Ragman wrote:Here's something to think about:
1. bin Laden's power has been marginalized. If he lives or dies it is of little concern to the world at large or even the democratic society as a whole.
2. Bush is NOW a bigger threat to world peace than bin Laden. Bush has the reins of power as President of the most powerful nation in the free world and he's cluelessly squandering it with no clear direction for it.
It is difficult to know to what extent Osama's power has been marginalized. Given the recent video, it seems he is still alive but quite invisible (if not, the US would be on him and that would surely not be kept secret given the administration's PR goals). Of course, his invisibility will have consequences for his 'management' of the movement which has grown up around him. So 'marginalized' is probably accurate in one sense.
However, the movement he helped spawn will likely exist and grow regardless of him now. And in that sense, as symbol or inspiration, I doubt it is prudent to think of him as unimportant.
Re your second point, I consider that an accurate statement too, though it was true from the beginning. But it's entirely reasonable to hold that Bush is more dangerous not merely to world peace but also to American's safety than Osama has ever been. Osama presents, and always has, far less of a danger than Iran. But the danger posed by Iran is far far less than this administration and its supporters have claimed. It has, for example, the gdp of Connecticut. Does anyone else here have trouble imagining Connecticut bringing down Western Civilization?