Bill Maher: Obama eats Republican's lunch

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I was curious what take Bill Maher would have on Bin Laden's death. For me, one of the most frustrating segments was during what *should* have been a great interview with Peter Bergen*, (journalist and author of The Longest War: The Enduring Conflict Between America and al-Qaeda, Maher wasted a lot of valuable time trying to make doper jokes about Bin Laden's stash. I agree completely with Bergen's assessment of Ayman al Zawahiri, he doesn't matter because he does not have any of the charisma or organizational skills of OBL, and the movement is essentially decapitated). David Frumm (President Bush's economic speech writer) made a valiant effort I thought suggesting we shouldn't let cable media and radio hosts (on both sides) drive our political process, because it's poisoning the well. But didn't offer specific solutions on how to do that. And of course, I agree with Mr. Frumm's take on how we just can't get up and leave from Afghanistan or Pakistan, it's not just a simple matter of us packing up our bags and leaving. We have a vested security interest in what will be the world's fourth largest country (in population), which has nuclear weapons, and has radical Islamic elements intertwined within its armed forces, intelligence units, etc. The funniest moments were making comedy hay of all the conspiracy theories and blending them into a one-size-fits-all-crack-pot explanation of Obama, 9/11, the birthers and now deathers.



Irshad Manji, (author Allah: Liberty and Love, and director of the Moral Courage Project at New York University) gave some interesting insights about her take on the Islamic world's view of Bin Laden's death (generally favorable) but honestly, I was surprised she didn't think using a precision squad to kill Bin Laden versus using a bomb drop made any difference to anyone in the Arab or Islamic world.

The concluding "editorial" after New Rules in an odd way, confirmed rasilio's post earlier this week. Although basically Mr. Rasilio was limiting that to Tea Party candidates, Mr. Maher said the same thing, but he greatly expanded that to a broader sweep of the Republican record since 2000. As Maher noted: "And I know this all sounds like harsh truth, but Republicans are supposed to be the party of harsh truth. Like “there’s no such thing as a free lunch”. And speaking of lunch, Obama just ate yours."

You can watch the video segment here. And a written transcript is here. I would link the entire episode, but alas it's not available except on the usual websites online. I thought the panel discussion was pretty lively (if hard to follow at times).



----------------
* Bergen is the last person to have interviewed Bin Laden.

Comments

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

I agree completely with Bergen's assessment of Ayman al Zawahiri, he doesn't matter because he does not have any of the charisma or organizational skills of OBL, and the movement is essentially decapitated).

Dont under-estimate the power of the Dark Force and the capacity of an efficient, although un-charismatic organiser (however you define "charisma") to set an otherwise already well organised machine into full gear. It has happened before.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

People who've given up their lives to join a movement they deeply believe in because of Bin Laden's words, are not likely to give up simply because his body is dead and gone. The words that made them believe are still there and fractured though they may be, many will continue to believe for the rest of their lives, teaching the same teachings to their children.

Another charismatic leader will come along sooner or later, these things have a habit of drawing them in. We can only hope they are not as good as Bin Laden.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Most terrorists become extremists under the direct influence of their Imams and peers at home, school and in the street. Bin Laden is (was) only an icon. The words that made them become terrorist were spoken by Imams, and those are still there and are preaching actively. They'll continue to use Bin Laden's name in their sermons, you can be sure. Dead or alive.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I have looked online for a copy of the interview with Peter Bergen on last night's program, but alas-- no luck. Bergen did write a piece for the Washington Post called http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-osama-bin-laden/2011/05/05/AFkG1rAG_story_1.html" target="_blank">Five myths about Osama bin Laden () These people didn't given up their lives to the movement, they gave them up to Bin Laden, according to Bergen:

5. Bin Laden’s death is symbolically important but irrelevant to the war on terror.

Many commentators have asserted in the past week that the death of bin Laden won’t make much difference to the wider jihadist movement that he helped spawn. There is some truth to that, but balanced against this are the facts that al-Qaeda was bin Laden’s creation and he was the ultimate author of the 9/11 attacks. When new recruits joined al-Qaeda, they pledged a personal oath of religious allegiance to bin Laden, rather than to the organization. Similarly, when affiliated jihadist groups have attached themselves to al-Qaeda central, as al-Qaeda in Iraq did in 2004, their leaders pledge their fealty to bin Laden personally.

