Osama Betrayus? Has the Bush Administration and His Corporate Cronies Gotten to Him Too?

To some people it just doesn't matter. It doesn't really matter that General Petraeus's reports are consistent with facts and information on the ground, it doesn't matter that he was ratified by Congress for his post. It doesn't matter that he really does know more about the situation than MoveOn.org. All that matters is that there are two sides, those who are pro-war and those who are anti-war, and by in any way suggesting that the war has any positives to it, you are betraying the American people, so says MoveOn.org and cronies like them.

Following his earnest attempt to explain the situation in Iraq, several groups saw the fact that he did not simply outright lie about the situation in Iraq as a reprehensible betrayal of the United States.

So what happens then, when the terrorist leader himself starts broadcasting reports that are remarkably consistent with General Petraeus's? I suppose one could say that he's effectively betraying the American people too. Organizations like MoveOn.org desperately need him to remain steadfast in his principles and absolutely solid in the fact that he's not losing any ground to the Americans. After all, the far Left has already effectively stated that it's time to start talking with al-Qaeda, that their demands aren't entirely unreasonable.

Don't believe me? Ask Jan Egeland and Terry Wait who adamantly believe that it's time to stop fighting al-Qaeda and go to the peace table.

The absurdity of accusing an American general of "betraying" the American people by honestly reporting his finds in Iraq could cover a thousand articles - fortunately, those of the MoveOn.org variety not excluded, there's been a general agreement that this line of logic belongs in the same line of thought as those that Bill Clinton triumphantly threw from a fund raiser for trying to turn it into a "Truth Moving" pulpit of conspiracy theorist drama.

The amusingness of the "whack job Left" finally being rejected by the figures of the Left cannot be understated. For several years, garnered by a solidarity in hatred for George W. Bush, several warring factions were able to put aside their differences of opinion and unite against the Beast himself. But reality's starting to set in - people like Bill Maher, Bill Clinton, and others are starting to go "Wait a minute, you honestly want to incriminate the United States in 9/11 so that you can continue to hate the Bush Administration," and, in the words of Bill Clinton, "How dare you."

But what to do when Osama bin-Laden reports much the same way General Petraeus does?

Not unlike Petraeus, the terrorist "mastermind" has effectively released a speech criticizing the failures of the war in Iraq. Not the failures of the Americans, but of the Islamic State of Iraq for, of all things, its extremism. With the Anbar Salvation Council effectively destroying the al-Qaeda haven of Anbar and Diyala increasingly becoming hostile to foreign fighters, with bombs no longer raining on the Green Zone and car bombs no longer heralding the morning of every day, and without the Mahdi Army dancing through the streets and shooting at everything they see, suddenly the reality of the situation is starting to come to light.

So then, did Bush simply buy out Osama bin-Laden too? Is this all part and parcel in the big Bush scheme, a part of his "Surge"?

Or, is the Baghdad Security Plan working, and Osama and his retinues are starting to feel the pressure?

The facts tend to side with the latter.