But we are doing the wrong thing!

Why wouldn't Bin Laden want Bush re"elected"? Bush has been an absolute godsend to the Islamic terrorist bastards. Inept, incompetent, utterly unable to think strategically, in thrall to a group of Neocon clowns headed by Ultra Incompetent Cheney, the works. The occupation of Iraq, handled (at the top)incredibly badly on all levels (despite the genuine heroism of our fighting men and women) has dealt a crippling blow to the U.S. We diverted forces away from Afghanistan to fight it and we let Bin Laden himself slip away. To Bin Laden, Bush is a gift from Allah.

mirrors within mirrors. The result of dealing with a civilization that rejected the tenets of the European Enlightenment. Our bases of reality are so far apart, it's difficult to believe that we ever could understand one another.

from The One Percent Doctrine: Their assessments, at day's end, are a distillate of the kind of secret, internal conversations that the American public, and by association the wider world community, were not sanctioned to hear: strategic analysis. Today's conclusion: bin Laden's message was clearly designed to assist the President's reelection.

Secret? Not to the readers of this blog. We've been saying for years that those two need each other (and they both know it).

Oh, let's not forget that this explains W's (in)action at Tora Bora. The smirking chimp thing is just a facade, W is really pretty shrewd.

Now if only he were on our side ...

Let's see now, that would be the civilisation that built the first universities in Europe and introduced algebra. Well, I guess I buy the concept that anyone who failed algebra in junior high probably can't understand Islam...Wow, it's a whole world of concepts that have no physical existence...like Alice in Wonderland....

And since when did the Spanish Inquisition become the Enlightenment?

Nothing relevant here--it was a triple cross. Bin Laden knew that we knew that he knew a message appearing to favor Kerry in order to help Bush would in fact favor Kerry. Bottom line: Bin Laden wanted Kerry and we thwarted him.

Damn! These parodies are hard to write.

...(t)he result of dealing with a civilization that rejected the tenets of the European Enlightenment.

Just to be clear: are we talking about modern fundamentalist Islam, or modern fundamentalist Christianity?

mirrors within mirrors. The result of dealing with a civilization that rejected the tenets of the European Enlightenment. Our bases of reality are so far apart, it's difficult to believe that we ever could understand one another.
Posted by: moe99

what an ignorant statement ... there would BE no european enlightenment without the preservation of the ancient texts by the arab empire.

it really isn't that hard ... stop installing dictators over the people, stop supporting despotic sheiks willing to sell us oil at a bargain price, address the issue of palestine and israel honestly, and stop fucking illegally invading their countries.

we're really not so different.

The so-called war on terror is conducted with stupidity, paranoia and incompetence in such a manner as to consistently achieve the opposite of its purported objective: it promotes terror at every turn, by practicing it ourselves, by promoting hatred of the United States, and by devaluing "democracy." Of course Bin Laden wanted Bush not to be re-defeated. Osama couldn't do better with his own Charlie McCarthy as president.

Amazing how many top secret conversations in books like this seem to have detailed transcripts, down to nodding heads.

You know - if foreign policy were being run by smart Republicans like Chuck Hagel or General Zinni or even Bush41, we would not be so easily sucked by bin Laden. But alas, policy is being run by those idiots who played in bin Laden's hand with that incredibly stupid decision on March 19, 2003. Of course, bin Laden wanted to make sure we did not change Administrations. It does not take a great deal of cunning to outwit Bush41 and his band of dimwits.

Kevin:

Regardless of whether bin Ladin favored Kerry or Bush in the AMERICAN election -- we are never going to know that for sure -- when are you going to get to one of the frequent and "fairly sympathetic portrait[s] of [Bush and/or Cheney] as men who are reacting as well as anyone could to the furious real-time cascade of genuinely frightening and confusing events in the early days after 9/11"?

Yes, Bin Ladin promising not to attack states that voted for Kerry is startling evidence that he wanted Bush to win because... um, why again?

American Hawk, I don't know what kind of bizarre alternate Universe you live in, but could you not pollute the thread with your idiotic lies? I saw Bin Laden's message and there is no way it could have been interpreted to mean what you say it meant--at least by an honest and rational human.

The GOP: Bin Laden's Choice

Our bases of reality are so far apart, it's difficult to believe that we ever could understand one another.

What a load of shit moe99. Have you ever had any Muslim friends? Have you ever been to the Middle East?

You know - if foreign policy were being run by smart Republicans like Chuck Hagel or General Zinni or even Bush41, we would not be so easily sucked by bin Laden.

As opposed to, say, Monica Lewinsky?

But alas, policy is being run by those idiots who played in bin Laden's hand with that incredibly stupid decision on March 19, 2003.

I'd rather we fight the terrorists in Iraq than Iowa.

Of course, bin Laden wanted to make sure we did not change Administrations.

I'm not so sure about that -- if "reverse psychology" was at play, why not "reverse, reverse psychology" -- plenty of other evidence weighs on why bin Ladin would have preferred Kerry in order to re-group and strike again once our guard was down.

It does not take a great deal of cunning to outwit Bush41 and his band of dimwits.

