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

nimh wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.

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.

Not my point nimh.

I have no objection, in principle, to anyone making the point that the mere presence of Bin Laden on this video tape signifies a failure of the Bush Adminstration.

My issue is with those who are using his ridiculous claim that if Bush had sprung from his chair when he first learned of the attack and did something, anything, that the extent of the attack would have been something less than it was, to attack the president. It is clear that Bin Laden has added that contention in his screed in an attempt to give credence to Moore's argument that Bush failed America when he remained inactive for seven minutes. It is one thing to rely on the propaganda of an American filmmaker as truth, it is quite another to rely upon the words of the man who ordered the attacks of 9/11.

I also have a problem with John Kerry's repeated charges that Bush outsourced the job of killing Bin Laden to the Afghans and thereby let him escape, when, at the time, Kerry was all in favor of the strategy.

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 !?

I find that very hard to believe myself.

It is such a ridiculous charge that one would have to be insane, incredibly stupid, or shamelessly partisan to make it. I would like to think that there is an unassailable rejoinder to such a charge: If we had him in our control why wouldn't Bush just march him down Broadway in chains rather than have him produce this ridiculous video. Unfortunately, I'm sure that the insane, stupid and shamelessly partisan would be able to come up with some absurd explanation.

0 Replies

I don't disagree with Bush. The situation is fluid.

There was a time he (OBL) was the #1 concern. It is true if he is being doggedly chased around the world, he is afforded little time to do what he wants to do--plan more mayhem.

But, now, there is the greater threat of those who are willing to glom on to a thought--and act on it.

Capturing or killing Bin Laden will please us re justice--but it won't have the effect of stopping terrorism.

While experiencing democracy in the ME--and the effects of THAT, may stop terrorism of the Muslim extremist variety.

0 Replies

Fluid?

How does one know for certain that bin Laden is afforded little time to do what he wants to do - plan more mayhem?

One doesn't.

Perhaps if Bush didn't go on vacation as much, his mayhem on 9/11 could have been thwarted.

0 Replies

Aside-- Sad for Walter Cronkite...

I caught him on Larry King last night... He was rambling a bit--but then he asked Larry...."when was the last election?"

"2000" Larry answered.

He's losing it. I don't think he'll be asked to commentate again. He's clearly slipping. He referred to Kerry as "the new guy".

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

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.

Yeah. Just look at the advent of WW2. FDR's folks were straining to get the Americans to realise that, with fascism on the rise, action was necessary, while the Republicans' position on involving America in "European affairs" in the thirties was ... nebbermind.

Or there's Kosovo. Hundreds of thousands of people chased out of their homes, out of their country, flooding into refugee camps, women raped, men beaten, the region straining under the crisis. Who decided to take action? And who said, ehmm, impopular war, nuthin to do with us, put a fence around it let them kill each other, we say lets just stay out of it all?

Milosevic would vote Republican ...

Lash wrote:

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.

When it comes to the influence of Al Qaeda, the number of AQ people at work, the number of attacks they are involved in, things now in Iraq already are worse than under Saddam.

And thats what this thread is about right - OBL, AQ?

0 Replies

That was a good example, nimh. FDR wouldn't step out and make the declaration--this will in time be an American defense issue. Instead, he secretly gave aid to the allies, while waiting for a Pearl Harbor (or some similar event)to arrange public sentiment behind him--BEFORE HE WOULD ACT. Politics first--decision deferred.

The Republicans at the time, if I'm correct, were aligning behind the Washington Doctrine and the doctrine established by our founding fathers-- Keep your nose out of others' affairs.

FDR had the inside view of events--was President, and should have made the decision to act, rather than check polls and make his decision based on that.

0 Replies

What does Walter Cronkite have to do with the utter ineptitude of the Bush administration?

0 Replies

I don't consider the re-shaping of a country towards freedom and self-determination worse than the oppression of a cruel, murderous dictatorship.

We see things VERY differently on that score.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " ~~John Stuart Mill.

I believe this to be true. I think in all societies there is a contingent of souls who believe it. There are Iraqis, who feel the danger, the loss and the fear of what is happening in Iraq--but many of them know the loss, the struggle is worth the end result.

In the long run, they have gained the world.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't consider the re-shaping of a country towards freedom and self-determination worse than the oppression of a cruel, murderous dictatorship.

Try asking the Iraqi people, in which roughly 100,000 have died since Bush was dropping bombs on them, and let's see if they consider daily bombings, an ever-growing insurgency, their own military murdered everyday, beheadings, arab foreigners and Al Qaeda moving in, as being better than what they had BEFORE we invaded.

What freedom? The Iraqi people are cowering in their homes, scared to death to go anywhere. I don't remember that happening under Saddam's rule.

http://www.changeforus.com

"Before the Bombs Fell"

The only CLEAR Democracy we've put in place in the Middle East is Israel, and look at their illustrious history of being hated by practically EVERY Middle Eastern country, INCLUDING Iraq.

