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

So, he'll change it AFTER the election.

0 Replies

If the polls suggested that America didn't understand bin Laden and his cause and wished for the US to back off of him, then I think Kerry would do so in a heart beat. He doesn't want to do anything that would be unpopular to anyone. He is worse then a home coming queen/king.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

So, he'll change it AFTER the election.

I meant after the election. There's the second term you know.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

You may not like his style.

Correct. And too much of it can stifle intelligent conversation... like the interesting one's you've been having with others. Nice of you to defend the man, but foolhardy of you to defend his statements.

nimh wrote:

And blaming Bush for 'letting' 9/11 happen is indeed just stupid.

Good, we've agreed on the obvious.

nimh wrote:

Furthermore, when Dookie writes:

Dookiestix wrote:
Democracy in Iraq? They haven't even VOTED for anything yet.

It is simply true. The CPA has taken flak for using a process of appointments rather than free elections. Nation-wide free elections of course couldnt possibly have taken place - even January might be too early still. But what about local authorities?

You obviously didn't bother to look at the context (can't say I blame you. :wink: )

nimh wrote:

And when he writes:

Dookiestix wrote:
Kerry is bin Laden's worse nightmare.

He merely summarises the argument I made earlier. Given the choice between Kerry and Bush, I believe Kerry means the more bad news for bin Laden.

LMAO. Do you really think he examined the evidence and his conclusion just happened to mirror yours so closely? Laughing

Let's take a peek at what really happened.

Lash had just written

Lash wrote:

Democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq is OBL's worst nightmare.

which is a reasonable easily defended position.

Dookiestix wrote:

Kerry is bin Laden's worse nightmare.

(As if John Kerry is more frightening than the thought of democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq to OBL Laughing

)

Then, before anyone had responded wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

Democracy in Iraq? They haven't even VOTED for anything yet.

This contradicted nothing, and had no bearing on what Lash, or anyone else for that matter, had said.

Taken in proper context; both were idiotic statements. Idea

My harshness was not accidental and does seem to have had the desired effect. Again: I admire your willingness to defend others, but you should probably stop short of defending their idiotic statements.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Nimh writes

Quote:
Given the choice between Kerry and Bush, I believe Kerry means the more bad news for bin Laden.

Now I'm fascinated. Given his track record beginning with Vietnam and coming forward, especially considering the last 20 years in the Senate, please give me anything Kerry has done, said, voted for (that he stuck with), or proposed (that he stuck with) that would give Bin Laden any cause for concern whatsoever.

If you want to know why I think Bin Laden has something to gain from Bush remaining in power (and thus would be worse off with Kerry), you can read up here.

I've read that linked piece twice now and I don't see how it answers Fox's question... and I'd rather not guess wrong. What specifically do you see Kerry doing differently that justifies the statement she had quoted?

0 Replies

What Bin Laden has to gain by Bush remaining in power is the same thing the neocons' have to gain by creating an evil to overcome, OBill.

I haven't read this whole thread, but adding my :2 cents: in to the mix: This isn't about our election next Tuesday so much as bin Laden grabbing sensational attention and the ability to rile the most people with the least effort.

1) We have angry arabs left and right in Bin laden's region.

2) We have Ramadan.

3) There is armed opposition interfereing in "their" world's politics and inflicting democracy, or attempting to do so, whether they like all of it or not. (Let's not forget the evils of western society as they see it- gotta be a uniting force...)

4) He has an election and the opportunity to stick it to Dubya and Bush Sr., who was seen as an evil man by them...

That's how I would probably rank the importance of what it gives Bin Laden... It's not about us. It was political for him.

0 Replies

Quote:

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

And you talk about idiotic, OCCOM BILL...

Laughing

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I want a president who's going to go after him, catch him, kill him if necessary

I want one like that too!

And how sorely we have missed one since 9/11.

So you're gonna vote for Kerry then, Fox? I mean, GWB clearly considered other things more important, almost from day 1 (you'll remember how the first reaction after 9/11 was to ask about attacking Iraq). To Bush Jr., going after Osama is no priority - he even said as much. Twice. (As was quoted in this very thread).

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

If the polls suggested that America didn't understand bin Laden and his cause and wished for the US to back off of him, then I think Kerry would do so in a heart beat. He doesn't want to do anything that would be unpopular to anyone. He is worse then a home coming queen/king.

So - lemme get this straight. Its a bit confusing to keep up with the Republican spin sometimes, you understand.

Kerry won't ever do anything that would be unpopular to anyone. He goes with the political wind of the moment, and lets all his actions depend on what the polls say.

But he voted, eh, what was it - 369 times for higher taxes.

Right?

0 Replies

I was going back and reading some White House transcripts earlier this evening - where Bush almost has to be reminded who OBL is, and then says he's not concerned. Amazing.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

nimh wrote:
Given the choice between Kerry and Bush, I believe Kerry means the more bad news for bin Laden.

