Bin Laden Elects Bush

OK, perhaps a tad strong, but I simply do not see how this development helps John Kerry. Despite the claim that the winner of the election will not determine America's security, bin Laden explicitly makes it personal between George Bush and himself. (And the bit about the girl and her goat was a nice touch, you gotta admit.)

The Bush administration need only tacitly and calmly ask Americans who do they stand with, Bush or bin Laden? Can the White House screw this up between now and Tuesday? Absolutely. Reach too far or protest too hard on the Tora Bora issue, and voters may catch a whiff of grandstanding.

But Kerry can only watch from the sidelines, it seems.

Comments

[Karl Rove]

Some people wait a lifetime for a moment like this!

[Todd Fletcher]

I'm mystified as to what Bin Laden's intent is. Obviously it's timed to the elections, but even if he does prefer Kerry over Bush, which seems highly doubtful, what could he possibly think this video achieves in that regard?

[thoreau]

This makes me want to vote for stem cell funding. If we can perfect cloning, then we can clone Bin Laden and kill him twice!

[chthus]

I'm eager to watch this and read the transcript, but from the little I've gleaned reading about it, it seems as though Bin Laden has got himself a western saavy PR man. Nothing specific, but the subtlties seemed much more geared towards westerners than his followers.

Can't tell the angle he's shooting for or whether the advice he's received is competent, but there's a distinctly different flavor to the speech than previous ones.

[Mo]

Here's the billion dollar question:
Does this video demonstrate a preference for Bush or Kerry?

Is OBL so manaically sinister that he's doing this knowing that Bush will get a bump up in popularity and win the election? Bush is as much of recruiting point for OBL as OBL is one for Bush.

Or is OBL so maniacally overconfident that he will be able to convince the American electorate to vote for Kerry?

I believe the former, not that OBL is going to change my vote either way.

Can Kerry say that OBL is so afraid of him that he's trying to scare people into voting for Bush and use this to his advantage?

[not Rick Barton]

I think we're overestimating Bin Laden's grasp of U.S. politics. Maybe, like Michael Moore, he really thinks he's convincing people to vote Kerry.

Anyway, that transcript is too much. "He should tell us why we didn't hit Sweden for instance." Paging Rick Barton!

I think the CV is right, that this helps Bush. I'm still waffling between Bush & Badnarik, but reading that transcript gives me an emotional, probably irrational desire to see Dubya win. Especially this part: "Each state that doenst mess with our security has automatically secured their security." Oh, we're gonna fuck with your security, dipshit. We're gonna fuck with it Big Time.

[Ken]

It can and has been argued that Bush serves Osama's goals,

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_10_25/feature.html

but I don't see how the fact that Bin Laden is alive and well should help Bush on election day. The question everyone in America should be asking is: Why the hell is this guy still alive?

All Kerry needs to do is point out that the reason Osama is still alive is because Bush has taken his eye off of the real threat to our security.

If you want to write in my name on Tuesday, I promise on my first day in office to redeploy all our troops from Iraq to Pakistan - which is where they should have gone aftering taking down the Taliban three years ago. Once we get Osama, I'll display his head on a pike on the White House lawn.

[Ruthless]

In the immortal words of Whack-O-Sama from an earlier post:
"Here I still, sure as shit am!
Dubya ain't whacked me."

So, explain to me once again--slowly--how this tape is going to help Dubya.

[Brian]

Ruthless - here's an attempt:

Helps Bush by getting Iraq off the TV, reminding people that "we're at war" and Bush is resolute, dead or alive, 9/11, etc. If you watched the RNC it was obvious the whole reelection strategy was "remember 9/11". Nothing else to run on.

You could say it helps Kerry because it reminds people that OBL is still alive and Bush hasn't done jack about it, but I don't think it works on a rational level like that. This is all emotion.

