Midwest Monday News 01.23.06
Posted by Steven Bellah on 01.23.2006
The Super Bowl, Osama still on the loose, and another Watergate?
Congrats to the Pittsburgh Steelers and Seattle Seahawks, on their way to Super Bowl XL (40) in two weeks. I'm happy for Jerome Bettis, and now he can end his career on a high note, win or lose. I'm happy for the city of Seattle as well. I've been there twice on vacation and it really is a fantastic, kind city. I believe this is the first time a major sports team has been in a championship game since the Sonics in the NBA in 1979 or so (they also lost to Jordan in the Bulls in 97 I think).
I'm getting a real "2000 Baltimore Ravens" vibe from Seattle, though. I think they are a one-year wonder that has come together as a unit at the right time. Much like the Ravens (and Tampa Bay Bucs a couple of years later) I think they will fizzle out within a year or so. But for right now, they are the team of the hour.
I think Pittsburgh will win, because they seem more cohesive as a unit. Bill Cowher doesn't get enough credit as a coach--this is his 2nd Super Bowl trip and it was his SIXTH AFC championship game. That's insane when you think about all the flash in the pan teams that come by each year.
I'm guessing Pittsburgh 31, Seattle 20. But I might change my mind after watching the inevitable non-stop coverage on the NFL Network (which is a gem of a channel if you can get it).
Remember Me?
Well, we got another Osama audio tape last week, and to no one's surprise, he thinks America is evil, Allah is good, another attack is coming, blah blah blah. One thing he DID mention though was the idea of a "truce", although he didn't elaborate. Of course, he doesn't want a truce, but it's a clever tactic. What, does he think he'll win votes or support or something?
Scott McClellan called it a "sign of weakness", and evidence that we are getting to Al-Qaeda. Nope, sorry Scott. Osama was just giving a stump speech for all his fans in the Middle East. He "offers" a truce, we obviously decline, and that makes us MORE evil---to everyone over there. In a strange way, this latest appearance by Osama will end up HELPING George Bush and company, although it should do exactly the opposite.
To some (including myself), every time Bin Laden appears, either by video, audio, or photograph, I get angry all over again at the fact that we haven't caught him. I think it's absurd that this guy, who bombed the USS Cole and was responsible for 9/11, is still out there promising more attacks and more doom to America. The Bush administration would lead you to believe that Osama is isolated and is a non-factor. Not true. Sure, he's probably not holding daily terrorist meetings with his followers, but it's pretty obvious that he is in charge.
All he has to do is speak a few words and the entire world goes into a frenzy. OOH! What hidden messages are in that tape? What hints are included that might give away his location? It goes on and on and on. Not even Bush can do that anymore. I'm angry that he's still out there, still around, and even though there HASN'T been another attack in over 4 years, the idea that the ringleader still hasn't been brought to justice is still a pretty spooky thing.
Why hasn't he been caught yet? Look at the other guy that the Bush administration put an A.P.B out for: Saddam Hussein. Bush spent months and months telling us how evil he was, and sent thousands of AMERICAN troops over there to find him. And find him they did, and we humiliated him and stuck a Q-Tip down his throat for all to see.
Osama, on the other hand, was targeted either "dead or alive" shortly after 9/11 by Bush, and well, hasn't really been mentioned that much since. It's almost like Bush felt like he HAD to say that, but he really didn't mean it. If he did, why did he enlist the AFGHAN military to track him down? Saddam was tracked down by the best AMERICAN troops available, so why not Osama?
Now, this isn't going to dissolve into a Fahrenheit 9/11 "Osama and Bush are buddies" type of rant. But I do wonder why Bush doesn't make catching Osama his #1 priority. I mean, does ANYONE want him to remain free? Bush almost never mentions Osama anymore, and gave that classic "I don't spend too much time on him" answer during a press conference.
Wouldn't dragging Osama out of a cave and showing pictures of him in HIS underwear be a great and patriotic site for all to see? Would anyone have a problem with Mr. Bin Laden being piled on top of a prisoner pile with Lyndie England smiling and pointing at him? I wouldn't, and no one else would either. The Bush administration could get a huge increase in approval if they brought Bin Laden in. But they haven't, and don't seem to want to.
Except when he releases a tape.