Well, make up your mind -- you like Bush41 or you don't?

Joe:

I would argue that the tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to "each U.S. state," designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" (which means "each U.S. state") to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state.

This suggests some knowledge by bin Laden of the U.S. electoral college system. In a section of his speech in which he harshly criticized George W. Bush, bin Laden stated: "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: "This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy. By this characterization, Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people itself between enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and those who fight for us, so that he doesn't treat all American people as if they're the same. This letter will have great implications inside the American society, part of which are connected to the American elections, and part of which are connected to what will come after the elections."

Another interesting aspect of the speech is the fact that while bin Laden made his specific threat to each U.S. state, he also offered an election deal to the American voters, attempting to influence the election by these means rather than influencing it through terrorist attacks. [4] This peace offer is a theme that follows up on his April speech directed to Europe, in which he offered a truce. The Islamist website Al-Islah explains: "Some people ask 'what's new in this tape?' [The answer is that] this tape is the second of its kind, after the previous tape of the Sheikh [Osama bin Laden], in which he offered a truce to the Europeans a few months ago, and it is a completion of this move, and it brings together the complementary elements of politics and religion, political savvy and force, the sword and justice. The Sheikh reminds the West in this tape of the great Islamic civilization and pure Islamic religion, and of Islamic justice…"

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sa&ID=SA1404

Doug,

Are there more terrorists taking up arms against America now, or when W took office.

Isn't success in the war on terror measured by reducing the number of terrorists and the terrorist threat?

W has increased both, and by that standard is a failure, regardless of his bravado.

there would BE no european enlightenment without the preservation of the ancient texts by the arab empire.

A bit of an overstatement (the Irish had a hand in it as well), and you're confusing the Arab world of some 500 years ago with the Islamist world of the ME that has changed dramatically since the formation of modern Israel and the creation of OPEC.

it really isn't that hard ... stop installing dictators over the people, stop supporting despotic sheiks willing to sell us oil at a bargain price, address the issue of palestine and israel honestly, and stop fucking illegally invading their countries.

Yup.

we're really not so different.Posted by: Nads

Actually, unless they all drink like fish and eat like pigs (and eat pig), love Internet porn, enjoy Adam Sandler movies (could he be the contemporary Jerry Lewis?) and "reality" TV, and watch dumb "sports" like NASCAR, they are in no way like us.

Of course Osama prefers awol. Bush is the guy that when osama was in the cross hairs that he chose to go attack Iraq. Osama couldn't hope for a better boob. Osama realizes that he, Osama, is now useful, alive, as a republican tool to stay in power. Osama knows repugs need him to scare out the votes. Osama's work is done, all he needs do is hang out now, awol will finish osama's work for him.

Bush is Bin Laden's recruitment officer.

How come all contacts betwen our politicians and foreign entities in the years divisible by four end up benefitting the GOP (Kissinger with NV in 1968, GHWB with Iranians (?)in 1980)?

At least the American public is doing its part by driving down bin Laden's rating in the Arab world, then.

Ah, the old 'for whom would Osama have voted?' debate. If the CIA story is true, then it constitutes some evidence for the 'Bush vote' theory. I still don't have a strong opinion either way, and am suspicious generally when most everyone's conclusion about something like this breaks down along ideological lines, since everyone wants to believe Osama would have voted for 'the other guy'.

To oversimplify, here are two views of bin Laden. The Bush-voting Osama is strategically shrewd, more concerned with the long term benefits to fostering conflict between the U.S. and the Muslim world, both to his own (and his followers') popularity and to the prospect of long-term victory. He believes Bush's bellicose blundering will spark a wider war. This Osama understood the American electorate well enough to wager that threats over the reelection of Bush would actually help Bush (as I believe it almost certainly did, in actuality).

The Kerry-voting Osama believes that Kerry will begin the process of capitulation, beginning with withdrawal from Iraq. He believes that the U.S. has already lost the stomach for conflict, and sees short-term victory as a possibility. This Osama looks at the U.S. as cowardly and decadent, eager to avoid further casualties (civilian and military), and believes that threatening the American electorate will help Kerry's election.

Personally, both of those Osamas sound plausible to me. Certainly Osama has proven willing to raise the stakes and go for the long fight, supporting the Bush-voting hypothesis. But he also seemed genuinely surprised at the speed of the attack on Afghanistan, otherwise he presumably would have moved to Pakistan prior to 9/11, which supports the 'weak, cowardly view of America', and the Kerry hypothesis (no flames please, I'm not saying Kerry or his voters actually are weak or cowardly), which fits with the long-term rhetoric of al Qaeda (and some of the American right-wing, as well).

So, could someone tell me why it's 'obvious' which Osama we're actually dealing with (or a better way to describe him)? I don't see how it's at all obvious. I mean, I don't know the guy (hear that, NSC?), and don't really know that much about him. I doubt any of us do.

Doug--If Bin Laden did indeed mean that, it is an amazingly ignorant view of how American federalism actually works, inasmuch as individual states don't control foreign policy. It seems bizarre that Bin Laden's people, versed as they are in American politics, would not understand it. As you say, it wasn't translated in that way to the public.