[madman]

I don't think it will make any difference at all in the election. My gut feeling is Bush is already ahead 5-6% nationally. I know I know I am supposed to believe the polls and I am suppoosed to believe that the first timers and cell phone people are overwhelmingly going to vote for Kerry Edwards. Night of November 2nd, people will be surely awaken by the margin of win Bush produces. MSM and undecided voters can kiss my ass!! Go Badnarik!!

[trainwreck]

I get so pissed off every time I see that pigfucker I could spit. Anyway it just reminds me why we had to invade Iraq in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. NOT.

[Brian]

PS: not sure I entirely believe that argument but that's the basic idea. I had a sick feeling when I saw Osama on the tube today. First thought that came to my mind was "Thought it was all over for him but maybe Osama's gonna get Bush reelected". It's like these two guys need each other.

[Watta Ino]

OBL just called Bush a pussy dictator, no different than the dictators, whether military or royal, he creates alliances with. For both Bush and OBL, its not about freedom, but something more sinister, foreign policy.

I am not so sure that Bush is a pussy, though!

The Bush administration need only tacitly and calmly ask Americans who do they stand with, Bush or bin Laden?

As a member of the polarized electorate, I say neither. The Bush/bin Laden families are too intertwined.

[Someone]

Heh, all that talk about not allowing terrorists to influence our election like Spain just flew out the door. Osama is quite intelligent, he just hit us in the soft spot, our emotions!

[Fodderstompf]

The immediate, emotional reaction aids Bush tremendously. "Bin Laden is taunting the Preznit, ma! We'll show that sunovabitch at the polls, won't we?" The long-term, rational reaction somewhat helps Kerry. Bush has had three years to catch bin Laden and has failed, so it's high time to see if the other guy can get the job done. And why did Bush invade Iraq when the chief culprit for 9/11 is still out there?

The problem is that with the election so close, there's no time for the emotional reaction to subside. If bin Laden had released this tape in the summer, it would have indicated that he wanted Kerry to win. The timing suggests that he actually prefers a Bush victory.

Not that he's likely to be terribly disappointed no matter who wins. Even more than bin he wants Bush to win, he wants to be seen as the man who decided the election. Now he can stake a claim on the outcome no matter what it is.

[mike]

It's clear Osama is still on the loose. We'd better go invade Paraguay to show him we mean business!

[Bill]

I think Osama has his sleepers in the US running focus groups. He sounded amazingly Western. He's even going for the libertarians with:
Both parties are arrogant and stubborn and the greediness and taking money without right...
I think Osama has seen too many Bond movies. Seriously! This shit seems so much like MGM/UA is running the whole show for our viewing pleasure/displeasure. There must be a wicked sci-fi-mystery book or movie in this.

[Ammonium]

Things are looking perfect for Bush.

Now we all believe that Osama is alive and isn't being held as the October Surprise.

When we capture or kill Osama on Sunday, the election will be a formality.

[gaius marius]

Obviously it's timed to the elections, but even if he does prefer Kerry over Bush, which seems highly doubtful, what could he possibly think this video achieves in that regard?... I think we're overestimating Bin Laden's grasp of U.S. politics. Maybe, like Michael Moore, he really thinks he's convincing people to vote Kerry.

jay-sus FUCK people -- did you fucking read the transcipt? he couldn't give a lesser fuck who wins.

go ahead and swing away at me for speaking this bit of opinion-truth: that was the hopeful statement of a desperate but rational man who is trying to go over the heads of ridiculous barking american politicians and appeal to the american people to give him a way to stop.

i'll quote what i said earlier today before i saw this thing:

there is an implicit assumption that kicking ass and taking names makes you safer in this environment. it does not! it puts you in greater peril -- this is not a war, it is a popular insurgency -- and this is the fundamental misperception among an american majority, including (possibly) the white house.

you suppose that they are totally irrational. i don't. they have a manifesto, aims they want addressed...

osama & co haven't done a thing yet to make me believe they don't understand the game they're playing. mistakes, sure -- but they have stated aims and want to accomplish them. much like hezbollah or hamas, if they were negotiated with and given a measure of success and access to real power, they would take it -- as the ira and irgun did before them...

continue imperializing their homelands, though, and we may get it in the head after all.