I've read that linked piece twice now and I don't see how it answers Fox's question... and I'd rather not guess wrong. What specifically do you see Kerry doing differently that justifies the statement she had quoted?

I don't understand what you don't understand, to be honest, and I don't really feel like rephrasing my own words time and again.

I've explained why I think Bush's demeanour and strategies benefit Osama's extremists. (As one extreme reinforces the other, one monochrome worldview confirms the other, almost always.)

Do you think Kerry will behave and come across as I described Bush as doing in that post?

If not, you have your answer.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
If the polls suggested that America didn't understand bin Laden and his cause and wished for the US to back off of him, then I think Kerry would do so in a heart beat. He doesn't want to do anything that would be unpopular to anyone. He is worse then a home coming queen/king.

So - lemme get this straight. Its a bit confusing to keep up with the Republican spin sometimes, you understand.

Kerry won't ever do anything that would be unpopular to anyone. He goes with the political wind of the moment, and lets all his actions depend on what the polls say.

But he voted, eh, what was it - 369 times for higher taxes.

Right?

I should have stated to his voter base.

At least you can admit that he wants to raise taxes. Tigers don't change their spots. Kerry will raise taxes and I don't think it will just be on the rich who make over 200K.

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I want a president who's going to go after him, catch him, kill him if necessary

I want one like that too!

And how sorely we have missed one since 9/11.

So you're gonna vote for Kerry then, Fox? I mean, GWB clearly considered other things more important, almost from day 1 (you'll remember how the first reaction after 9/11 was to ask about attacking Iraq). To Bush Jr., going after Osama is no priority - he even said as much. Twice. (As was quoted in this very thread).

You are very misinformed. If you had read Bob Woodward's book you would know that isn't true. But I guess you will believe anything you read that isn't the truth.

He has never said going after bin Laden wasn't a priority. He was asked if he was concerned about bin Laden and he said that he wasn't. As I have said else where on this board, I'm not concerned because I know the govt is doing everything in their power to hunt him down.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Taken in proper context; both were idiotic statements.

I don't think statements like Dookie's come with (or refer to) much context, generally. Just a question of someone coming into a thread, picking up some random sentence in a recent post that reminds him of a couple of things he's all worked up about, and shooting off a few statements about them. Extreme example: Frank Apisa's posts. So yeah, no, they didn't properly refer to much context. But as stand-alone statements, there's nothing much inherently idiotic about going, "democracy? hello, what are we talking about? they havent even ever voted yet!".

I can put up a decent argument about why it would have been foolish to stage national elections in a country still in such disarray (or why it's foolish, even, to have them in January, if the country is still basically in a situation of war). But on the other hand I've read enough about the Iraqi disgruntlement at how local officials are just parachuted into place based on their presumed loyalty or usefulness, at the way regional councils of appointed representatives have come to be the basis of the process, and I can easily imagine a case being made that local elections could already have taken place in at least some places.

Plus, there's the bottom line. The argument of the kind Lash proposes is that the war was worth it and Osama must be pissed because democracy is better than Saddam. But God knows what will come about in Iraq after the current time of turmoil. I'd say chances of a regular democracy are no bigger than chances of a definite collapse into chaos, or chances for a resurgent authoritarian regime of some kind of other. All of which might compare favourably or not with the Saddam era from an Iraqi or Al Qaeda POV. In the meantime, we're being asked to accept the argument that the current situation is already good (and bad for AQ), because of how it will in the end be a democracy - in short, on the basis of it becoming something in the future that it's not overly likely to become. Makes me want to go, "Democracy!? They havent even ever voted yet!" too.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Again: I admire your willingness to defend others, but you should probably stop short of defending their idiotic statements

You should probably stop laughing at others and thighslapping about just how incredibly they're "reaching" every time they disagree with you, because you know what - they might well not be reaching at all - they might simply have another take on the situation than yours.

In a couple of recent threads now you've accused me of "reaching" terribly (accompanied by many smileys to illustrate just how incredulous supposed attempts at spinning were to you), when I was merely restating the same take on a situation I've given for years now. No spurred-by-the-moment spinning involved, at all - just someone who, gasp, has a contrasting perspective. I know you don't mean any offence - you're just genuinely incredulous at someone really thinking something so ... unimaginable to you! But, err, well, that eventually says more about you than about them ;-)

0 Replies

Also, holding "elections" in a chaotic situation helps the US cause because we can manipulate "election results" to our favor, just like in Afghanistan. "Free" and "democratic" elections are anything but with our mechanations and manipulations therein.

0 Replies

You seem to somehow imply that if there is any trouble in acquiring a democracy, it is an undue hardship, or something.