Be that as it may: Bin Laden is sophisticated enough to understand that an anti-Bush tirade would work in Bush's favor. He's evil--he's not stupid. Bush's campaign in Iraq has been a recruiting goldmine for terrorists, drawing in new Muslim "warriors" from all over the Middle East. And there is the naked, undeniable fact that remains: Bin Laden himself remains free.

Bin Laden wants a worldwide religious war, and Bush and his right wing fundamentalist followers are just the people to give it to him.

"The result of dealing with a civilization that rejected the tenets of the enlightenment"

Sorry, I'm afraid the Bush base is largely comprised of people who reject western enlightenment.

I think that Islamic fundementalists and Christian fundementalists understand each other perfectly well. They basically embrace the same ideology.

Let's see if they have some common goals.

Establishment of a state religon.
Denegration of women to the status of reproductive slaves.
Persecution of sexual minorities.
Persecution of religous minorities.
Legal system based on a single religon.
Suppression of dissenting viewpoints.

Well, by crackey, they do.

Of course, in the manner of all religious fanatics, they will still cheerfully try to kill each other over the 'details'.

Equally obvious to any rational observer is that the USA (aka Bush Regime) responded exactly as Bin Laden wanted them to.

A measured, rational response would have been disasterous to the agenda of the Al-Qaeda... which is promoting and inciting conflict with the west.

Reagan created Bin Laden.
Bush resurrected his career.
Nice going gents.

Actually, unless they all drink like fish and eat like pigs (and eat pig), love Internet porn, enjoy Adam Sandler movies (could he be the contemporary Jerry Lewis?) and "reality" TV, and watch dumb "sports" like NASCAR, they are in no way like us.
Posted by: JeffII

they drink some pretty shitty yoghurt-based stuff, they do eat like pigs (but not, of course, pig), they do like the internet porn ... but that could just be my family, they like the simpsons and seinfeld, and watch cricket ... fucking cricket.

The Mother of all Brain Farts:

"The fact that we're doing what bin Laden wants doesn't automatically mean we're doing the wrong thing"

Kevin, get your head out of that echo chamber you call your ass.

Bin Laden wants to BLEED the United States to death in the desert.

That is EXACTLY what is happening.

And that is EXACTLY why he wanted Bush to win in 2004.

All of this has been painfully obvious for several years.

Bin Laden's back handed endorsement of Bush did not surprise me. Afterall, both bin Laden and Bush take their orders from the same people.

If you're not going to stand up and admit the miserable failure of the "We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" strategy when we get hit again, then you ought to just shut up about it now.

Joe:

I think your beef is with ChiSox Fan in LA. I already admitted I'm not so sure who bin Ladin was for -- although I noted that if "reverse psychology" was at play, why not "reverse, reverse psychology"? There's plenty of other evidence which could be argued shows that bin Ladin would have preferred Kerry. It is, at the very least, far from "obvious".

exhuming mccarthy:

Since 2001, I don't know of ANY terrorists taking up arms in America -- that's another "measure of success" -- I would also argue the terrorist threat in America has lessened.

pgl:

You still around?

Buford, you also left out:

Heavily armed due to their fear of sex.

Disdain for the creative arts.

Worship of authority figures

The fact that we're doing what bin Laden wants doesn't automatically mean we're doing the wrong thing.

Oh, really? What other interpretation is there?

Monkey:

If fighting them there prevented another WTC-scale attack every single year in the U.S. since 2001, how exactly would what should have been the 6th such attack be considered a failure?

Interesting that this thread lacks any counter-gibberish from Hawk and Al and the rest. Is this particular Bush fuckup just too hard to spin?

. but that could just be my family, they like the simpsons and seinfeld, and watch cricket ... fucking cricket. Posted by: Nads

Cricket? Hmmm . . . Pakistani or Indian?

Since 2001, I don't know of ANY terrorists taking up arms in America -- that's another "measure of success" -- I would also argue the terrorist threat in America has lessened.

WEll duh, why would they? After all in Iraq it's hands on training on how to kill US soliders. Learn explosives, sniper fire, misdirection, influence, intelligence gathering, all in the field with the help of the locals. We have 140K troops over there in a land where we aren't wanted. There's no need to spend massive amounts of time, money and energy for another huge attack when for free they can pick off our troops a few each day.

And the only homegrown terrorists? Loser white men who never got laid enough and all of whom happen to all vote republican, isn't that quaint.

craigie:

For one, it is not even a fact that electing Bush was doing what bin Laden wanted -- assuming it was, the most likely alternative explanation would be that bin Laden cannot foresee his own demise very clearly -- kinda like Pharaoh chasing Moses and the Jews through the Red Sea.

One more:

As I said, better to fight them in Iraq than in Iowa. Also, I didn't know Padila and that Mohamed sniper guy voted GOP -- link?

They aren't "white" either -- not sure how much they got laid though.

something so dizzying that not even they will touch it: that Bush's ratings [in the U.S.] track with bin Laden's rating in the Arab world.

Does anyone have a link to bin Laden's rating history in the Arab world?

