Oh, No! MSM Has Osama Melt Down, It's A GOP Plot!

[Annie]

Really, on air conspiracy theory, links at site, including video:

http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/01/15-week/index.php#a001085

CNN's Jack Cafferty, Nutter
by Hugh Hewitt

Less than 30 minutes ago, Jack Cafferty on CNN's The Siutuation Room, which may soon be renamed The Rubber Room:


The last time we got a tape from Osama bin Laden was right before the 2004 presidential election. Now here we are four days away from hearings starting in Washington into the wire tapping of America's telephones without bothering to get a court order or a warrant, and up pops another tape from Osama bin Laden. Coincidence? Who knows.


In the same segment, Cafferty reads an e-mail and comments:


Mike writes "I don't think the new tape is important at all. Osama is trying to put something out to make himself look important. He's not really the al Qaeda leader anymore. He's a lot like the Queen of England, just a figurehead."

They actually look a little alike, too.

Diane, in Tampa Florida: "It seems suspicious. Every time the Republicans get into trouble, bin Laden sends a tape. Is it possible bin Laden is working out of the White House?"

UPDATE:

Maybe we should call him "time bomb" Jack Cafferty. See here for details. This story doesn't appear in Jack's bio which indicates, not surprisingly, that he's never had a job outside of a newsroom or has ever written a serious story. He's been reading prompter for decades. It shows.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Nah, there's no liberal bias in the MSM.

Image from:
http://www.jfrankcarr.com/images/political/clinton_vrwc.jpg

 

[jAZ]

All those public terror alert press conferences disappeared completely after the 2004 elections.

Are you guys seriously suggesting that a standing President and his appointed leadership team would never consider using their authority to alert the pubilc if such alert would support their political campaign of "the other guy won't protect you... only I will"?

I mean how could they possibly not do such a thing? It's a powerful political tool that is nearly impossible to get busted for. There is always some report somewhere that can be construed as being urgent. It's the perfect act of political duplicity.

How about a healthy dose of skepticism of politicans once in a while. The Republican party is not a collection of devinely inspired angels. They are politicians (pardon my language).

 

[Annie]

All those public terror alert press conferences disappeared completely after the 2004 elections.

Are you guys seriously suggesting that a standing President and his appointed leadership team would never consider using their authority to alert the pubilc if such alert would support their political campaign of "the other guy won't protect you... only I will"?

I mean how could they possibly not do such a thing? It's a powerful political tool that is nearly impossible to get busted for. There is always some report somewhere that can be construed as being urgent. It's the perfect act of political duplicity.

How about a healthy dose of skepticism of politicans once in a while. The Republican party is not a collection of devinely inspired angels. They are politicians (pardon my language).

 

[jAZ]

I'm believe I'm supposed to say "watch the flaming!"

 

[Annie]

I'm believe I'm supposed to say "watch the flaming!"

That wasn't a flame, rather an observation on your comment.

 

[Mariner]

experts would interpret the tape as bin Laden fearful and on the run. Unfortunately, some seem to have concluded the opposite:

Tape a 'big blow' to Bush
BY CRAIG GORDON
WASHINGTON BUREAU

January 20, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The White House said a new audiotape shows Osama bin Laden is "on the run," but counterterrorism experts said it instead pointed up an embarrassing fact for President George W. Bush: It appears bin Laden is alive and well four years after Sept. 11.

More than that, some counterterror analysts pointed to parallels in a 2004 bin Laden tape where he offered a similar "truce" to European leaders, only to have the London subway bombings take place about a year later.

U.S. officials said yesterday that they had picked up no increased "chatter" signaling an imminent attack inside the United States, despite bin Laden's threat that a strike is in the works.

The Department of Homeland Security said it has no plans to raise the national terror alert level of yellow, the middle step of five.

The CIA confirmed the voice is bin Laden's and believes the audiotape was made recently, a senior administration official said. The al-Qaida leader refers to Bush's alleged desire to bomb Al-Jazeera television, first reported on Nov. 22.

In the tape, bin Laden said "it's only a matter of time" before another attack on the United States, but offered a "long-term truce" with unspecified terms, something the White House flatly rejected.

"We do not negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business," said Bush spokesman Scott McClellan.

As bin Laden has eluded capture, Bush has sought to downplay his importance, saying in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks that he wanted him "dead or alive," but later saying he was not that concerned about bin Laden. Some analysts recently questioned whether bin Laden was dead.

But counterterror experts said the tape complicates White House efforts to marginalize bin Laden, because it shows he still has the ability to surface when needed and rally the faithful.

"It's a big blow to the U.S. and the U.S. attempts to minimize his relevance," said Juliette Kayyem of Harvard University, who served on the National Commission on Terrorism from 1999 to 2001. The tape "suggests he's not on the run but is at least capable enough to respond and basically provoke."

* * *

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...20275,print.story?coll=ny-homepage-bigpix2005


Mariner.

 

[jAZ]

That wasn't a flame, rather an observation on your comment.

I was being playful, but if you are serious with your above response, I will take a second to be serious as well.

Couldn't any flame be considered (in the most generous sense) merely an observation on someones comment? It's certainly not flattering to be described as a "tin foil hat" wearer. It's an insult.

But insults are in fact, as you said, observations typically based on someones prior comment.

 

[Annie]

I would NOT sell him short. Steve Emerson said something similar, 'bin Laden feels safe enough now, to emerge from whatever cave he's been hiding in.'

He also pointed out, 'his blather though is still blather, since the threats as well as the 'truce' are something he's offered with each tape.'

