Dead Man Talkin’

Purported bin Laden audio vows U.S. attacks
Tape also offers truce to end fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq

Color Murdoc unimpressed:

CAIRO, Egypt – Al-Jazeera on Thursday broadcast portions of an audiotape purportedly from Osama bin Laden, saying al-Qaida is making preparations for attacks in the United States but offering a possible truce to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan.

The voice on the tape said heightened security in the United States is not the reason there have been no attacks there since the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings.

Instead, the reason is “because there are operations that need preparations,” he said.

“The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. But the operations are happening in Baghdad and you will see them here at home the minute they are through (with preparations), with God’s permission,” he said.

Where to begin?

First: The fact that this is yet another audio-only tape does nothing to dispel the suspicion that ObL is dead dead dead.

Second: What? Al Qaeda is “making preparations for attacks in the United States”? When the hell did they start doing that? Move along. Nothing new here.

Third: Offering a truce to end the fighting in Iraq in Afghanistan? Truce offers are rarely made from positions of strength unless the strong party truly wants peace. We know that this isn’t the case with al Qaeda.

Fourth: There’s no doubt that our heightened security measures are bullet-proof, and there’s also no doubt that at some point someone is going to breach them in a spectacular manner. So Murdoc will grant that point.

Fifth: We would do well to heed the words that preparations for another attack are underway and that they will strike as soon as they are able. So much more important, then, is it to wipe these folks off the face of the earth or at least whittle away at them while harrying them constantly as they run from cave to spider hole to safe house. This war is going to last a long, long time.

The last time we had a tape supposedly from bin Laden was in December 2004. He offered a truce to Europe in April of that year, but found few takers.

UPDATE: Instapundit writes:

YES, WE’RE WINNING: Osama bin Laden offers a truce.

The offer is insincere, of course, but that he (or his designated al Qaeda stand-in) is making it at all tells us everything we need to know. I guess that “intelligence failure” in Pakistan must have been even more successful than we thought.

If there’s any connection between this tape release and the attack in Pakistan, Murdoc’s guess would be that it’s aimed mainly at al Qaeda’s supporters and sympathizers, not at us. As word of the kills and the idea that everyone, no matter where they’re hiding, has a target on their back spreads, AQ leadership maybe felt the need to “buck up the troops” a bit.

Or the release is maybe unrelated to the Pakistan strike.

UPDATE 2: Malkin has two links on this. First is a link- and quote-rich post on the tape. Next, she notes that the AP labels bin Laden a “dissdent Saudi”. Words matter in this war.

Comments

  1. I agree with all your points Murdoc, But my initial reaction to hearing that they want a truce was one of jubilation. — HA ha, so the suckers can’t take the heat huh? THAT is GREAT news!! Then I read that if we don’t give them a truce they’ll attack us at home. OOO! I’m so scared. (NOT) As if they wouldn’t do it anyway if they could. We need to teach them that this is not a nice way to beg for peace. ;) Quadruple the airstrikes please!

  2. Oh thank God Jaques C of France is gonna ride to our rescue and nuke terroritst everywhere. I love it when he shows his ‘War Face’. I just know that the terrorists ‘wet their pants’ (laughing probably).

  3. Ole shrewd Osama. Playing the bait and switch role. That little speech will bring all the Liberal, dumbocrats from under their rocks and accuse President Bush of being Hard-lined in refusing to negotiate with an honest, innocent peace seeker.

  4. Regarding one of the updates to this post: To be fair to the AP, the photo is from 1998 – and that is stated in the caption. The caption should have been reworded, but keep in mind that if Michelle Malkin or others had read that caption in April 1998, then no one would have bothered pointing out this flaw. The caption was probably trying to effect a past-time contextual reference, which of course appears naively anachronistic in the present.

  5. Aakash: Yes, it’s a 1998 photo. But it’s not a 1998 caption. I don’t really buy the ‘trying to effect a past-time contextual reference’. Besides, in 1998 ObL wasn’t just some dissident, even if his wasn’t a household name.