... we're in the process (in iraq) of proving al-qaeda prescient and making them sympathetic figures to all muslims. this is a program for failure not only in iraq but globally.

until we begin to understand that al-qaeda is a rational insurgency against indirect american misrule (both real and perceived) with massive popular support -- because they honestly address real grievances! -- we will continue to fail miserably and dramatically increase the odds of american tragedies at the hands of blowback.

now, what osama said (abridged):

American people, my speech to you is the best way to avoid another conflict about the war and its reasons and results. I am telling you security is an important pillar of human life. And free people don't let go of their security -- contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom -- he should tell us why we didn't hit Sweden for instance. Its known that those who hate freedom don't have dignified souls... But we fought you because we are free people; we don't sleep on our oppression. We want to regain the freedom of our Muslim nation. As you spill our security, we spill your security.

We never thought of hitting the towers. But after we were so fed up, and we saw the oppression of the American Israeli coalition on our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind -- and the incidents that really touched me directly goes back to 1982 and the following incident: when the US permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon with the assistance of the 6th fleet. In these hard moments, it occurred to me, so many meanings I can't explain, but it resulted in a general feeling of rejecting oppression and gave me a hard determination to punish the oppressors. While I was looking at the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it came to my mind to punish the oppressor the same way and destroy towers in the US to get a taste of what they tasted, and quit killing our children and women.

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your hands. Each state that doesn't mess with our security has automatically secured their security.

and there's more that al-jazeera only hinted at: (bin Laden) pointed to the contradiction which considers oppression and killing of innocents a legal act... Bin Laden pointed to the millions of pounds of explosives dropped on Iraqi children as bush his son had done, as he said to remove an old agent (saddam) and install a new agent to help in stealing the oil of iraq. And bin Laden said the events of 9/11 came as an answer to this oppression and said that if the answer to this oppression is considered bad terror, then we need to do it. And he stressed that he wants to deliver this message to the Americans in words and in deeds since the 9/11 events. He reminded Americans of a few warning messages through various news media like Time Magazine and CNN and other Arab and correspondents since 1996. He warned them of the consequences of their countries policies...

we get this message from this man -- a message that is clear and strong, but also potentially quite conciliatory -- speaking directly to the people, appealing for help in inciting the changes in the brutal aspects of american foreign policy that would satisfy al-qaeda's demands. he is *asking* us to remove the causes of the insurgency and improve the lives of many muslims.

and what do we get for analysis? so much bellicose antagonistic bullshit that i cannot believe it. i read osama's bit and was amazed and hopeful. then i turned on msnbc, listened to olberman, listened to bush and kerry, and that hope evaporated instantly.

hey, i don't know if you can take osama at face value; i know for certain you can't take bush or kerry that way, so why him? but i was struck by the simple candor of his words. "this is why we're doing this; it's something we never dreamed of; this is how you can make it stop, so that you and we can be secure."

imo, there was probably more honesty in that few minutes than in 18 months of presidental campaigning. and i've yet to hear anyone in the pack of crazed dogs that is the american politimedia scrum say anything more intelligent than "he is evil!"

america in the throes of an election is simply disgraceful.

[phocion]

In Bin Laden's latest video he says:

- Bush stole the election.
- Bush is corrupted by money from Middle Eastern tyrants.
- All Bush could do on 9/11 was read a goat story.
- The Patriot Act is oppressive.
- Bush kills Iraqi children for oil.
- Bush is misleading and distorting on the reasons for war.

Whatever the accuracy of those various points, it sure sounds like he just saw Fahrenheit 9/11, doesn't it?

[phocion]

gaius marius,

he is *asking* us to remove the causes of the insurgency and improve the lives of many muslims.

The oft-stated goal of al-Qaeda is to rid the Middle East of Western influence and establish a Taliban-like caliphate that spans from Morocco to Palestine to Pakistan, possibly including states like Turkey and Indonesia. That is the cause of the insurgency. Whether it would improve the lives of many Muslims is questionable. Do you think that is something that the US should allow, or even negotiate?

