Not buying it. If he's dead, we won't find out until after the elections anyway, because the GOP needs bin Laden to be alive and evil and building caliphates for another few weeks.

The prevailing confusion helps the GOP, unfortunately, because the GOP can now stand up and make some bold, definitive unfounded claims about bin Laden's ongoing power and evil intent. Cheney will create the truth for us, in case we're uncertain. Overly simple and false "clarity" is all the uninformed right-wing base needs for voting purposes.

water-borne illness

It was the Spinach.

---- Just say no to 0 ratings. Especially from petey, the ratings abuser.

It would be no suprise if the report were false. Likewise, it would be no suprise if the report were true.

The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
and quite unaccustomed to fear.
But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
was Abdul Abulbul Amir

I've been surprised by how many people I discussed the rumour with today who were confused as to either what typhoid fever is or that the disease still exists. If the theories regarding global warming prove true and the U.S. is beset with flooding and other catastrophes over the next decade or two, I suspect many will perish due to this lack of knowledge.

A) If bin Laden has perished due to disease then Bush has failed miserably in not bringing the criminal to justice.

B) If bin Laden is still alive and functioning in any sort of leadership capacity for al Queda then Bush has failed even more miserably for the potential danger which still exists.

my take on it, is to sit back and see what comes out in the next few days to a week.

My mother has kidney disease and is on dialysis 3 days a week. There is absolutely no way on earth that Bin Laden is on dialysis and still alive. No. Way. You just can't lug around a dialysis machine. Unless you have seen one in action, you just can't begin to understand how complicated they are and how debilitating they are. If he ever truly needed dialysis, then he is dead.

Hasn't anyone thought to ask a doctor whether it's plausible or likely that OBL could have died of typhoid?

I actually got the disease myself, years ago, in Pakistan. It was pretty unpleasant, but easily enough cured with a course of antibiotics (diagnosis was based on an on-the-spot blood analysis at a small clinic). So, for what it's worth, based on that it seems likely he could have got a case of typhoid fever treated, even in a very remote area, as long as he was able to get it diagnosed.

Here are the known knowns and the known unknowns:

He might be dead. (I'm less than totally convinced by the supposed recent video and audio recordings, and think it's still possible he's been dead since winter 2001.)

He might not be. (I see no reason to assume that he feels compelled to communicate on any schedule-- e.g. the 5th anniversary of 9/11-- that seems obvious to us.)

This will probably not be the last time his death is reported. One of them will be accurate. The rest won't. We may never know.

Lawrence Wright, whose new book The Looming Tower is very well researched, says the dialysis thing is false. So we should not assume he'd be doomed by that. On the other hand, he could well be somewhere so remote that antibiotics could not reach him in time, not to mention that antibiotic-resistant strains of typhoid have been reported in Pakistan. (That's assuming he's in Pakistan. Who knows? Thomas Pynchon was in Manhattan all that time he was assumed to be in hiding, Bin Laden could be in Iran, Saudi, some smaller emirate, who knows.)

Now my commentary:

1) Bush was right early on to say that it's not about catching one guy. Bin Laden's effectiveness as a leader has obviously been seriously degraded over the last five years, due to our efforts to make it harder for him to communicate and raise/disburse money; he functions now only as a symbol, not as someone planning and funding operations. The obsession with catching Bin Laden as opposed to fighting a broad-based organization is on the opponent's side, not Bush's. In recent months our side (broadly defined) has caught or killed a wide range of leaders in the field in countries ranging from Iraq to Turkey to Britain. That's far more important than making Bin Laden a martyr or holding an internationally televised trial with Ramsey Clark at his side.

2) How fitting if the man who sought to bring us all a 13th century world died of a 13th century disease.

There are two news-streams flowing between now and election day:

In one, we see the real news: disaster in Iraq, Constitutional law-breaking in Congress, etc.

In the other, we see diversionary news: Osama is dead, Ahmadinejad is a punk, Chavez is a buffoon, Clinton caused 9/11, Democrats will raise your taxes, etc.

Keep your eye on the ball: if Osama is dead it doesn't change anything important. And/But it will give Bush and the rubber-stamp Republicans cover from being accountable for their record.

I have to agree with NJLawyer...all this speculation puts bin Laden's fate once again on the front pages and gives people a chance to assess whether President "Dead or Alive" really followed through on his promise to pursue this prime evil- doer. Had we spent $1/2 trillion seeking bin Laden, we'd have found him and prosecuted him by now...we have the wrong man in custody in Baghdad and an unsolvable mess on our hands thanks to the chicken warriors at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

1) Bush was right early on to say that it's not about catching one guy.

