Obama Vows to End the Proliferation of Audio Tapes

by Heywood U. Reedmore -- June 18, 2008 at 5:45 pm | In 2008 Election | 4 Comments

For the second time in two days, Senator Obama is complaining about Osama Bin Laden’s recording career. 

Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership – the people who murdered 3000 Americans – have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That’s the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism.

Is this supposed to be an argument against the Bush Doctrine?  Obama is arguing that Bush policies have failed because the man who killed 3,000 Americans is now relegated to sending out audio tapes.  Who convinced him this was a winning talking point?  Some might see the fact that Bin Laden’s no longer killing Americans as a success.  Obama is also dishonest to claim that AQ’s “top leadership” is safe.  Just as KSM. 

 

4 Comments | Add Comment

  1. Please. Obama’s argument is that Bin Laden would have been caught years ago if Bush had focused on Afghanistan and the mountains of Pakistan like he should have, instead of getting us into this quagmire in Iraq. And please explain to me just when AQ stopped killing American soldiers. Still going on. Especially in Iraq. A place they where AQ didn’t even exist until Bush started his “War on Terror.” And if I recall, about six months after 9/11, Bush had the gall to say that Bin Laden really wasn’t that important to him. And now he is hypocritically revving up his “Let’s get Osama” PR spin machine in order to save his crumbling legacy.

    Comment by cutthecrap — June 18, 2008 #

  2. My critique was with his talking point. To paraphrase, he said Bin Laden used to kill Americans and now he’s sending out audio tapes. That, to Obama, represents a failure. Your point is taken, though. It would have been better if I had said American civilians. But are you suggesting Bin Laden is operationally behind the attacks in Iraq and not al-Masri? If Bin Laden is still killing Americans, as you suggest, why isn’t Obama talking about that instead of his audio tapes? If you’re to be believed, Obama is more concerned with those tapes than our soldiers. And if the attacks are “especially” taking place in Iraq, why does Obama say the focus should be on Afghanistan and Pakistan?

    Before the Bush Doctrine, the Taliban controlled an entire country and for years gave AQ and Bin Laden free reign to plan and carry out attacks against U.S. interests, including the mass murder of 3,000 civilians on our own territory. According to recent statements made by the head of the CIA, the effort against Al Qaeda is going a lot better than Obama would have us believe. Maybe that’s why he’s complaining about audio tapes and not the bombings of U.S. embassies or attacks against our cities.

    Comment by Heywood U. Reedmore — June 18, 2008 #

  3. You are indeed paraphrasing. And missing the point. The point Obama is making is that Bin Laden is still alive. And he should be dead. The fact that he can still breathe, no matter what he is doing, is a failure on Bush’s part. The war has been a PR bonanza for AQ and according to the CIA, they are stronger than ever.

    Your hair-splitting about whether or not Bin Laden is operationally behind the attacks in Iraq is just that. Hairsplitting. His words are just as inspiring to the enemy and just as dangerous to us as him actually pulling triggers. “IF Bin Laden is still killing Americans, as you suggest, why isn’t Obama talking about that instead of his audio tapes?” First of all, are you kidding me? That is exactly what Obama is doing, talking about Bin Laden still being above-ground. The tapes aren’t from REO Speedwagon.

    And second, are you implying that Bin Laden is not killing us? Of course he is, and so is his war machine, AQ. If he is killing by proxy, so be it, our men and women are still dying. Not to mention the thousands of Iraqi civilians.

    Why does Obama want to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan? Because that’s where Bin Laden is. Bush’s policies have been a failure, and the U.S and Israel are less safe than ever. And the Middle East is a disaster.

    Comment by cutthecrap — June 18, 2008 #

  4. The connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda was discounted because the ties were not “operational” — despite the fact that he gave money to Islamic Jihad whose members merged with AQ. Just hair-splitting, right?

    And perhaps you didn’t notice, but Obama doesn’t want to stop Bin Laden’s breathing. He wants to lock him up, apparently only so he doesn’t have enough freedom to “put out hate-filled audio tapes” threatening the EU over the Danish cartoons.

    Comment by Heywood U. Reedmore — June 18, 2008 #

Insert Your 2 Cents Here

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Copyright 2006 Spolitics.com Powered by WordPress Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^