Osama's Back. But Whose Back Does He Have?

[democraticinsurgent]

He's back and the Corporate Media's got him. Osama Bin Laden, international man of mystery and intrigue.

Back to endorse the Democrats' Iraq strategy while rolling out a new dose of fear.

And that, just in time to provide props for the illegal Bush spying programs, the foundering Patiot Act renewal, the Alito "unitary executive" confirmation, and shove the widening Abramoff, Delay and Cunningham scandals back a page or two.

Just as timely as the election-eve Osama 2004 tape that provided a heartfelt endorsement of John Kerry.

But his reappearance is both an embarassment to Bush (who "can't" find him) and to the Democrats, by endorsing their pull-out wishes in Iraq while threatening new strikes if his proposed "truce" isn't accomodated.

Bush could pull out the troops, like many think he's working on anyway, but would that be "giving in to the terrorists"? Or, another terrorist strike on the US could happen, providing more support for the Police State already being implemented. But then, would Bush be vulnerable to criticism for not being able to protect us and not being able to find Bin Laden?

It's "Spy vs. Spy vs. Spy" madness. It's also quite "Rovian"; contradictions within contradictions obscure the real purposes. Let Bush take a small hit while the the mystery man spins the Dems, the media, and ultimately weakens the opponent more than Bush.

Bin Laden works for/with Bush. His messages are, if not fake, ordered up by the cabal and presented as needed. And this one is intended to weaken the D's and keep Shrub out of a legal noose. Distract, divide, conquer.

And there will be no real pullout, nor will there be another terror attack, not on US soil, unless it's one that's "discovered" and stopped.

There will be another series of alerts designed to bolster the sagging Republican fortunes in the leadup to the 2006 elections. Notice that we haven't had any alerts since the 2004 election, because they weren't needed.

But now, it's an election year and the Repub's have to work harder than they expected to get the elections close enough to steal them again, yes?

I see orange and red flags for "yellow" Democrats.

[democraticinsurgent]

1. Rove Says Democrats Wrong on Terror (On Cue?)

Thanks to Sabra's thread that was just posted as I posted the above, here's KKKarl beating the terror drums on the 2006 campaign. What a shock...

Rove Says Democrats Wrong on War on Terror
Staff and agencies
20 January, 2006


By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer 26 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Embattled White House adviser Karl Rove vowed Friday to make the war on terrorism a central campaign issue in November and said Democratic senators looked "mean-spirited and small-minded" in questioning Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito .

http://www.localnewsleader.com/elytimes/stories/news-00128010.html

[ladjf]

3. Oh, if Rove thinks we are wrong, then we should change our

position to one that he likes. Then we would know that we would be a shoo in to win in 2006 and 2008.
:sarcasm:

[ladjf]

2. Apparently you have noticed that every move by OBL ultimately

benefits the Bush gang more than anyone else. I, like many others, believe that OBL is a bought and paid for partner to the administration's criminal family.