Move over Oprah! Welcome to the Osama Bin Laden Book Club. In his most recent video message, Bin Laden extols the works of the leftist author Noam Chomsky and he also directs Americans to read the book Imperial Hubris written by former CIA analyst and Bush critic Michael Scheuer. Scheuer places the blame for the turmoil in Iraq and the Middle East squarely on Bush, and Chomsky wrote of 9/11, "As atrocities go it doesn't rank very high." Indeed for Chomsky the only significance of 9/11 was that usually it is America that is responsible for mass atrocities while "for the first time the guns have been directed the other way. That is dramatic change." Chomsky, like Bin Laden, takes the view that we had it coming.
Bin Laden has been extolling the works of left-wing pundits for a few years now. In his 2004 message, delivered right before the presidential election, Bin Laden implored Americans to read the works of leftist Robert Fisk to get an "unbiased" view of why America was to blame for Muslim woes. A prolific author and far-left writer for the London Independent, Fisk is the British equivalent of Chomsky: anti-Americanism runs in his veins. And in January 2006 Bin Laden championed the book Rogue State written by the liberal writer William Blum, who writes for The Progressive and other leftist publications. Blum has called on America to withdraw from the Middle East and "give an apology to all the widows and orphans and those who were tortured" by American troops.
Prior to 9/11, Bin Laden's messages made no distinctions among Americans: we were all evil. But since then Bin Laden has changed his tune. Apparently he considers some Americans like Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz to be the very incarnations of the Great Satan, while other Americans--inevitably on the left--get globally-publicized book blurbs often resulting in a sales boost. Interestingly Blum reacted to the Bin Laden endorsement by telling the Washington Post, "I'm not repulsed and I'm not going to pretend that I am. If he (Bin Laden) shares with me a deep dislike for certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy...I think it's good that he shares those views." Blums fails to mention that more than 3,000 Americans died as a result of Bin Laden acting on his convictions.
Why, you may ask, would Bin Laden praise these leftist critics of U.S. foreign policy? First, he recognizes that there are many on the left who hate Bush as much as he does and who share his desire that Bush's war in Iraq, and Bush's foreign policy more generally, end in complete failure. Surely Bin Laden doesn't share the permissive social values of the left, but he has figured out that the enemy of his enemy is his de facto ally, working with him toward a common goal. Second, Bin Laden recognizes that he couldn't possibly convince Americans to pull out of Iraq. Fortunately for him he doesn't have to. There is already a political movement in America, led by the pundits and activists of the left, who are working overtime and without pay to secure Bin Laden's chief objectives. Thus the chief architect of 9/11 can simply refer Americans to their own homegrown leftists in order to get the Bin Laden line.
Does the term "useful idiot" ring a bell?
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 4)
31. First, Dinesh, I saw you lose a debate at Evergreen over ten years ago. Still desperately trying to convince people by making inflammatory comments. So, what's new?
Second, in 1998, Clinton ordered a freeze on assets that could be linked to bin Laden and signed an executive order, authorizing bin Laden's arrest or assassination. The award for his capture is upwards of $50 million. You'd think someone would have captured him by now, if not motivated by greed alone, but many sources report he's already dead.
Finally, #2, was 150,000% a typo? A full glass is 100%, really isn't any more than that. And besides, many Muslims do not believe bin Laden has any right to declare a fatwa, or anything else related to Islam, as he is not an Islamic scholar.
As far as book clubs go, reading is generally not lethal. Book bans and book bonfires don't wear well in a democracy.
rivercelt at 4:55PM on Sep 10th 2007
32. DD. There is a movie made in 1939 that I recommend to you. Its called the Wizard of OZ. In it is a song you should hear called "If I only had a Brain". Look DD, it does not follow that hating Osama leads to loving Bush. One is Evil, the other is an idiot. We have other intelligent choices. Attacking Iraq after 9/11 made as much sense as attacking Canada. It was just easier to make a case for attacking Iraq to further the Neocons dream of a One World Empire. Look it up, its in many of the PNAC writings. Regime change in Iraq was the first step toward what the neocons call a One World Empire with American corporation on the throne.
