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

Disagree Panz. I think Al-Zarqawi is reaching out to Bin Ladin because he, too, knows his days are numbered. I think Edgar's right insofar as neither Bush nor Kerry will be granting these guys amnesty. If one's a chump, I'd say it's Al-Zarqawi. He increased his own stature by paying homage Bin Ladin. He's more of an action man himself, and may even resent it that he doesn't have Osama's celebrity, but it would take a Nuke to top Bin Ladin's performance and subsequent legendary status.

Nimh, your theory was educational and is certainly a possibility… but really… I think you're reaching badly. The timing of the Bush-barb-filled announcement leaves little doubt who he'd like to see defeated. He borrowed material from Michael Moore and Bill Maher for crying outside.
He could easily have maligned our entire system, both candidates or incited fury in every American if that were his goal. He didn't. He pointed his attack directly at George Bush's incompetence... no differently, than any other Kerry supporter does… 72 hours before the election. This one isn't very complicated.


<seperate Point>

I think Bin Ladin's ranks have been decimated and A-holes like Al-Zarqawi are too radical even for your average potential enlistee in his cause. His almost statesman like demeanor struck me as a plea for sympathy. If he were as reasonable as he seemed to be trying to project, he'd probably settle for our brand of freedom for the ME. Somehow, I don't think he was leveling with us.

Perhaps, the tide is starting to turn against him? People who think the majority of people throughout the ME don't want A-holes like Bin Ladin and Al-Zarqawi both to get the hell out of there, are making the same mistake as people who think poor black people like crack dealers on the corners… and that nothing can be done about it anyway. That's wrong. Giving up States to radical Islamic extremists is tantamount to condemning a healthy chunk of this planet to misery and makes security impossible all at the same time. The security issue is almost a good thing, if it forces us to stop ignoring the horrors taking place. Those who laugh at the possibility of democracies in the ME are the guiltiest among us of apathy. And make no mistake; apathy kills. Apathy killed a hell of a lot more people in the last decade than guns did. Read the Burke quote in my signature line again, please.

Tico, your reference derides one of my favorite characters of all time. :wink:

Nimh

I agree with you...up to a point.

Bin Laden does want to cause chaos in the Middle East in the hope that it will provide a more fertile ground for his restoration of the Caliphate.

Where I think we part ways is in the assumption that Bin Laden sees Bush as his best hope for chaos in the Middle East, and that Bush might actually be so.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the Bush strategy of establishing Iraq as a democratic beachhead in the Middle East succeeds. Where does that leave Bin Laden?

Right now, he is trying to sell his fellow Arabs that the only alternative to the corrupt and authoritarian regimes under which they live is a massive Islamic state, and the only way to achieve such a state is through violence. Up until now, there has been every reason for Arabs to believe him. However, if a true democracy can be established in Iraq, suddenly there is a model that rivals his restored Caliphate, and one which promises more freedom and less bloodshed.

For Bin Laden and his dreams of power, the greatest threat is not the US, it is a democratic Iraq.

Bid Laden's only means to affect the outcome in Iraq is violence, and he believes he learned a lesson about the United States: That despite all of our rhetoric and grand designs, send enough American youths home in body bags and we will cut and run. He believes that, ultimately, we do not have the stomach for the sort of carnage that he and his followers have seen and endured. He believes that he and his followers can outlast us in the killing fields.

Which of the two candidates is more likely to hold firm on the Iraq strategy despite increasing violence and death tolls? John Kerry or George Bush?

Even if we take his word that he intends to stick it out and get it right in Iraq, do we really believe that he would be able to hold on longer than Bush? Remember, if Kerry is elected, he will be a first term president looking to ensure a second term. Remember that if we, again, take Kerry at his word, he was deeply affected by his Vietnam experience and is loathe to send American men and women to their deaths in a war that is not clearly justified. Remember that he has made it quite clear that his definition of a justified war is one which is supported by most if not all of the nations in the world. Remember that he, and not Bush, has actually verbalized a rough timetable for pulling the troops out.

On the other hand we have W, who will not be running for president again, who everyone knows is a stubborn SOB who never admits he is wrong, and who believes God told him to liberate Iraq.

Which of these candidates is more likely to respond to the only means of political power Bin Laden can wield, violence, and leave Iraq to put a stop to the body bags?

