On what? That if caught, Osama bin Laden should be granted the due process of law in a courtroom, like the kind seen in "Law and Order." Killing him? That should wait. From the Politico:

But, according to the AP, the former senator said such a punishment shouldn't be immediately meted out. "No, no, no, we've got due process to go through" depending on the circumstances, he said. "I'm not suggesting those things happen simultaneously."

Good for Fred Thompson. It's pretty much the same line that Howard Dean follows:

"I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trails,"

And Thompson isn't just giving lip-service to the idea of innocent until proven guilty. He put it into practice back in the early 1990's when his firm was defending the Libyan terrorists who blew up Pan Am 103. Thompson even took it upon himself to advise a colleague on how best to defend the Libyans from prosecution. I wonder what former prosecutor, Rudy Giulaini makes of it all.

Pretend you didn't read the headline and have no idea of the meme of this post.

Now listen to these words:

...but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there."

Who would you imagine said them?

Perhaps Cindy Sheehan? How about Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos? Maybe even Duncan Black or Ted Rall?

No, they were spoken by Osama bin Laden, the man who orchestrated the deaths of 3,000 and now calls for even more.

It's a sad place to be when your words sound exactly like the greatest enemy America has had in decades. This puts the Democrats in an even more precarious position, they must appease their base as I've mentioned before, in which case they will appease bin Laden or they have to allow the president to finish this war and take out al-Qaida and their various cells. I'm predicting they go the latter route or risk having themselves branded Osama's enablers.

Simply put, a campaign isn't the same as a scripted TV drama. Watch Thompson's performance on Good Morning America. Diane Sawyer asks him a straight-forward question, and Fred... well, judge for yourself:

It's not going to get any easier for the man formerly known as Freddie. The rest of the Republican field is going to pounce on missteps like this. Memo to Thompson, the time to prepare your answers on the most obvious questions in the campaign has officially passed.

(Tip o' the hat to Talking Points Memo for posting the video)

It would seem that Osama bin Laden will be releasing a new video on 9/11 where he will address the American public. What the subject matter of the tape will deal with is not known and there also exists a certain some doubt as to the age of this tape. Bin Laden's beard is fully black and his beard was grey in his previously released tape 3+ years ago. Could this be a previously unreleased tape that was made years ago? It is possible as filming and releasing a new tape comes with the risk of being located, but no one will speculate of the production date of the tape beyond a cursory level until after they see it.

How will President Bush or the administration respond? According to an AP report, the Department of Homeland Security has stated it does not feel that a terror attack is imminent, but beyond that they have not speculated on the reason for the new tape.

The purpose of the release of the tape is obvious: to mock and incite the American public with the purpose of wearing down their will. What Bin Laden and his associates do not realize is that when the passions of the American people are inflamed, they have a tendency to fight back. In this case, they vast majority of the general public will respond with with support for the effort in Afghanistan and to root out terrorists and Taliban associates. For Bin Laden, things could hardly get worse as the U.S. and NATO has repeatedly delivered massive casualties in Afghanistan and AQ in Iraq. Who knows? Maybe the tape will say "I surrender."

I'm a firm believer that Bill Clinton got off way too easily when discussing the failures of pre-9/11 intelligence gathering and our lack of response when repeatedly provoked. Yes, we were attacked prior to Clinton entering office.

The kidnapping of our hostages in Iran and the Hezbollah attack in Beirut are but two glaring examples of pre-al-Qaida terror. The hostage taking was a nadir for our country and Jimmy Carter did not have the nerve or the military to respond. Ronald Reagan also did not respond to the attack that killed 240 Marines and others in Beirut, but at the time we were in the middle of a civil war and we had no idea which side was which and who our friends were and who were our enemies.

The attacks against our interests and military in the 1990's were a different story altogether. From Mogadishu to the first World Trade Center Bombing to he African embassy bombings to the Khobar Towers to finally a direct attack on a U.S. warship -- the USS Cole -- and still we did almost nothing. We said to Osama bin-Laden "attack, we won't respond" and he was emboldened enough to first allow planning for the Millenium bombings and the Bojinka plane bombings (both luckily stopped by heads-up policewomen) while funding the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon.

