Next Tuesday, President Bush is scheduled to deliver his annual State of the
Union message to the nation. Not surprisingly, Democrats are already
reveling in their plans for a rebuttal, in which they will no doubt repeat
the pattern of past years and simply contradict everything the President
says.

Word is out that they intend to field Virginia's newly elected Governor,
Timothy Kaine, for this task. Among Democrats, Kaine considered to be a
"rising star" (they seem to have many) with possible presidential potential.

Sadly for liberal Democrats in the media and on Capitol Hill, their best
talking points were recently plagiarized by none other than Osama Bin Laden,
whose anti-Bush commentary was aired on Al Jazeera two weeks ahead of
theirs.

Like DNC chairman Howard Dean, bin Laden assures us that the Iraq situation
is "unwinnable." He concurs with Ted Kennedy that President Bush "lied" us
into the war in the first place. He supports Representative John Murtha"s
contention that America⊃s best strategy is to cut and run from the conflict.

No doubt, he is as outraged as Pat Leahy and Nancy Pelosi that he cannot
"reach out and touch" members of his sleeper cells in this country without
risking the possibility of the NSA monitoring the calls and thus violating
his privacy.

Evidently, Osama and the Democrats are, strategically speaking, on the same
page. Now Democrats may be forced to scramble in order to accomplish the
real goal of their rebuttal (which is to undermine any encouraging news the
President might have to offer America), without sounding like minions of the
Islamist madman. On the other hand, they were never distracted by such
considerations in the past, so perhaps their agenda will proceed as
originally planned.

It would seem to be immediately obvious to those on the left that their
constant denigration of the American effort in the war on terror rings
eerily similar to the words of the murderous fanatic who started the
conflict and remains at its ideological center. Indeed, Bin Laden delivered
what could easily pass for a current Democrat policy statement, touching on
many of the major points of the liberal agenda.

Moreover, his diatribe might have been written by virtually any one of the
big three news anchors, the leadership of the Democrat party, or those
talk-radio liberals from Air America (admittedly, the last comparison is a
bit unfair to Bin Laden⊃s intellectual honesty).

Yet he seems to have overlooked a few critical items. For example, he did
not have any advice to offer on the Alito confirmation, but it is probably a
safe guess that on that issue he sides with the left as well.

Democrats relentlessly rail against Alito for his possible antipathy towards
Roe v. Wade, which they claim he will seek to overturn at his earliest
possible opportunity. Certainly, Bin Laden does not want to risk such a sea
change in American law.  This country of "infidels" is currently aborting
one fourth of its next generation. What could make an Islamic terrorist
happier than that?

Also conspicuously absent from his commentary was any endorsement of
Brokeback Mountain as the "clarion call" for what America ought to be. Yet
by so doing he could have greatly furthered his cause, since the expression
of such sentiment has virtually become a requirement for credibility among
the left, and would have forever endeared him to the counterculture.

Clearly, if he is going to remain as the preeminent spokesman for the
Democrat National Committee, Osama Bin Laden will have to "grow" in certain
areas of his thinking. But, then again, collaboration with the infidels does
have its limits.

On a more serious note, while the inanities of American liberalism are good
for an occasional chuckle, the dangers represented by militant Islam are
every bit as deadly serious as they have ever been. Also in Bin Laden's
speech was the admonition of another impending attack. And whether his
threats represent empty bluster born of desperation and futility, or a grave
warning, it is inarguable that they indeed reflect the real desires and
goals of Islamists.

It was criminally negligent of the government to not take similar warning
signs seriously as they mounted during the 1990's. In the wake of 9-11, when
all doubts of their actuality have been erased, it is no less than treasonous to trivialize them, for the sake of politics, and thus to distract America from effectively confronting them.