NY Times Concerned Over bin Laden's Image Following Porn Discovery

The man's got an image to uphold, and recent findings inside in squalid compound have his former enablers at the New York Times fretting over his lasting legacy.

The enormous cache of computer files taken from Osama bin Laden’s compound contained a considerable quantity of pornographic videos, American officials said on Friday, adding a discordant note to the public image of the Islamist militant who long denounced the West for its lax sexual mores.

The most notorious terrorist in history is now fish food, and these schlubs still call him a militant. Good grief.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity about classified material, would not say whether there was evidence that Bin Laden or the other men living in the house had acquired or viewed the material.

The discovery of the pornography, first reported by Reuters, may not be surprising in a collection of five computers, 10 hard drives and dozens of thumb drives and CDs whose age and past ownership is not known.

But the disclosure could fuel accusations of hypocrisy against the founder of Al Qaeda, who was 54 and lived with three wives at the time of his death, and will be welcomed by counterterrorism officials because it could tarnish his legacy and erode the appeal of his brand of religious extremism.

I suspect right about now bin Laden's more concerned about things other than accusations of hypocrisy.

In a 2002 “letter to the American people,” Bin Laden denounced American culture for its exploitation of women’s bodies in dress, advertising and popular culture.

“Your nation exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools, calling upon customers to purchase them,” he wrote. “You plaster your naked daughters across billboards in order to sell a product without any shame. You have brainwashed your daughters into believing they are liberated by wearing revealing clothes, yet in reality all they have liberated is your sexual desire.”

No worse than any televangelist who's been caught with their pants down. You suppose the Times would be worried about the image of, say, Pat Robertson if he were caught with a huge porn stash?

We doubt it. But the most evil man on the planet? Well, they're worried about accusations of hypocrisy and his lasting public image.

Priorities.