The problem is we haven't caught the "one guy" OR made a dent in the overall terrorism problem.

Contrary to your notion that we've caught or killed a "wide range of leaders," the reality is there are an endless amount of "Number Two" and "Number Three" al-Qaeda guys, and reacting to the threat in the manner we have is not only futile, but has actually increased the overall threat exponentially.

When Bush's political opponents, me included, talk about bringing bin Laden to justice, it's really both a literal statement and a metaphor. We need to do much more to make our country and the world safer (that's the metaphor), and, personally, since I see the gaping whole in the NYC skyline everyday, I'd actually like to see the guy behind it brought to justice, martyr or not.

If we're fighting the threat smarter and more effectively, his martyrdom matters little. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Bin Laden's death shows the efficacy of the Bush approach, despite the doubters and naysayers.

"The obsession with catching Bin Laden as opposed to fighting a broad-based organization is on the opponent's side, not Bush's."

Dude you need to focus. This guy openly claims to be responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people. In this country in recent years we have prosecuted people for killing a single person back in the 1960s. Bin Laden is not a symbol, he is not the head of an army opposing the United States, he is a cold blooded killer that needs to be brought to justice.

We are not at war. Not legally. Congress never declared war on either Afghanistan or Iraq. We would have been infinitely better off to treat all of this as a police action against specific individuals and organizations that had carried out or were planning to carry out crimes against the United States or its citizens. Instead we have allowed the megalomaniacs among us to metasize this into some sort of Global War on Terror, a Clash of Civilizations.

It is time to face some harsh facts. In taking his eye off the ball of targeting specific criminals to a messianic attempt to remake the world in American form with bombs and bullets Bush is edging every closer every day to destroying the Constitution and not incidentally the military that is sworn to defend it.

Just this week the Generals in charge of Afghanistan and Iraq admitted/claimed they each needed more troops to even hope to accomplish there missions. Just yesterday the spy community released a report saying the war on Iraq increases the terror threat. Sum that up and the clear conclusion is that we are losing this war.

Call that defeatism, call it unamerican, but me and some other people were trying to tell everyone that this would be the likely outcome before the first boy or girl came home in a box. This outcome was predictable because it was predicted.

You have implicitly bought into a narrative that has brought America into a potentially disasterous position. I don't know if we can even get out of this horrible bind at this point, but the first step is to recognize that you don't declare war on a mindset or a belief set. Instead you define criminal behavior and capture and prosecute those who violate that definition.

As soon as the words "I am truly not that concerned about him" (Bush referring to Bin Laden) I knew we were truly and well f'ed and if this were dKos I would add 'cluster' to that.

The rhetorical problem was never "Wanted: Dead or Alive" that was under the circumstances perfectly justified. The problem was when that morphed to "Bring em On!" We changed a campaign aimed at actual murderers into one that took on all potential murderers. That was folly, criminal folly, and anyone who has bought into that mind set needs to take some time to reconsider.

If he's not dead, he might as well be dead. It hardly matters at this stage.

He's as dead as King Arthur and Elvis, and has alreader been seen in several McDonalds ordering halalburgers.

... since we have already killed at least 22 alQaeda #2's.

Tom

An expert opinion is available here:

http://www.saag.org/%5Cpapers20%5Cpaper1964.html

"One had seen in Jammu & Kashmir (J&K), where many Pakistani and other foreign jihadi terrorists operate, that the first indicator of the death of any foreign terrorist
due to natural causes came from his home country when the local intelligence received information  about the
relatives holding a religious function to mark the death of the terrorist. Generally, reliable information about such religious functions being held in the home country are an important indicator of the death of the terrorist in a foreign land. Instances, where the relatives are told by a terrorist organisation to hold false religious functions to mislead the intelligence agencies and security forces are rare, but cannot be ruled out. "

The way magic works, is that a guy gets your attention focused on his fingers or something, then since you are so focused on that, he can run out back, grab a rabbit, run back in and wave it in the air. This is something like that, and it is a standard Republican operating method. While we are all thinking about, talking about, speculating about, writing about bin Laden, the Bush torture initiative will pass Congress intact. And, the death toll in Iraq will continue to climb. And, a few more Republican Congressmen will be indicted.

