By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
The spectacle of the president of the United States extensively quoting Osama bin Laden to bolster his controversial policies during political season deserves notice, and reflection.
By all rights, President Bush ought to be embarrassed that the al Qaeda leader who masterminded the September 11 terrorist attacks remains at large almost five years later.
But Bush yesterday let bin Laden share his bulliest of pulpits, giving the mass murderer precisely the attention he craves and endorsing his extreme view that a Third World War is under way.
Mentioning bin Laden so much couldn't help but remind listeners of Bush's failure to capture or kill him. But the risk was easily offset by the fact that bin Laden remains the most effective bogeyman out there, and job one for the White House in the run-up to a potentially crippling mid-term election is to scare the hell out of people.
Michael A. Fletcher writes in The Washington Post: "President Bush issued a stern warning yesterday about what he called the continuing terrorist threat confronting the nation, using the haunting words of Islamic extremists to support his assertion that they remain determined to attack the United States.
"Abandoning his practice of only rarely mentioning al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, Bush repeatedly quoted him and purported terrorist letters, recordings and documents to make his case that terrorists have broad totalitarian ambitions and believe the war in Iraq is a key theater in a wider struggle."
Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes: "President Bush and Congressional Democrats locked horns on Tuesday on whether Americans are safe from terrorism, part of a calculated effort by both parties to capitalize on the coming anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and gain the upper hand in this year's election debate over national security."
And Stolberg notes: "The speech used a classic strategy of Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, who specializes in turning a candidate's weakness into a strength. In this case, Mr. Bush's weakness is that Mr. bin Laden has not been captured -- a point that was quickly picked up by Democrats. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said that if Mr. Bush had 'unleashed the American military to do the job at Tora Bora four years ago and killed Osama bin Laden, he wouldn't have to quote this barbarian's words today.'
"That did not stop Mr. Bush from mentioning Mr. bin Laden 17 times in the 44-minute speech, a tactic that seemed intended to emphasize the Republican argument that the nation can trust the president and his party more than Democrats to protect it from attacks."
Nedra Pickler writes for the Associated Press: "Voters were never more united behind the president than in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and his speech was designed to convince Americans that the threat has not faded five years later."
Craig Gordon writes in Newsday: "Hoping once more to tap the political potency of 9/11, President George W. Bush repeatedly quoted Osama bin Laden yesterday to warn that the threat of terrorism lives on - and to try to rally voters behind the Republican vision for fighting it. . . .
"It's all part of a three-week campaign-style push - timed to Monday's anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks - in which Bush is seeking to tap into past voter support for his anti-terror polices, support that has largely eroded over public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. . . .
"For Bush, raising bin Laden so forcefully comes with some risks - not the least of which is to remind voters that even though Bush famously declared he wanted bin Laden 'dead or alive,' the U.S. military has failed to capture or kill him.
Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey write for Newsweek.com: "There was a time when the White House considered Osama bin Laden so contemptible and so radioactive that it would rarely mention his name in any presidential speech. President Bush's aides didn't want to dignify the Al Qaeda leader by suggesting he was worthy of a presidential response. Moreover, they thought there was some danger in propagating the views of a figure who wanted to reach the widest audience -- and possibly even send coded messages to his followers. . . .
"That was the old rhetoric of the war on terror. In the latest version of the war of words, the White House has elevated bin Laden to a mixture of foreign leader, historical icon and political adversary. Bin Laden's words (and those of his henchmen) provided the backbone for Bush's speech to military officers on Tuesday. Far from brushing aside bin Laden's rants, Bush insisted they were a modern-day Mein Kampf, a guide to Al Qaeda's global strategy. The White House now finds itself in the extraordinary position of selling the war on terror by citing the very man it ranks as public enemy No. 1.
Ron Fullwood (bigtree) wrote for OpEd News: "Bush seemed intent in his speech on elevating bin-Laden's aspirations; not as defeated ambitions, but as some unfulfilled destiny, as they may well be. The rebel leader has not been apprehended; in part, as a consequence of Bush's shift of the bulk of our forces and resources to Iraq in the middle of the hunt. Bin-Laden could be waiting out the chaos that he admits to have instigated, waiting to step out of the shadows and into his role as terror svengali to the masses. But he wouldn't have a thing to lord over if Bush hadn't followed his dare and invaded and occupied yet another Muslim-dominated country."
Bush needs to decide what our nation's interests are in continuing the occupation of Iraq and adjust our troop's involvement there according to 'conditions on the ground', as he's said he intends, not on whatever blather comes from the propaganda of these muckrakers and murderers. We should not allow the policy and direction of our nation and military to be guided and dictated by the voice of these terrorist's violence."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