Bin Laden is one of the few men in recent decades who truly changed the history of the world. With him gone from the scene, there is no one of his stature and charisma to become not only the leader and strategic guide of al-Qaeda, but to inspire the group’s affiliates across the Middle East and North Africa and the wider jihadi movement around the globe. For that, we can all be grateful.

Several commentators in the community have noted that the number 2 man is the real guts behind the organization, again Mr. Bergen disagrees completely:

4. Ayman al-Zawahiri, not bin Laden, is the real brains of al-Qaeda.

The conventional view is that Zawahiri, an Egyptian doctor and al-Qaeda’s longtime second in command, has been bin Laden’s “brain.” But in making the most important strategic shift in al-Qaeda’s history — identifying the United States as its key enemy, rather than Middle Eastern regimes — bin Laden brushed aside Zawahiri’s obsessive focus on overthrowing the Egyptian government. Noman Benotman, a Libyan militant who has spent considerable time talking with both of al-Qaeda’s leaders, told me in an interview that “Osama influenced Zawahiri with his idea: Forget about the ‘near enemy’; the main enemy is the Americans.”

Bin Laden also kept Zawahiri in the dark for years about al-Qaeda’s most important operation — the planning for the 9/11 attacks — cluing in his deputy only during the summer of 2001.

Irshad Manji also pointed out during last night's show that most of participants in the "Arab Spring" have repudiated Al Queda, and there was not any massive outpouring of grief over his death, or anger.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If this is going to be the standard liberal push going into 2012, I'm even more optimistic than I was before.

It's not that the Republicans of 10 years ago (which are considerably marginalized as a group today) were necessarily good - it's just that Obama has shown quite clearly that they're less bad than the Obama-era Democrats on the economy. Since 2012 will almost certainly be an economy election, Obama can't point to "those big spenders," because he's effectively doubled down on it, and he can't point to his policies doing much for the economy since the stimulus fell so flat. Did Bush and the Republicans of the 2000s spend too much? Absolutely. Who's leading the charge on cutting spending now, though?

And sure, Obama may have effectively taken national security off the table. Good for him, I guess. Now, however, he'll have to explain how his so-called "gutsy call" wasn't a call that anyone in his position would make. While the mythology among the left is that Bush gave up on OBL and/or didn't make him a priority, Bush tried a similar strike team in 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/world/asia/06binladen.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) while acting on intelligence. It didn't obviously work out, but it's obvious that going after OBL with actionable intelligence is not a "gutsy call," but an obvious one.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"the mythology among the left is that Bush gave up on OBL and/or didn't make him a priority"

Dude, it's not mythology. It's accepting what Bush himself said. Or do I need to get you a link to the youtube video where in March 2002 Bush says, himself, that OBL isn't a priority.

I mean, it's not mythology. It's fact. From the horses mouth no less.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yep, the CIA closed it's Bin Laden desk and the officers / personel were reassigned to other tasks. Bergen gives specific details about that and blames the Bush administration for dropping the ball on trying to capture Bin Laden. I mean this is public record anyway, never mind the criticisms neo cons raised about Bill Clinton which he answered on Fox News (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4), running through the history of the Bush administration's treatment of Richard Clark in perusing Bin Laden.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

So I wonder, just how does Jeff call this a mythology then?
I sure do hope he'll get round to explaining it....

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yep, the CIA closed it's Bin Laden desk and the officers / personel were reassigned to other tasks.

More that the entire agency went on the OBL hunt as opposed to a dedicated task. More spin against Bush, for certain, but I'm not surprised.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Right, that's why they didn't catch him. Because the entire agency was on the OBL hunt. And McCain said he would not send in a hit team even if Pakistan said "no." And when Obama said he would, McCain called that naive.

Watching the Republicans harass Bill Clinton on OBL and Al Queda in the 1990s, saying he was unnecessarily obsessed with him, and then theirtrack record catching him: Bill Maher's point was spot on.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Right, that's why they didn't catch him. Because the entire agency was on the OBL hunt. And McCain said he would not send in a hit team even if Pakistan said "no." And when Obama said he would, McCain called that naive.

I don't think those issues add up. The actionable evidence that led to his death last weekend did not come from the OBL group, for example.