Doug: If fighting them there prevented another WTC-scale attack every single year in the U.S. since 2001, how exactly would what should have been the 6th such attack be considered a failure?

By there, where do you mean? Afghanistan? I think it's pretty safe to say that seriously disrupted al Qaeda's capabilities. Iraq? Don't think that affected al Qaeda at all. Luckily for us there's no indication that all the insurgents that have mobilized have any interest in taking the fight beyond Iraq, but that's a bit of gamble.

Timothy McVeigh
Eric Rudolph
Whatever cracker at Ruby Ridge
wacko right to lifers who shoot doctors
Neo Nazis in Idaho and elsewhere

All Liberals for sure.

Doug said: "I'd rather we fight the terrorists in Iraq than Iowa."

I say: You're a dumb, America-hating pussy. Real Americans want to fight the terrorists everywhere - in Iraq AND in Iowa! And under the glorious leadership of our (err, my) Commander-in-Chief, we will soon be fighting thousands millions billions of terrorists on every street corner!

The fact that we're doing what bin Laden wants doesn't automatically mean we're doing the wrong thing. But it sure as hell ought to give us pause, shouldn't it?

Look, if we don't do what bin Laden wants then the terrorists will have won.

cyntax:

You guys are going to have to pick ONE story and stick with it -- either:

(a) "in Iraq it's hands on training on how to kill US soliders. Learn explosives, sniper fire, misdirection, influence, intelligence gathering, all in the field with the help of the locals. We have 140K troops over there in a land where we aren't wanted. There's no need to spend massive amounts of time, money and energy for another huge attack when for free they can pick off our troops a few each day", or

(b) "Iraq? Don't think that affected al Qaeda at all."

I understand that the U.S. is fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't fight them in Iowa. But why then are the British fighting the terrorists in Iraq?

El Al:

I would disagree about your definition of "Real" Americans then -- none would actually "want" another 9/11 -- I understand some Democrats want that during Bush's term though.

Doug sounds like dumb enough fuck to be Charlie, all right.

David:

Because Blair is Bush's bitch -- don't you read the Huffington Post?

Doug. Most of the people killing Americans in Iraq are not Al-Qaeda. So Iraq can be a training ground for asymmetrical warfare against Coalition forces, and have little effect on Al-Qaeda at the same time.

Duh.

Osama thought awol might come after him at first by attacking in Afghanistan. But then Bush lost sight of the goal or made a deal with osama and instead attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Quaida. Then osama knew that awol was his true sole mate. And that osama was safe as long as awol was in the white house.

Where's osama:

Does that mean "ChiSox Fan in LA" is Charlie too -- he / she posted the following:

"I still don't have a strong opinion either way, and am suspicious generally when most everyone's conclusion about something like this breaks down along ideological lines, since everyone wants to believe Osama would have voted for 'the other guy' . . . Kerry-voting Osama believes that Kerry will begin the process of capitulation, beginning with withdrawal from Iraq. He believes that the U.S. has already lost the stomach for conflict, and sees short-term victory as a possibility. This Osama looks at the U.S. as cowardly and decadent, eager to avoid further casualties (civilian and military), and believes that threatening the American electorate will help Kerry's election.

Personally, both of those Osamas sound plausible to me. Certainly Osama has proven willing to raise the stakes and go for the long fight, supporting the Bush-voting hypothesis. But he also seemed genuinely surprised at the speed of the attack on Afghanistan, otherwise he presumably would have moved to Pakistan prior to 9/11, which supports the 'weak, cowardly view of America', and the Kerry hypothesis . . ."

Doug: You guys are going to have to pick ONE story and stick with it -- either:

(a) "in Iraq it's hands on training on how to kill US soliders. Learn explosives, sniper fire, misdirection, influence, intelligence gathering, all in the field with the help of the locals. We have 140K troops over there in a land where we aren't wanted. There's no need to spend massive amounts of time, money and energy for another huge attack when for free they can pick off our troops a few each day", or

(b) "Iraq? Don't think that affected al Qaeda at all."

Since I never wrote (a) that you cite above Doug maybe you can explain to me first why I should defend that assesment of Iraq. Or does this sort of rhetorical bait-and-switch pass for actual argument where you come from?

P.S. -- I thought the SHOE bomber Richard Reid was Osama's true SOLE mate?

I understand that the U.S. is fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't fight them in Iowa. But why then are the British fighting the terrorists in Iraq?

So we don't have to fight the British in Iowa?

No chisox fan sounds way to logical. Charlie/you lack any realistic logic but produce mass quantities of manure. Chisox fan makes some sense; Charlie/you rarely do.

Cricket? Hmmm . . . Pakistani or Indian?
Posted by: JeffII

pakistani ... most indians I know don't identify as completely with the mideast. ... some do, but not most.

cyntax:

Perhaps I need to explain first the definition of "you guys" -- so far on this thread, that includes cyntax, One More, Hostile, Monkey, koreyel, Buford, Joe, and now enozinho -- once "you guys" get your stories straight, I will be more than happy to shoot it down.

But why then are the British fighting the terrorists in Iraq?

