Newsweek: Why Can't We Get Him? (Bin Laden)

[kskiska]

Two years after the horror of 9/11, Osama bin Laden appears to be alive, well—and still a master of media manipulation

Sept. 22 issue — In the Pakistani city of Peshawar, the Kissakhani bazaar is buzzing with talk of Osama bin Laden. When a new video aired by Al-Jazeera last week showed the terror chieftain walking casually down a boulder-strewn mountainside, it was almost as if he had risen from the dead. The market in bin Laden baubles—photos, tapes—took off in hours.

MUHAMMAD YAQOOB, a 25-year-old hotel worker, quickly bought three new color posters of bin Laden from a sidewalk vendor. “I’m so happy he’s still in this world,” said Yaqoob. “I hope to hear one day that he has exploded the Bush White House.” In a nearby hotel lobby where locals usually gather over 10-cent cups of tea to watch Indian movies on TV, the price quickly doubled as a huge crowd jammed in for the constant replay. Many viewers proudly noted that bin Laden was wearing the rolled felt cap and loose-fitting shalwar kameez, shirt and pants that are the dress of this rough northwest region bordering Afghanistan. “Oh, America, look closely,” shouted one man. “Osama’s still strong and can walk over mountains.” Amid the boosterism, even adoration, one skeptical voice could be heard, a middle-aged teacher who feared the war will go on forever. “I still can’t understand why powerful America cannot catch him,” he said.

Why indeed? George W. Bush has already buried bin Laden—rhetorically. It’s been many months since the president, who once declared he wanted bin Laden “dead or alive,” even mentioned his name. But if last week’s video is to be believed, bin Laden appears to be not only alive, but thriving. And with America distracted in Iraq, and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf leery of stirring up an Islamist backlash, there is no large-scale military force currently pursuing the chief culprit in the 9/11 attacks, U.S. officials concede.
If the latest video is recent, which is by no means certain, bin Laden may have also recovered from whatever ailments he had. (He’s rumored to have been wounded, and to have kidney disease.) A former Afghan official points out that bin Laden is carrying full clips of ammunition in a bandoleer across his chest and has a Kalashnikov slung over his shoulder, a burden unlikely to be borne in the mountains by someone suffering from a debilitating illness. A senior source with the now reconstituted Taliban believes the video is a strong sign that Al Qaeda is actively planning new operations. Why? Because bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, are both in it, and they appear together rarely.

more…
http://www.msnbc.com/news/966399.asp?cp1=1

[kalian]

1. Because....

"There is no spoon..."

[hellsbells]

2. Reminds me of Orwell's ...

... Emmanual Goldstein in "Nineteen Eighty Four". His face would appear on the telescreen for regular daily Hate Sessions. - - "OBL" arrives on videotape whenever needed for a hate session, such as the second anniversary of *911*. - - Big Brother would be Bush.

[newyawker99]

4. Hi hellsbells!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[PsychoDad]

3. “I hope to hear one day that he has exploded the Bush ....

hehehehehehe


That line just made my day :P

[huckleberry]

5. bush has made us much less safe!

This article really points out the major mistake that the bush administration has made in the war on terror by changing the focus from Bin Laden to Iraq.

"But bin Laden’s elusiveness and the Taliban’s resurgence—combined with the postwar morass in Iraq—have raised tough new questions about the administration’s overall strategy in the war on terror. It’s not just whether the Bush administration is getting Iraq right, say a rising chorus of skeptics among the military brass, along with some Democrats like Sen. Bob Graham. It’s whether Iraq should have been invaded at all when the task of destroying Al Qaeda in its Central Asian base was left so unfinished. “We’ve essentially declared war on Mussolini and allowed Hitler to run free,” said Graham, one of the few presidential candidates who voted no on the Iraq war resolution in fall 2002. With each passing day that ready-to-fire weapons of mass destruction are not found, it becomes harder to explain why Iraq was such an imminent threat that America had to wheel 180 degrees to suddenly take on Saddam Hussein—and sacrifice so much international support to do so.

Military officials now openly worry about whether they’ll have enough troops for just the tasks they have. One problem: declining re-enlistments by frustrated Reservists and National Guardsmen. “The point is: why would we open that new front? It wasn’t related directly to the war on terror,” says retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former CENTCOM commander who has long criticized the administration’s switch from bin Laden to Saddam. Iraq, which had a meager Qaeda presence before the March invasion, was supposed to be on its way to becoming a democratic model for the Arab world by now. Instead, Bush declared recently that Iraq has become “the central front” in the terror war, drawing legions of new foreign terrorists, including Al Qaeda."