And yes, it was somewhat naive at the time. And I still think it is, even though it worked. Just diving in and going after him regardless of what Pakistan has to say is certainly gutsier than anything else Obama did oer this time.

Watching the Republicans harass Bill Clinton on OBL and Al Queda in the 1990s, saying he was unnecessarily obsessed with him, and then theirtrack record catching him: Bill Maher's point was spot on

Hindsight being 20/20, sure. That doesn't mean jack squat for Obama's chances a year from now, though.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If you take that literally, sure. Obviously, by action and activity, we know otherwise.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Wait, so we were supposed to assume that Bush was lying to us? Really? That's what we are *supposed* to assume when we hear him talk?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The left hasn't always assumed that anyway?

But seriously, there's a difference between the literal "no, we're not looking for him" and the "he's not the most important cog in the machine" figurative sense. The evidence clearly points to OBL continuing to be an intelligence priority right up until the end.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

No, be serious.

Why did Bush say he was not a priority in 02? The evidence does not point to OBL being a priority. The evidence should include BUSH'S OWN WORDS ON THE MATTER.

Or are we to really just assume Bush lies everytime he speaks?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Also, from your link, it says that it was the best intel they had on OBL in a long time.

“It was the best intelligence we’d had on him in a long time.”


And that was 07'. So I dunno how big a priority he was if they didn't have good intel on him for a long time.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

So when Bush said that he had 'good intel' that Saddam had WMDs, we weren't supposed to take him literally?

The thing about the lie is that their 'source' was bogus even by international standards,

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-10-10/world/iraq.curveball_1_germ-labs-german-intelligence-bnd?_s=PM:WORLD

and you know the best reason for why Bush+Congress went in when they did?

Because Saddam didn't have WMDs. If he had them, he would've just dropped them on the invading army. Marines and SEALs and whatnot would've conducted covert operations to prevent the use of WMDs if that was the case. You wouldn't have sent in a bunch of army guys that might as well have been wearing huge bullseyes for any chemical weapons.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So when Bush said that he had 'good intel' that Saddam had WMDs, we weren't supposed to take him literally?

In that case, he was actually referencing real intelligence, so yes.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

http://images2.dailykos.com/i/user/2722/TMW2011-05-11colorlowres.jpg

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

Who's leading the charge on cutting spending now, though?

It makes Republicans seem hypocritical, like spending is okay as long as they're the ones doing it. I don't think people make a big distinction between the Republicans of the 2000s and the Republicans of 2011/2012.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And the Republicans of today need to make certain that they do differentiate themselves, absolutely.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Which is why after years of having run around fighting non-state organizations their intentions of this particular idea-that-doesn't-work is to exaggerate what doesn't work. It's like they never learned the definition of insanity.

[montanaisaleg.livejournal.com]

he'll have to explain how his so-called "gutsy call" wasn't a call that anyone in his position would make
Just because the call is obvious in hindsight doesn't mean it was an easy call to make. Imagine the crap storm if we had attacked this compound only to find that it was the home of some family (with lots of kids) who just didn't want to be bothered. Or even to find that it was bin Laden's place, but no one was home and no intel was there to be found. It's not far-fetched to say that we'd get one chance to go into Pakistan with a raid like this, and if we wasted that chance on a 50/50 shot (as it's been described) that came up short, we would have pissed off an important ally for no gain.

This was, I think, the right call to make, but to say that "anyone in his position" would have made the same call is a stretch. And even if it's true, that doesn't make it any less of a gutsy decision. There was the very real possibility of a major failure. One helicopter had to be abandoned. What if the other one was shot down on the return trip and everyone on board died? What if that happened and no one important was found at the place?

He may have to explain why it was a gutsy call, but it pretty clearly was.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I can't agree with that. It's not like bin Laden was a mid-level, low value target here, and I'm not necessarily buying that it was 50/50 at this point, either.

Or, to put it another way, I'm asking to be impressed that the President did what I expect of him or her. I struggle to keep the bar that low.

[montanaisaleg.livejournal.com]

I'm not necessarily buying that it was 50/50 either, but unless we have live video of bin Laden walking around in the compound, there's a very real chance that the whole operation would be for nothing. Taking into account the potentially very bad consequences of a failed raid - a couple dozen dead SEALs, political disaster for Obama, etc - there's no way this could be an easy decision. Again, just because others would probably have probably made the same decision, that doesn't make it any less of a tough call.