[Pavel]

Q. Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that?

A. 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.

Hmmm...

[Richard Dreyfuss]

"It's clear Osama is still on the loose. We'd better go invade Paraguay to show him we mean business!"

mike, Did you see the movie, Moon Over Parador?

[Eric II]

"we get this message from this man -- a message that is clear and strong, but also potentially quite conciliatory -- speaking directly to the people, appealing for help in inciting the changes in the brutal aspects of american foreign policy that would satisfy al-qaeda's demands. he is *asking* us to remove the causes of the insurgency and improve the lives of many muslims."

Sometimes I get the impression that in your view of the world, everyone is rational and is merely following their own self-interests. Everyone can always be reasoned with, whether you're talking about OBL, Arafat, the PRC, or even the Imperial Japanese. Everyone, that is, except those crazy, antagonistic, warmongering Americans, who wouldn't have any foreign policy problems if they just stayed out of the rest of the world's affairs. History and human nature be damned.

Btw, in case you forgot, neither the Americans nor the Israelis were the focal point of Osama's ire back in 1982. He was too busy taking the the help of the CIA and two of the authoritarian governments he now claims to despise (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) in fighting the Soviets. And oddly enough, he didn't even mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in one of his speeches until 1998.

[gaius marius]

US should allow, or even negotiate?

mr phocion, we don't have a choice. we can expend ourselves and slaughter millions of muslims, drive as hard a bargain as we like -- but we will, at then end of the day, be forced to the table either explicitly (bargaining) or implicitly (removing the causes for popular support for AQ). that has been the lesson of insurgencies everywhere -- and israel is rediscovering them now too.

The oft-stated goal of al-Qaeda is to rid the Middle East of Western influence and establish a Taliban-like caliphate that spans from Morocco to Palestine to Pakistan, possibly including states like Turkey and Indonesia.

you're cherry-picking the least possible one from a list that also includes getting american armies out of the mideast and relief from israeli occupation in palestine. but the oft-stated ideals of many an insurgency get compromised in the end. where in the ira's manifesto was there an allowance for a divided ireland?

the point is that they HAVE talking points -- this is not implacable hatred! they have grievances that can be addressed. and bin laden here eems to be asking us to address them so that al-qaeda is not compelled to continue attacking the united states.

our response? "EVIL!" is that the best we can do?

[Ruthless]

Heaven forbid any Amurikun should hear Whack-O-Sama speaking in a manner more soothingly/subdued than Ted Koppel.

Heaven double forbid they should actually listen to what he's sayin'.

[Gorp]

How sure are we that the tape is authentic?

[Jason Bourne]

The video can go either depending on how its viewed. I would say that neither candidate is particularly secure with its release, and this is why they've both been timid about it thus far.

Plus, Jeff Taylor is an unrepentant Bush supporter, and cannot be trusted. 🙂

[gaius marius]

Everyone can always be reasoned with, whether you're talking about OBL, Arafat, the PRC, or even the Imperial Japanese. Everyone, that is, except those crazy, antagonistic, warmongering Americans, who wouldn't have any foreign policy problems if they just stayed out of the rest of the world's affairs.

no, mr eric, i view americans as essentially of the same nature as all peoples -- which is to say, none altogether rational.

unfortunately, however, america is currently posessed of great power and a long string of good luck and brilliant success, which has brought us great arrogance (much like the imperial japanese of 1941, to use your example).

i don't care very much whether bin laden is a genius or just got lucky in hitting a harmonious chord with the muslim world. the fact is his words (if not his methods) express the honest views of hundreds of millions of muslims. and these people are pissed off -- with very good reason, imo. and so they've started an insurgency against us.

how we're dealing with it is exactly the wrong way -- we are fanning the flames, not dousing them. (note that my concern is primarily, but not solely, for us.) we are putting ourselves in ever greater jeopardy by reacting as arrogantly as we are -- assuming we can just squash the problem with a few tanks.

and now bin laden tries to tell us something on the order of, "no, you don't understand -- i will stop if you do this" -- and what is our reaction? more arrogance.

the entire thing is an american slow-motion suicide attempt, and it infuriates me because i want my country to preserve itself.

