"Weird Beard" Calls Time Out?

Much has been made over the new videotape released Friday on Al Jarezaa by our least favorite Islamic Jihadist, Osama bin Laden. Only part of the video has been translated and broadcast on the American TV networks, but the media outlets have worked themselves into a lather asking “What does it mean?” or endlessly pontificating on “How will it affect the outcome of the Presidential election?” The answers to these two questions obviously are as varied as the political spectrum in which we live.

The liberal leaning New York Times had this to say:

"This is going to be the last nail in George Bush's campaign,'' said Jim Jordan, a Democratic strategist working for America Coming Together, a group working to unseat Mr. Bush. "Bin Laden on the loose is arguably Bush's greatest failure as commander in chief."

Richard N. Bond, a former Republican national chairman, said the tape was a "reminder for all Americans that America is under attack - and who can be the best commander in chief in the war on terror is the central issue of this campaign."

So the tape hurts Bush, or it helps Bush, depending on if you are a liberal or a conservative.

I still ask, beyond the possibility of actually influencing the election, beyond proving that Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 has been translated into Arabic, what does the tape mean? What was Osama “weird beard” bin Laden actually saying?

My mentors over at Powerline make some interesting points that I totally agree with. Based on a transcript of the video, I too can’t help but wonder: Is Generalissimo Osama trying to call “time out?” Osama is quoted as saying:

"Your security is not in the hands of [Senator John] Kerry, Bush or al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any [presidential] mandate which does not play havoc with our security would automatically ensure its own security."

What was most interesting about the tape was not what bin Laden said, but rather (but not Dan Rather) what he did not say. He did not specifically warn of additional attacks. Not that I believe that more attacks are not coming our way, but the omission is glaring.

I can’t help but wonder about the apparent less than defiant tone of the parts of the video that have been broadcast and translated/transcribed. For one thing, any sign of weakness or compromise is seen an invitation for attack and/or overthrow in the Arab world. This latest message seems to extend an offer of a truce to America that was offered to the nations of Europe earlier this year. Fox News reported that the “last audiotape purportedly from bin Laden came in April. The speaker on the tape, which CIA analysts said likely was the Al Qaeda leader, offered a truce to European nations if they pull troops out of Muslim countries. The tape referred to the March 22 assassination by Israel of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin."

So the total demise of the infidels and the spread of Islam over all of the past historical Muslim regions of the East, as well as the takeover of the West by Islam is no longer the goal here?

I’m more than just a bit leery of this sudden change of rhetoric. Knowing the value of the word of a terrorist is exactly less than zero, I predict another major world shaking terror event, not necessarily on our turf, before the end of 2004. My patriotic side makes me want to believe that we have been effective enough to date in eliminating terrorism at its source (manpower & money) to prevent it from occurring on our soil—but I could be wrong.

If Bush wins, whatever happens will be blamed by the terrorists on his re-election. If Bush looses, any terrorist attack will still be blamed by the liberals and the main stream media on Bush’s prior actions (failures.)