No one should be surprised that Pakistan's Foreign Minister criticized Barack Obama for his threat to take action against his country should they continue to harbor those who struck the United States on 9/11. That's just the schizophrenic nature of politics in Pakistan, where co-operation with the United States is a double-edged sword:

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Kusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

One can't help but be reminded of the hot water that John McCain found himself in after singing his Beach Boys parody, "Bomb, bomb Iran," at a campaign stop. Back then it was mostly people on the left, weary of saber-rattling diplomacy, who were up in arms at the irresponsible nature of the comments. Indeed, I include myself among them. Now, however, it is primarily people on the right who decry the "rookie mistakes" or "lack of judgment" that Barack Obama has shown in singling out Pakistan.

While I agree that quiet, or even covert diplomacy is indeed required in places like Iran and Pakistan, I think it is worth taking a look at the passage of Obama's speech that has everyone up in arms. In fact, it boils down to the following three lines:

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are blotting to strike again. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharaf will not act, we will."

Since 9/11, the Bush administration has been in what has been collectively known as the global war on terror. This action includes military and/or counter-terrorism activities in the Philippines, East Africa, Europe, Afghanistan, Iraq and Waziristan. Yesterday brought us news of a resurgent al-Qaida, one that by some estimates is as strong as pre-9/11:

Six years after the Bush administration declared war on al-Qaeda, the terrorist network is gaining strength and has established a safe haven in remote tribal areas of western Pakistan for training and planning attacks, according to a new Bush administration intelligence report to be discussed today at a White House meeting.

The report, a five-page threat assessment compiled by the National Counter terrorism Center, is titled "Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West," intelligence officials said. It concludes that the group has significantly rebuilt itself despite concerted U.S. attempts to smash the network.

That is not very comforting information and is cause for major concern as al-Qaida operatives (or, at least those who have leaning toward al-Qaida) planned several attacks in London this month.

Yesterday, Homeland Defense Secretary, Michael Chertoff, told the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune that he had a "gut feeling" about a new period of increased risk from al-Qaida. He reportedly based his "assessment" on earlier patterns of terrorists in Europe and intelligence "he would not disclose".

Summertime seems to be appealing to them....We worry that they are rebuilding their activities.

Even I know that Osama bin Laden and his people are (probably) actively at work along the Afghan-Pakistani border and that since 9/11 the group has splintered and has active cells around the world. I also know that our resources have been mostly tied up in Iraq. I know that one of the primary reasons that we are targeted (hated) to a fanatical degree by Islamic militants/terrorists is due to our presence in the Middle East. Since 9/11, we have taken down two Middle East governments and it would be safe to say that our presence in the Middle East is more significant than before and expected to remain so for the foreseeable future. We live in a world of increasing risk -- it is the world that we and our children and grandchildren can expect to live in.

It is my opinion that for the secretary of Homeland Defense to throw out this comment the way he did was not particularly helpful and, in fact, could reasonably lead to increased anxiety on the part of his fellow Americans. So why say it? If one looks at the pattern of such pronouncements, clearly designed to remind us that we should be afraid, they are usually made when there are other unpleasant issues in the news that are grabbing press attention (Iraq, Gonzales, etc.). If there are specific threats that he is aware of and that should not be shared publicly, perhaps his time would be better spent doing his job.

OK, it's a simple gotcha, even by mainstream media standards. Delivering a speech at Pat Robertson's Regent University, Rudy Giuliani came out swinging, essentially accusing Bill Clinton of ignoring terrorism back in the 1990's, and thereby making the 9/11 attacks all the more possible.

"Islamic terrorists killed more than 500 Americans before Sept. 11. Many people think the first attack was on Sept. 11, 2001. It was not. It was in 1993," said the former mayor.

and

"The United States government, then President Clinton, did not respond," Giuliani said. "(Osama) bin Laden declared war on us. We didn't hear it."

Certainly, there is some truth to the mayor's statements, though Richard Pearle, among others would beg to differ. And given that our current president ignored a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S." I think it's fair to say that many of us were asleep at the wheel at one time or another before 9/11. No, what is so glaringly offensive about Giuliani's remarks, is the crass, politically-motivated departure from his earlier remarks on blaming his new-found rival's husband.

Not satisfied with surrendering in only Iraq, "The Hill" newspaper is reporting that leading Democrats are now signaling that they want out of Afghanistan. So much for the war on terror and the battle against al-Qaida, I guess.