So don't try an end run around the old falacious argument that liberals are traitors because they don't support Bush's plans for Iraq and his One World Empire. We will not march lock step-goose step with you on this. Liberals may not have all of the answers but we sincerely want a better solution than you and Bush promote. We are not interested in adding to our friends coffers, instead we want liberty and justice for all. In addition we will fight for it and not turn tail with deferments or be AWOL from the National Guard. A Brain DD. Open your eyes and the wizard will give you one.
Steve Seivers at 4:58PM on Sep 10th 2007
33. #31...what you are advocating is indoctrination...not exactly a pro-freedom stance. I like to pick and choose my mantras, from whatever source, and whenever I feel like it. Sometimes, I even go a whole week without a mantra. It's...well...liberating.
rivercelt at 5:18PM on Sep 10th 2007
34. I would love to get a response from some of you, like the first commenter John, about your "facts" and "logic." When you talk about 50, 78, or 700 thousand Iraqi deaths, do you even realize who is responsible for the vast majority of these deaths(pick whichever number is most convenient for you)? I can tell from experience that it is NOT us that are doing this; it is the Mahdis, al Qaeda, and Bathists et al that are responsible. I spent over two years in Iraq during two different decades, and it is just stupefying how much ignorance there is about the war.
For instance,I saw an interview with Noam Chomsky (on Charlie Rose) in which he stated that the US was collaborating with Sadam just after the Gulf War. We did this, according to Dr. Chomsky, in order to help the Bathists commit ethnic genocide against the Shia and Kurds. His principal evidence was that during the al Safwan surrender, we allowed the Iraqi army to retain its use of rotary aircraft, while restricting the use of fixed wing and armour. Subsequently, the Iraqis did use helicopters to help move troops during the Shia and Kurdish rebellions, which they put down hard. Chomsky deducted that because of this the US is an accomplice in Iraqi atrocities in both southern Iraq and Kurdistan. I was in Kurdistan after the cessation and remember fondly the nightly shelling we got from the Medina Republican Guard. I guess that was all part of our evil plan to hoodwink the world. But if the professor would have bothered to tell Charlie Rose about the real reason that the Iraqis were allowed to retain their helicopters (they claimed that there would be a humanitarian crisis, e.g. starvation, disease) his whole conspiracy-laden argument would have been blown away like an Iraqi sandstorm. But, he doesn't have to tell the whole story (which would require "facts" and "logic"). Not when there are people like John that need to be lead around by the nose.
James at 6:07PM on Sep 10th 2007
35. THERE ARE SOME ANTI AMERICANS POSTING IN THIS BLOG,POSSIBLY ISLAMICS IN DISGUISE.
THERE ARE NOT JUSTIFICACION, NONE WATHSOEVER, FOR SEPT 11, WHOEVER JUSTIFY THAT IT'S AN ENEMY. AMERICANS WAKE UP!, THEY ARE CONCEALED,THEY HATE US. BIN LADEN IS A BORED, RICH GUY SEEKING ATTENTION, IF HE EXISTS, WHICH I DOUBTH CAUSE HE NEEDED DIALYSIS EVERY SINGLE DAY. THAT IS ONLY ISLAMICS' MANIPULATION SINCE THEY KNOW HOW VULNERABLES AMERICANS ARE, CAUSE WE ARE NAIVE ANDWE DONT KNOW THEM, THEY HAVE ONLY ONE GOAL IN THEIR HEAD AND THAT IS TO DESTROY USA NOT MATTER WHAT. THEY MAKES YOU GUYS TO RESPOND TO THAT ALLEGEDLY BIN LADEN GUY, AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE CAPABLE TO FAKE A TAPE ASK CHAVEZ, THE KIND IN FAKING TAPES AND BY THE WAY VERY CLOSE FRIEND WITH THEM.WATCH OUT!!!!BE YOURSELVES SMARTER THAN THAT.
