Hamza Bin Laden and U.S. Politics

Hamza Bin Laden son of the world's most wanted man, Osama Bin Laden, is a battle-hardened zealot fully prepared to kill for his cause. Not only ready, but experienced at fighting and killing in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Now, in a posthumous autobiography excerpted in The Sunday Times today, Benazir Bhutto names the 16-year-old son of Osama Bin Laden as the leader of one of four gangs of “designated assassins” sent to kill her.

The naming of Bin Laden’s teenage son appears to bolster intelligence claims that Hamza is being groomed as a future leader of Al-Qaeda. [snip]

In her new autobiography, Bhutto writes: “I was told by both the Musharraf regime and the foreign Muslim government that four suicide bomber squads would attempt to kill me. These included, the reports said, the squads sent by the Taliban warlord Baitullah Mehsud; Hamza Bin Laden, a son of Osama Bin Laden; Red Mosque militants; and a Karachi-based militant group.” (more at Times OnLine)

In May of 1998 Osama Bin Laden made it clear that war had been declared on US international assets...

Within two months of Bin Laden s interview, the US Embassy in Kenya and Ethiopia were attacked. Not long after the election/placement of George W. Bush came September 11, 2001. Bin Laden kept his promise of 1998 staging a brilliant attack on American soil . The result was the complete destruction of the World Trade Center complex in New York City, and significant damage to the Pentagon based in Arlington, Virginia. It was perfect in every way. Two symbols of American economic and military supremacy destroyed/damaged. [snip]

There s no questioning the intelligence, or cold calculation, of Bin Laden and his reading of history. And if his past provides any insight, it s that he is a man who sticks to his word. And that s very worrisome, particularly when each August 6th and 9th come around. [snip]

Bin Laden s network/affiliates may have already engineered the deployment of nuclear weapons to US soil. [snip]

Crippling two American cities with nukes just might be in Bin Laden s playbook. That means going for two cities on the Gulf of Mexico that play a key role in US energy production and interstate commerce. Houston and New Orleans are two such cities. (continue reading)

The above quote comes from a blog called Pop And Politics. While I do not agree with the writer's conclusions that we should sit down and talk to our enemies, he does make some valid points. Osama Bin Laden IS a smart man, he plans well, he is patient, and he is determined. And bin Laden has been successful several times in attacking the United States and other Western interests.

So the question is: Does Osama bin Laden have plans to step back and allow his son, Hamza, to take over? What about Zawahiri? We don't have all the answers, but we can be sure that Osama has planned well. He has trained Hamza from birth in the terrorism trade and Hamza has learned his lessons well.

What will the new President of the United States of America do in the war on terror, to beat Osama and Hamza bin Laden and al-Qaeda, on Iran, Pakistan, China, Russia, and all the other issues that threaten the US? We can only pray they will NOT go the way of the Economist: The Economist 'The US Should Embarrass Iran Out Of Nukes'!

The British publication the Economist has an editorial out that bears reading, if for no other reason than to see how skewed and bizarre the issue has become. In 'Has Iran Won?' they ask:

WHO would have thought that a friendless theocracy with a Holocaust-denying president, which hangs teenagers in public and stones women to death, could run diplomatic circles around America and its European allies? But Iran is doing just that. And it is doing so largely because of an extraordinary own goal by America's spies, the team behind the duff intelligence that brought you the Iraq war.

Actually, cousins, it was a bunch of state department funtionaries known for their views on Iran rather than `America's spies' that came up with the New Intelligence Estimate on Iran, and they were appointed to the job by the Bush Administration. And as for `duff intelligence' on Iraq, the last time I checked, the Brits thoroughly concurred and still do, if you go by the Butler Commission. (continue reading at Joshua Pundit)

Obama and Clinton cannot fight the clash of civilizations, because they do not believe it exists.

At least one report says Women believe the economy is the top issue in the 2008 elections. I think they are wrong.

Juan McCain is running on this military record and the war against terror, but this is wrong. Any candidate that is for open borders is NOT the best candidate for America's security. Under Juan McCain we would have more sanctuary cities, more welfare for illegals, and terrorists walking across the borders at will. See "McClintObama Amnesty Plan: 20 million illegal alien voters by 2010."

Also McCain is afraid of advanced interrogation techniques for terrorists; he wants to bring them to the U.S. and give them rights of American citizens and allow them to use our court system against us. Not what a Conservative American wants.

For a synopsis on where the candidates stand on foreign and military issues, go here.

I'm not sure this is correct, "VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: "Three unexpected developments have given Republicans a shot this year at winning — once thought impossible, given the normal desire of the electorate for a fresh party after eight years, and worries about Iraq and the economy. All can change, but for now they have a real shot."

Romney Rising?

Amidst all of the stormy polling clouds, a little ray of sunshine has broken over the Romney campaign. Rasmussen shows Romney slowly climbing into a tie nationwide with John McCain in its daily tracking poll. It also shows John McCain gaining strength at the same time (continue reading)

MoveOn.org endorsed Barack Obama for President. [They also endorsed McCain.] That tells you all you need to know about Obama as a "change agent."

No, McCain is NOT light years better than either Clinton or Obama.

Others:
Patterico's Pontifications
_____________________________________________________________
Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, A Blog For All, 123beta, Big Dog's Weblog, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, third world county, Faultline USA, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Comments

[Debbie]

I like Victor Davis Hanson also. He's a great historian, knowledgeable on Islam and current events. I wanted to go back and read the entire article fully and give it some thought.

[Karen]

Victor Davis Hanson is a real intellect, so I read him and respect his opinion. Hope his theory is correct!

[Terri@SteelMagnolia]

GO MITT!

Go Mitt!!

[Good Lt]

Thanks for the linky.

I'm catching lotsa awesome heat from my rightward brethren about leveling with the realization that McCain is going to get the nomination (pending some miracle for Romney, who I've made clear is my real choice, besides Fred, who's out...phew), and also that McCain is better than Hillary or Obama on their best day.

Hillary/Obamam would not be bad on their own. It's the Democrat Congress, coupled with years of political score-settling and bloodletting that will take place under a Democrat White House thetare the issues, IMHO. Not to mention the Iraq war, unacceptable financial hardships, the highest tax increase in world history, etc.

The odds of those things stopping under a Hillary/most-liberal-Senator-in-America Obama are zero. The odds of them stopping under a McCain presidency? Better than zero.

Conservative rumblemania!! :-)