59 Comments

1. michael ledeen:

how would john lehman know? his info comes from the same cia that screwed up most everything else, why should we take this seriously?

Oct 22, 2004 - 2:17 pm 2. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

There’s a lot of money in the Afghan opium trade. If he is alive, hey may get it from there.

Personally, I think he’s been toast since Tora Bora.

Only a little over a week for Al Qaeda to alter or not alter our election with an attack.

Oct 22, 2004 - 2:22 pm 3. slim:

Roger,

You’ve woefully underestimated the impact this story will have on the election … if it is true.

Here’s what I took away from this story:

* we know “exactly” where Bin Laden is but we are too paralyzed with fear of “another Vietnam” to go after him

* we know that the goverment of Saudi Arabia is funding bin Laden and we’re letting them

* we know that the goverment of the UAE is funding bin Laden, and we’re letting them

* we know that bin Laden’s family – the same group of folks we escorted from this country on September 13, 2001 – is still giving him $1 million a year, and we’re letting them

* an American “presence” is nearby … presumeably this “presence” is military … and they are sitting around with their thumbs up their rears

I am a TOTAL Bush supporter, but if this story turns out to be true, I will sit out this election.

Since I know you are a Karl Rove operative and can get this message back to him on your Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy RadiosetÆ, you need to send him a Red (State) Alert.

Oct 22, 2004 - 2:23 pm 4. Yehudit:

“I am a TOTAL Bush supporter, but if this story turns out to be true, I will sit out this election.”

No, it means we know we have him bottled up, and he is ineffective. No videos, no tapes. He has de facto passed the baton to Zarquawi. That’s why Kerry harping on OBL shows how clueless Kerry is. Bush is fighting THIS war. Kerry is running after trying to make hay out of stuff that isn’t relevant anymore.

It’s not a revelation to the American public that OBL gets $$ from the Saudis. They also know that we do deals with the Saudis because we have to for now. The people voting for Kerry aren’t voting for him because they think he will smoke out OBL.

Oct 22, 2004 - 2:30 pm 5. Barry Dauphin:

Where do these people get this stuff? So how does Lehman “know” all of this. Oh, I guess he can’t say, you know, national security and all that stuff. So then why can’t he keep his yap shut if he can’t tell us. Oh, you know, media addiction and that sort of stuff.

His stock has fallen in direct proportion to the number of times he opens his mouth.

Oct 22, 2004 - 2:34 pm 6. slim:

Yehudit,

With all due respect, if I wanted the War on Terror to be about “bottling” terrorists up to make them ineffective and unable to produce videos, then I would just vote for Kerry – or recommend that we bomb Al Jazeera and any other television station that aired their videos.

It is a revelation to me that our goverment may know WHO WITHIN the Saudi government is giving money to bin Laden, and yet, we haven’t killed them yet, or had the Saudi’s kill them yet in return for us continuing to be their best customer.

I don’t think Kerry will care one whit about getting bin Laden … but I and millions of others have been led to believe that President Bush is of a different opinion. If our President thinks that “bottling” up bin Laden satisfies as a definition of “success” then he doesn’t get my vote.

THAT’s how important this story will be … if it is true.

Oct 22, 2004 - 2:42 pm 7. Charlie (Colorado):

Slim, let me remind you of the first law of intelligence information and the press: if something very secret is leaked to the press, it is almost invariably (a) false, and (b) being leaked to further someone’s political aims.

This is particularly true in the case where the leaker is quoted by name and is not a member of Congress (ergo effectively immune from prosecution).

I’ve got no idea what Lehman’s political aims might be, but I’m confident to a very high level of certainty that the one thing you can infer from this is that we don’t have the foggiest idea where bin Laden is.

Oct 22, 2004 - 2:47 pm 8. somsy:

OT

Watch anti-Kerry documentary STOLEN HONOR online for FREE now:

CLICK HERE

Oct 22, 2004 - 2:48 pm 9. Rick Ballard:

“I’ve got no idea what Lehman’s political aims might be, but I’m confident to a very high level of certainty that the one thing you can infer from this is that we don’t have the foggiest idea where bin Laden is.”

X2

Oct 22, 2004 - 2:55 pm 10. Rhod:

Lehman sounds a little loose above the eyebrows if you ask me, Navy Secretary or not. Or maybe because of it.

Motive is important, and what would be Lehman’s reasons for announcing this? This isn’t dinner table talk, and if it was revealed to the 9/11 commission, others more partisan that Lehman would have be wallowing in it as evidence of Bush’s stupidity.

The point that suggests that Lehman has slipped a gear, or is being outright dishonest, is the Vietnam analogy. What does this dimwit mean by it? A massive well-supplied guerilla contingent supported by a neighboring country with a large and well-trained Army of regulars, engaged in a war of attrition? Is that what an operation against OBL would be like?

Lehman sounds like an idiot if you ask me. I think it’s impossible to overestimate the compulsion to headline grabbing among people like Lehman, or the need to shoot one’s mouth off with nothing to say. If there’s something to this, where is Dan Rather?

Oct 22, 2004 - 3:31 pm 11. R C Dean:

We’re in the hall of mirrors now, folks. Consider that Mr. Lehmann is leaking what must be very highly classified information (assuming it is true) barely a week before the Presidential election, right before the weekend news cycle.