Should the US leave Iraq too soon it will be in worse shape than it was under Saddam. It will dissolve into civil war and a lawlessness that would not only eliminate a threat to The Caliphate, but would become a perfect haven for Bin laden and his followers.

Bin Laden is no fool. He is a murderous sociopath, but canny in his own way. He most likely realizes that if Kerry is elected, he will not immediately pull out of Iraq, and that he will not be able to reform the oppressive governments of the Middle East - even if he is inclined to try. Kerry will provide him with all of the propaganda your correctly assert that he needs. What Kerry will also provide him with is a better chance for the US to abandon the Iraq strategy in the face of escalating violence.

So what doe he do?

He may perceive that an actual attack on the US before the election will favor Bush, or he may simply be unable to engineer one. In any case he has to do something because this election is crucial to his dreams, and he is an egomaniac who thinks he can somehow influence our election. So he releases this tape. He is not so stupid as to think that anything even approaching an endorsement of Kerry (Such as some sort of comment that Kerry might be a man that al-Qaeda can deal with) would do anything but backfire, and in fact he is careful to throw in a shot at Kerry as well.

He is careful too not to rant and rave against George Bush for fear that this will signal that he's afraid of Bush and therefore America should vote for Bush. Instead he takes his cue from Fahrenheit 911 and makes his ridiculous comments about Bush sitting in the Texas classroom reading a book to schoolchildren while the attacks took place, and the ridiculous suggestion that if Bush had acted immediately, rather than waiting 7 minutes, somehow, he would not have been able to pull off the full extent of the attacks.

People believing that Bin Laden wants war and chaos are not stupid, but people who think that Bin Laden actually believes that the 9/11 attacks would not have gone off as they did if Bush immediately jumped into action are worse than stupid.

It remains to be seen if Bin Laden has miscalculated about the stupidity of some Americans, and whether or not partisans will take his bait and use his tape to attack Bush. I'm sad to say I'm not confident that it won't happen.

Bin Laden wants a president that will continue to send troops to Iraq to fight Muslims, but he also wants one that is more likely to find reason to leave Iraq before the job gets done. He may have miscalculated on Kerry (I certainly hope so if the man wins the election next week), but if you were Bin laden, who would you bet on?

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


You mean the secret hidden message? Sure...



Vote democratic...

You poor conservatives!

What a horrible burden to bear...this moron, George Bush.

What a horrible burden to bear...this incredibly incompetent administration.

What a horrible burden to bear...this couterproductive effort to (you will excuse the expression) combat terrorism.


No wonder you are reaching so far to drum up reasons to vote for the moron.


But, thankfully, it will all be over soon.

Next Tuesday, Bush and this group of bunglers will be sent packing...and sanity will return to the country.

What an insightful and thought provoking post Frank. At least no can say your comments on A2K are repetitive tripe.

Now, Frank, you know bin Laden is on Kerry's payroll and the good decent Republicans are all that stands between us and imminent communist takeover.

Unfortunately my lack of confidence in the character and intelligence of some of my fellow Americans and A2K posters is bearing out:

IT'S BEGUN

I'm just curious as to what administration airlifted the Bin Laden extended family one week after 9-11... http://lautenberg.senate.gov/~lautenberg/press/2003/01/2004721554.html

I don't think so, gungasnake:

Finn d'Abuzz:



??

Funny, Richard Clarke says he deserves credit for that.

If anyone takes the opportunity to point out that the video shows OBL is still out there, alive and kicking, despite all the assertions of conservatives here that he was probably already dead - and that Bush could have done more to go after him if he hadnt taken the 'chance' of 9/11 to go after Iraq like he'd wanted to anyway, instead - I won't blame him.

Hell, lemme just already make that point myself right here.

Here's my loony alert though. I'm waiting how long it will take till someone makes the claim that Bush has had OBL in a controlled place/situation, and had him make/release this video in order to help him with his reelection. Thats the one I'm gonna be embarassed about.

According to one blog post I saw today, Walter Cronkite has already done exactly that, but I can't quite believe that !?

Here is where Kerry's flip-flopping--something most Democrats see as only a campaign ploy--really comes into play.

Fact-- During primaries, Kerry played to his base--the pro-Dean, anti-war contingent of his party. This is why he voted against the appropriations for the war, even though he had voted for the authority to go to war.

Fact-- During the general, he is talking big about being firm and resolute re Iraq.