A few congressional Democrats go so far as suggesting that the Pentagon should pull out of Afghanistan now, while others say that troop withdrawal will be addressed after the military is out of Iraq.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), a senior defense authorizer, wants the U.S. out of Afghanistan immediately, calling operations there "futile" in trying to effect political change in a country with a tangled history.

Osama bin Laden got his start as a terrorist leader (and al-Qaida as a terrorist group) after we abandoned the Mujahideen in Afghanistan immediately after they drove out the Soviets in the 80s. With the Taliban now using the same tactics (IEDs, etc) as al-Qaida factions in Iraq, it seems like a withdrawal while the fight is toughening would be seen by the world and our enemies as a victory by the terrorists and a hand over of a country to al-Qaida, rendering everything that we've done since 9/11 useless.

Do these Democrats suggest that instead of fighting, we now commence peace talks with the terrorists? Or try to negotiate the terms of our surrender to them? Led proudly by the Democrats, we are quickly turning into the living embodiment of the caricatures that our enemies have always claimed we've been. Paper tigers, indeed.

After senators and congressmen saw the dangers of a president being elected to four consecutive terms, they passed an amendment to the Constitution to limit an individuals term in office to two elected terms. Franklin D. Roosevelt mastered the art of politics in the 1930s and 1940s. Clearly, by the time he was elected to his fourth time, he had already served for too long.

President George W. Bush (43) never quite mastered the game. He thought that Karl Rove was the best. He was right. Who else could have got this guy elected? Twice?

Bush knew that he was right in attacking Iraq. Of course he was right. This was the nation that conceived the 9/11 attack OR WAS IT. A news article printed September 18, 2003, quotes President Bush as saying that he knows that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. We knew that Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan but somehow, Saddam was the real enemy. We knew that Saddam was training terrorists. It didn't matter that he didn't have a relationship with bin Laden or al-Qaida.

Regardless of all these contradictions, President Bush was able to stifle debate by simpling creating the concept that if you didn't agree with the war you were not patriotic. You were stupid and didn't care about the United States. The result, many politicians who cared more about being elected than about the welfare of America, went under a rock. Republicans smiled. Conservative bloggers and supporters picked up the cry. "Cut and run" became part of the vernacular. Debate had been limited to radicals. It worked for the Republican Party but not for the good of the United States.

Now comes the debate on immigration.

In a perfect (and coincidental) response to Rep. Ron Paul's factually inaccurate and pathetic claim last night during the Republican debate that 9/11 happened because the United States had been bombing Iraq for the prior ten years, the preeminent scholar of Islam and the Muslims, Bernard Lewis, has an op-ed in this morning's Wall Street Journal, Was Osama Right?, subtitled "Islamists always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends won't change their view." Although he has covered all of the points outlined in this editorial before, it is particularly appropriate for everyone to read this now. It's a helpful reminder why Osama bin Laden knew he could deal us a devastating blow on 9/11, and also is a reminder why bin Laden was surprised at our forceful response -- it was out of character for us, especially in recent decades.

During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: "What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?"

The political Left and the Democrats, along with most of those in the State Department and the CIA, are assuming that our enemies think like us, and will respond like us when presented with Western-style diplomacy.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney sat down with the AP for a brief interview yesterday. Here are a few of the highlights.

On the subject of his blatant flip-floppery:
"I'm not going to apologize for saying I was wrong and now think I'm right." He also explained that McCain and Giuliani are flip-floppers, too.

On Iraq:
"The jury's still out." Maybe the Iraqis will step up, maybe they won't. Benchmarks are a good idea, but a timetable for withdrawal isn't. Romney didn't elucidate on what we should do if we continue to miss said benchmarks.

On going after Osama bin Laden:
"It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." This is the big headline, and one that will surely give Romney another opportunity to flip-flop, or "further clarify his thoughts."

What's odd about Romney's remarks is that he seems to be saying that we should stop looking for bin Laden because it costs too much money, whereas the war in Iraq, which is costing us a whole lot more money, should go on indefinitely even though we have no idea whether or not the people we're fighting to help are willing to join in the fight.

Previously on "The Stump":
- Romney, a 'Lifelong' Flip-Flopper
- Mitt: He's So Money!
- Romney's Dilemma?

One side effect of voting for President Bush and Republicans: X-ray body scans at airports. They debuted at Phoenix last week and "will be tested later at airports in Los Angeles and New York," the New York Times reports. Here's the main question: Will they ruin Bob and Susannah's vay-cay in the latest installment of "Running Gags"?