Is the timing accidental? Surely you jest. Of course its not accidental. Lehmann isn’t doing this out of his burning yet scholarly desire to inform the American public of relevant information. He has an agenda. The timing gives this away.

Someone with an agenda releases politically dynamic information right before an election, information that has not been hinted at from any other source. Why would you believe him?

Oct 22, 2004 - 3:36 pm 12. holdfast:

Those who know don’t talk

Those who talk don’t know

Also, it seems that one should always believe the opposite of the conventional CIA “wisdom”, especially on matters of WMD proliferation. I submit Libya, Iraq, North Korea and A Q Khan.

I am presently reading “Bush versus the Beltway.” It’s not a bad read, though L.M can get a little tin-hatty at times. She points out some interesting leads (called “evidence” – as in “it is not true that there is no evidence linking 9/11 to Iraq”) but a lot of the evidence (something offered to the trier of fact to prove the existence or nonexistence of an alleged fact) is uncoroborated and does not rise to the level of proof (the establishment of a fact in the trier’s mind through the use of evidence). Rather, this evidence would provide a good starting place for further investigation, which the CIA and other members of the government seem patently unwilling to do.

Remember, my friends, if someone tells you that there is no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, immediately call them a liar. There is not, at least in the public realm, any PROOF of a Saddam-9/11 connection, but there is plently of evidence, some of it even credible, if not confirmed. That all these Dems (many of them lawyers) so grossly misuse the term “evidence” really gets my shorts in a wad. They know better, damnit, and are just lying for the cause. If you can’t say what you mean, then how can I know that you mean what you say?

Remember Lionel Hutts – “Hearsay, Innuendo and Rumor are KINDS of evidence your honour” – which is utterly true, though under most legal systems they would be evidence of the inadmissible kind.

Oct 22, 2004 - 3:41 pm 13. Terrye:

slim:

I would not get too excited about this. I still think OBL is dead and I am still voting for Bush.

For Lehman [a man who signed Kerry's silver star citation 15 years after the fact without so much as a kiss my ass] to be making this point now in this interview is very weird.

It has always been maintained that if OBL is alive he is in that wilderness region on the Pakistan Afghan border and if Lehman is to be believed he now knows we know where he is.

does this not strike you as odd?

Oct 22, 2004 - 5:06 pm 14. slim:

All,

Your comments are all appreciated. Several points:

In both posts, I reiterate … “If this is true …”

I’m not certain it is (this is, after all, a local newspaper), and the timing does strike one as particularly odd. However, this is John Lehman talking. This guy was appointed Navy Secretary by Ronald Reagan and sat on the 9/11 commission.

This is not a person who you would normally see spouting off national security secrets to local press boobs to get them to buy him a free drink.

It’s a very, very odd turn of events. If the story is true, its EXPLOSIVE. I do not believe that George Bush can be re-elected if the American public finds out that we:

1) Know where bin Laden is “exactly”

2) Aren’t going after him because we fear another “vietnam quagmire”

3) Give one hoot about whether Pervez has a 4th assassination attempt on his life because we did go after OBL

4) Aren’t KILLING his funders

I am reserving my final decision on whether to actually vote until this gets resolved, so I surely hope the campaign understands how important it is to either knock this story down, or explain to me why OBL (and America) is safe as long as he stays in the mountains of Pakistan and is unable to replenish his supply of videotape.

Oct 22, 2004 - 5:23 pm 15. Terrye:

Slim:

Not to belabor the point but OBL is not illiterate or stupid. If we knew exactly where he was before, we don’t know now and that would mean that Lehman did something far worse than out Valerie Plame. So no, I don’t believe he would have anymore information than Senator Evan Bayh [D] from my state who is in a far greater position to know and would have a great deal more reason to tell, except of course for the part about breaking the law and all.

This is the guy who called NYC firefighters boyscouts and almost got his ass kicked by the fire chief.

I think he is trying to make himself look more important than he is.

Or something is up.

Oct 22, 2004 - 5:58 pm 16. Syl:

Slim

Generalizations are NOT facts to be acted upon.

a general area is not a specific location.

Money from Saudi royals is not a specific person.

Money from family is not a specific person.

etc.

Got it now?

Oct 22, 2004 - 6:09 pm 17. Matt Evans:

The pertinent part is not that Bin Laden is alive or he’s in Pakistan- its that his income is nowhere near enough to allow him to carry out serious terrorist acts. Anyone that sells Al Queda a bomb right now understands, as a result of the past 3 years, that we will more than likely trace a sale back to whichever two bit russian hood/iranian intelligence officer has access to whatever WMD that Bin Laden gets his hands on. That kind of attention requires BIG money for black marketers to sell to Al Queda and I guarantee after he pays his people and pays for his security and pays for food and whatever else, he has very little left (of his own money anyway). Sure he has doners in Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations but do those doners really want risk it ?

And I think thats the reason that the Bush doctrine has been working- hitting the US brings immediate retaliation involving a blitzkrieg of the best weapons money can buy. Its interesting to me that we may be beating Bin Laden the same way we beat the Soviet Union- we outspent them. Democracy + capitalism creates the success that moreso then religion, puts us at odds with the Muslim world.

I’m not implying we can’t get hit, obviously- we can. But at the same time, due to Bush’s policies, terrorist organizations going after US targets can no longer JUST plan the operation, they now have to plan for the retaliation. During Bill Clinton’s term, boots on the ground offense was not foreign policy- it was all cruise missle shots. With Bush, Al Queda knows they can hit Spain and not be hit back but if they hit US targets, we’ll figure out who was responsible and we’ll send a #!@$-ton of heat after them.

