# CIA MAN:Bush is 'sama's best friend, look for new attack **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 19, 2004, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-man-bush-is-samas-best-friend-look-for-new-attack/251234 "2004-06-19T22:06:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-man-bush-is-samas-best-friend-look-for-new-attack/251234/21 "2004-06-22T20:47:02Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > if by “interesting” you intend to manifrest endorsement, why not say so? Um…because I don’t? > [@](#): > > The “critique” is bullshit. Pious categoricals, interweaved with unsupported speculation, and crowned by a pusillanimous substitution of > “elsewhere” for “iraq” > > also, the premise is that the favor Bush does 'Sama is as recruiter. I am unable to discern any “interesting” refutation of this chilling phenomenon which has made it’s protentous impact felt even upon Dr. Demento, our Sec. of D. Yes, he does spend a large portion of the article lambasting Anonymous for what seems to be an admiration of Bin Laden. I thought it was relevant to the general discussion since he read one of Anon’s previous books and provided a response to the more specific question > [@](#): > > how did anonymous get permission from the cia to publish this? with > [@](#): > > All that his being allowed to publish the book means is that it has been vetted to ensure that he has revealed no classified information or trade secrets. It is not an endorsement by the agency. That said, it would not surprise me if there is widespread dislike for Bush Administration policy in the ranks of CIA analysts. Unlike operations officers, who tend to share the worldviews of military officers, analysts are essentially academics, mostly with PhDs in social science disciplines, who work in what amounts to a think tank. The international relations scholarly community, with its very traditional Realist orientation, was overwhelmingly against the Iraq War. There’s no reason to expect that CIA analysts are any different. > [@](#): > > **2sense** > I myself have agonized over the morality of John Brown’s act of rebellion and thus was surprised to see the question dismissed out of hand. Annonymous didn’t say that the ends justify the means. Instead he tried to explain to his son that in this complex world we live in both the ends and the means need to be weighed. The author seems inhabit a much simpler world where everything is black or white. The judgement of people with such a crude understanding of the world around them is not to be trusted. > > He goes on to quote Annonymous as saying that Osama is by far a better man than Brown. The author twists this quote to accuse Annonymous of saying that Osama is a decent person. This author is a joke. Are there any critiques that aren’t a waste of time? As far as that goes, I think the comparison of Bin Laden with John Brown is absurd. Whatever his faults, John Brown did not simply murder thousands of innocent people as Bin Laden did. Also, I fail to see any merit in Bin Laden’s actions or goals. John Brown might be a controversial figure (and a good example in a discussion of when the ends justify the means) but Bin Laden is not. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-man-bush-is-samas-best-friend-look-for-new-attack/251234/22 "2004-06-23T00:49:50Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > Um…because I don’t? > > As far as that goes, I think the comparison of Bin Laden with John Brown is absurd. Whatever his faults, John Brown did not simply murder thousands of innocent people as Bin Laden did. Also, I fail to see any merit in Bin Laden’s actions or goals. John Brown might be a controversial figure (and a good example in a discussion of when the ends justify the means) but Bin Laden is not. I think this begs the question. Whether you, I, or any other outside observer “sees merit” in 'sama’s goals is beside the point. What 'sama, John Brown, and George W. Bush all share is the conviction that their goals are god’s goals. certainly as a tactician and strategist John Brown is no UBL. I think that the important question for us, finding ourselves locked in struggle with 'sama, is how to avoid being the guerilla’s recruiting poster. (not a trivial issue where the projection of power outside the territorial boundaries of the agressing state). In that effort, it seems appropriate to deconstruct the dynamics of 'sama’s public relations triumphs, and take seriously the challenges posed by our need to compete with him for middle eastern heartts and minds. I think anon. makes a reasoned run at that problem. (I say this without benefit of reading anything he has written. Unencumbered by the thought process, as tom and ray would say. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-man-bush-is-samas-best-friend-look-for-new-attack/251234.md?page=1)