It's a clever ruse aimed at getting British patrons a better seat at the pub during Cricket matches. If all the Pakistanis are in Iraq, they won't eat all the curry before tea.

Stefan:

I can't recall if the British get all the way to Iowa in Harry Turtledove's alternative Civil War history novel How Few Remain. I will look it up and let you know.

Where's osama:

You won't be surprised, then, if I feel the same way about your posts?

Kerry-voting Osama believes that Kerry will begin the process of capitulation, beginning with withdrawal from Iraq.

LMAO! Yeah, I'm just sure that Osama gets all his info about Kerry from Faux News.

Perhaps I need to explain first the definition of "you guys" -- so far on this thread, that includes cyntax, One More, Hostile, Monkey, koreyel, Buford, Joe, and now enozinho -- once "you guys" get your stories straight, I will be more than happy to shoot it down.

Aw Doug, why didn't you just say you were overwhelmed? I'll go have a beer and check back tomorrow to see if you've managed to explain the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

pakistani ... most indians I know don't identify as completely with the mideast. ... some do, but not most.

Every Pakistani and Indian I have ever met identified as South Asian or from the "subcontinent". Never talked to one who thought of theirself as from the "Middle East".

pakistani ... most indians I know don't identify as completely with the mideast. ... some do, but not most. Posted by: Nads

I figure because of cricket that it could have gone either way.

Every Pakistani and Indian I have ever met identified as South Asian or from the "subcontinent". Never talked to one who thought of theirself as from the "Middle East". Posted by: Disputo

Nads, you want to jump in here?

I figure the farther north you go or the closer you get to the border with Afghanistan the more likely someone might identify with a larger "anti-infidel" pan-Islamic "movement."

BTW, your given name isn't Go, per chance?

Every Pakistani and Indian I have ever met identified as South Asian or from the "subcontinent". Never talked to one who thought of theirself as from the "Middle East".
Posted by: Disputo

hello, disputo, I'm Nads. nice to meet you. ... but I see your point.

Doug, then I'm honored. That's quite an endorsement from you. If you think I'm wrong then I must be right. Thanks, Charlie.

Disputo said: LMAO! Yeah, I'm just sure that Osama gets all his info about Kerry from Faux News.

I highly doubt Osama's watching Fox, although I think he does listen to Sean Hannity (kidding...). But I find it plausible (which is not to say it's necessarily or even likely true) that Osama's view of the U.S. overlaps somewhat with our right wing's view. For one thing, Osama is undeniably part of a religious right wing, albeit of a different political and cultural background. Views equating 'nuance' or 'negotiation' with 'weakness', or the belief that a country that doesn't attack with everything it has at the slightest (even feigned) provocation come what may, are likely held by both right wings. Color me skeptical, in general, that relgious fundamentalists make for strategic masterminds.

That doesn't prove anything, of course. All I'm saying is, I find it roughly as plausible that Osama did believe that threats to the American public would produce a win for Kerry as he believed it would for Bush. I mean, at some point this descends into a 'You think that I think that you think...' game. If Osama publishes his tell-all biography in 20 years maybe we'll know what he really wanted, but until then I find all this 'of course he wanted the other guy to win' stuff to be speculative at best. If you know what Osama's thinking please contact the administration and let them know, as clearly they could use the advice...

The fact that we're doing what bin Laden wants

I think that you credit the source unreasonably.

Nobody knows what bin Laden wants, but I doubt that he intended to finish out his natural life living in caves, while Yemeni women and Iraqi women vote in elections.

Oops, I meant "views equating 'nuance' or 'negotiation' with 'weakness', or the belief that a country should attack with everything it has at the slightest (even feigned) provocation come what may, are likely held by both right wings."

Maybe I should write shorter sentences...

ChiSox Fan: actually I would agree to the extent that Osama wouldn't actually want to or care to swing the election one way or the other. Osama could be smart, average, somewhat dense but which ever the case I would consider that he really wouldn't care about or understand the nuances of US politics and would make statements that would be difficult to find intent. Which is more or less what he did. He wouldn't want US citizens to think he supported Bush because they might vote for Kerry or think that he actually wanted them to vote for Kerry and then vote for Bush. Or vice versa. Osama actually would/could have little meaningful decisive influence upon the US electorate so intellectually he would need to state ill-defined messages that would be difficult to determine his choice. Sort of like what he did.

You have to hand it to Suskind. He has managed for a second time to pilfer another group of moonbats with this Bush-bashing pile of nonsense. I think when history looks back on this period, this business model will stand in the top 3 most profitable industires of the decade.

I just wish the media would ask the obvious question:

Why was bin Laden around to voice an opinion on the 2004 election in the first place?

oops, I meant Kuwaiti women, not Yemeni women.

Check your facts, BlaBlaBla-

The top 3 most profitable industires are Goodyear, Uniroyal, and Michelin.

Bin Laden saw the US election as a chance to grab the headlines and challenge Al Zarqari for primacy. So he took the opportunity and released his video just days before the election. He got the headlines he wanted.

Only a dimwit would draw the larger conclusion, that Bin Laden wants Bush to keep fighting terrorism.