I think an aggressive strategy makes us safer because it gives states that sponser terrorism pause when paying Bin Laden a couple of million – “do we really want to risk US attention?”

Just my two cents.

Oct 22, 2004 - 6:16 pm 18. Y acov:

Is this the same John Lehman who was Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy and a navy flier in Vietnam? A guy with a Ph.D from Penn? Well, obviously, he holds no credibility with cyber superheroes safely esconced in their basements, Doritos at hand, dueling with nefarious foes of George Bush, a/k/a God’s Chosen One.

And since when, Terrye with a “Y” did G.W.B. ever concern himself with breaking the law? After all, he thinks (if he thinks at all) the Geneva Convention is an archaic document that doesn’t prohibit torture and the Constitution an old scrap of paper that doesn’t keep him from arresting anyone he declares to be an enemy combatant and holding him forever without a hearing or a lawyer. Even his own cherry picked Supreme Court handed him his head on that one.

Meanwhile, Kool Aid drinkers: console yourselves with this: http://www.liegirls.com/

Oct 22, 2004 - 6:24 pm 19. Y acov:

ensconced. or whatever.

Oct 22, 2004 - 6:24 pm 20. PeterUK:

Slim.

“Exactly” covers some 134,000 square miles of,what is described as in the “holiday guide” as “Baluchistan is largely desert basins with inarable hills and mountains. Pastoral nomads who speak languages related to Persian constitute most of the sparse population”.

Next door of course is Iranian Baluchistan and no doubt the nomads wander accross the border as they have done for centuries and no doubt some are Iranian Revolutionary Guards,Taliban, al Qaeda and assorted cut throats and bandits.

The Pakistani Government is not going to let a major US force march overland and please forget about all the derring do of inserting special forces to kill bin Laden, the area is a hot bed of unrest that even the Pakistanis cannot subdue,it would probably be a suicide mission,have a bit of patience.

Oct 22, 2004 - 6:33 pm 21. Terrye:

Y;

Is this same Osama Bin Laden that ran foot loose and fancy free from Sudan to Afghanistan while Clinton was too busy groping an intern to be bothered with taking advantage of any of the six oppurtunites he had to get the man? Seems like Clinton can think alright, it is just with the wrong head.

I know that the bush hating looney left gets a charge out of the juvenile and obnoxious personal insult thing but do not mess with me, you are out of your league.

Oct 22, 2004 - 6:38 pm 22. Terrye:

This is just like the whole Tora Bora thing. Tommy Franks shot that down but they keep dragging it out.

We do not know for sure if Osama is dead or alive.

It is a week before the election. It would be wise to take anything we hear with a grain of salt right now.

Oct 22, 2004 - 6:49 pm 23. jerry:

y cov:

Now I have some experience with Mr. Lehman. He was boss although I was well down the food chain. Lehman did a pretty good job as SECNAV but he was far from perfect. For example, He dismissed my boss, who was head civilian at the analytical arm of OPNAV [OP-96] over a series of disagreements on budget, strategy and procurement issues. Sometimes I agreed with my boss [George Herring] and sometimes I agreed with Lehman. I believe the breaking point was reached when Herring pressed Lehman on a critical redesign of the failed A-12 aircraft. Lehman wanted the aircraft to have side-by-side seating just like the A-6. Lehman fired George and got his way and as a result the airplane went down in flames. It cost the taxpayers $3 billion dollars. Lehman was also an egotistical know-it-all. However, he was a systematic thinker and sponsored a brilliant maritime strategy that helped contain and “defeat” the Soviet Naval threat.

I think someone who really doesn’t know much but who Lehman trusts told him that we know exactly where OBL is. That person doesn’t know what he is talking about because intelligence community doesn’t know for sure if OBL is even alive. The supposition is that he is but we have no evidence since late 2002 to indicate that he is still around. We assume he is the wilds of Pakistan but we really donít know. I find amusing how ABBers dismiss the CIA WMD assessments to bash Bush yet assume that they have mystical powers of truth when it is to their advantage. The CIA knows about as much about Bin Ladenís whereabouts today as it did about Saddamís WMD program circa fall of 2002.

I hope this puts things in perspective.

Oct 22, 2004 - 6:52 pm 24. Buddy Larsen:

My two cents: Kerry wins, the west, from the rifleman outside Fallujah to Tony Blair and John Howard, loses heart, because obviously, America has. We’re instantly back to Sept 10-world. Anybody who thinks Homeland Security has kept another 911 abeyed, isn’t thinking clearly–it’s the allied armies on the borders making the Pashas worry about the deeds to their terrocracies that has kept all but the skirmishers quiet stateside. The nastiest weapons probably won’t get used on us so long as our troops are peering out from over Iraq’s borders. 911 cost them a lot of real estate. This is a serious war, and the allies are winning it, and if this country throws it all away for the pandering blabbulations of that ambition-addled fool Kerry and his crew of reddish rule-or-ruiners, then screw it, I’m outta here, I’m moving to Mexico, ain’t coming back ’til Texas secedes, in about two years.

Oct 22, 2004 - 6:57 pm 25. Sandy P:

Didn’t OBL need dialysis?

How’s the equipment being run, generator?