And what about the cruel and murderous acts of bin Laden, who actually ATTACKED us on our OWN SOIL?

Bush on Bin Laden: "I truly am not that concerned about him."

Unbelievable.

0 Replies

Try asking the Iraqi people, in which roughly 100,000 have died since Bush was dropping bombs on them, and let's see if they consider daily bombings, an ever-growing insurgency, their own military murdered everyday, beheadings, arab foreigners and Al Qaeda moving in, as being better than what they had BEFORE we invaded.

What freedom? The Iraqi people are cowering in their homes, scared to death to go anywhere. I don't remember that happening under Saddam's rule.
---------
Then you have a poor memory.

People were dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night--tortured for possibly saying something negative about Saddam. They had their hands cut off for dealing in US currency. They were beaten, killed and tortured for losing a soccer match... Read up, dookie.

It is awful to be in the middle of a war--but at least the war is FOR THEIR FREEDOM.

Do you think the Vichy French had it right? Give in to your oppressors, allow someone else to control you? Or do you side with the French resistance fights, who riked their lives for freedom?

Can you understand the mind of a person who would fight and risk death, rather than be controlled, and subservient to an oppressive government, where they have no rights?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

The Republicans at the time, if I'm correct, were aligning behind the Washington Doctrine and the doctrine established by our founding fathers-- Keep your nose out of others' affairs.

then why is the u.s. involved in nation building in iraq after accomplishing the goal of disarming saddam? that is what we were told was the purpose of the invasion. to bring saddam into compliance with the u.n. resolutions.

and with you're quote in mind, why do republicans continue to support the guy who has failed to follow the doctorine?

btw, sophia, i found a sound file you might enjoy. i'll put it up later for ya...

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

That was a good example, nimh. FDR wouldn't step out and make the declaration--this will in time be an American defense issue. Instead, he secretly gave aid to the allies, while waiting for a Pearl Harbor (or some similar event)to arrange public sentiment behind him--BEFORE HE WOULD ACT. Politics first--decision deferred.

The Republicans at the time, if I'm correct, were aligning behind the Washington Doctrine and the doctrine established by our founding fathers-- Keep your nose out of others' affairs.

FDR had the inside view of events--was President, and should have made the decision to act, rather than check polls and make his decision based on that.

You didn't need to have an "inside view" in 1938 to know what the Nazis were up to ...

FDR waited too long, IMO. But at least he was pushing for action, while the Republicans at that time were against any action, as many remained even after Wilkie had won the bloody nomination battle of 1940. How does that make your point about how "Republicans will make the hard calls in foreign policy situations", while the Dems will not? In that case, as in others, it was the Dems at least trying to get the right thing done (as they were with Kosovo).

It's hard to argue against this kind of post though. If a Democrat chooses not to intervene, its because he won't "step out", because he appeases public opinion. But if a Republican argues against interventions - the same intervention, even - it's because he's sticking to "the doctrine established by our founding fathers". This way, reality is always neatly clicked back into partisan colours, no matter what data is entered.

As for Iraq ... who knows whether it may one day be a peaceful democracy. The signs are definitely not set for it right now, with the American military itself indicating that large parts of the country are now no-go zones, with violence running amock. But we were talking Al Qaeda here. The people who attacked America. For them, Iraq is now much more profitable ground than it was under Saddam. What happens in the long run, we dont know. In the long run, the Kurds may well try to secede and trigger a civil war that will dwarf the current violence. And yeah, who knows it might become a pleasant democracy still instead and then, you'll be right in saying Iraq poses a worse reality for Al-Qaeda than when it was still under Saddam. But for now, it certainly doesn't - if anything, the opposite.

0 Replies

Obviously--or to me, anyway--we dropped that doctrine after we saw how others' affairs can soon turn into ours.

When the world's borders became irrelevant, the doctrine had to change.

(Remember the capabilities pre-WW2--technology made that ostrich doctrine moot.)

0 Replies

Boy, I turn my back for a minute, and Dookie commences spamming my thread with idiocy.

0 Replies

I'm cleaning house for company soon to arrive and didn't have time to read this whole thread, so if this has already been posted, I apologize:

The Osama Litmus Test
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: October 30, 2004

The nuisance is back!

Remember when John Kerry told Matt Bai of The Times Magazine that he wanted to reduce the terrorists to a nuisance? Kerry vowed to mitigate the problem of terrorism until it became another regrettable and tolerable fact of life, like gambling, organized crime and prostitution.

That was the interview in which he said Sept. 11 "didn't change me much at all." He said it confirmed in him a sense of urgency, "of doing the things we thought we needed to be doing."

Well, the Osama bin Laden we saw last night was not a problem that needs to be mitigated. He was not the leader of a movement that can be reduced to a nuisance.

What we saw last night was revolting. I suspect that more than anything else, he reminded everyone of the moral indignation we all felt on and after Sept. 11.