When that happens, Bush and his buddies go into campaign mode, reminding us how evil he is and how someone like Bin Laden is the reason we have a war on terror. But they won't dedicate themselves to finding him. Why?
Well, could it be that Osama being free HELPS Bush?
Think about it. If we catch Osama, then yes, it would be a wonderful thing--but with the #1 most wanted terrorist in the world captured, the world would be safer, correct? Well, is that what the Bush administration wants? With Bin Laden out there, releasing a new tape every year or so, we are reminded of how evil he is, what he did to us, and how SCARED we should be that it can happen again.
Now sure--if Bin Laden is captured, someone else will take over, and we could still be attacked again. That's why I can't understand how we can win the war on terror, unless we kill every non-American in the world. But with Osama on the loose, America remains scared, and Bush can push his agenda that we MUST keep fighting terrorism until the end. If Osama is out there, we can be reminded (without seriously hunting him down) how evil he is and what he orchestrated on 9/11. Sure, we might be pissed that he hasn't been caught, but it sure is scary to see him still out there promising death to America, isn't it?
But hey, I can hear you now--but what about Saddam? We hunted him down, caught him, and everyone was happy. It didn't diminish the Iraq war. Yes, that's correct. But you know what? The damage had already been done. Saddam had been driven from power, and if he was still on the loose today, he wouldn't nearly been as big of a threat as Osama still is. Remember, he was found, by himself, in a hole in the ground. Osama still has associates helping him every day.
Plus, (and this might be the most important thing), when Osama surfaces, it takes the attention off the Iraq war, where Bush is weak, and puts it on terrorism, where he is stronger. We are all in agreement that Osama is an evil bastard that needs to be caught. We are not in agreement about Iraq and why we are over there.
All Bush has to do is talk about the evils of Bin Laden and terrorism, raise the threat level, and we will all forget about Iraq for a while. You can bet that video Osama released right before the 2004 election was like an early Christmas present to Karl Rove. It HELPS Bush, even though it shouldn't. I talked about that when I wrote about why John Kerry lost--we should be upset that Osama hasn't been caught, and we are--but we are more afraid--fear--scared by the idea that he is still out there.
A free Osama is a good thing for President Bush. There, I said it. I'm sure some of you disagree with me, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Quick! Sweep it under the rug!
From Yahoo:
Although President Bush says he doesn't recall meeting convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the two have reportedly turned up in photos together.
Both Washingtonian and Time magazines have reported the existence of about a half-dozen photos showing the two together.
Time reported on its Web site Sunday that its staff members have seen at least six photos featuring Bush and Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from his lobbying practices and has pledged to cooperate with investigators. They appeared to have been taken at White House functions, according to the reports.
The White House has acknowledged that Abramoff attended some events at the Executive Mansion, and spokeswoman Dana Perino said Sunday it's not surprising that the two would have met.
"The president has taken tens upon thousands of pictures at such events," Perino said.
Abramoff met a few times with White House staff and attended Hanukkah receptions in 2001 and 2002, the White House has said, but officials there have refused to disclose how many times he's been into the complex or what business he had there.
The White House also has not released any photos featuring the president and Abramoff, who was declared a Bush "pioneer" for raising at least $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney '04 re-election campaign.
Contributions that came directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the American Indian tribes he represented — a total of $6,000 — were donated to the American Heart Association by the campaign just days after Abramoff entered his guilty pleas.
The White House, after playing down the Bush-Abramoff photos and the lobbyist's ties to the president, criticized Abramoff for breaking the law. "Mr. Abramoff admitted being involved in outrageous wrongdoing," Perino said.
------This will obviously be brushed away by the Bush camp, but does anyone else feel an eerie, Watergate-like vibe right now when you think about the Bush administration? Bush denies ever meeting Abramoff, and now we'll probably get a photo of them riding horses together.
I don't think it will ever be enough to drive him from office, but I think we will have a major, Iran-Contra like controversy before Bush leaves office. Check out Al Franken's "The Truth (with Jokes)" for a great chapter detailing the Abramoff controversy. If you ever wanted to know exactly WHAT he did and don't want to be bored to death, Franken's your man.
And no, Al Franken isn't paying me to plug his book every week. It's just that it always has something related to what I'm talking about.
STAY CURRENT