The statement, IMO, is far from idiotic.
There was great pressure on politicians to respond to the travesty of 9-11. It is not far fetched to posit that if there had not been good, hard evidence that OBL's organization was responsible, the self indulgent and self preservationist motives of some, if not most, politicians may have led them to create "someone" or "something" on whom or which to focus blame and responsibility.
Such a theory of "plausible believability" is a natural extension of "plausible deniability," albeit in a converse sense.
Might the basic statement be untrue? Sure, but that does not render it idiotic.
In the same context, I think it is within the realm of reason that OBL is not only dead, but that some in government know it and are intentionally withholding it because it is better politically, and even perhaps practically, for his death or life to be uncertain. If he is dead, then the public banner for a continued presence in Afghanistan is much less compelling -- not non existent, just less compelling from a PR standpoint. Similarly, if OBL is dead, there is a risk that he will be treated by some as a martyr and that they will act and react accordingly -- in ways that are not in the US's best interest or national security.
Does the fact that aspects of the theory posited above make sense make it true? No, certainly not. But it is far from idiotic to posit it.
If the initial statement was so idiotic as to not merit a response, then why respond. If you want (or are willing to accept) a debate, then make a case, not just an emotional conclusion.
Asking why you think it was idiotic was a fair question.
Troy
Troy
Those who shoot from the hip usually end up just shooting themselves.
Plan the grub and grub the plan.
Where is the party tonight? Who is bringng the drinks?
