Usama Bin Ladin goes to bat for John Kerry. Why?

What seems most plausible to me -- it was stated in nimh's article, I've seen it elsewhere as well -- is that OBL wants to stake a claim to having an effect on the election. I suspect he personally would prefer Bush, as Bush has played the nemesis so very productively, but what he most wants is power and legitimacy in the Middle East -- and if he can somehow spin this as "my videotape caused the Americans to vote ___" (with the blank being filled by the eventual victor), that helps his quest.

I think I pre-empted that post in my response to D'art, Thomas. :wink:

As for it's results, they have been, by the grace of Allah, positive and enormous, and have, by all standards, exceeded all expectations. This is due to many factors, chief amongst them, that we have found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.

All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the Mujahideen, bled Russia for ten years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.

All Praise is due to Allah.

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinizes the results, one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains.

Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations - whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction - has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results.

And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.

And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. (When they pointed out that) for example, al-Qaida spent $500 000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost - according to the lowest estimate - more than 500 billion dollars.

Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.

As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.

And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the Mujahideen recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the blee-until-bankruptcy plan - with Allah's permission.

It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Haliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is...you.

Thomas, I suspect you are playing some kind of game with me here. While I don't like it much, I'll play along once more for courtesy's sake. I'm going to go ahead and assume you meant to ask is there anything Bin Ladin could have said that wouldn't have looked like a Kerry endorsement (as opposed to Bush?)... Though that is an interesting slip.

The answer is of course. Remove the Democratic talking points and add some Republican talking points.

I finally made up my mind that it had to be Bush because I want the other dictators of the world to know Bush has mandate

If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." --- George W. Bush

Pundits conceded they were wrong on bin Laden tape predictions

Several pundits have conceded that polling has not borne out their initial speculation that the release of a videotaped message from Osama bin Laden on October 29 would benefit President George W. Bush politically.

As Media Matters for America noted on October 30, October 31, and November 1, polls conducted since the tape's release have shown a stable race or a trend towards Senator John Kerry.

Some pundits acknowledged that their initial predictions appeared to have been wrong:

• Karen Tumulty, TIME magazine national political correspondent, on October 29:

Quite frankly, I find it hard to find any way that this helps John Kerry. What we've seen over and over and over again is that when terrorism is the topic, and when people are reminded of 9-11, Bush's numbers go up. [CNN, Lou Dobbs Tonight]

Tumulty on November 1:

Roger [Simon, U.S. News & World Report chief political correspondent and fellow panelist] and I both thought that the Osama bin Laden tape was probably going to be enough to move at least a few voters. Well, you look at the weekend polling, and that does not seem to have happened. [CNN, Lou Dobbs Tonight]

• Mike Barnicle, Boston Herald columnist, on October 29:

Instinctively, I would say it would play strongly for President Bush, especially among those that might be undecided at this late stage in the election ... this would be, I think, play right to George Bush's strength. [MSNBC, 4 Days & Counting: An Election Special]

Barnicle on October 31:

RON REAGAN (MSNBC political analyst): What tipped me was that the eagerness of some people on the Bush/Cheney team and on the right seized on the bin Laden tape as the October surprise that's gonna throw it to Bush. It's like suddenly bin Laden's their friend, and I thought, well, this is ironic If you're counting on Osama bin Laden to, like, endorse you in an odd backwards way --

BARNICLE: I fell for that hype on Saturday. [MSNBC, After Hours]

• Pat Buchanan, MSNBC analyst and former Republican presidential candidate, on October 29:

Clearly, bin Laden is showing us he's alive and well and taunting us and saying Bush did not get me despite what he said. But clearly at the same time, he is insulting and challenging the president of the United States, and if he turns this in Osama bin Laden versus Bush, the president is going to benefit for the next three days. [MSNBC, 4 Days & Counting: An Election Special]

Buchanan on November 1:

I thought it would be beneficial to Bush. ... But there's no doubt that we thought it would have much more impact than it appears to have had on the mindset [of the electorate]. Posted to the web on Tuesday November 2, 2004 at 2:10 PM EST

http://mediamatters.org/items/200411020007

I'll say it again -- overall intent was not to sway the American electorate but to tell the Muslim world, after the fact, "I swayed the American electorate."

I'll say it again -- overall intent was not to sway the American electorate but to tell the Muslim world, after the fact, "I swayed the American electorate."

sozobe wrote:

I'll say it again -- overall intent was not to sway the American electorate but to tell the Muslim world, after the fact, "I swayed the American electorate."

Quite likely - (though who the heck knows what bin Laden's tactics really mean) and, if Kerry wins, I wonder if the right will then spend the next four years saying "He only won because of bin Laden"?