[alkali]

Why hasn't anyone interviewed Charles Manson about the election? Shouldn't we figure out who Charlie would want in office, and do the opposite?

[phocion]

you're cherry-picking the least possible one from a list that also includes getting american armies out of the mideast and relief from israeli occupation in palestine.

The reason they are for getting American armies out the Mideast and relief from Israeli occupation in Palestine is because those two things are part of "to rid the Middle East of Western influence and establish a Taliban-like caliphate that spans from Morocco to Palestine to Pakistan". It's like I said the goal of libertarians is to have a smaller, less intrusive government, and you said I cherry-picked that from a list which includes shrinking the budget and legalizing marijuana. Your goals are a subset of mine.

It's not just American armies they want out; it's American money and free trade. And indeed, European money too. The reason they want all that stuff out is so they can topple the governments currently in place to establish the caliphate. Our money is what props up all those kingdoms.

I'm amazed that some people think you can reason with religious fanatics responsible for the intentional murder of thousands of innocent people who don't care one way or the other about the Middle East. The terrorists believe their goal is the only goal their god will allow -- compromise is not in their vocabulary.

[Karl]

Gaius -
'and now bin laden tries to tell us something on the order of, "no, you don't understand -- i will stop if you do this" ' - sounds reasonable. But in and of itself is not a reason to come to the table with him. To use an extreme analogy; what if you're off to the mall and you find a gang beating up your friend. You intervene and start dispatching them. The leaders holds up his hands and says "wait, you don't understand; just let me kill this guy and I won't hurt you." Not the greatest analogy but... So Osama says, withdraw your troops, stop supporting israel and you have security. Should we just allow Israel to be overrun? That has been the stated goal of Arab militants for a long time. Should we assume that if we just go away, it'll be okay? Or should we just leave a semi-free ally to fend for themselves simply because Osama won't hurt us if we do? Perhaps I'm not being real clear - my point is that if the things we are doing are right and just in the main, is it correct to stop doing them in order to try and avoid getting our nose bloodied? Just a generic question - you're free to argue about whether our current posture is right or just! 🙂

[Eric II]

"the fact is his words (if not his methods) express the honest views of hundreds of millions of muslims...how we're dealing with it is exactly the wrong way -- we are fanning the flames, not dousing them."

Those weren't the POVs that I was criticizing. I partially agree with both of them. What I was criticizing was the opinion rehashed in the following lines.

"and now bin laden tries to tell us something on the order of, "no, you don't understand -- i will stop if you do this" -- and what is our reaction? more arrogance."

Do you really think for a moment that he has any intention of stopping? What about his past behavior - whether you're talking about the bloodthirsty acts of terrorism or the dishonest, pompous rhetoric - makes you view that offer credibly? Again, you seem quite willing to believe in the rationality of a world-reknowned terrorist, even as you look at the mentality of the US in the worst possible light.

[Rick Barton]

Attention; all supporters of the US government's hyper-interventionism in the Mid-east. I don't want to say, "I told you so"....yes I do. I told you so.

OBL:

"...contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom. He should tell us why we didn't hit Sweden for instance."

[phocion]

Another interesting thing is that Bin Laden addresses different audiences in different ways. When speaking to the West, he doesn't often mention religion, and instead concentrates on the oppression of Muslim peoples that gaius seems to believe is their driving force. He gives the impression that if the West were just reasonable, and simply made it easier for his organization to operate without Western interference, all the terror would end. This is especially true of today's video and his offer of truce to Europe a few months back.