Who’s the dr?

Where’s his family?

Besides, we’ve had tapes, it’s not like we didn’t “know” he wasn’t alive.

And now we know where he is.

Oct 22, 2004 - 7:01 pm 26. Sandy P:

And as for getting money from high-ranking SA ministers, well, duh. I knew that. One side of the family is western, the other side not. Except I forget the name of that guy. I thought there’s 12 or so big funders. There’s a list.

“Rantburg” is a good place to get up to speed, slim.

Remember when 3 princes died in a short time?

Oct 22, 2004 - 7:05 pm 27. Terrye:

Buddy:

I don’t know which way this thing will go but I think Bush has a very good chance of winning. Kerry has not been able to lead him for almost two months.

If Bush does not win it will have more to do with the price of gas than 9/11 and that brings up back to Saudi Arabia, hell hole that it is.

Oct 22, 2004 - 7:25 pm 28. Terrye:

Sandy:

I doubt he is alive, those audio tapes are not conclusive, and on the off chance he is I would assume he is getting help from fellow crazies from SA and I would imagine he is in that border region we have been hearing about for years.

This is not news. But I did think he would have had more money available than that.

Oct 22, 2004 - 7:30 pm 29. chuck:

Myself, I run this backwards. If we knew where OBL was and we could get to him, then I assume we would do something about it. To think otherwise would require me to believe weirdo conspiracy theories. Now, evidently, some folks believe such conspiracy theories and so are inclined to believe loose rumors such as this. And there is the divide. It’s not that complicated really, just a matter of trust.

If something should come along to undermine my trust it would have to be something far more concrete than this. As to the folks without trust, how they manage to live while blessed with such paranoia beats me, it must make them immensely unhappy.

Oct 22, 2004 - 7:45 pm 30. Terrye:

chuck:

Here is a theory. They are waiting for the weekend before the election.

Oct 22, 2004 - 8:04 pm 31. PeterUK:

Lehman doesn’t say bin Ladens exact whereabouts are known just a general area,a bit like saying he is in the Bad Lands National Park or Death Valley National park only more so.

Whilst his operations require money,day to day expenditure in goatburger land will be low,so the chances are that funds are channelled through cut outs from the donors to the operational cells.

Since al Qaeda is an amorphous loosely connected organisation would it actually make much difference to the WoT expending the energy of large scale military operations capturing a figurehead,all be it an iconic figurehead.Looking at picture of the man taken before all this kicked off with the one in the last video shows a seriously ill man,how potent is he?

Oct 22, 2004 - 8:12 pm 32. Morgan:

Buddy Larson -

“terrocracies” “blabbulations”

Are these your neologisms? I’ll need to cite you if you’re the author.

Oct 22, 2004 - 8:48 pm 33. Tara:

I sent an email to Roger about this because I was having trouble registering with TypeKey..but managed to get thru..

Anyway, this comes from Brothers Judd blog and it’s interesting that Lehman and Powell both say this is the area bin Laden is hiding out and now it’s getting some action.Of course I know that this is a hideout for many of Al-Qaeda and other groups..but the timing is just too weird to not think Lehman and Powell could know what they are talking about.

Military pounds militants? hideouts in Waziristan (Iqbal Khattak, 10/23/04, Daily Times)

Security forces attacked suspected Islamic militants? hideout with helicopter gunships and mortars on Friday as a house-to-house search operation in the Spinkay Raghzai area was likely to begin on Saturday, military sources told Daily Times.

?There has been heavy fire in the area and security forces have arrested someone, though he is not Abdullah Mehsud,? said a security official who asked not to be named.

Military sources said the offensive began at 3:00am (2200 GMT Thursday) against a suspected militant hideout in Kotkai, 65 kilometres east of Wana.

Oct 22, 2004 - 9:18 pm 34. Noah:

Let’s all calm down and be adults. Try these points on for size before you make any rash decisions:

1) OBL is of minor operational significance

2) OBL is of major symbolic significance

3) An extraction would be a major/high-risk/uncertain/indeterminate operation

4) A neutralization (e.g., bombing anything, bombing everything, bombing the signal from his new dialysis machine) would be a moderate/medium-risk/uncertain/time-limited operation

5) An extraction/neutralization would be easier/lower-risk/more certain/quicker with better intelligence, such as might be determined by getting a fix on OBL as he changes spider holes, or might be gotten simply with more time

5) Sec. Lehman is a credentialed if fallible person without apparent personal motivation and with obvious motivation to serve the national interest

6) Lehman may have higher or lower quality information of greater or lesser freshness

7) Lehman may or may not have been speaking for attribution
Lehman may or may not have been accurately quoted

9) Lehman may or may not have been speaking correctly, truthfully or sanely, or of his own free will

10) The election is November 2nd and events may be looked at in that light with all the ramifications this may imply

Oh yeah, and

11) Pakistan is on the edge with all the complications that I’m sure we all know about, including an embattled leader and the posession of nuclear weapons which are not (obviously) under US control

and

12) IMHO, I would rather OBL get it in the neck or the vein from us, or even to get locked up in a US (maybe better, an Afghan or Saudi) jail to be raped in every existing and several new holes thrice daily till his kidneys burst, or otherwise to be rendered a symbol of defeat, than to be a smear on the wall that we perhaps cannot even prove is him (esp. to a difficult Muslim audience), and that can be turned into a martyr symbol of victory. I wouldn’t even mind him on TV getting deloused, confessing his crimes, and telling all the good jihadis to fight no more forever.

