I was just reading that MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews (Hardball) suggested that, in his new tape, Bin Laden sounded like Michael Moore. Matthews is quoted as saying, "I mean he sounds like an over the top Michael Moore here, if not a Michael Moore." Many on the left are outraged by such a claim. John Kerry criticized the comment. Matthews later said this on a following Hardball show:
Why is he doing it? Why is he trying to track what he picks up in the internet and from the media as the lingo of the left in America, like Moore? Why would he start to talk like Moore? People misunderstood what I said last night. I think he’s getting some advice from people, he’s getting some lingo, some wordage that he hears working in the United States about this thing for war profiteers and he’s jumping on every opportunity. Is that what you are saying Joe?
A guest (Scarborough) also responded:
Listen, if somebody can’t look at the words that Bin Laden said last night and match them up with what Michael Moore said, with what John Kerry said on Face the Nation with he said Americans were terrorizing Iraqi women and children in their homes at night, which is what Bin Laden in effect said. What Ted Kennedy has been saying. Remember he said after Abu Ghraib that Saddam’s torture chambers were turned over to — chambers were turned over to new management, U.S. troops, that’s the same thing Bin Laden hit on.
Unfortunately, it does not matter who or what Bin Laden sounds like. What should matter is the truth. We should be pursuing that, regardless. Put another way, what we and our journalists should be doing is using our critical thinking skills to determine what the truth is. A democracy is based, at least in part, on the idea that its citizens can think critically, use rational criteria, and pursue the truth. These are some true cornerstones of democracy.
It is reasonable to think that Bin Laden would use the ideas and words of those who criticize the war in Iraq and Bush's policies regarding the war on terror. Much of what these dissenters say is strong criticism and the truth. By doing a little research on the war, and also studying what dissenters and others have said, a person can come up with some strong claims against the war. So Bin Laden will likely borrow from the work that has been done by others. Bin Laden may sound like Michael Moore or any number of other religious, patriotic, and intelligent people who have found very serious problems with the war. I do not think that Bin Laden says much that isn't already known. There are some embellishments in what he says, but what he says is generally correct. But, under certain interpretations, Bin Laden seems to make some dubious claims.
We must also notice that what Bin Laden says comes not just from dissenters. Some of what he says comes from what the US military has reported.
People (like Matthews and Scarborough above) who are eager to point out the similarity between what Bin Laden says and what dissenters, like Moore and Kennedy, say are probably trying to discredit dissenters and their criticisms of Bush's policies. They are probably trying to suggest that these views and criticisms can't be correct because Bin Laden is using them. Or it could be that they want people to think that since Bin Laden is using these same words and ideas, an arch enemy of the US, these criticisms must be incorrect and perhaps unpatriotic, immoral, reprehensible, or evil. But these inferences are entirely illegitimate. In fact, this kind of reasoning is so bad it leads me to believe that people like Matthews and Scarborough, who seem to rely on it, are purposely trying to manipulate their audiences.
It would be wrong to say that a criticism of Bush's policies has to be wrong because the person stating it is a bad person. It is also wrong to think that dissenters have to be wrong and unpatriotic, or whatever, because Bin Laden borrows from them. There is no connection betweeen the truth of the criticisms and the worth of Bin Laden as a person. Extremely evil people can state truths and present true views that should be accepted and used. I can kill innocent children for fun, or behead innocent people, or torture innocent people, but I can still state what is true and have true views. A Nazi could have discovered a cure for cancer. It would be idiotic to reject such a cure just because the person who produced it was a Nazi. (Apparently, evil Nazis new something about intelligence and the US protected Nazis from trials and hired them to work for US intelligence agencies.)
If we are democratic critical thinkers searching for the truth, then we should be interested in using our critical thinking skills to examine what Bin Laden says (and what anyone says about the war) to see what is true and what is false and whatever else we can discover that will lead us to the truth. We can't go on the assumption that whatever Bin Laden says must be false and horrible and monstrous, simply because he is behind the killing of thousands of innocent people. The truth can be valuable no matter where is comes from.
My view is that others have given much stronger and clearer arguments against the war. In this sense Bin Laden doesn't sound like Moore and others, because these others have given much more complete and compelling criticisms of US policies and the war on Iraq. I think that Bin Laden gives us a weak sampling of these stronger, more complete arguments. It is inaccurate to say that Bin Laden sounds like an over-the-top Michael Moore, or any other good dissenter. Bin Laden presents weaker arguments compared to other high-profile dissenters. To suggest that Bin Laden has given nothing but outlandish claims against the war is not true. He actually makes many uncontroversial claims, and he leaves out many strong claims. In terms of the stength of argumentation, perhaps Bin Laden sounds more like a weak Michael Moore. Anyone who tries to present Bin Laden as someone who is giving the standard dissenter's line against the US war on Iraq is probably engaging in a dishonest attempt to make dissenters and legitimate criticisms of the war look weaker than they really are or can be.