When he issues commands or fatwas to fellow Muslims, however, he speaks almost solely in theological terms about slaying every Crusader and Jew, overthrowing all governments in Muslim lands that don't adhere to Sharia law, and forcing those in Muslim lands who want to live to believe in Allah. Al Qaeda fully supports the genocide of blacks in Sudan, despite their victims not exactly being guilty of oppressing Muslims on a mass scale. They are on a divine mission, and all those opposed to it are pagans who must be destroyed. Compromise is impossible as their will is the will of Allah as they claim is clearly delineated in the Koran.

Attention; all supporters of the US government's hyper-interventionism in the Mid-east. I don't want to say, "I told you so"....yes I do. I told you so.

Al Qaeda is also suspected to be behind attacks in Tunisia, Pakistan, Australia (via Indonesia), Indonesia, Kenya (I'm not counting the embassy bombings), Morocco (where they attacked Jewish, Belgian, and Spanish targets), Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UK (via Turkey), and Spain (including attempts after withdrawl from Iraq).

[Rick Barton]

OBL orchestrated an attack that killed thousands of Americans. Just whom he is trying to help here may be an open question, but it's for sure that this mass murderer is trying to influence our elections. We shouldn't accommodate him by obsessing on this communication. There are things in it that we should definitely discuss and learn from, but after the election.

[Trey]

gaius,

I have the same impression of the tape that you do.

Why don't we take Pres Washington's advice and get the fuck out of everyone else's business? We keep whacking the hornet's nest and we're REALLY going to get stung, and I don't mean just 3,000 folks.

So, when Houston is nuked, then what? Will we listen then? Or will we just go crazy and nuke Mecca and Cairo and Islamabad?

Why is it so hard for us to just back off a little? not McDonalds or Starbucks or Pepsi, but our fucking bully government. Everyone wants Baywatch and Levis, they just don't want us telling them what to do.

And as to Israel... We should trade with them, and wish them well, and Karl, you should volunteer for their army, but we should not jeopardize the safety of the US, I mean my family's safety, for them or any other country.

[Bill]

gaius marius,

What you say is something that all people should think about. It is part of a greater understanding of the issue. What you leave out of the big picture is very important as well. In the end it is more important. You're view is the same as any pacifist, whether you are one or not. Pacifism is for the short-sighted. Peace is a wonderful thing, and all decent people hope for the day that peace rules the international scene; but that day has not yet come. In the real world, no pacifist could ever survive without the protection of non-pacifists. With modern technology, it would take but a few aggressive people to kill a world full of pacifists. Pacifism is a dead-end philosophy. If your enemies want to kill you, you must kill them first. It's not a good thing, but it's reality. Pacifists do not live in the real world. Peace is the ultimate goal. Unfortunately, war will be with us for some time. Until all people like Osama are dead or reformed, there will never be world peace. Until the vast majority of people on this planet are civilized--meaning that they accept that individual liberty is fundamental--there will never be world peace. Essentially, people are still too wild--we have not yet suppressed enough of our animal instincts; we have not all been properly domesticated.

[Xavier]

Gaius: Even if I believed that appeasing terrorists would reduce terrorism, it isn't worth it. Allowing a few thousand Americans to die in terrorist attacks is a perfectly reasonable price to pay for the pleasure of killing more Al-Qaeda members and preventing them from achieving any of their goals. I'm pretty sure most of the country would agree with me on that.

[Eric II]

"Everyone wants Baywatch and Levis"

I'm pretty sure that Osama isn't happy about those things either.

[Josh]

Rick Barton:

Attention; all supporters of the US government's hyper-interventionism in the Mid-east. I don't want to say, "I told you so"....yes I do. I told you so.

OBL:

"...contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom. He should tell us why we didn't hit Sweden for instance."

Honestly, you cannot possibly be dense enough to take Bin Laden's regurgitation of Chomsky talking points as evidence that you were right about anything, can you?

[Rick Barton]

phocion,

The government's of Pakistan, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UK and Spain all have committed oppression or oppressive intervention in the Mid-east. The evidence is very heavy that it was our government's meddling in the Mid-east that motivated the 9/11 attacks. Note that the 9/11 commission findings reveal:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/nation/9222612.htm

The evidence is that the tragedy of 9/11 probably wouldn't have occurred but for our government's intervention in the mid-East, specifically its support of the Israeli government's brutal occupation, which is a terribly unethical thing for our government to be doing with our money anyway.

