” considering that the mantle of al-Qaeda has been taken up by homegrown franchises worldwide (he doesn’t warn of or call for attacks in his 30-minute diatribe). His speech urges the American people to overthrow the capitalist system (citing the mortgage crisis in the process), strongly echoing Soviet-style rhetoric. He suggests that a way out of Iraq is to convert to Islam and settle our conflicts peaceably under its banner. He mocks Bush for “harvesting nothing but failure” in Iraq. He praises Noam Chomsky (notably a favorite philosopher of fallen hero Pat Tillman), for crying out loud.
In other words, bin Laden is sounding not so much like a terrorist, but a left-wing activist. He sounds exactly like the sort of caricature that neocons try to project onto the Democratic Party. On top of that, he fits insanely neatly into the villain archetype that Americans are used to fearing and loathing from simpler wars past — the perfect Emmanuel Goldstein character to be the subject of our Two Minutes Hate. The question practically jumps off the page: Is this a coincidence? Or is someone whispering sweet nothings in his ear, telling him and his lieutenants what to include in the videos released to the world, perhaps in exchange for allowing him continued freedom and maybe even some weaponry or covert support?
Before you say that such a scenario is completely preposterous, consider that we quietly armed not only bin Laden in the 1980s, but the Iranians as well, despite the fact that we were denouncing them in the wake of the hostage crisis, placing them under economic sanctions, and arming Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in their war against Iran as well. And if you wonder why Bush would allow Americans’ lives to be placed in increased danger unnecessarily, well, I’d suggest that having our troops die to sustain an Iraqi government that doesn’t appear to want to sustain itself (or, more cynically, to sustain the multi-front war itself into the next president’s term) clearly qualifies. I’d even suggest that his economic policy of ever-deepening deficit spending and the repeated erosion of checks against executive authority would qualify as well, though the impact is clearly less immediate.
It’s just a theory. But would you put it past this president?