The beauty of this magic approach is that it works well as a step by step program too. Today, it's about whether bin Laden is dead. Tomorrow it will be about whether his "death" came about due to the enormous pressure Bush put on him, the next day it will be about who succeeds him, followed by a few analyses of how Bush has decimated the al Qaeda officer corps, etc. Of course, we can expect that when we all exhaust our discussions on this, the Constitution will be in shreds - who wouldda thought?

Hoppy in Sacramento

BTW, it seems a little farfetched to believe that a guy who could orchestrate major terrorist operations all over the globe and has a best buddy who's a doctor can't get his hands on some cipro/ampicillin/amox, though he might have gotten a resistant strain, something we can call "A resistance fighter" brand of typhoid. (ah sweet irony)

I don't think it's a stretch to suspect that OBL has in fact died, that the Saudis are waiting for the body for confirmation, and that under instructions from the U.S. they have made no announcements and had no intention of doing so, until circumstances could be created that made it plausible to seem that he was killed in action, i.e., he was brought down in the GBOT. Whoever controls the body controls the story. The French intelligence service leaked the story early to stymy this Rovian strategy for an October or near-October surprise. Now that Rove has been busted, the story may die down, but don't be surprised if OBL is soon announced to be a victim of Bush's GWOT.

Last week an Afghani acquaintance of mine said OBL was in northern Pakistan right at the Chinese border and because he's there neither Pakistan nor the US dares to go after him.

Having no clue as to the ins and outs of international intrigue, I have no idea what being at the Chinese border has to do with anything, nor does my friend. Maybe someone else does.

War of the Worlds all over again.

Tom

You are all crazy people!

It should be perfectly clear that George's Faith Based GWOT and special relationship with "The Maker" is what killed Bin Ladin. The good Lord obviously answered one of George's empassioned prayer circles.

Thank you George and Jesus for killing Bin Laden!

Now that Osama Been Forgotten is out of the way, George can start praying for the good lord to blast Clinton into Jelly using a meteor strike or something...

Ahhhh Man!

Not sure if bin Laden is dependent on dialysis or his health care problem is with his liver, but either way, that leaves one with an extremely compromised immune system. It wouldn't take much of an infection to take someone like that down very easily.

My problem with this story is that it's been repeated so many times it's hard to believe now.. rather like the boy who cried wolf.

bin Laden's health has to be extremely unstable at this point in time.. even were he receiving regular treatment, his condition isn't new, so I doubt he will last much longer.

Eric

You're right. When people question why more hasn't been done by Bush to capture Bin Laden, there is a simple way to figure out the answer.

Simply ask why in the world Bush would want him dead?

Similarly, I find it humorous when people think Bush has lost in Iraq.

He has only lost when measuring the results against the agenda of "the greater good." For Bush's agenda, Iraq has been an across the board success; even if it was a little more work than what was planned.

All those above passing the

B.S. DIALYSIS MYTH, PLEASE STOP.

It's really a bummer to find it being passed on this website unchallenged as if it is fact. So much for the much vaunted fact-checking ethos of the blogosphere...just keep passing those malformed rumors you once heard, folks.

Peter Bergen July 20, 2002:

O'BRIEN: All right, what about the, remember that report where he needed kidney dialysis and all that stuff? Did you ascribe to that, one, and do you suppose if he's alive he's getting that sort of treatment?

BERGEN: I think there may be something to the kidney story, but I don't think he has a life threatening condition based on kidney problems. A pretty reliable Pakistani journalist was the guy who broke the story. I've spoken to him directly.

Bin Laden apparently two years ago may have gone to a military hospital in Kabul for some sort of kidney ailment. But I don't think he is in need of sort of daily or weekly dialysis.

Peter Bergen, August 15, 2006:

Q: I thought bin Laden was seriously ill with kidney problems. If so, how is he getting his medication and is he on dialysis in any form? John Hatington, Stratford, Connecticut

BERGEN: This is sort of wishful thinking. Bin Laden has got some chronic health problems, but none of them are life-threatening. He certainly doesn't have kidney disease, because he'd be dead by now if he did.

P.S. Yes, I too have a close relative who gets dialysis. Guess what? First she had malfunctioning kidneys for oh, like 15 years before needing dialysis. You can also have a kidney problem, oh, like a stone, that requires medical assistance. Because he was once rumored to be at a hospital for treatment of a kidney problem, it does not follow that he is on dialysis. Not until you produce those medical charts, gang.