Not in an argumentative stance at all--but I'm puzzled at you sinking into a view so foreign--I can't comprehend it. Or worded better, maybe, uncharacteristically applying such an oversimplification to the process of taking Saddam's Iraq and shepharding it to democracy.

Compare it to another struggle for democracy. Maybe ours. People died, people starved, families were broken due to different loyalties... War is bad. But, complacency under tyranny is much worse. Or, do you not agree? This may be the crux of our disagreement.

Do you think there is ever the right circumstance for war?

0 Replies

And--how long does one expect the process to take?

We were a disaster--failing under the Articles of the Confederation--our govt was in a strait jacket for over a decade.

What do you expect? And, isn't success worth the struggle--even if the struggle lasts for years?

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

nimh wrote:
So - lemme get this straight. Its a bit confusing to keep up with the Republican spin sometimes, you understand.

Kerry won't ever do anything that would be unpopular to anyone. He goes with the political wind of the moment, and lets all his actions depend on what the polls say.

But he voted, eh, what was it - 369 times for higher taxes.

Right?

I should have stated to his voter base.

At least you can admit that he wants to raise taxes. Tigers don't change their spots. Kerry will raise taxes and I don't think it will just be on the rich who make over 200K.

I do. And I don't believe Kerry has voted to raise taxes anything as often as the Republican ads claim - well, that stuff has already been thoroughly debunked by factcheck etc. (The ads count every time he voted for lowering taxes but not by as much as the other party proposed, etc).

But yeah, sure - in Kerry's ideal world taxes would probably be higher than in Bush's ideal world, which only makes sense considering the different things they want the state to do.

One reason why liberal concepts on government have not been implemented to all that far an extent in even the most liberal states (say, Mass.), however, is that tax raises are popular nowhere. Everybody wants better education, better facilities, more roads and safe pensions - but noone wants higher taxes. Thats the electorate for ya.

Now either one of two things can be true. Kerry is a hopeless liberal who has voted for higher taxes every single time he had the chance - or he is a panderer who wont ever do anything that the polls say is impopular. I mean, even Mass. has elected its Republicans governors and such - its not like the Massachusetts polls do have 60% saying, "oh yes, we want higher taxes!". So only one of these two can be true. I don't think either is. You claim both are. How do you square that?

Baldimo wrote:

nimh wrote:
To Bush Jr., going after Osama is no priority - he even said as much. Twice. (As was quoted in this very thread).

You are very misinformed. [..] He has never said going after bin Laden wasn't a priority. He was asked if he was concerned about bin Laden and he said that he wasn't.

Well, I was going to bring that purported Bush quote of 3/13/02 here ("I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority.") ... but I gotta give it to you - that quote appears to be impossible to verify on the net. Five pages of Google hits, and they're all from blogs. None from an official site.

The "not concerned" quote is true and tested tho:

Quote:

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed [..] and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. [..]

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

Does that really sound like someone who is determined, in Fox's words, "to go after him, catch him, kill him if necessary"? I mean - you may agree with Bush's take that OBL just isnt that important anymore -- but if you do, can you then still also honestly say that here, we are hearing someone who "is doing everything in his power to hunt him down"?

0 Replies

the Washington Post from April 17, 2002:

The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.

Intelligence officials have assembled what they believe to be decisive evidence, from contemporary and subsequent interrogations and intercepted communications, that bin Laden began the battle of Tora Bora inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border. Though there remains a remote chance that he died there, the intelligence community is persuaded that bin Laden slipped away in the first 10 days of December.

After-action reviews, conducted privately inside and outside the military chain of command, describe the episode as a significant defeat for the United States. A common view among those interviewed outside the U.S. Central Command is that Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the war's operational commander, misjudged the interests of putative Afghan allies and let pass the best chance to capture or kill al Qaeda's leader.

___________________________________________________

Looks like Kerry was right about Tora Bora. Bin Laden wouldn't be making a tape to release 4 days before the election if Bush administration hadn't made a ... gulp... Mistake.

IMO, it helps Kerry. I have no idea what Osama's intent was, but any logical person can figure out that when Bush campaign calls the tape "a little gift" and Osama "not a concern" we had best start wondering if our blood will also be considered so flippantly by Bush.

0 Replies

To nimh:

Quote:

Now either one of two things can be true. Kerry is a hopeless liberal who has voted for higher taxes every single time he had the chance - or he is a panderer who wont ever do anything that the polls say is impopular. I mean, even Mass. has elected its Republicans governors and such - its not like the Massachusetts polls do have 60% saying, "oh yes, we want higher taxes!". So only one of these two can be true. I don't think either is. You claim both are. How do you square that?

"I voted for the 87 million before I voted against it." Does that answer your question for you?

Quote:

Well, I was going to bring that purported Bush quote of 3/13/02 here ("I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority.") ... but I gotta give it to you - that quote appears to be impossible to verify on the net. Five pages of Google hits, and they're all from blogs. None from an official site.