Where do we go from here?

OBL is not personally an imminent threat. (Hasn’t attacked us personally for years…much like Saddam Hussein–by this rationale we should let him go, eh?) He is not going to shave his beard, put on a suit, hand-carry a nuke to the United Nations building on the East River, and call Dan Rather and camera crew before setting it off. Therefore, if we can get him, we may do so in a way and time most convenient for us. This in terms of his high symbolic value–it may be best to catch him on the end of Ramadan, or Nov. 1, or Halloween, or Nov. 3, or Jan. 19, or whenever works best from a number of factors. Perhaps it would have been best to catch him on Sep. 11, but we didn’t know then, but we do now. Perhaps we knew enough to neutralize (kill) him on Sep. 11, but we preferred to capture him and wait till a little later.

Also, we may not have micrometric control of events. We have known whatever we know, with whatever validity we know it (the guy could be in Miami for all we know) for an unknown time. If a massive invasion against heavy tribal or even dissident Pak Army resistance, is needed, it may take time to prepare, whether we are forcing Musharraff to provide the troops, or bringing in a division ourselves (are we bringing in arty, earthmovers, tanks, missiles), or are planning a SpecOp. Failure is a possibility in any event. The factor of the obstacles posed by Lehman does not mean we should not act, but it does not mean we should act rashly.

If you believe President Bush’s conduct of the war has been proper, you may imagine that symbolic and objective factors are being objectively considered, as easily as you may imagine that he’s got feet of clay or is exploiting the situation for personal (political?) advantage. Perhaps if he were a Kerry, he would have acted out of weakness or for partisan advantage, but perhaps he is willing to sacrifice election in order to do the job the best way.

And if Lehman and Powell are talking this up, it may mean something, it may mean nothing, or it may mean they are trying to flush him out of hiding so that they can find him. Perhaps they know that he’s in one of five hundred caves (or tribal chieftain’s huts) and they are watching them all, trying to get him to leave one and enter another. Perhaps then we can do a SpecOp instead of a nasty messy invasion. Perhaps the pressure will lead to his being betrayed.

Nix panicus, amicos. Call me a mind-numbed robot, but do you really expect to have all this explained to you?

Oct 22, 2004 - 9:24 pm 35. Noah:

Oh, also:

He may have operational significance, i.e., there may be an election-eve terrorist plot, and if we can capture him we can use him to stop it, or we can use sigint to detect when he gives the go sign and know when (/where/how?)the attack will come.

Meanwhile I’m surprised Kerry does not seize on this, the wretch. “If you can stand to see the truth twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools…”

Oct 22, 2004 - 9:31 pm 36. Noah:

Excuse me: Musharraf not Musharraff, IIRC. Is there an edit function here?

Oct 22, 2004 - 9:32 pm 37. Lonewacko:

Bush is fighting THIS war.

I don’t know if Bush can even articulate the war he isn’t fighting. Dead or alive, OBL remains hugely popular in those strange foreign lands. You saw his poster with Ernie, and you know what that means.

So, what exactly is Bush doing to lessen OBL’s popularity?

If you’re about to say “spreading freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East and getting ready to announce his plans to terraform Mars” don’t bother.

It’s not a revelation to the American public that OBL gets $$ from the Saudis. They also know that we do deals with the Saudis because we have to for now.

Yeah, and it some point we’re going to stop. We’re just trying to take them down from the inside, slow and subtle-like. Yeah, that’s it.

Oct 22, 2004 - 10:26 pm 38. Morgan:

Lonewacko,

Just a few days ago you insisted that Saddam should have been removed by some kind of propaganda campaign – the details of which are your own closely-held secret, but apparently the plan involved getting him to put out a CD with Ted Leo and the Pharmacists. You mocked me mercilessly for not immediately grasping the value of this approach, and while I wasn’t entirely convinced, I have since tried to give greater consideration to the potential effects of propaganda.

But now I see that you are pooh-poohing Bush’s plan to reform supporters of Osama by “spreading freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East and getting ready to announce his plans to terraform Mars”. I’m confused.

My knowledge of the use of propaganda is limited, but both aspects of the Bush plan would seem to have value along those lines. I mean, talk about making folks feel like Osama is behind the curve – Osama can’t even terraform his own cave, and his idea of freedom and democracy is decidedly retrograde.

So, as an advocate of and expert on propaganda, tell me: Where does the Bush approach fall down?

Oct 22, 2004 - 10:56 pm 39. lindenen:

“So, what exactly is Bush doing to lessen OBL’s popularity?”

Bush is going to wrestle Osama on Fox. He’s also going to diss him in his debut rap album.

Oct 22, 2004 - 11:08 pm 40. David Thomson:

“It’s not a revelation to the American public that OBL gets $$ from the Saudis.”

That is absolutely correct. Slim is jumping to an invalid conclusion. One must distinguish between the government—and individual Saudis. I doubt very much that Osama receives even one thin dime from the Saudi government. After all, he has pledged to destroy the royal family. Individuals throughout the world probably send this terrorist money. Some of them may even reside in the United States. Would that mean that the United States funds bin Ladin’s terror network? Of course not.

