The media and bin Laden

By

I'm sure that you remember Osama bin Laden's latest audio release, his January 19 tape in which he offered us a truce. Incidentally, if he's going to releasing these tapes, why doesn't he just have a podcast that we can download from iTunes? Then we wouldn't have to wait to hear the complete version of the terrorist major domo's rants.

Today's papers reveal more details from last month's ravings, including the one that is in the headline ('Bin Laden: I won't be taken alive')

About midway through the story, AP writer Steven R. Hurst quotes bin Laden as saying:

''The jihad is continuing with strength, for Allah be all the credit, despite all the barbarity, the repressive steps taken by the American Army and its agents, to the extent that there is no longer any mentionable difference between this criminality and the criminality of Saddam.''

Then Mr. Hurst helpfully explains to the dullard readers the real implications of what we have just read.

'With the implied criticism of Saddam, bin Laden appeared to be denying assertions by the Bush administration that the former Iraqi leader had ties to al—Qaida —— ties that were given as one rationale for invading Iraq.' 

Given his tremendous insight, I would think Mr. Hurst would have detected something else that bin Laden appeared to be saying: that his jihad against Western civilization is now being fought by our military in Iraq. Alas, it is no longer the good old days when he could plot in secret and launch an attack on defenseless civilians sitting at their desks waiting to start what they thought would be an uneventful workday.

I can't help but notice that, once again, one of the courageous guardians of the people's right to know is acting as a mouthpiece for the September 10 party.

During last week's collective temper tantrum by the passel of mediocre, blow—dried, self—important arrested development cases that masquerade as journalists in the White House press corps, we watched them display their laziness, their vanity and their shameless careerism. Would it be too much to ask for them to conceal their liberal bias?

Teri O'Brien   2 20 06

I'm sure that you remember Osama bin Laden's latest audio release, his January 19 tape in which he offered us a truce. Incidentally, if he's going to releasing these tapes, why doesn't he just have a podcast that we can download from iTunes? Then we wouldn't have to wait to hear the complete version of the terrorist major domo's rants.

Today's papers reveal more details from last month's ravings, including the one that is in the headline ('Bin Laden: I won't be taken alive')

About midway through the story, AP writer Steven R. Hurst quotes bin Laden as saying:

''The jihad is continuing with strength, for Allah be all the credit, despite all the barbarity, the repressive steps taken by the American Army and its agents, to the extent that there is no longer any mentionable difference between this criminality and the criminality of Saddam.''

Then Mr. Hurst helpfully explains to the dullard readers the real implications of what we have just read.

'With the implied criticism of Saddam, bin Laden appeared to be denying assertions by the Bush administration that the former Iraqi leader had ties to al—Qaida —— ties that were given as one rationale for invading Iraq.' 

Given his tremendous insight, I would think Mr. Hurst would have detected something else that bin Laden appeared to be saying: that his jihad against Western civilization is now being fought by our military in Iraq. Alas, it is no longer the good old days when he could plot in secret and launch an attack on defenseless civilians sitting at their desks waiting to start what they thought would be an uneventful workday.

I can't help but notice that, once again, one of the courageous guardians of the people's right to know is acting as a mouthpiece for the September 10 party.

During last week's collective temper tantrum by the passel of mediocre, blow—dried, self—important arrested development cases that masquerade as journalists in the White House press corps, we watched them display their laziness, their vanity and their shameless careerism. Would it be too much to ask for them to conceal their liberal bias?

Teri O'Brien   2 20 06