Well I would say if it can't be found besides on bloggers sites then it doesn't exist.

Quote:

The "not concerned" quote is true and tested tho:

I agree that the statement was made and I support it.

Quote:

Does that really sound like someone who is determined, in Fox's words, "to go after him, catch him, kill him if necessary"? I mean - you may agree with Bush's take that OBL just isnt that important anymore -- but if you do, can you then still also honestly say that here, we are hearing someone who "is doing everything in his power to hunt him down"?

Once again he has never said that he isn't important anymore. You are trying to put words into his mouth and it isn't working. With the current resources available to the US we are indeed doing what we can to handle the bin Laden situation. He will be caught in time and anyone with any type wit knows this. Do you think he will be taken care of? I do so there for I'm not that concerned about it.

0 Replies

Full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/politics/campaign/31assess.html?ex=1256875200&en=248a75e7d2cef181&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt

Terrorist Tape, Political Angst
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Published: October 31, 2004

MIAMI, Oct. 30 - The latest surprise of this campaign arrived less than 100 hours before Election Day, in the form of Osama bin Laden's videotaped message to America. Even Democrats described it as somewhat welcome news for President Bush after a difficult stretch for the White House.

Yes, as some Democrats said, voters were reminded that Mr. bin Laden was healthy and alive, three years after Mr. Bush declared he wanted him "dead or alive," and in the midst of a campaign in which Mr. Kerry had systematically assailed Mr. Bush as allowing his Iraq war to distract from the more lethal threat of Mr. bin Laden.

But there were signs of concern in Mr. Kerry's circles as this campaign took yet another sharp turn in response to events far from Washington. While the candidate's first reaction to the tape was to repeat his standing criticism that Mr. Bush had allowed Mr. bin Laden to escape in the hills of Tora Bora, Kerry aides have said they would just as soon change the topic.

But on Saturday, while avoiding the mention of the tape itself, Mr. Kerry found himself battling with the president about the best way to protect America against terrorism.

The attempt by the Kerry campaign to play down the topic came as no surprise.

The videotape - in which Mr. bin Laden taunts the president and makes vaguely threatening remarks about the nation's security - could well reinforce what has been the defining rationale of Mr. Bush's re-election candidacy since the morning that planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon: that the nation is at war, and that this Republican son of a president can best protect it.

"The more these images are out there now, the more it helps Bush," said Joe Trippi, who was the campaign manager for Howard Dean, one of Mr. Kerry's rivals for the Democratic nomination.

"Every American wants to keep this fight out of the country, and that has been the hallmark of the Bush campaign."

While it seems inevitable that Mr. bin Laden will dominate much of the closing act of this campaign, it is still an open question just how many votes this could sway here or in the other eight swing states where the campaign is being played out in these final hours.

For one thing, the tape was released late on a Friday afternoon, a time when experienced American politicians typically try to sneak out news they do not want to gain much notice (a practice that Mr. bin Laden is presumably unaware of). By now, undecided voters are as scarce as Mr. bin Laden once was: on this late October weekend, the contest is less about swaying undecided voters than about getting supporters to the polls.

And Mr. Bush is certainly vulnerable on this issue, should Mr. Kerry try to turn the tables back on his rival.

"This is going to be the last nail in George Bush's campaign,'' said Jim Jordan, a Democratic strategist working for America Coming Together, a group working to unseat Mr. Bush. "Bin Laden on the loose is arguably Bush's greatest failure as commander in chief."

That said, here in a state at the heart of the presidential battle, the images of Mr. bin Laden speaking ominously into a camera blended seamlessly with Republican advertisements that include the smoldering remains of the World Trade Center, or Mr. Bush comforting the daughter of a Sept. 11 victim.

In this final weekend of a long contest, the campaign appeared to have turned full circle to the moment that has defined Mr. Bush's presidency and shaped his re-election campaign.

Richard N. Bond, a former Republican national chairman, said the tape was a "reminder for all Americans that America is under attack - and who can be the best commander in chief in the war on terror is the central issue of this campaign."

Mr. bin Laden may have managed to do what the White House had not been able to accomplish: turn the page on what had been a troubling run of news for Mr. Bush, ranging from reports of missing explosives from an unsecured warehouse in Iraq to more sluggish economic news.

These events had provided fuel for a steady barrage of attacks by Mr. Kerry and his running mate, Senator John Edwards, this week and have - or had - increasingly left Mr. Bush on the defensive.

That is no small thing. At this point in a campaign, command of the political agenda is critical, and until 4 p.m. on Friday, Mr. Kerry held that. Going into this weekend, confidence in Democratic circles, if cautious, was as palpable as the anxiety in Republican circles...........

Personally, I would always assume rising fear or agitation in ANY country - especially about an external threat - always favours the incumbent regime.

In fact, this is a political saw.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know