Anybody who believes that is a moron.

Where's osama: That's possible; would the goal then be just to stir things up, and see how the voters react? Or maybe just taunt us a bit and remind us he's there? I'm pretty much agnostic on the whole issue, I think we know a lot less about bin Laden than we did about most any other foreign leaders or revolutionaries over the last hundred years. And the contemporary conventional wisdom in many of those cases turned out to be mostly wrong, in the light of later research and events.

The people who think Osama is infallible or understands his enemy are the ones that don't understand him. I've spent a lot of time in the 3d world and many don't get us at all. Osama did Pres Bush a favor, but it doesn't mean he meant to. He read the garbage in the press about the weakness of America, how divided it was about the war, its decadence, and he believed we would be like the Spanish. We'd vote the President out based on fear of a threat. Osama misunderstood America in 9/11 and misunderstood us in 2004.

Doug wrote: "I'd rather we fight the terrorists in Iraq than Iowa."

I can think of several reasons that fighting in Iowa would be a better deal - logistics, climate, IDing the enemy, insentives for citizen participation...

The fact that we're doing what bin Laden wants doesn't automatically mean we're doing the wrong thing. But it sure as hell ought to give us pause, shouldn't it?

Kevin, you're sidestepping the real dizzying implication of Suskinds passage. One might conclude that bin Laden is doing what Bush wants.

What Doug means is that he'd rather someone else fight them in Iraq than he fight them in Iowa.

Yes, neil, your general experience in the 3rd world trumps the knowledge of the countries best Osama experts.

Uh, that's not what happened in Spain. Better do some reading and study of the Spain election, Neil. It's quite possible that osama is unfamiliar with US politics and it's variables. As Irony Man says, by all rights osama should have swung the election by being alive. If a democrat had failed in all that time to actually find our true enemy the right would have been screaming. Sort of indicates the hypocracy of the right doesn't it. They not only don't scream about it, they prefer that we'd just sort of forget that awol has failed after all this time to achieve anything with respect to osama. The right doesn't seem to make much sense on this issue. In this same amount of time the Japanese were conquered. I quess it's a good thing awol wasn't in charge in the 40's.

What give me pause is that bin Laden wasn't lying out on some Afghan hillside with a knife in his eye four years -- or seven years -- ago.

Nads (I think this name refers to his area of medicine, JeffII; is that right, Nads?): what an ignorant statement ... it really isn't that hard ... stop installing dictators over the people, stop supporting despotic sheiks willing to sell us oil at a bargain price, address the issue of palestine and israel honestly, and stop fucking illegally invading their countries. we're really not so different.

Well, we're not, meaning you and me and our Arab or Muslim counterparts. But we're very different from our two sets of leaders, who have their own agenda that has everything to do with serving their own joint interests and nothing to do with their own citizens'/people's.

This thread really took me back to the day the bin Laden tape came out. Was sitting in Manny's Deli in Chicago watching the news and said to my husband, "That's it, then. He just gave Bush the election, which is exactly what he wants." We were so innocent then. Wait, no, we weren't.

I wish you all would stop talking about fighting terrorists in Iraq. The main undercurrent to the violence against US forces in Iraq is an insurgency, insurrection, rebellion, resistance, war of liberation, etc. If a small proportion consists of people from outside Iraq, it doesn't change the nature of the beast.

The violence between the Sunnis and Shias is civil disorder, sectarian violence, violent power struggle, civil war, etc.

Most of the people we are killing in Afghanistan are Taliban trying to get back the power they lost. They are not really terrorists either as far as the USA is concerned.

So lets stop conflating any convenient violence in the world as "terrorism". Let's get our eye on the ball and make sure that those who would do harm to the USA, its citizens, and its allies are unable to and systematically destroyed.

In the mean time, due to the unfortunate confluence of PNACnuts and 11th September, Osama bin Ladin has become a side show to the on going tragedy of Iraq: $500 billion wasted (or fallen into the pockets of the undeserving), god only knows how many thousands maimed and permanently injured, and the many tens of thousands killed. All wasted.

The responsibility for all that stops undeniably in the oval office. Whatever OBL wished for, he can hardly have had a better ally.

Doug: "I'd rather we fight the terrorists in Iraq than Iowa."

You want a side of freedom fries with that cliche?

The fact that we're doing what bin Laden wants doesn't automatically mean we're doing the wrong thing.

Since when?

Boronx: "What Doug means is that he'd rather someone else fight them in Iraq than he fight them in Iowa."

And I'll lay you 2:1 odds that Doug would probably have a very hard time finding either place on a world map.

BlaBlaBla: "You have to hand it to Suskind. He has managed for a second time to pilfer another group of moonbats with this Bush-bashing pile of nonsense. I think when history looks back on this period ..."

It'll surely take note of such stirring quotes like the following:

"You never know what your history is going to be like until long after you're gone." — George W. Bush (Washington, DC, 05 May 2006)

Keep playing the fool, BlaBlaBla. Dubya's depending on you.

I'd rather we fight the terrorists in Iraq than Iowa.

Ah yes - the Ol' fight them over there before we fight them here malarkey

To me both Iraq and Iowa are 'over there'.