The flip-flop charge speaks to the belief of many that Kerry will immediately change his policy on Iraq if elected. His base will demand it.

All it takes is a glance at history to see that Republicans will make the hard calls in foreign policy situations, while the Dems check polls and make military decisions based on the direction of the political wind on any given day.

Kerry will begin making calls based on his popularity numbers--and the situation in Iraq will implode. All the work that has been done will be wasted,and what is left in Iraq will be worse than what we found under Saddam. Kerry doesn't have a spine or an internal compass.

I am very concerned about what will happen re terrorism and Iraq and Afghanistan under such a wishy-washy man.

Bush is bad for Osama. Kerry will be an assist to him.

Meanwhile, back in reality:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

Iraq death toll 'soared post-war'

Iraqis are now 58 times more likely to die a violent death, Lancet Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim.
A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion.

Unofficial estimates of civilian deaths had varied from 10,000 to over 37,000.

The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes - but says the findings are "convincing".

Responding to the Lancet article, a Pentagon spokesman defended coalition action in Iraq.

'Precise fashion'

"This conflict has been prosecuted in the most precise fashion of any conflict in the history of modern warfare", he said.

UK foreign secretary Jack Straw said his government would examine the findings "with very great care".

But he told BBC's Today that another independent estimate of civilian deaths was around 15,000.

The Iraq Body Count, a respected database run by a group of academics and peace activists, has put the number of reported civilian deaths at between 14,000-16,000.

The Lancet published research by scientists from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the US city of Baltimore.

They gathered data on births and deaths since January 2002 from 33 clusters of 30 households each across Iraq.

They found the relative risk, the risk of deaths from any cause, was two-and-a-half times higher for Iraqi civilians after the 2003 invasion than in the preceding 15 months.

'Conservative assumptions'

That figure drops to one-and-a-half times higher if data from Falluja - the scene of repeated heavy fighting - is excluded.

Before the invasion, most people died as a result of heart attack, stroke and chronic illness, the report says, whereas after the invasion, "violence was the primary cause of death".

Violent deaths were mainly attributed to coalition forces - and most individuals reportedly killed were women and children.

Dr Les Roberts, who led the study, said: "Making conservative assumptions we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more, have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths."

He said his team's work proved it was possible to compile data on public health "even during periods of extreme violence".

The sample included randomly selected households in Baghdad, Basra, Arbil, Najaf and Karbala, as well as Falluja.

Lancet editor Richard Horton said: "With the admitted benefit of hindsight and from a purely public health perspective, it is clear that whatever planning did take place was grievously in error."

Civilian toll estimates at 10/04
Iraq Body Count: 14-16,000
Brookings Inst: 10-27,000
UK foreign secretary: >10,000
People's Kifah >37,000
Lancet: >100,000

Mr Horton concluded: "For the sake of a country in crisis and for a people under daily threat of violence, the evidence we publish today must change heads as well as pierce hearts."

No official estimate

There is no official estimate of the number of Iraqi civilians who have died since the outbreak of the war in Iraq.

Human rights groups say the occupying powers have failed in their duty to catalogue the deaths, giving the impression that ordinary Iraqis' lives are worth less than those of their soldiers for whom detailed statistics are available.

However, the Pentagon spokesman said "there is no accurate way to validate the estimates of civilian casualties by this or any other organisation".

He added: The loss of any innocent lives is a tragedy, something Iraqi security forces and the Multi-National Force painstakingly work to avoid.

"Former regime elements and insurgents have made it a practice of using civilians as human shields, operating and conducting attacks against coalition forces from within areas inhabited by civilians."

I am more concerned with the fact that terrorism only grew under the Bush administration. Afterall, 9/11 happened on HIS WATCH.

Can any neoconservative tell me how many times bin Laden was referred to in the fight against terrorism at the Republican National Convention?

Just curious...

The damage by Bin Laden is done.

He gave birth to a movement.

It is no longer the one man who is the primary concern. He is A concern. Now, we have to address the movement.

A democracy will attack the movement from the inside--as people begin to be empowered. As they have hope and something to live for--they'll be less inclined to die for the movement.

Its the only way to fight Muslim extremism.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm

For your amusement and future reference, here's what Bush has said about bin Laden at various points in time, depending on how he was trying to spin things:







Nice to know Bush was on top of this.

Once again, can any neoconservative tell me how many times bin Laden was referred to in the fight against terrorism at the Republican National Convention?