pascual at 5:36PM on Sep 10th 2007
36. Dinesh, you're just jealous that Osama didn't mention your Islamic-terrorist sympathetic "The Enemy Within".
emelpe at 6:40PM on Sep 10th 2007
37. Per SteveG in Post 10: "... To say that the American Left is somehow sympathetic to the terrorists is to fall into that trap I mentioned earlier. "
I think this fellow Donald Kagan's article sums it up well:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2QyYWIzZmY1Mzk2ZDA0OThlM2M5NjRiN2Q3MDliMTc=
Excerpt: "Observers of today’s fierce partisan conflict between those demanding immediate or rapid abandonment of the war in Iraq at any, or almost any, price, and others who refuse to give up the fight, might think this a rare event in American history, but it is not unprecedented. In the two World Wars of the 20th century, to be sure, the country was essentially united and fought on to victory without much dissension. In the Korean War, however, there was considerable division, and a new administration that itself had not begun the war accepted a draw — a draw that has demanded a commitment of troops ever since and presents a serious threat to this day. In the Vietnam War, deep and violent dissension at home was, perhaps, the major element in compelling the United States to accept a humiliating defeat. In neither war were the American military forces defeated and driven from the field..."
"...Defining the Defeatist: The results of the recent change in leadership and strategy in Iraq have made it plain that the war there is not lost nor is defeat inevitable. And yet, the war’s opponents, even as the situation improves, have rushed to declare America defeated. They offer no plausible alternative to the current strategy and take no serious notice of the dreadful consequences of swift withdrawal. They seem to be panicked by the possibility of success and eager to bring about withdrawal and defeat before events make it too late.
In their embarrassment they, not their critics, have raised the question of their patriotism. However that question may be resolved, such people surely deserve to be called defeatists. My dictionary defines “defeatism” as “the attitude, policy or conduct of a person who admits, expects, or no longer resists defeat.” The term appears to have been invented during the First World War in France during a dark moment when victory seemed remote or impossible. It was also applied to some in Britain in 1940 who thought that Hitler’s forces were irresistible and argued for a negotiated peace with the Nazis. In light of the positive results of recent American efforts in Iraq, it seems an appropriate description of those who have already declared the war lost and their cooperators, even as it is clear that the military tide has turned."
Ken Berg at 7:37PM on Sep 10th 2007
38. DDD
Democrats Demand Defeat
CK at 7:45PM on Sep 10th 2007
39. This is hilarious. I bet there's one book Osama Bin Laden won't be pushing and that's the one by KOLA BOOF, his former mistress. Let's not be snobs and forget that her book was chosen Best Book of 2006 by Princeton. I've been wondering when is Bin Laden going to address the accusations/story of Kola Boof in the media myself. She's most definitely reached his ears in the cave.
Dennis Prager at 8:52PM on Sep 10th 2007
40. What criteria do we use to determine if a religion is more a political movement rather than a belief in a supreme being and if that supreme being preaches a creed to it's followers to kill the non-believers, is it a religion or is it not simlpy a genocidal orginization? Who will determine that this religion is evil, morally corrupt, a fatal detriment to civilization and needs reformation, if not elimination?
Rich at 9:03PM on Sep 10th 2007
41. to #32: Indoctrination is something imposed from an exterior source, what I proposed is something you can elect to do or not to do based on what you believe. I was not proposing a literal mantra, it was a rhetorical suggestion.
I happen to believe that as long as we treat Islam as a PC topic, and continue to believe that there is a "moderate" Islam that will magically appear one day and save our civilization, we are doomed. Read the tenets of Islam as handed down from Allah's "messages" to Mohammed and you will see that in order to practice Islam, you must buy the whole concept. This is a 'religion' that you cannot choose what you like or dislike or decide to adopt or not to adopt. It is not a cafeteria plan. A follower of Islam considers a moderate as much a heathen and worthy fo death if not accepting the entire religion as he would a Jew or Christian. What kind of religion ignores, denigrates, not only allows but encourages the beatings of 53% of it's population to keep them respectful. Heaven help the liberal women, gays, and people of the Christain and Jewish faiths if OBL gets his way.
All of the ad hominem attacks against DD only proves the shallow level of debate of which some people are capable.
Vincent Emilio at 9:44PM on Sep 10th 2007
42. As a humanitarian soul... I say that the USA should never have occupied Iraq because there is no winning against Jihadis.
I'm not sure what Bush was thinking when he railroaded the USA into this 'war' and this never-ending occupation... it is probably too stupid... too religious... too damned 'wonder-working' for me to grok...