Bin Laden says things that I have heard before. What he says is generally correct, except for the embellishments. I'll look at some of the things that he says in this latest tape.
Bin Laden says:
However, what prompted me to speak are the repeated fallacies of your President Bush in his comment on the outcome of the US opinion polls, which indicated that the overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of the forces from Iraq....
Bin Laden's comment about the polls seems to be correct, at least we get this in the polls at mid-2005. Later in the year we get pro-military Congressmen stating that we should withdraw from Iraq. But things may have changed recently.
In June 2005, the polls say:
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Nearly six in 10 Americans say the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, a new Gallup Poll finds, the most downbeat view of the war since it began in 2003.
So if we can believe the Gallup Poll, Bin Laden seems to be correct about this. An "overwhelming majority" (60% -- that would be an overwhelming landslide for a presidential election) of American people seemed to prefer, at least in mid-2005, some kind of withdrawal from Iraq.
Next, Bin Laden says that Bush
... objected to this desire [to withdraw] and said that the withdrawal of troops would send a wrong message to the enemy. Bush said: It is better to fight them on their ground than they fighting us on our ground.
This is accurate. Bin Laden seems to have captured one of Bush's main points for the war. He (and Rumsfeld) says that a troop withdrawal will send the wrong message and that it would be better to fight them on their own ground. I don't see anything incorrect here.
Bin Laden now says:
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 favour, praise be to God.
Bin Laden starts to give reasons for thinking that, contrary to what Bush says, the war is not a good idea for the US. The war in Iraq is still going on, and the attacks against US troops have increased tremendously since 2003. I don't see where Bin Laden is wrong on this. Perhaps he is wrong when he says that operations in Afghanistan are on the rise in their favor. But that may be true. It may be that things have improved for them. Bin Laden makes a very small claim here. Things could be getting better for them in Afghanistan, even though things may be totally lost for them there in the long run.
Bin Laden says:
The Pentagon figures indicate the rise in the number of your dead and wounded, let alone the huge material losses ...
This also seems to be true. But this claim is not controversial. The number of US dead and wounded is increasing -- that's obvious. No one disputes that. Also, the US is spending enormous amounts of money on the war, and these are truly huge material losses. Anyone can see that. Anyone deliberating about the war will take these obvious facts into account.
Bin Laden says:
... and let alone the collapse of the morale of the soldiers there and the increase in the suicide cases among them.
I do not believe that the morale has collapsed. This seems to be an incorrect claim. But perhaps he means that morale is going down. That may very well be true. There is very likely an increase in the number of suicides -- the number can only go up. But it is interesting to see that Bin Laden goes on to try to give an explanation for the view that morale is collapsing. I won't discuss that here, but as I read it, his explanation does not show that the morale of US soldiers has collapsed.
Bin Laden uses this -- our concern for our troops -- to point out one reason for stopping the fighting. He says:
... so that you would save what you can save from this hell. However, the solution is in your hand if you care about them.
One reason to stop the war would be to save the lives of our sons and daughters who are fighting in Iraq. Bin Laden is pointing out the obvious connection between our concern for our sons and daughters and the decision to continue or end the war. Everyone who has thought about the war already understands this connection.
Perhaps the most controversial claims come when Bin Laden talks about torture and mistreatment of prisoners and citizens. He says,
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.
We can look at the reports regarding Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo. It is obviously correct that the US made bad mistakes in its treatment of prisoners at these sites. Even Rumsfeld said that horrible things were done there. I recall that at the time of the first reports of Abu Ghraib, there were more pictures and even videos that only US Senators were allowed to see. These representatives said that these pictures revealed even worse, more horrible, inhuman treatment of prisoners. (As far as I know, the public has never seen these further pictures and videos.) Regarding the use of drills and rape, let's assume that these things could have happened, but they would be isolated incidents if they did occur. But the fact remains that we have, at one time at least, abused prisoners in terrible ways, and almost everyone acknowledges that, even the Bush administration.
Regarding the incompleteness of Bin Laden's criticisms of the war, I think that he could have said more regarding the bad consequences the war has had on Iraqis. Many innocent Iraqis have died from US bombing, snipers, and other things. Also, the insurgency has brought death to innocent Iraqis.