BTW, no one has explained to me why Islamic terrorists would be the least bit interested in attacking Smallville, in Hayseed County Iowa.

Maybe they want to try cornbread with their falafels?

falafels???

Excuse me
But I have to ask you to watch your language.
There are ladies present.
Sheesh, talking about lurid shower sex toys on a family blog.

Next thing we'll be trying to secularize Christmas in June!

"Ah yes - the Ol' fight them over there before we fight them here malarkey"

Not only that, but most right-wingers seem to be cheering for al-Qaeda or one of their other favorite religiously-motivated terror organizations to take out a big chunk of NYC, San Francisco, or LA. Makes you wonder just whose side they're on, doesn't it....

BTW, no one has explained to me why Islamic terrorists would be the least bit interested in attacking Smallville, in Hayseed County Iowa.

Silly, they want to mess up the straw poll.

The only thing more silly than Suskind's view of our largely inept (with respect to Osama) CIA figuring out Osama's inner thoughts is our blog posters telling us all about how smart or knowledgeable or tactical Osama is.

Neil Bason has it exactly right "The people who think Osama is infallible or understands his enemy are the ones that don't understand him. . . . Osama misunderstood America in 9/11 and misunderstood us in 2004."

Our press make our evil adveraries into genuiuses. Osama is cowering in a cave somewhere managing to get out an audio tape 6 to 8 months with deranged statements and you folks think he is a genius strategist.

Only an idiot would not recognize that U.S. voters tossing Bush out would have been great pr for Osama.

If this Jami Miscik talked about Osama "clearly understood how his primacy as al Qaeda's leader was supported by the continuation of his eye-to-eye struggle with Bush," then she, stupid Osama and everyone else should realize that victory over Bush in the form of him being kicked out of office would have been great for Osama.

Silly, they want to mess up the straw poll.

LOL!

Is that when all the wingnut strawmen gather together to decide who gets to be the biggest non-existent threat?

Our press make our evil adveraries into genuiuses. Osama is cowering in a cave somewhere managing to get out an audio tape 6 to 8 months with deranged statements and you folks think he is a genius strategist.

I think Brian just described the Bush WH modus operandi. Next he'll be telling us that Zarquawi was just a small time Jordanian thug who was hyped up into a giant boogeyman.

By the liberal press, of course. The Whitehouse had nothing to do with it.

Band of the Week: diRTyWoRMz

floop,

No, Zarquawi was a small time Jordanian thug whose evil progressed to the command of a group of terrorists killing innocent men, women and children. The people who made him into a genius were wrong. He was stupid enough to get blown up visiting with his "spiritual advisor" and leaving behind a treasure trove of information. Yeah, he was important to get because he was killing people.

As to Bush, he is not the one currently obsessing about Osama -- it is the Bush haters trying to score points. As far as we know, while it would be nice to bring justice to Osama, he is not very important at this point because he is not directing the killing of folks.

As far as we know, while it would be nice to bring justice to Osama, he is not very important at this point because he is not directing the killing of folks.

You know, I killed a whole bunch of Boy Scouts a few years ago. Massacred a whole troop. But while it would be nice to bring me to justice, I suppose, it's not too important because I'm not killing any Boy Scouts at this point....yet.

...and he believed we would be like the Spanish. We'd vote the President out based on fear of a threat. Osama misunderstood America in 9/11 and misunderstood us in 2004.

Posted by: neil bacon on June 29, 2006 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

I think this is a misrepresentation of the Spanish.

Like the UK, a majority of the nation were against going to war with Iraq. The Madrid bombing came a sahort time before their elections and the government-in-being tried to make political hay by lieing to the electorate. They claimed that eta were behind the bombings.

In their local elections recently, UK voters gave labor a sharp reminder of who counts in a democracy. Likewise, in Spain the electorate spanked a government that ignored the people's judgement and deliberately lied to them.

If only in the US we had an electorate with the same good judgement and half as concerned with dishonesty in government.

Then again, I'm glad that Bush is having to sit (and that's about all he's done) through 4 more years of his own disaster.

Pity it has to affect so many others.

Yeah, he was important to get because he was killing people.

Well, the US should have offered him an amnesty then, I guess.

BTW, no one has explained to me why Islamic terrorists would be the least bit interested in attacking Smallville, in Hayseed County Iowa.

It's not just Hayseed County,Floop. Don't discount the threats to Prarie, Queensland, Birdsville or Long Reach. There are no safe havens. It's every bit as real as the threat of Chechen rebels crossing the Rio Grande with the other illegals to blow up schools in Hudspeth County - though concern about this danger seems to have died down as Beslan fades from memory - unwarranted laxity.

Stevens is an 86 year old guy who has well served his country and should have retired long ago. He is captivated by the power. I don't know if he was in combat in WWII but it hardly seems to be of any significance on legal issues 60 years later.

