. . . Bin Laden Still Alive . . .

That was December 2001. Only two months later, Bush decided to pull out most of the special operations troops and their CIA counterparts in the paramilitary division that were leading the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for war in Iraq, said Flynt L. Leverett, then an expert on the Middle East at the National Security Council.

"I was appalled when I learned about it," said Leverett, who has become an outspoken critic of the administration's counterterrorism policy. "I don't know of anyone who thought it was a good idea. It's very likely that bin Laden would be dead or in American custody if we hadn't done that."

This is a real story, impeccably sourced. What do the Red State Republicans say?

Again, no matter. If it didn't actually take place, it might as well have. Mr. Rumsfeld's imperial arrogance and incompetence are now Known Facts.

And ABC's Known Facts? Red State cheerleads the lies. What a group of unscrupulous hypocrites. In other words, Republicans.

But what does Red State really worry about? They are not concerned that BushCo letting bin Laden go. They are concerned about this:

I learned a great deal in this article that I expect also will be helpful to those trying to protect Usama from capture. Ms. Priest and Ms. Tyson provide information on intelligence and military asset movements, and let al Qaeda know what has been most effective in eluding US intelligence. But the most eyebrow-raising breach of security comes in their revelation that US operatives are embedded with the Pakistani forces active in the border region where consensus tells us Usama is hiding.

Eluding? BushCo ain't looking. Did you miss that part of the article Red State? What incredible chutzpah and hypocrisy. If anyone thinks Republicans actually care about capturing bin Laden and stopping Al Qaida, think again.