Oct 22, 2004 - 11:27 pm 41. Charlie (Colorado):

Morgan, the thing is that you can predict pretty nearly every argument against Bush by inference from Kerry’s statement that he wouldn’t just do one thing differently from Bush, he’d do everything differently.

If Bush did Iraq “unilaterally”, then Kerry would have been more multilateral (ignore for the moment the absurdity involved there, just consider Kerry’s argument.)

If Bush is dealing with North Korea multilaterally, then Kerry would deal with the DPRK unilaterally and not involve other interested parties.

When Bush wanted to avoid getting involved in nation-building, nationbuilding was vital; now that Bush sees nationbuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan as vital, it’s too expensive.

As we’ve seen, when pressed for his ideas, Kerry calls Bush “incompetent” — but when Kerry describes his ideas, they’re consistently what Bush is already doing.

Hell, when Cheney, a 64 year old cardiac patient, gets a flu shot, that’s vile — but not when Bill Clinton, a cardiac patient in his mid-50’s gets one.

Back down a few threads, Lonewacko wanted Bush supporters to propose things that could have been done other than going to war; after multiple challenges, he never did propose any of his own.

God help them if they do win the election, because they won’t have any idea what they want to do without Bush to reject.

And, sadly, God help us, too.

Oct 23, 2004 - 12:09 am 42. PeterUK:

“So, what exactly is Bush doing to lessen OBL’s popularity?”

Bombed his tour bus and his band,burned down his recording studio,trashed his rehearsal room,arrested his manager and is killing his fans in droves,your average sissy rapper isn’t going to do that.

Oct 23, 2004 - 7:14 am 43. vegetius:

“So, what exactly is Bush doing to lessen OBL’s popularity?”

Sorry Einstein, the real world is not like an

episode of Survivor. What do you think Bush should do? …Vote OBL off the island at a tribal council??

Y made a comment about Bush’s ‘cherry picked

Supreme Court”….how’d he do that?

i.e. if he wasn’t the president yet, how did he

put people on the SC???

Oct 23, 2004 - 8:06 am 44. Sandy P:

David, a little nuance might be called for here.

–Some of them may even reside in the United States. Would that mean that the United States funds bin Ladin’s terror network? Of course not.–

Think IRA/Irish. I’ve “spoken” to a few of them, they keep throwing that out as another evil of the US.

I ask them if they actually think Indians, Shinto, atheist, black, asian-Americans contributed to the IRA.

Or were most of the Irish-Americans?

Oct 23, 2004 - 8:24 am 45. slim:

All,

Again … all good points you all have been making. Several, well, thoughts:

I went back and reread this article again and noticed a few things: Lehman isn’t actually quoted as saying we “know exactly” where bin Laden is … so the author may have extrapolated, so that is somewhat reassuring. For Lehman to say we “know he’s in the mountains of Baluchistan” is much different than saying we “know exactly” where he is in the sense that we know which rock he’s under.

Nevertheless, for Lehman to say that “we know he’s in area X,” and we aren’t going to go after him because it would “become another Vietnam” just displays a thought process that I personally find sickeningly Kerryish.

The other reason cited as why we’re not going after him is some concern over the Pakistan president’s assassination attempts, which, I guess is understandable … but look, the Islamofacists don’t need us as a reason to kill Musharraf. They’re gonna continue to go after him until they get him, regardless of whether we operate in Baluchistan.

The other thing that really, really bothers me is statements along the following lines: bin Laden is getting money from the UAE and “high-ranking ministers inside Saudi Arabia.”

For those who have never been to the Middle East, the definition of “high-ranking ministers inside Saudi Arabia” is longhand for “the government of Saudia Arabia.” There is no such thing in Saudi Arabia as a “non-governmental high-ranking minister.”

The “government” there isn’t set up as a hierarchy … it’s peer-to-peer – Islamazaa if you will.

The money question, though, is this: If “high-ranking ministers” are giving bin Laden money, then how exactly do we know that they are “high-ranking ministers” if we don’t know their names? And if we know their names, how come a nuclear-tipped Predator isn’t circling over their palace day and night waiting for them to take a dip in the pool?

If bin Laden is receiving $1 million a year from his family’s trust … then why aren’t we KILLING the trust administrators who are writing the checks?

My final thought is for those who have suggested that bin Laden is “ineffective,” therefore we shouldn’t be concerned too much about where he is or whether he’s alive or dead.

I, for one, don’t want an “ineffective” terrorist leader. I want “massively hunted” terrorists leaders. Ineffective terrorist leaders can ONE DAY IN THE FUTURE become effective again.

Saddam was in a box following Operation Desert Storm … but just 10 years later, we found ourselves having to go to war again because he was becoming effective again.

Having said all of the above: I still find it odd that no other news organizations are pursuing this story.

If I was John Kerry … I would be shouting from the rooftops that “John Lehman says George W. Bush is too scared to go get bin Laden, but if you elect ME president, bin Laden is history.”

That would be a highly effective October surprise.