... it has taken me all this time to get over the absolutely horrifying stupidity of placing America's finest in this in this ridiculous situation.
I can envision a scene years from now where the wise old survivors... now sergeants, are at the door-to-door conferences with heads-of-households... chatting with them... asking innocently how old the kids are now... trying to slip, "...and are they jihadis yet?" into the conversation...
... but just imagining myself the atheist(read Stalinist) that DD tries to paint me and all atheists... well... if I were like that, I would say, "Stamp out these religious zealots!!!... and keep stamping... and stamping... and stamping!!!"
....but come on, DD... give us a hint, what does victory in Iraq look like through your eyes?
... any of you pro-war guys... anybody... what does this mysterious victory look like? If these bad guys are willing to take a plane over to the States to bomb bridges and malls... how is it that the army can accomplish victory over there?
... and the Quran is their 'draft orders' ... and the mosques are their 'Conscription office'...
... the old Chinese curse springs to my mind, "May you live in interesting times."
...maybe I'm just stupid, I can't figure a victory or a way out.
pboyfloyd at 11:22PM on Sep 10th 2007
43. Bush has been the best recruiting tool that Al Quaida could have ever imagined. The leftists would have had enough brains not to invade and occupy Iraq. The right seems to act first and think later and then blame their obvious disasters on the left. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED ?????????????????????????
Rick at 11:44PM on Sep 10th 2007
44. Posters #1 and #3, validity to many of your points yet to diminish the pain of the survivors by quantification of casualty differential is an act of one-up manship. The living, the numbers are of no matter, have lost their, mothers, fathers, sisters. brothers, children.
Bin laden is of no circumstance. according to a previous poster 'Ismael is the Father of all Muslims and bin Laden is a Muslim, rhetoric, blah, blah, rhetoric'. Allah first made all kneel to Adam, then Ishmael, then Isaac, then Jacob and all the tribes. Regardless bin Laden is a megliomaniac who misinterprets and misquotes the true Holy Qur'an.
He is of little or no matter in the scheme of things.
Timber, CNN.com, dead (murdered Iraqi civilians, 400,000 to 900,000, agreed on a medium and said 601,000 dead as a result of violence, more than 53,000 dead due to effects of war. Majority males, ages 15-44)
personalrep1, #2, his consistant posting from that fanatic website, article by Larry Houle.
Mixes Qur'an with Hadith and calls siras as if books. Actually sira means 'stories by Muhammed', not as he ascertains the meaning. The Surats and vs from the Qur'an are not even the direct words from the Qur'an. Actually scholars had to decide which hadith were to be trusted. ahadith started as anoral translation relevant to the actions and customs of Muhammed. During 7th century those receiving ahadith started to question the sources, This resulted in a list of transmitters 'A told B that tod Muhammed'.The final hadith about Islamic history and biography was not finished until hundreds of years after Muhammed had died. About Hadith Muhammed said 'Do not write anything down of me except in the Qur'an. Whoever writes other than that should delete it'
as Jihad pertains to the Qur'an, Jihad is only an action in place when attacked. It is not random attacks for no reason.
8.Surat vs 61
And if they incline toward peace, then you [too] incline toward it, and put your trust in Allah.
Houle talks about foot baths before prayer, if one only ascribes to Hadith thhey do not do this and are considered less than true believers of the Qur'an.
Too much to go into, Houle's schizophrenic description of the Qur'an is unintelligable, confused, improperly translated and thouroughly and completely untrue, lies of the utmost and destructive manner.
Look at a Qur'an on line and read the verses he misquotes and see it for yourself.
rhodalee at 12:44AM on Sep 11th 2007
45. To #40. I see your point. What you posted was your own rhetoric? You suggest reading the Koran. I appreciate your suggestion, but I barely made it to the Age of Man in the Silmarillion, and I doubt I could get through the Koran. No offense, but it sounds like a snooze fest.
I also had no idea Christianity was such a supporter of women and gay rights. And, I know you will correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Crusades all about killing the Infidels? And Malius Malificarum...the Witches Hammer? I doubt I would have survived that Papal decree. So, maybe it was more of an edict, but I have a mole- I would have been worried.
peace!
rivercelt at 12:52AM on Sep 11th 2007