Bin Laden now says:
The wise ones know that Bush has no plan to achieve his alleged victory in Iraq.... 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.
I think that it is incorrect to say that Bush does not have a plan to achieve victory. He does have a plan. It may not be a detailed plan or a plan that is working very well, but he has a plan. But Bin Laden seems to be saying that Bush does not have a plan in the sense that he does not have a good plan that will work. That may be true, given the terrible way things have been going. It has not been good, and the insurgency has been increasing.
But it seems obvously true that Bush has no desire or will to withdraw from Iraq. Who can doubt this? Now the "dubious" reasons may be that Bush wants to control Iraqi resources -- the oil and the profits from oil -- and it is very reasonable to assume that Bush will not withdraw for these reasons. Who does not suspect this? In fact, it may be a little looney to think that we would be in Iraq if it were the banana capital of the world. Let's suppose that Iraq were the banana capital of the world. Would we be in a war with Iraq? I doubt it. The fact that Iraq has huge oil reserves is an obvious and central motivation for the war in Iraq. Are these reasons "dubious" as Bin Laden suggests? It would likely cause outrage if Bush were to claim that we cannot withdraw because we must control Iraqi oil resources. Where does Bin Laden go terribly wrong here?
Further, a dissenter might say something like this. It is reasonable to think that Bush does not really want a truly sovereign independent and democratic Iraq, because that would very likely lead to a Shiite controlled Iraq that would have strong ties to Iran and a desire to control its own oil resources. That simply can't be allowed. So the military has to stay to ensure the emergence of a proper pro-Washington government -- a "true" democracy. This is how powerful states like the US usually behave, and it would be unreasonable to just assume that the US will not enforce its own interests, as it has done in the past with other states.
Bin Laden also brings up the idea that the war in Iraq is actually increasing the terrorist threat. He says what many people say, including critics and the military. He says,
In fact, Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified resources.
This is the basis of a good criticism of Bush's claim that the Iraq war is eliminating the threat of terrorism and that we have to fight them on their own ground. According to military reports, Iraq has become a training ground and a point of recruitment for terrorists. This is not controversial. Also, very many more attacks are taking place in Iraq, which indicates that the forces for terrorism are getting stronger and more organized. This increases the threat of terrorism. In fact, coinciding with the war in Iraq, acts of terrorism around the world have shot up dramatically. Terrorist attacks, not including those occuring in Iraq, have gone up tremendously. There are US government reports that show that there is an increase in terrorism. I doubt that there is an intelligence agency anywhere in the world that would say that terrorism has not increased sharply since the invasion of Iraq.
Bin Laden says,
Based on the above, we see that Bush's argument is false. However, the argument that he avoided, which is the substance of the results of opinion polls on withdrawing the troops, is that it is better not to fight the Muslims on their land and for them not to fight us on our land.
This is likely the truth. It would be better if we did not fight on each other's land. So Bin Laden offers a truce. But too many unlikely things would have to happen. For instance, Bin Laden says that the president should annonce "that the US interference in the world's countries has ended for ever." That is unlikely to happen. Also, Bin Laden says that his people can never tolerate the injustice that has been done to the Muslim nation. He says,
We are a nation that does not tolerate injustice and seek revenge forever.... You have occupied our land, defiled our honour, 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.
Bin Laden gives a list of what the US has done to them, and there must be revenge for these perceived injustices. These things are probably true. I think that Bin Laden is right when he says that his is a nation that does not tolerate injustice. I think that this suggests an important lesson. Human beings, not just those in the Muslim nation, cannot tolerate injustice, and people will go to great lengths and suffer any hardship, even death, to counter injustice. People would rather die than suffer injustice. It is the hatred of injustice, not our freedom, that drives Bin Laden and others. The hatred of injustice is probably one thing that we should be cultivating in the world. But Bush will never say that hatred of injustice motivates terorists. In fact, such an obvious and common sense idea must be crushed. But some may think differently. A world filled with people who passively accept injustice would would be a world much easier to dominate and control.
Bin Laden gives some reasons against Bush's reasons for waging war in Iraq. Others have given much better and more complete arguments. Bin Laden seems to have borrowed from them.
I have not claimed that the arguments for ending the war win out. Perhaps they do, but that is not relevant here. What is relevant is that there are some strong argments for ending the war, and Bin Laden can repeat those arguments if he wants or add to them. Even though he may be a bad person, he can still state the truth and give good arguments. Further, people who argue against the war are not incorrect or unpatriotic, or whatever, simply because Bin Laden states similar views.
It remains that Bin Laden should be brought to justice for what he has done. That is true of many people, perhaps our own president. But that is a different issue.
