There are rumors floating again that Osama bin Laden may be dead:
PARIS, France (CNN) — Osama bin Laden has a water-borne illness, a Saudi intelligence source told CNN on Saturday, a report that conflicts with an article in a French newspaper saying that the al Qaeda leader is dead.
The Saudi intelligence source told CNN’s Nic Robertson that there have been credible reports for the past several weeks that bin Laden is ill, but there has been no word of his death.
The questions came in response to the publication of a report in the French regional newspaper L’Est Republicain on Saturday.
The article cited a confidential French foreign intelligence document dated September 21 in which a source said the Saudis had received confirmation that bin Laden died of typhoid in Pakistan on August 23.
Seems to me we’ve been down this road a time or two already. There are a couple of differences to this latest rumor, though: they have specific dates (above), and they have named an illness (below). From Reuters:
“The information gathered by the Saudis indicates that the head of al Qaeda was a victim while he was in Pakistan on August 23, 2006, of a very serious case of typhoid which led to a partial paralysis of his internal organs.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. says they have no confirmation, but analysts also say there’s been no internet chatter about OBL having died… and that they’d expect that (CNN):
CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen said he is skeptical of the suggestion that bin Laden might be dead, saying it was not something the Islamist Web sites would keep quiet about.
Actually, Polimom’s not at all sure that we’d hear about it if he died due to an illness of some kind, and here’s why I think this:
There are people in the Middle East (and elsewhere) who support Osama bin Laden but are less supportive of the actions of al Qaeda in recent years — particularly in Iraq. If bin Laden passes away due to illness, al Qaeda as an organization may lose these OBL-only supporters.
On the other hand, if the United States were to kill Osama bin Laden, the result would be the worst possible scenario for the U.S., because he would then become a martyr — a symbol to all Islamic extremists.
Al Qaeda, therefore, has a lot to gain from hiding OBL’s death by natural causes, or even a life-threatening illness. I’m not at all surprised nobody would be talking about it.
Polimom is hoping that this time the rumors are true… and that we can confirm it. If we can’t, the man will eventually assume legendary proportions — an outcome nearly as bad as possible martyrdom.
Fingers crossed…
To read more about the latest OBL rumor, Joe Gandelman at TMV has a comprehensive post up, here.
So, if OBL is alive, then we rag on the Bush Administration for not finding him: if he is dead, however, this is just as bad (if not worse) for the Bush Administration, because he then assumes the role of martyr/hero.
I guess we could go back to what we did in the 90’s, which was tell our allies that we did not want them to turn him over to us, while sending million-$$$ cruise missiles to blow the snot out of a herd of camels and an aspirin factory, and allowing his operatives to blow up our buiildings/warships pretty much at will…
Yes, Clinton tried… oh, how he tried…
~EdT.
Ed T —
Umm… .. well, I suppose your first paragraph could be correct, but I didn’t say that. In fact, I said nothing about “if he’s alive”, and thought I said the opposite about if he has died — providing it can be confirmed.
My personal opinion is that if he dies “naturally”, that’s the second-best-case scenario for the U.S. Best case would be catching him and locking him up forever.
If we kill him, either by bomb, assassination, or execution, he’s martyred and a hero. If he’s dead but nobody proves it, he’s Robin Hood.
None of which has anything whatsoever to do with Clinton. I am, however, glad he chewed on Wallace for a while. I’m bored blind by the character attacks.
Polimom, did you see the entire interview of Bill Clinton by Chris Wallace? Where is the “character attacks”?
That entire episode was so staged by Clinton. He’d been practicing his lines well after the ABC TV docudrama, which was closer to the truth than Moore’s so called “documentary” that the Dems praised and he admitted he made to influence the then upcoming presidential election. Former Pres. Clinton only took the interview on Fox, a network he has repeatedly refused to have a sit-down with, because the left-wingers think because Fox shows more than one side, they are Satan and here was his chance to prove it. He was so up-tight, however, looking for any opening to start his attacks that he jumped too soon.
Wallace asked, “‘Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?”
And Clinton went off the deep end — way off the deep end.
Where’s the attack on his character in the question that he took his cute to attack? Is that question any worse than what he hit First Lady Bush with?
In Wallace’s third question to Laura Bush in his White House interview with her on his Sunday show, said Wallace: “As someone whose … approval ratings are double your husband’s, why do you think the American people are beginning to lose confidence in your husband?”
To me it looks like he was much tougher on Ms. Bush that Mr. Clinton. But she didn’t go off on a rant like BOTH the Clintons have been shown to do. At the VERY LEAST it shows he treats all people pretty much the same on his program. In my opinion, a little to haughty and gruff but better than his dad did in his hayday.
I hate Word cute = cue. To read – … his cue to attack?