Oct 23, 2004 - 9:15 am 46. John©:

Roger:

Some excellent comments here…especially those arguing that OBL is dead. He is in fact dead. I’ve posted on this point for years, with various proofs, both anecdotal and factual. (See Froggyruminations last week for a precis.) I’ve made a number of jouneys to Afghanistan and Pakistan since 9/11 and have recently returned from latest trip. OBL is in fact assumed dead by the people of Afghanistan and “Pukhtunistan” (beyond the Indus River to eastern Afghanistan…including the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Baluch/Waziristan.) I’ve lived with these people since the Soviet War, including a 6 month stint in the same little neighborhood as OBL in 1987 and am one of the few outsiders who’ve travelled into the private tribal lands into Waziristan. (Training the mujahideen in filmmaking and setting up the first media center in that region of the world. He was well aware, as my immediate neighbor, of the effort to train the mujahideen in filmmaking. OBL, of course, at that time became fascinated with the power of the video image and began documenting his own movement.)

Obits have been written [Egypt, Jordan, Al Jazeera,] eyewitness accounts collated and collaborated…even the date of his demise authenticated. I know the tribals of the area, visited the White Mountains and been given new–dated July– photos of the interiors of the cave complexes that remain intact (with tons of weapons still inside) by Afghan bounty hunters. The latter are resigned to the fact that OBL has been among the deceased for nearly 3 years. Believe me, these are tough, scary and enterprising folks: were OBL alive, they would have cashed in by now–Pushtunwali’s code of hospitality notwithstanding.

One thing I’d like to clear up…OBL isn’t a hero to the Afghans nor is he welcome by the Pushtoons in NWFP or eastern Afghanistan. The Arabs were not well liked at all; they were crude and abusive of their hosts and whatever allegiances that were formed with the tribals were predicated solely on cash motives. [It is reported that a single day's 'hospitality' cost him many thousands of dollars US.] His cult is over, even in the NWFP. He’s seen as a loser and Pushtoons hate losers, especially one who is hiding ‘like a woman,’ as one former Taliban commander from Kandahar put it. Weakness and cowardice is an intolerable sin and the fact that not a single videotape indicating his existence has been issued since late 2001 has convinced even the staunchest of his Arab allies still inside the region that OBL is deceased. There are many quite sensible tactical and strategic reasons for Musharaf and the US coalition to keep OBL ‘alive,’ not the least of which is to allow the US free access to regions of his own country where Al Qa’eda (ferengis: Arabs, et al,) Taliban (from Pakistan’s madrasses) and traitors from his own ISI still operate. The Arabs want him alive as well, to prove that OBL survived the US’ best shot. It’s a fiction that benefits all.

The lack of OBL activity during the Loya Jirga and elections is sufficient proof to even the most skeptical that OBL is surely dead. He would never have missed this opportunity to at least release a call to arms through an authenticated tape.

That being said, there is a small, almost insignificant possibility that OBL is in fact alive, held under strict, virtual house arrest by the mullah-crazy in Iran…like Hekmatyar. It’s the only place where his medical problems might be effectively treated. The thought of OBL hiding in the remote mountains of the NWFP, TAA or Waziristan with a dialysis machine is preposterous. It’s far more likely that he’s hiding–or under arrest–in a city in Pakistan (like Karachi) or Iran than running around the inhospital (without electricity or the most rudimentary medical facilities) mountain regions.

John©

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:09 am 47. Lonewacko:

Just a few days ago you insisted that Saddam should have been removed by some kind of propaganda campaign – the details of which are your own closely-held secret, but apparently the plan involved getting him to put out a CD with Ted Leo and the Pharmacists.

That’s funny! Unfortunately, it seems like many Bush supporters have a case of Emily-Latella-at-five-years disease. They misrepresent and misstate things they just can’t understand.

As an example of how the U.S. has used propaganda, I presented the case of Johns Hopkins University secretly funding a record by King Sunny Ade that encouraged Africans to use family planning. I don’t know whether that worked or not, but those who want to see propaganda in action should tell me what they think of the cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Too bad we couldn’t use propaganda in a way that helped us rather than made us look like fools.

As to OBL’s cult hero status, even if some people perceive him as weak, I’m pretty sure that in the greater Muslim world tens of millions of young people think of him like we think of Billy the Kid or others think of Pancho Villa or Robin Hood.

FWIW, see Muslims love bin Laden. That’s from 2001, so if his popularity has plummeted recently, please post some links. And, when replying, recall that everyone laughed at Emily Latella.

Oct 23, 2004 - 1:06 pm 48. klrfz1:

Google Web Results 1 – 100 of about 18,900 English pages over the past 3 months for lonewacko. (0.37 seconds)

18,800 pages for lonewacko? Wow, you really are a madman! If those are all posts then you are the most prolific blog poster in history.

I wonder if you have been right about anything yet in all of those 18,900 pages.

Oct 23, 2004 - 1:29 pm 49. Terrye:

lonewacko:

I got a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report. According to this report AlQaida really came into its own in the early 90’s.

One question: Who was in charge in the 90’s?

Oct 23, 2004 - 1:58 pm 50. richard mcenroe:

Terrye ó Oh, but we mustn’t obsess over the past, like those tiresome 70’s, or the 90’s, or what John Kerry said last Thursday.

(The 80’s are okay, tho. That was a Republican decade)

Oct 23, 2004 - 2:45 pm 51. Ed Poinsett:

OBL and his buddy Mullah Omar are dead. There is no way OBL’s ego would have let so many propaganda opportunities slip by these last three years. Having Al Zawahiri making statements on his behalf is proof enough.

How can anyone possibly care if he is alive today? There may be some political advantage to Bush to keep him “alive” for the time being, but that’s all. I think that Lehman is toting water for my president, and that’s fine with me. It wouldn’t surprise me that Bush throws down the gauntlet to OBL after he is reelected. “I told the world I wanted you dead or alive. I’m happy that you’re dead.”