 

[Stephanie]

I was wondering how long it would take someone to suggest this! :duh3:
Cafferty has turned into a real loony toon, and a very ugly American. I do believe he scans over at the DU. Bin Laden has all the Democrat talking points down. Disgusting

 

[manu1959]

All those public terror alert press conferences disappeared completely after the 2004 elections.

Are you guys seriously suggesting that a standing President and his appointed leadership team would never consider using their authority to alert the pubilc if such alert would support their political campaign of "the other guy won't protect you... only I will"?

I mean how could they possibly not do such a thing? It's a powerful political tool that is nearly impossible to get busted for. There is always some report somewhere that can be construed as being urgent. It's the perfect act of political duplicity.

How about a healthy dose of skepticism of politicans once in a while. The Republican party is not a collection of devinely inspired angels. They are politicians (pardon my language).

so if you were president would you?

 

[jAZ]

so if you were president would you?

I couldn't likely become President as I'm wouldn't make such ethical sacrifices and I'm not persuasive enough to be politically successful without making a deal with the devil.

 

[manu1959]

I couldn't likely become President as I'm wouldn't make such ethical sacrifices and I'm not persuasive enough to be politically successful without making a deal with the devil.

interesting....you feel comfortable accusing others of less than honourable behaviour, yet you are incapable of putting yourself in their shoes ..... i say that, since you are unwilling to step forword and commit one way or another, your opinion is .... well ... suspect to say the least.

 

[jAZ]

interesting....you feel comfortable accusing others of less than honourable behaviour, yet you are incapable of putting yourself in their shoes ..... i say that, since you are unwilling to step forword and commit one way or another, your opinion is .... well ... suspect to say the least.

Did you not read my full post? I said explictly that "I wouldn't make such ethical sacrifices".

 

[manu1959]

Did you not read my full post? I said explictly that "I wouldn't make such ethical sacrifices".

damn i am sorry i read every other word.....ok i get it you are unethical and you are projecting your desire to abuse power onto other so since you lead an unethical life you can only assume that any president an his or her entire staff does as well....because...well ... with that much power....you would have to abuse it.. oh wiat let me guess you meant that you would be above it all and the only ethical president ever....is it dificult being the only perfect person on the planet.....

you know it was a simple question...would you or would you not resist the corruption you claim all presidents are gulity of....it is a simple yes or no....

what say ye

 

[NATO AIR]

I was wondering how long it would take someone to suggest this! :duh3:
Cafferty has turned into a real loony toon, and a very ugly American. I do believe he scans over at the DU. Bin Laden has all the Democrat talking points down. Disgusting

Or the Dems have the Bin Laden talking points down?

I don't know who was uglier these past two weeks, this unfounded crap or the Kos "iran-iraq" connection i posted about before.

 

[jAZ]

damn i am sorry i read every other word.....ok i get it you are unethical and you are projecting your desire to abuse power onto other so since you lead an unethical life you can only assume that any president an his or her entire staff does as well....because...well ... with that much power....you would have to abuse it.. oh wiat let me guess you meant that you would be above it all and the only ethical president ever....is it dificult being the only perfect person on the planet.....

you know it was a simple question...would you or would you not resist the corruption you claim all presidents are gulity of....it is a simple yes or no....

what say ye

I say, what I said before, but you refused to hear because it doesn't fit into your little-box-of-liberal-hate. That I (like many I'm sure) WOULDN'T make such ethical sacrafices. And that those ethical sacrafices are an ABSOLUTELY essential part of the process that exists today for becoming president. Anyone who would operate with similar standards wouldn't even catch a sniff by the political architects like Karl Rove necessary to even consider running for President in this day and age.

But I'm sure this description isn't clear, complete or direct enough once again, so I will just say this is my final response to you on this question. No need to keep repeating myself to someone who isn't interested in listening.

 

[Mariner]

"Dems have bin Laden's talking points down."
"Bin Laden has Dems talking points down."

What the heck are you guys talking about? Please show me an example of where a Democrat quotes or agrees with Osama bin Laden, or vice versa.

I fervently hope Bush's experiment in Iraq succeeds, that a secular democracy takes root there, and that Muslim countries both imitate it and forgive us our sins committed in helping attain it. This is not an impossible dream, and I support Bush in trying to achieve it. True success, to me, would be measured by Muslim world opinion of the U.S. rising back to the level it was at after 9/11--that's the "hearts and minds" war that few here want to talk about.

Isn't trying to understand the mind of one's enemy considered a crucial military principle? So why do people here at USMB consistently put down those who make an attempt to understand the motivations behind terrorism. Identifying us with the enemy simply because we seek to understand him makes little sense.

Mariner.

 

[jAZ]

So why do people here at USMB consistently put down those who make an attempt to understand the motivations behind terrorism. Identifying us with the enemy simply because we seek to understand him makes little sense.

It does if the only thing you seek is political advantage.

 

[dilloduck]

"Dems have bin Laden's talking points down."
"Bin Laden has Dems talking points down."

What the heck are you guys talking about? Please show me an example of where a Democrat quotes or agrees with Osama bin Laden, or vice versa.

I fervently hope Bush's experiment in Iraq succeeds, that a secular democracy takes root there, and that Muslim countries both imitate it and forgive us our sins committed in helping attain it. This is not an impossible dream, and I support Bush in trying to achieve it. True success, to me, would be measured by Muslim world opinion of the U.S. rising back to the level it was at after 9/11--that's the "hearts and minds" war that few here want to talk about.

Isn't trying to understand the mind of one's enemy considered a crucial military principle? So why do people here at USMB consistently put down those who make an attempt to understand the motivations behind terrorism. Identifying us with the enemy simply because we seek to understand him makes little sense.

Mariner.

Often "understanding" the enemy sounds like excusing the enemy