Why So Certain?

Frequently throughout the night, I've heard referenced a DoD statement that says we'll definitely catch bin Laden this year.

On the face of it, this sounds great, of course. Few (aside from perhaps some zealous percentage of the 1.4 billion Muslims throughout the world) would be sorry to see him caught. Like Dean - before his wording change, that is - I would like to see him properly and fairly tried. As much as possible, I'd like to determine exactly where his culpability lay in so many of the things - including but hardly restricted to the 9/11 event - for which he has been accused.

But I - joined from what I can tell by a significant number of additional people - find myself a bit disquieted by this grand statement on a few different fronts.

We've been ostensibly seeking bin Laden since well before 9/11. Remember the bombing of the Cole, et al? So why is this year going to be miraculously different? Why are we being handed a near guarantee that this year, he'll be captured?

That it's an election year is certainly an issue. But wasn't it just as important that he be caught on September 12, 2001 or in 2002 or in 2003? Only for the president's sake - and that of his potential for reelection - is it most advantageous to find him this year.

This reminds one of 1980. Only later did the facts come out that Reagan and his people had structured a release for the long-held Iranian hostages where the hostages actually had to sit there longer so that Reagan could appear to breeze in and save the day, thus assuring his election against incumbent Jimmy Carter.

But it also reminds people of a report a few weeks ago, dismissed roundly by the DoD and administration, that bin Laden had been captured. After about 36 hours of play, all talk of it went poof although (if memory serves) the stock markets in various parts of the world shot up briefly upon the release of the rumor.

What, you may ask, is the harm if perhaps we really did catch bin Laden a few weeks ago and - for reasons that probably cannot be made known to us for national security - the actual news of his capture is revealed later... say, within 3-4 weeks of the November 2nd election?

On the surface, some could argue that there's no damage done by this. The important thing, if true, is that he's out of circulation. There's even some merit in this argument.

Now take the matter a bit deeper. If true, it would be one more way that this administration massages (I'm so polite tonight I'm making myself ill) the truth. But at this point, discovering that the Bush administration lied about something is about as startling and novel as a lonely, homely girl eager to offer fellatio in return for affection noticing that the boy doesn't call her the next day as promised.

Beyond this, however, is the fact that the capture of bin Laden is probably apt to unleash far more violence in certain strategic areas. If 2,000 or 3,000 Americans are murdered by insurgents and suicide bombers in the weeks betweeen the announcement that "we got 'im" and the election, it could be nasty. Still, shouldn't we be told?

Why is the DoD even telling us this now? If they don't catch him, it will be another thing for people to notice come November. Remember, we were told we were going to "get him dead or alive" and that was 30 months ago. While Ashcroft has been making the world safe from 63 year old Tommy Chong and those who buy drug paraphernalia at head shops as well as the makers of adult videos, bin Laden has produced as many videos as Jennifer Lopez.

In short (I know, too late), there are too many inconsistencies in the matter - including the many times we've been told "he's vicious" and "he's of no import now because his network of terrorists no longer matters since we've destroyed them all" to "Al Qaeda is pulling all this new shit" to "bin Laden blew up the Easter bunny" to "he doesn't matter" again - to fail to notice.

But then, Mr. Rumsfeld told us he knew exactly - by pinpoint - where the WMDs in Iraq were located. Perhaps he should draw someone a map.