Since September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden has been at large.  It has been over five years since he coordinated the mass murder of almost 3,000 of our citizens, and yet bin Laden remains free, and able to continue plotting the deaths of more of our people.  After five years and two wars, I think it's pretty damn simple for people to wonder why the hell that is.

But for neoconservatives, it's not simple at all.  It's soooo much more complicated.  Here's Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page:


The war on terror is more complex, nuanced and indeed more interesting than the general public has been given to believe.

For instance, one oft-cited benchmark of its progress is the status of Osama bin Laden.  That he is presumably still alive and at large is taken to mean that President Bush's offensive against the post-9/11 terrorists has "failed," as John Kerry noted this week on the eve of September 11.  The Bush administration, Mr. Kerry told CNN, "failed to capture and kill Osama bin Laden when they had him in the mountains of Tora Bora.  And that's why we are more threatened today with an al Qaeda that has reconstituted itself in some 65 countries."

This is the Alien vs. Predator model of fighting terror.



What shall we call Daniel Henninger's preferred "model of fighting terror"?  The "Innocent Bystander" model, where you invade the country that has the least to do with the perp who attacked you, but does live in the same neighborhood?  The "Fuck The Whole World Up" model?  The "Bankrupt Your Country and Break Your Army" model?

If any of my readers have suggestions, please post them in the comments section of this piece.  I'll list them all, and I'll send them to Daniel for his next ridiculous column.

Here's President Bush in the same "nuanced" vein, just last week, when asked about the hunt for bin Laden:


"If he is in Pakistan," said Bush, "Pakistan's a sovereign nation.  In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we've got to be invited by the government of Pakistan."


Good Lord.  How does he actually get those words from his brain to his mouth without puking? 

I guess one could make the distinction that Saddam Hussein was an authoritarian dictator, while Gen. Pervez Musharraf is...oh wait.  Or there's the difference that Hussein may have been attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction, while Musharraf has no such...oh, jeez, right.  Well, some have pointed out that terrorists may have sought refuge in isolated regions of pre-war Iraq, while Musharraf would never allow...oh, come on!

The larger point I'd like to make is that there is a serious, rich line of attack here for the Democratic Party, if only they had the guts to take it on.  The line of attack is simple: "President Bush has had five years to catch Osama bin Laden, and he has barely lifted a finger.  Mr. President, if you will not avenge the lives of 3,000 Americans, will you at least get out of our way?  We will catch Osama bin Laden.  We will defeat Al Qaeda."

This attack can also be a powerful defensive move.  Lately, Bush has actually been mentioning bin Laden directly for the first time in years.  In his September 5 speech on the war on terror, he said his name seventeen times.  For every speech he gives lecturing Americans about how afraid they need to be, the Democrats should respond with "Don't lecture us about Osama bin Laden.  Bin Laden is the man you say you 'just don't spend that much time on', that you are truly 'not that concerned about him'.  You know what Mr. President?  Five years later, it shows."

It's strange to me why Democrats don't want to get to Bush's right on this.  Almost anything the party can do to appear tougher than him on terrorism would, it would seem, be a good thing.  My guess is that they're just afraid.  Afraid that the minute they start hitting Bush on this, is the minute he'll capture bin Laden, and they'll look like whining fools all over again.

But that would assume that Bush is capable of getting something right.  Let the record show that Bush is incapable of getting anything right.  It is a better bet to assume that with less than two years left in office, Bush can be pummelled over bin Laden's freedom while he remains helpless to capture him, having diverted his military resources into Iraq, allowed Pakistan to negotiate deals w/the Taliban to protect bin Laden, and squandered any remaining good will with the American people for them to invest in yet another extensive military operation.

Beat him over the head with bin Laden!