HERE IS A SAMPLING of the best (and worst) of the blogger commentary about the audiotape (with what the CIA has confirmed is Osama bin Laden's voice) broadcast on Al-Jazeera yesterday:

Mahablog:

On the tape, bin Laden suggests a truce in Iraq. To which I say, whoop-di-doo. Only 7 percent of the people we're fighting in Iraq are affiliated with al Qaeda, according to authoritative sources, and we don't know how many of the 7 percent actually take orders from bin Laden. Osama's talkin' out of his butt, says I.

Our little altercation in Afghanistan may have started out as a conflict between al Qaeda and supporters versus Afghan freedom fighters with western military support. And the scuffle in Iraq may have been conceived as one between BushCo and anti-western Islamic terrorism. But it seems to me that the violence in both countries is spinning out of control and is in the hands of more conflicting factions than you can shake a kufie at. It's way past the point where two sides can shake hands and make a deal, even if they both wanted to. We're not in control over there, but neither is Osama bin Laden.

Barbara also notes the mindless linkage on the right between antiwar groups like MoveOn.org, and Osama bin Laden, based on the fact that both can read polls.

Shakespeare's Sister:

...this exemplifies why Bush's plan for the war on terror is so bloody bad -- it's left us between a rock and a hard place without a good solution. Endless warmongering in which innocent people suffer, or endless oppression by religious fanatics in which innocent people suffer. I don't know if there is a good plan at this point to extricate ourselves, and, more importantly, those innocent people, from this madness. We probably just need to hand the reins to Juan Cole and hope for the best.

Red Hot Cuppa Politics:

I was reassured that Bush rejected Bin Laden's offer of a truce last night.

The offer of a truce is a truly marvelous thing. First, it would give them time to re-group. Second, if we're in a truce with Al Quada, we won't be expecting a surprise attack. Third, it shows that Bin Laden to be an astute Democrat, as referred to on the RushLimbaugh show yesterday; the offer will doubtless be taken up by various liberal factions in the USA.

Finally ... according to Islamic Law, you have to offer a truce before you attack someone.

And the "someone" has to reject the truce before you can attack, you moron. So you should be alarmed, not reassured, that Bush rejected the truce offer. He has now made it acceptable under Islamic law to attack us.

Now, do I really believe that Osama bin Laden is going to pay attention to what Islamic law actually requires? No, of course I don't. No more than I believe that whoever writes Red Hot Cuppa Politics, knows even enough about Islamic law to fill a thimble, much less a cup.

The official Bush administration response:

The Bush administration quickly rejected bin Laden's offer. "We do not negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Vice President Cheney told Fox News Channel: "It sounds to me like it's some kind of ploy. This is not an organization that's ever going to sit down and sign a truce. I think you have to destroy them." [Emphasis mine.]

Laughter is too obvious a response to McClellan's and Cheney's statements. Have we put them out of business yet? Have we destroyed them yet? Or have we actually done precisely the opposite? These claims invite derision. We put the terrorists in business and sent as many customers their way as possible! We didn't "destroy this organization." We metastasized it.

Also, note the lack of logic in Cheney saying that Al Qaeda is not "an organization that's ever going to sit down and sign a truce" when he has just announced that the United States will never sign a truce.