Here was this monster who killed 3,000 of our fellows showing up on our TV screens, trying to insert himself into our election, trying to lecture us on who is lying and who is telling the truth. Here was this villain traipsing through his own propaganda spiel with copycat Michael Moore rhetoric about George Bush in the schoolroom, and Jeb Bush and the 2000 Florida election.

Here was this deranged killer spreading absurd theories about the American monarchy and threatening to murder more of us unless we do what he says.

One felt all the old emotions. Who does he think he is, and who does he think we are?

One of the crucial issues of this election is, Which candidate fundamentally gets the evil represented by this man? Which of these two guys understands it deep in his gut - not just in his brain or in his policy statements, but who feels it so deep in his soul that it consumes him?

It's quite clear from the polls that most Americans fundamentally think Bush does get this. Last March, Americans preferred Bush over Kerry in fighting terrorism by 60 percent to 33 percent, according to the Gallup Poll. Now, after a furious campaign and months of criticism, that number is unchanged. Bush is untouched on this issue.

Bush's response yesterday to the video was exactly right. He said we would not be intimidated. He tried to take the video out of the realm of crass politics by mentioning Kerry by name and assuring the country that he was sure Kerry agreed with him.

Kerry did say that we are all united in the fight against bin Laden, but he just couldn't help himself. His first instinct was to get political.

On Milwaukee television, he used the video as an occasion to attack the president: "He didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down Osama bin Laden. He outsourced the job." Kerry continued with a little riff from his stump speech, "I am absolutely confident I have the ability to make America safer."

Even in this shocking moment, this echo of Sept. 11, Kerry saw his political opportunities and he took 'em. There's such a thing as being so nakedly ambitious that you offend the people you hope to impress.

But politics has shaped Kerry's approach to this whole issue. Back in December 2001, when bin Laden was apparently hiding in Tora Bora, Kerry supported the strategy of using Afghans to hunt him down. He told Larry King that our strategy "is having its impact, and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively, and we should continue to do it that way."

But then the political wind shifted, and Kerry recalculated. Now Kerry calls the strategy he supported "outsourcing." When we rely on allies everywhere else around the world, that's multilateral cooperation, but when Bush does it in Afghanistan, it's "outsourcing." In Iraq, Kerry supports using local troops to chase insurgents, but in Afghanistan he is in post hoc opposition.

This is why Kerry is not cleaning Bush's clock in this election. Many people are not sure that he gets the fundamental moral confrontation. Many people are not sure he feels it, or feels anything. Since he joined the Senate, what cause has he taken a political risk for? Has he devoted himself selflessly and passionately to any movement larger than himself?

We are revealed by what we hate. When it comes to Osama bin Laden, Kerry hasn't revealed whatever it is that lies inside.

--New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/30/opinion/30brooks.html?oref=login&oref=login

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Freeduck, Bush's advance into the ME cannot help his plight to get us to keep our nose out. That just doesn't make sense.

Kicky, if his words make Bush look foolish, which he clearly tried to illustrate, that is going to bat for Kerry. That's practically the beginning and the end of the Kerry strategy if you haven't noticed.

Maybe we misjudge his goals, O'B. I don't think he was surprised that we attacked Iraq, do you?

But, thinking it over, this might end up better for Kerry (though no way am I going to agree that he's somehow helping Kerry on purpose). At first I thought that the mere sight of him would send American voters running into GWB's lap. Now I think it might be an unfriendly reminder that Bush didn't finish his task.

I agree with FreeDuck and I also think that Bin Ladin wanted to stick himself in Bush's face right before the election to rub his continued freedom in his face and show the American people how much smarter he is than Bush. At first the media was saying that this was good for Bush, but how can it be? Bin Ladin practically thanked Bush for giving them more time to finish their mission, so how can that be good for him. Bush failed to capture Bin Ladin, as he pulled most of the troops out right when they had him cornered. Now Bin Ladin comes out of the woodwork right before the election to remind the American people that he's still free. I think it's pretty plain as to what he's doing.

0 Replies

Sorry, OBill.
I'll behave.

0 Replies

What are you talking about Lash?

0 Replies

I was involved in an extensive sidebar. Should have been more thoughtful about your thread continuity, and all.

0 Replies

I meant to highlight this in the piece I just posted above. It is very telling re Kerry and Bin Laden:

Quote:

But politics has shaped Kerry's approach to this whole issue. Back in December 2001, when bin Laden was apparently hiding in Tora Bora, Kerry supported the strategy of using Afghans to hunt him down. He told Larry King that our strategy "is having its impact, and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively, and we should continue to do it that way."

But then the political wind shifted, and Kerry recalculated. Now Kerry calls the strategy he supported "outsourcing." When we rely on allies everywhere else around the world, that's multilateral cooperation, but when Bush does it in Afghanistan, it's "outsourcing." In Iraq, Kerry supports using local troops to chase insurgents, but in Afghanistan he is in post hoc opposition.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know