But I have problems with both extreme liberals and extreme conservatives on the court. It is ridiculous that we know how the four liberals are going to vote in virtually every case and the two conservatives are almost as bad. It results in "swing" judges (what a terrible concept) having in ordinate power. I would prefer nine justices like Kennedy or even O'Connnor who have an open mind about each case. With 9 of them, they would get most cases right.

notthere,

you analysis about Spain may or may not be correct, but that does not mean osama in his cave shares your anlysis.

stefan,

your perspective reflects the criminal justice mentality of liberals regarding terrorism, that we need to catch the murderer rather than we need to win the war.

...He was stupid enough to get blown up visiting with his "spiritual advisor" and leaving behind a treasure trove of information. Yeah, he was important to get because he was killing people....

Posted by: brian on June 29, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

The first story I read about the resulting raids after Zarqawi's death was due to the intelligence gained from the sole survivor of the raid. Then we had the treasure trove of intelligence.

I see. NYT gets kicked in the nuts for exposing an administration intelligence gathering program, the nuts and bolts of which are in the public domain and terrorists would have to be pretty naive, at this point, not to realize the US would be gathering all similar information.

But the administration puts all al-Qaeda members who have ever had any contact with this man on notice to tighten their personal security.

Brilliant!

Coincidently doing what bin Laden wants is potentially benign. Doing as bin Laden directs ought to much more than give us pause.

Republicrat:

"Nobody knows what bin Laden wants..."

I am not going to do your reading or your web searches for you.... but here's a suggestion:

Go read some of Osama's early missives written right after 9/11. You will see he writes very clearly that he wants to bleed America to death in the desert.

Those might even be his EXACT words.

How many billions has he bled away so far?

292 billion and the counter is spinning wildly.

brian --
that's why I'm not getting involved in the whole "Osama thinks..." argument. I don't know him, never met him, haven't ever read anything that convincingly put me inside his mind. It's all speculation. More interesting speculation would be to figure out what his next move, or moves by groups controlled by him, might be.

Re "War on Terror":
And the trouble with this administration is it has half the nation believing that fighting in Iraq has something to do with fighting terrorism. Hence the "fight over there" motif we still hear that is such bunk.

If it had been the Montana Militia waging a terrorism campaign in the US, we might have ended up using military assets to "defeat" them, but we wouldn't have declared war.

Just because we have to use our passports doesn't put terrorism beyond the criminal pail.

I'll call it the Hollywood effect, but it's this inclination to over-dramatize that lifts what should be a cold, calculating, relentless purpose into theatrics.

Look at what the Israelis have done over the last 30 years with a variety of threats. Look at the UK v IRA "war". Eta, red brigade, etc. Tamils and Chechens fall more into resistance/liberation, i.e. civil war.

It is just this manufacturing by this administration, trying to put terrorism in some area between criminality and war, that has muddied the issue. Very convenient for Bush because he gets to play commander-in-thief. Not good for the US, the constitution, or the world.

I don't know if he was in combat in WWII but it hardly seems to be of any significance on legal issues 60 years later.

Whereas that jackass Thomas' complete lack of service does qualify him to make comments about the "realities of warfare"? Unbelievable. Sorry brian, but reasonable people don't accept the notion that you can grasp the realities of warfare from watching porn movies or sexually harrassing women.

It's every bit as real as the threat of Chechen rebels crossing the Rio Grande with the other illegals to blow up schools in Hudspeth County - though concern about this danger seems to have died down as Beslan fades from memory - unwarranted laxity.

Well, they should be more concerned about Canucks coming south and setting fire to the White House, right? Going on past experience I'd say that's 'unwarranted laxity' too...

Can't trust those Canadians!

but i read a Bumper sticker that said Osama would vote for Kerry, or something like that...

As to Bush, he is not the one currently obsessing about Osama -- it is the Bush haters trying to score points. As far as we know, while it would be nice to bring justice to Osama, he is not very important at this point because he is not directing the killing of folks.

Can you say "Shill?"

I knew you could.

Irony man,

Is Justice Thomas your expert on racial discrmination law because he suffered through vicious racism in the south? After all, how can white judges like Ginsburg, Stevens and Bryer be expected to now the "realities" of racial discrmiation?

See where your selective game gets you when claiming Stevens or others like that old fool Murtha have particular expertise based on their expeirence?

Nads (I think this name refers to his area of medicine, JeffII; is that right, Nads?)
Posted by: shortstop

Nads is a contraction of my name. I work with kids ... although I do have a soft spot for ambiguous genitalia and babies whose 'nads don't develop properly.

See where your selective game gets you when claiming Stevens or others like that old fool Murtha have particular expertise based on their expeirence?
Posted by: brian

pure sophistry ... repubs whores like yourself would smear anyone and anything that interfered with your cult of bush worship. it wouldn't matter if stevens or murtha had served or not, you'd still consider their opinions less than that of armchair chickenhawk cowards like cheney, rush, or yourself.

吉祥三宝铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 吉祥三宝铃声 免费铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 吉祥三宝铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 吉祥三宝铃声 不得不爱铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 吉祥三宝铃声 手机铃声 不得不爱铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 文秘写作 竞聘演讲稿 个人工作总结 八荣八耻演讲稿 手机铃声 免费歌曲铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 搞笑手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 铃声图片下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免ฟ