Bin Laden doesn’t matter any more. He already did his damage in the 90’s when pantload Berger kept urging Clinton not to take him out. During that time he trained thousands of terrorists who are in place all over the world today. They are his legacy and we’ll be fighting them for a long, long time to come. Past Bush, past Hillary or Guliani, past whomever is to come.

Oct 23, 2004 - 3:07 pm 52. Morgan:

Lonewacko -

It was supposed to be funny. Glad you liked it.

If Bush supporters have Emily-Latella-at-five-years disease, it seems to me that Kerry supporters have an as-yet-to-be-named disorder that causes them to claim that whatever random ideas float around their heads would certainly have worked better than whatever Bush did. Maybe some of them are right, but getting them to spill the contents (not literally, of course) is like pulling teeth. And those that have laid out a plan have left me unconvinced.

Still, the question of how to reduce the cult-hero status of Osama is an good one. I think that spreading freedom and democracy and making him look weak by demolishing his ability to operate and by whacking states that support terrorism make sense.

If you have specifics regarding how propaganda can be used to accomplish this, please fill us in. But let’s leave the cheese-eating surrender monkeys out of it. One topic at a time – it’s all my five-year-old-equivalent brain can handle.

Oct 23, 2004 - 3:17 pm 53. GunnyBob:

With apologies to all those who’ve counted chicks before hatching and not been burned:

Gunny: Be sure there’s cover on your left flank, and don’t go near suicide hill…

PFC, interrupting: But thats the shortest way, Gunny, and besides, the sniper there is long gone.

Gunny: He’s KIA? Someone got him?

PFC: Gunny look, nobody’s seen the guy in ages, he’s gotta be dead.

Gunny: Here’s the deal; show me the body then do what you want. Otherwise…

Then again, who am I to talk. I’ll believe Hoffa was really hit when they send me the invite to the viewing.

Oct 23, 2004 - 3:40 pm 54. Lonewacko:

I got a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report. According to this report AlQaida really came into its own in the early 90’s. One question: Who was in charge in the 90’s?

The better, related question is who’s in charge now? And, is the person in charge now following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission or his he making the choice that cheap labor is more important than following through on the false belief many have that he’s keeping them safe? See this from Michelle Malkin.

And, while the 9/11 Report is interesting, the Staff Report is where the scary stuff is. See my discussion of Chapter 3 of the Staff Report here. Is Bush doing his best to correct mistakes made in the past? Key quote: “abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity”

I think that spreading freedom and democracy and making him look weak by demolishing his ability to operate and by whacking states that support terrorism make sense.

The problem, of course, is that we don’t have enough money and troops to spread enough freedom and democracy. We would have trouble even invading another country right now due to the weak position Bush has gotten us into: low public support for another war, low world opinion for another war, etc. etc.

We need “force multipliers.” Like encouraging states to stop spreading hatred to their people and around the world, discrediting religious extremists, cutting off money, encouraging respect for America, etc. etc. Military force is fine, unfortunately I don’t think it’s a mischaracterization to say that that’s Bush’s primary focus. I don’t think it’s unfair to say that he really doesn’t get that things like image and ideology matter.

Note to my fanclub: I expressed these same doubts before the war on my blog or others, perhaps dailypundit.com or command-post.org.

Oct 23, 2004 - 3:48 pm 55. rightwinger:

I wonder who has the iggest stats. Elvis still alive, or Bin Laden still alive. At least the people who believe Elvis is still alive aren’t praying that all democracies will be replaced by Taliban inspired theocracies.

Oct 23, 2004 - 5:32 pm 56. Roberts:

In a classic case of projection, Lonewhacko confuses his own lack of understanding of the Bush administration’s policies in the War on Terror with the President.

Oct 23, 2004 - 7:10 pm 57. Lonewacko:

In a classic case of projection, Lonewhacko confuses his own lack of understanding of the Bush administration’s policies in the War on Terror with the President.

So, in effect, you’re saying that some of the things we’ve done horribly wrong were planned?

- the general looting

- not securing the spy headquarters

- not guarding a famous Iraq nuke facility

- not securing the borders in one way or another

- the flypaper “strategy”/excuse

- Abu Ghraib

When you see a list like that, with many more in the wings, you have to ask, “what exactly is their strategy?”

Oct 24, 2004 - 3:44 pm 58. Lonewacko:

A recently discovered addition to my list: Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq: The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives – used to demolish buildings, produce missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons – are missing from one of Iraq’s most sensitive former military installations. The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no-man’s land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished after the American invasion last year…

The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured…

60 Minutes is involved and, IIRC, they broadcast on Sundays…

Oct 24, 2004 - 8:12 pm 59. jerry:

lonewacko:

(1) You have a lot nerve showing up again without telling us your background when it comes to defense and intelligence matters. This thread started with a comment by John Lehman and I have worked for John Lehman.

(2) There is far less to this NYT explosive story then meets the eye. Nobody know when these explosives were taken. There are literally hundreds of caches of such materials all over Iraq that we don’t even know about. So until you tell us what your background is please spare us the MSM rendition of events. We don’t care if you have little or no actual experience in defense matters but you ought to tell us that you are just offering your opinion.

Oct 25, 2004 - 9:20 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: