Bin Laden Uses Anti-War Talking Points to Threaten America

Written by: The DC Guy
January 20, 2006 | Comments (23)

binladen-dnctalkingpoints.jpgI just finished reading through the transcript of Osama bin Laden's latest taped message, and its frightening. Not because he makes vague references to the on-going planning of attacks on the US - we expect those.

What frightened me is the fact that most of the statements he makes could have been written by the DNC. We see the exact same slurs and turns of phrases in the arguments of those who are against the war.

Morale of US Troops
Bin Laden starts off by saying that the morale of the troops is so low that they would rather commit suicide than fight.

"The Pentagon figures indicate the rise in the number of your dead and wounded, let alone the huge material losses, and let alone the collapse of the morale of the soldiers there and the increase in the suicide cases among them..."

Bin Laden then goes on to say,

"This news indicates that what is carried by the news media does not exceed what is actually taking place on the ground. What increases doubts on the information of the White House's administration is its targeting of the news media, which carry some facts about the real situation."

Now, compare this with the opening paragraph of Congressman John Murtha's November 17th column on the war.

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course..."

Bin Laden then moves on to torture.

"Jihad is continuing, praise be to God, despite all the repressive measures the US army and its agents take to the point where there is no significant difference between these crimes and those of Saddam.

"These crimes include the raping of women and taking them hostage instead of their husbands. There is no power but in God.

"The torturing of men has reached the point of using chemical acids and electric drills in their joints. If they become desperate with them, they put the drill on their heads until death.

"If you like, read the humanitarian reports on the atrocities and crimes in the prisons of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo."

This statement comes on the heels of statements like this one from Senator Dick Durbin on the floor of the Senate (You can find this on page S6594 of the Congressional Record for June 14, 2005).

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

Then you had a similar line of reasoning from the Daily Kos on June 16th where Markos Moulitsas 'Kos' Zunigas wrote:

"And let's not forget, "torture" was used as a rationale for this war -- as in, we'll invade and end the torture.

"Of course, none of that has happened. The torture that was so bad under Saddam, is equally bad under U.S. command..."

Bush's lack of a plan
Next up, bin Laden brings up some things we hear all the time.

"The wise ones know that Bush has no plan to achieve his alleged victory in Iraq."

We've seen similar statements all over the media, but I found this on the Democratic National Committee's website. The headline? "Bush Numbers Slide - Still No Plan on Iraq."

The "real" reason for the Iraq War
Bin Laden then brings up the infamous "Mission Accomplished" photo op that has been roundly lambasted by everyone in the anti-war movement, and then alludes to the administration having its own "dubious" reasons for being in Iraq:

"If you compare the small number of the dead when Bush made that false and stupid show-like announcement from an aircraft carrier on the end of the major operations, to many times as much as this number of the killed and injured, who fell in the minor operations, you will know the truth in what I am saying, and that Bush and his administration do not have neither the desire nor the will to withdraw from Iraq for their own dubious reasons."

It's not hard to figure out where bin Laden is leading there: Halliburton and Oil.

The war helps recruit terrorists
Bin Laden also said in the beginning of his statement:

"Bush said: It is better to fight them on their ground than they fighting us on our ground. In my response to these fallacies, I say: The war in Iraq is raging, and the operations in Afghanistan are on the rise in our favor, praise be to God."

He then says:

"Reality testifies that the war against America and its allies has not remained confined to Iraq, as he claims.

"In fact, Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified resources."

This apparently is bin Laden's way of confirming what the CIA said to Congress. The Washington Post carried it in a front page story last February: War Helps Recruit Terrorists, Hill Told.

Why can't we be friends?
It's at this point, that bin Laden wanders into his "truce" offer, which the US has already refused - but bin Laden expected that to happen. He already said why in his statement:

"There is no defect in this solution other than preventing the flow of hundreds of billions to the influential people and war merchants in America, who supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars."

The hyperbole on the numbers aside, bin Laden is just saying the same thing that thousands of anti-war Americans have said:

"Bush won't end the war because his cronies are making money off of it, and that's the only reason we went there in the first place."

And right after he offers the "long-term truce", he follows up it with statements like this:

"Days and nights will not go by until we take revenge as we did on 11 September, God willing, and until your minds are exhausted and your lives become miserable and things turn [for the worse], which you detest.

"As for us, we do not have anything to lose. The swimmer in the sea does not fear rain. You have occupied our land, defiled our honor, violated our dignity, shed our blood, ransacked our money, demolished our houses, rendered us homeless, and tampered with our security. We will treat you in the same way."

Not exactly what you say to someone that you've just offered a truce to. But this entire line of reasoning is made from a position of weakness.

If bin Laden felt strong, he wouldn't have made so many allusions to his having "nothing to lose", and offering long-term truces. He would simply attack. He knows the US is not stupid enough to let up on him and give him time to plan the next 9/11 with no pressure.

America should react
My point is not that the Democrats are just like bin Laden, or that those who are against the war are unAmerican or unpatriotic. My point is that it is time that we depoliticize the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

Our enemies are using our own arguments with each other as a weapon. We can't afford to keep dividing each other when we have a legitimate enemy who is still working against us that we should be united in facing.

There was a beautiful, but short-lived, period after 9/11 when there were no Democrats, no Republicans - just Americans. It's a shame that we couldn't have kept that spirit alive longer. Instead, we're back to politics as usual, with both sides doing whatever they can to stay in power or take power back.

That's exactly what bin Laden seems to be counting on.

The DC Guy is a Lobbyist in Washington DC who writes columns for Digital Survivor. He welcomes all feedback.

You can find his previous columns here.

Comments (23):
1) Posted by: since1968
January 20, 2006 05:29 PM

I'm surprised you'd spend an entire post comparing the Democrats to terrorists, only to wind your piece up by suggesting we depoliticize the war.

Is the irony unintentional?

2) Posted by: Frank
January 20, 2006 06:33 PM

DC Guy: From a guy who also lives in DC, the problem with de-politicizing the war in Iraq is that the President made going to war political in the begining. He demanded a vote to go to Iraq before election time, so Congress voted and members picked their sides and campaigned on it instead of waiting until after elections to debate on it thoughtfully. I'm afraid we can't put that genie back in the bottle or turn back time. This President depends on war to remain high in the polls and he depended on war to stay in office.

3) Posted by: The DC Guy
January 20, 2006 06:46 PM


Actually, I wasn't comparing the Democrats to terrorists. I am comparing things that bin Laden has said to things that leading Democrats and those in the media have said.

The obvious conclusion is that bin Laden is reading what we are saying to each other, and using our own arguments to bolster his own case. That's bad. Because if bin Laden thinks what you're saying benefits him...

I'll let you draw your own conclusion there.


Major combat operations ended in Iraq in May of 2003. The election wasn't until 2004. There was 18 months seperating the war from the elections.

War is an inherently political thing. But when I say "depoliticizing the war", what I mean is using the war, and every aspect of it, as a tool to bash the other party. Bush never said 'We need to go to war, and the Democrats don't want to, because they hate America'. When we decided to go into Iraq, there was bipartisan consensus. That has since gone away, for various reasons, not the least of which is the desire to use the war as a political tool, which is a shame.

Bush didn't get elected in 2000 by campaigning for war. 9/11 would have happened no matter who was in the White House.

The claim that the war is just a political tool used by the Republicans to maintain power is exactly the kind of impossible-to-prove statement that is further dividing the country. It doesn't have to be that way.

4) Posted by: tambi
January 22, 2006 09:52 AM

UR funny. I dnt get it how americans are still thinking that war can be something good?
I guess ur used to be proud of killing people n stuff. Its same in your schools, high schools. U think that being a bully is something cool. "lets go and kick their arab asses".
Really, american people will never grow up! bunch of hillbilies.At lest 95% of them.
The other 5%, i salute you :)

5) Posted by: Martin
January 22, 2006 03:53 PM

'Major combat operations ended in Iraq in May of 2003.'

So what have they been doing for almost 3 years? play fighting?

'When we decided to go into Iraq, there was bipartisan consensus. That has since gone away, for various reasons'

That has since gone away because the reason the illegal war started was a blatant lie, so the reason changes..oh yeah, we actually want to install democracy.

sure, tell me another one, my sides are aching.

6) Posted by: The DC Guy
January 22, 2006 04:07 PM


I don't think anyone in America views war as "good". Necessary, yes. But good, no. I certainly wish there were other options that are as effective as military force, but there simply aren't any. Diplomacy has its limits, and without the ability and willingness to use force backing it, is nearly useless.

I think your view of Americans is at best uninformed, and at worst bigoted. I don't know why you'd think this way, but you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how unfortunate it is.


What we've been involved in for the last three yars has been counterinsurgency operations. This is a political column, not a military one, so I'm not going to go into the differences between different kinds of military operations.

The bipartisan consensus has gone away for many reasons, not the least of which is the loss of public support for the war (as your post demonstrates) and the belief that political gains can be made by attacking those who support/supported the war.

Like I said in my previous column, there were numerous reasons why we removed Saddam. Yes, there were no WMDs. But that didn't invalidate the other reasons, and the war was perfectly legal.

The constant bickering between those who support/supported the war and those who don't/didn't is useless and counterproductive. You can't unring the bell. We can only move forward.

7) Posted by: PhilB
January 22, 2006 08:45 PM

tambi-If it wasn't for the United States taking military action during the last 100 years, there are a lot of countries that would not have the freedom and prosperity they do today; and that includes some of those who have been our enemies during those conflicts.

People are going to have to look past the sound bites of the media and the comments spoken merely for political gain and to the facts in order to see Iraq and our present situation a bit clearer.

8) Posted by: CM
January 23, 2006 03:49 PM

If it wasn't for the US coward military action durin g the last 100 years, there are a lot of countries that would have freedom and democracy! You welcome democracy only if it's a pro-US democracy.If it's someone who doesn't want to collaborate with the US, you try to topple him.Last example: Bush (or someone else of the same cabal) said that if the Hamas win the election in PA,the US won't recognize the PA governememt. Or what about Chavez, Allende, the Iranian president before the shah ? The nations aren't allow to disagree with the US policiy,it they do,the US send their cowardly military, the CIA, etc... The countries in Latin America,for example,must collaborate in your war on drugs, if they don't want trouble.The only solution the US administration knows about intern problems of the US, like drugs or terrorism, is to wage a war.

US is the rogest state of the world,the Bush administration are the real terrorists, and overplayed the threat to cut your liberties, and you say Amen! Morons.

9) Posted by: CM
January 23, 2006 03:53 PM

And the administration should stop to say "We are at war". It's untrue,the combat operations in Iraq are finished (dixit Bush).

The US troops are cowards, they are the illegal combatants, since the all war is illegal.

If you think terror is an issue,you should begin with yourself, the US should sign international treaties to be respected, and not use force like a bully!

Illegal war, illegal domestic spying, torture...Bin Laden is surely disgusting,but what he said is true,and he is not the only one to think what it think, many Democrat do so also. Bin Laden is a terrorist,but the US administration is more terroristic, by huge magnitudes!

10) Posted by: CM
January 23, 2006 03:57 PM

And what about harboring terrorist ?what about the terrorist who bombed a Cuban airliner?He is in the US, and they don't want to extadite him to Venezuala, where he must be brought before justice.
The administration is really hypocrit,and it get worse with the neocon cabal.

11) Posted by: CM
January 23, 2006 04:09 PM

And don't forget: OBL is a CIA cration.

Even evil can speak true, as did OBL, which is evil, but spoke true. Bush,or better said Rove,his brain,or Cheney, his "eminence grise" are also evil, and liars! Which is worse ?
The best fight against terror against the US would be to sign and respect UN and international treaties. In the civilian world, nobody is allowed to make justice himself, so why would a nation allowed to do so ? And Iraq has never do the US any harm, neither did Afghanistan. But they were defenceless, so they were a target, the US attacks only weak target, it's the cowardly and paraonidest nation of the world, always afraid for their security, ready to give away their freedom for fake security. The US isn't threatend, they are always threating, They aren't a war, they only wage aggression wars. I hope the good people of the US will get rid of that flawed administration.
Wake up, America!

12) Posted by: The DC Guy
January 23, 2006 04:46 PM

I would probably respond to CM, if I thought anything I could say would penetrate the tin foil hat.

13) Posted by: CM
January 23, 2006 05:01 PM

Aluminium foil hat...Alumium is one of the best heat and electric current conductor! (Better heat conductor: silver, better electricity conductor: copper, perhaps also silver, I don't remember...) But the text on computer screen is input via the eyes, so the hat is irrelevant. But I perhaps know what TheDC Guy would answer, I can read it on, or FOX news, or ScottMcLelland... So spare your keyboard, TheDC Guy, or have you an own opinion, other than the .gov/.mil/.msm propaganda ?

14) Posted by: CM
January 23, 2006 05:02 PM

Hey, TheDC Guy, you've forgotten to threat to send the black helicopters to me!

15) Posted by: The DC Guy
January 23, 2006 05:11 PM


You can read my opinions in the columns I've written here. I'm not spouting anyone's party line, and I'm critical of both sides when I think they're wrong. In this case, I believe that the politicization of the war in Iraq and the war on Terror are bad for the country, and both sides should stop playing those kinds of games when our national security hangs in the balance.

My point regarding the tin foil hat is that you do not have a firm grasp on reality. The four posts you've made here display not only a gross misunderstanding of history of the last sixty years, but also an unwillingness to portray anything the American government has done in anything but the worse light. The funny thing is, many of the things you're attacking didn't even happen under Republican governments or Republican Presidents.

Your statements are openly ridiculous. Instead of trying to provoke me into an argument you can't win, I would strongly suggest you do a little history reading.

And the UN has the black helicopters, not me. Might want to work on your conspiracy theories while you're brushing up on your history.

16) Posted by: CM
January 24, 2006 01:54 AM

I've never said the reps are the only imperialist,I know that the dems aren't better. But what's happening under the neocons governement is totally new,they don't respect the law, and aren't afraid to recognize it!
And about your national security, you've nothing to fear.Who has the means to destabilize the US power, or attack the US homeland ?Your are safe, in the US,so don't speak of national security!In Europe,we have plenty of terrorists attacks, but we don't need to abduct people of the streets of the world, or torture, or restrict civil liberties.In Europe,the terrorists are brought before justice, and jailed if gulty, or freed if not. Why can't you play the rules ?

17) Posted by: The DC Guy
January 24, 2006 09:28 AM


That's right. I forgot. 9/11 never happened. There were never attacks on our embassies abroad, or on our naval vessels in foreign ports.

What is happening under the current administration isn't new. None of the steps being taken are the most stringent or law-bending that have occurred in our history. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and jailed thousands for simply speaking out against the government. Roosevelt rounded up tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans just because of their ethnicity.

As for our national security and having nothing to fear, that's our concern, not yours. It is our responsibility to determine what is a threat to the United States, and no one elses. As for your "abduct people off the streets of the world..." we're not doing that.

And considering some of the techinques used by the UK during the height of the Irish Republican Army's terror campaign or Russia in dealing with the Chechen rebels, nothing we've done even approaches the excesses of Europe when it comes to combatting terrorism.

If you've got a list of the rules we're supposed to play by, I'd love to read them. Because as far as I'm concerned, there are no rules when it comes to self-defense.

18) Posted by: PhilB
January 24, 2006 01:59 PM

CM-No country is perfect, makes all the right decisions or best moves; but your view is anything but objective as you seek to vilify the United States while holding up Europe as the example. The Europe you live in today would not exist (and the one that would exist would certainly not be an improvement)if it wasn't for the United States actions during World War II. And since then it is our support and alliance that has helped be a protection to this day.

19) Posted by: cm
January 25, 2006 03:16 PM

Oh no, I know that the European governements are hypocrits, and often acomplice of the US admin criminals.

20) Posted by: CM
January 25, 2006 03:19 PM

and I don't vilify the US, only the admin, who never accept critic,it's not that they don't make the right moves,it's that even if they are shown their moves are bad, they try to justify it: "Trust me", or "We don't torture", "Warantless spying is legal".Not only the admin take the wrong moves, but they are proud of it.

21) Posted by: The DC Guy
January 25, 2006 03:34 PM


We were attacked, CM. I was three blocks from the White House on 9/11. I saw the smoke from the Pentagon. I watched the sky waiting to see if another plane was coming in. Don't tell me we weren't attacked.

"We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril." - John F. Kennedy.

You don't vilify the US, but you call all of our military actions over the last hundred years "cowardly". I wonder if the French, Polish, Dutch and others agree with you.

Your posts here indicate that you are nothing more than a bigot - you're virulantly anti-American. That's just as bad as being anti-Catholic, homophobic, racist or any other kind of irrational hatred. That's unfortunate, but you have a right to your opinion.

22) Posted by: phil
February 6, 2006 10:13 AM

DC guy, you asked:
If you've got a list of the rules we're supposed to play by, I'd love to read them.

Start with the Geneva Convention.

you also say:
None of the steps being taken are the most stringent or law-bending that have occurred in our history

then criticise european nations in comparison to the US: 'nothing we've done even approaches the excesses of Europe'

Sorry, but you cant have it both ways, you cannot use your past actions as an excuse for your current actions, and then at the same time criticise european past actions.

You were starting to make some sense, but maybe it was an illusion by having clear loonies on the page next to you...

23) Posted by: David Emberton
April 12, 2006 01:39 PM

I'd bet a million that the only part of OBL on these tapes is the digital voice signature used to create them. Too convenient to the war machine to be credible, and frankly it's not that hard to lay hands on a $300 camcorder.