Burch: Birthers bamboozled

Friday, March 23, 2012 at 2:21pm
By Michael R. Burch

Nashville has more than its share of “birthers” who seem to believe that President Barack Obama is some sort of planted Muslim agent. Their calling card is that they love to use his middle name: Barack Hussein Obama. But now their strange assertions have been countered by an unlikely source, Osama bin Laden.

According to a recent Washington Post article by David Ignatius, bin Laden commanded his al-Qaeda associates to assassinate President Obama, calling him “the head of infidelity.”

What will the birthers say now that the central figure of Islamic jihad just refuted their pet theory?

The assassination plot is described in documents retrieved from bin Laden’s compound by Navy Seals the night he was killed. Ignatius was given an exclusive preview of some of those documents, which have been declassified and may soon be available to the public in the original Arabic and translations.

The documents also tell us interesting things about bin Laden’s organization, its failures and perhaps about our government’s as well.

In a 48-page directive bin Laden instructed his top lieutenant, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, to focus “every effort that could be spent on attacks in America” instead of operations within Muslim nations. But a senior analyst who reviewed the documents pointed out that al-Qaeda “lacks the ability to plan, organize and execute complex, catastrophic attacks.” So with bin Laden dead and al-Qaeda unable to execute catastrophic attacks, why are we still fighting in Afghanistan, especially considering the recent atrocities that have greatly strained an already-frazzled relationship?

The documents also reveal that bin Laden thought his organization has ruined its reputation by killing too many Muslims in its jihad against America. But our government has exactly the same problem.

Bin Laden’s biggest concern was al-Qaeda’s media image among Muslims. He was so worried about this that he suggested finding a new name for the organization. But what has the “United States” come to mean in the region?

Bin Laden mentioned “mistakes” and “miscalculations” by affiliates who had killed Muslims. He told Atiyah to warn every regional leader to avoid such “unnecessary” civilian casualties. “Making these mistakes is a great issue,” he stressed, arguing that spilling “Muslim blood” had resulted in “the alienation of most of the nation [of Islam] from the [Mujaheddin].” Local al-Qaeda leaders should “apologize and be held responsible for what happened.”

Of course the United States has exactly the same problem, but American politicians resist apologizing for even the most terrible of mistakes, making the United States seem arrogant and indifferent even to the deaths of innocent children. Every American death is an atrocity and an “act of terrorism.” But when Americans go berserk and desecrate Korans, urinate on Muslims, or kill civilians, they have PTSD. But what about Muslims who have lived through a decade of hell on earth. Isn’t it possible that some of them have America-induced PTSD? That possibility is almost never mentioned.

Bin Laden also criticized subordinates for linking their operations to local grievances rather than the overarching Muslim cause of Palestine. But the U.S. has repeatedly fumbled the ball on the matter of equal rights and justice for Palestinians, by always supporting the “Israeli Injustice Machine.” Why? Because the pro-Israel lobby wines and dines American politicians and helps them win elections with Jewish votes and campaign contributions. Thus, millions of completely innocent Palestinian women and children continue to be deprived of basic rights, freedom and justice. And therefore, for completely understandable reasons, our name remains Mudd in the Middle East.

Michael R. Burch is a Nashville-based editor and publisher of Holocaust poetry and other “things literary” at www.thehypertexts.com.

Filed under: City Voices

57 Comments on this post:

By: yogiman on 3/25/12 at 7:17

It's a shame you have such a weak mind, nimrod. Couldn't you learn to think as a kid? You're apparently still a child mentally as an adult.

By: Kosh III on 3/26/12 at 7:24

"You're right on the fact it wasn't precisely defined in the Constitution, but you're wrong no case has been brought on it since then. You need to look them up."

No Yogi, YOU need to cite these cases and the alleged 1961 law(s) you are so fond of NOT citing.
Give us legitimate information and not just repeat unsupported assertions. Or STFU.

By: Kosh III on 3/26/12 at 7:27

Funny how all the Bush devotees never got upset over Bush's kissing up(literally) to various Arab dictators nor complain that Bush does business with Osama's father.

By: yogiman on 3/26/12 at 8:15

Kosh III.

If you had the intelligence you think you have you should remember the sites I referred to after a posting. Of course you haven't looked at any of them because Barry is your man.

If you had any common sense, you might wonder why Obama refuses to simply show his formal birth certificate because the document he showed is an obvious fake.

Comparing him with George Bush is ridiculous. Bush was in that office legally. Barack Obama isn't.

You are either an idiot or a companion communist with Obama. If you're ready for the USA to become a communist nation, hang in there, he's damn near got it done because congress won't take the matter into their hands. Is that because they're in the "program" with him?

And I'll repeat, anyone who will vote for someone as President of this nation when they don't even know the man's name is a damn fool.

You obviously won't take my word for anything, so why don't you just do a little research on your own to prove me wrong?

By: joe41 on 3/26/12 at 12:09

Don't bother with yogi. He would not know the truth if it hit him upside the head.
Joe

By: Kosh III on 3/26/12 at 12:18

"You obviously won't take my word for anything, so why don't you just do a little research on your own to prove me wrong?"

I don't believe you because you REFUSE to provide evidence to your notions.

What is the 1961 law? Federal? State? They have codes attached to them, and should be easy to cite since you claim to know it so well.

Your assertion that I should research stuff is similar to going into court and telling the judge you don't need to prove your case; the judge just needs to trust you or find the proof himself.

Here is all the evidence I need: The clear meaning of the US Constitution, which I have cited and quoted here more than once. The statement by the GOP Governor and Secty of State of Hawai'i that the BC was valid. The statement by the current governor that he knew the Prez when they were younger. The fact that the Prez attended HS in Honolulu and even has photos of himself on the ball team.
PLUS the long form that he showed, which is more than Romney or Sanitarium has done.
And I am sure that McCain or Hilary would have said something if they thought Obama was not a citizen.

All you can do is say "look it up yourself." Give us legitimate PROOF or change the subject. "I don't want to talk you no more you enpty headed animal food trough watererer."

By: gdiafante on 3/26/12 at 1:13

It's like talking to a wall, Kosh. The fact is that yogi can't comprehend basic instructions. He is misguided in his belief that the U.S. Constitution defines natural born citizen.

Then, when you refer him to U.S. Codes, which does designate criteria, he completely ignores the fact that there is no specification regarding the parentage (the parents don't matter if born on U.S. soil).

Then, when you refer to the past 250+ years of case law that provide no indication of what the U.S. Code states is incorrect or incompatible with any court ruling here, or in England, which our laws were based upon, he ignores this as well.

Then, when you ask him for specific evidence, he will give you websites, heresay, online videos from various extremists and nonsense about Obama's biography.

I think the layman's term I'm looking for is, he's stupid and he's full of it.