Anybody want to defend this?

[Kilmer17]

Murray asks students to weigh bin Laden's appeal

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

VANCOUVER -- Why is terrorist leader Osama bin Laden so popular in some parts of the world?

Perhaps, said Sen. Patty Murray, it's because he and his supporters have spent years building good will in poor nations by helping pay for schools, roads and other infrastructure.

At an appearance before a high school honors class, the Washington Democrat offered what her spokesman called an intentionally provocative challenge for students to ponder.

"We've got to ask, Why is this man so popular around the world?," Murray said during an appearance Wednesday at Columbia River High School. "Why are people so supportive of him in many countries that are riddled with poverty?"

The answers may be uncomfortable, but are important for Americans to ponder -- particularly students, Murray said.

"He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that," Murray said.

"How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"

An expert on terrorism, who co-wrote a book profiling bin laden and al-Qaida, said Murray's comments, published yesterday in the newspaper The Columbian, were on the mark.

"That's kind of a generalization, but mostly accurate," Michael Swetnam, chairman of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in Arlington, Va., said yesterday.

Since about 1988, who is bin Laden, believed to have been the mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, has been on a mission to build schools, roads and even homes for widows of those killed in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, Swetnam said.

There is even a rumor that bin Laden helped build an Afghani orphanage, although Swetnam said he has been unable to confirm that.

[@DCGoldPants]

what is there to defend?

To us he is a terrorist but to other people, he's a Saint.

[Kilmer17]

To us he's a terrorist. Except for Liberal Senators from Washington, then he's a saint.

[@DCGoldPants]

ok. You need to re-read that article. That guy isn't asking why "WE" meaning American's support.....he's asking why he's so popular in parts of the world. Then he follows up by saying how he understands why certain people who don't see the full picture could support him.

What are you going for here? Are you saying this guy is dumb enough to say "I'm pro Bin Laden! Bomb the U.S. please!"

[Kilmer17]

"He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that," Murray said.

What our Govt elected officials (she's a women BTW) should be doing is condemming him not praising him and claiming we havent done anything.

Our Govt has given more aid to the rest of the world than any nation by a landslide. For her to make these remarks are treasonous.

[@DCGoldPants]

"He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that," Murray said.

"How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"

Ok, there is a difference between saying "We haven't done that." and "We should be doing that"

The 2nd part that I quoted is hypothetical.

How WOULD they look at us if we were the ones building their roads, ignoring their human right violations instead of being the ones who will bomb Iraqs? What do you think?

[Kilmer17]

We have been helping them.

[@DCGoldPants]

The help we've been giving is either too complicated for the average person over there to understand or its been hidden behind the anti-western beliefs. Our help isn't being told through bedtime stories by parents who support Bin Laden's war against the Great Satan.

Do you really believe this guy is Pro Bin Laden and thinks we should be paying for their schools, roads and everything else?

[Kilmer17]

The help we've been giving is either too complicated for the average person over there to understand or its been hidden behind the anti-western beliefs. Our help isn't being told through bedtime stories by parents who support Bin Laden's war against the Great Satan.

EXACTLY!!!! Isn't that a great reason for our elected officials NOT to help fan those flames??????

SHe should be telling the world what we HAVE been doing.

I dont think she's pro Bin Laden, but she needs to be more ANTI Bin Laden.

[JackC]

Kilmer's right, either your with us or against us! Let's bomb Seattle!

[@DCGoldPants]

you aren't helping. :puke:

[Kilmer17]

C'mon Jack. Set your sights higher. Bomb the Left coast.

[Henry]

Seriously, Kilmer. There's nothing wrong with trying to figure out why bin Laden is popular in the middle east. It's actually an important thing to know.

Simply saying the masses might see the positive things he's done but not the overwhelming negative isn't taking a pro-bin Laden stance. And she wasn't giving a seminar to a group of indiginous Afganis. She was talking to Americans. There are no flames to fan.

You don't need to keep looking for excuses to be offended. Leave that to the ACLU.

[@DCGoldPants]

amen

[redman]

"He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that," Murray said.

The problem is that the statement is false. The U.S. was the biggest supplier of foreign aid to Afghanistan in 2001, and before. That Murray would not only ignore that, but would claim the opposite -and to a foreign audience! - is inexcusable.

[@DCGoldPants]

it's no as visable to the native people of that area. Bin Laden is.

[JimboDaMan]

Those who are looking for offense from any conceivable slight by a Democrat will no doubt dislike her tone, its not venomous enough to appease everyone.

But she is absolutely right that it is vitally important to understand why this hatred of the US is so. Those who self-righteously indulge in outrage instead are no true friend of the US.

Am I missing something? She was speaking not to foreigners but to high school honors students. Maybe her explanation of WHY is incomplete, or incorrect. So you explain it, and explain to me your plan to combat this. Without understanding the WHYS here, any policy including war is ultimately doomed.

[DaFunky1]

The below link similar to what Kilmer posted... with more "meat" if you want to call it that... I haven't read it all, just skimmed.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30114

Her official press release:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30122

I really don't have an opinion on her at this point... it is late, and if she is saying she sees why they like Bin Laden, and not that she likes him... then I have no problem with it.

I can see why Southerners like grits and why some Northerners might not.... doesn't mean I like Southerners or grits more than Northerners... Stupid analogy, but I am tired.

Peace

[fansince62]

prey tell....where is her data? so popular in the Middle East? What? 20% of adults? 55% of suicide bombers in training? 100% of Hamas, but 0% in jewish settlements (last time I checked, Israel was in the Middle East)? 20% among Jordanians employed at European embassies? 0% among Middle Easterners who work at discos frequented by Americans or Europeans? It's another idiotic, unqualified statement that folks just seem to run with without any examination. where has reflective thinking gone in this world?

christ almighty........

the dems have a serious problem....right or wrong......the perception is in place that national security cannnot be trusted to them - that they will place internal party politics above security. right or wrong the perception is afoot that the dems are responsible in large part for the predicament we currently find ourselves in. they have a serious problem in attempting to gain the trust of the public. it appears their current srartegy is 3 fold: 1) shift the focus to domestic problems; 2) muted protests against the present adminstrations national security policies (i.e., no real alternative strategies); 3) finger pointing whenever there is a failure. this may be a good strategy, who knows.