[Trey]

Bill,

There is a big difference between self defense and reckless aggression, neither of these are pacifism (as I understand it).

You can make the case that what we did in Afghanistan was self defense. I don't think you can for Iraq. But you sure as hell can't call our first war on Iraq self defense, or our support of Israel's wars, or our support of Iraq when they were at war with Iran.

That only leaves aggression.

[Ruthless Mr. Pleasure]

Saint Xavier:
"Allowing a few thousand Americans to die in terrorist attacks is a perfectly reasonable price to pay for the pleasure of killing more Al-Qaeda"

I don't think so.

Pleasure is one thing...

[Bill]

Trey,

Maybe you and your family (and me and mine) would be safer in the short term, but we'd basically be screwing our grandchildren. It takes a person who is amazingly ignorant of history to think that the ostrich's response to danger is a long-term solution.

[pragmatist]

Trey suggested:

"Why don't we take Pres Washington's advice
and get the fuck out of everyone else's
business?"

Is that before or after we defeat the
Nazi's and Imperial Japanese in WWII?

Is that before or after we defeat the
Soviets in the Cold War?

hmmm .... maybe the North should have
followed that advice and let the South
secede in 1860?

You are the definition of an "idiot".
You are living in "your own world; not
reality".

We MADE bin Ladin attack us? He had
no say in the matter? It was just
our actions?

And take Israel. In 1956 Eisenhower forced
them to give up the Sinai. Maybe he should
have followed Washington's advice. In 1973
Nixon made Sharon stop before Israel captured
Cairo. Maybe he should have followed
Washington's advice.

We Americans don't get to say ... "OK World
just leave us alone". We are king of the
hill and the rest of the world wants to take
us down.

You really think PRC will just leave us alone
if we only want to sell them hamburgers and
insurance?

We don't get to choose our enemies. We only
get to choose our friends.

[Trey]

Bill,

It's our responses that are pissing off so much of the world. That wasn't so bad when all the enemy had were sticks (Philippines - Spanish-American War), but now their turning planes into missiles, and they'll have nukes soon.

What would be so hard about just leaving them alone? I mean, we still have troops in Germany and Japan!!

Self defense - yes! But trying to take on the world is a fight that we cannot win.

[Rick Barton]

Josh,

Calling the evidence, "Chomsky talking points" is not a refutation, or even an attempted one. I had given Sweden as an example before on this blog a few times, citing the fact that Scandinavia is the chief exporter of porn into the Arab world. The Mullahs may complain bitterly but of course there are no terrorist attacks directed at Stockholm.

[Bill]

There is a big difference between self defense and reckless aggression, neither of these are pacifism (as I understand it).

Trey, that's true, but:

Gulf War I was not self-defense. It was action mandated by treaty with Kuwait. Believe it or not, Kuwait was and is our "legal" ally. Kuwait had been invaded. Legally it's the same as if Germany invaded France, that's probably why Bush the Daddy was able to get international support, i.e., France and Germany (in Kerry's way of thinking).

Afghanistan: Self-defense

Gulf War II: Not self-defense. A neo-imperialist attempt to change the politics and culture of the Islamic world in such a way that they (1) no longer have a tendency toward jihad, (2) they become good trading partners, and (3) they start on the path toward liberal constitutional democracy, which is my favorite part. Not that I don't like safety and trade, but I hate the way that Islamic medievalists treat woman, gays, and basically most people.

[Josh]

Rick Barton,

Bin Laden is telling you what he knows you want to hear. I think Lenin had a term he used...

[Rick Barton]

"We don't get to choose our enemies. We only
get to choose our friends."

Some of the actions of our government needlessly create enemies for us.

[Trey]

Is that before or after we defeat the
Nazi's and Imperial Japanese in WWII?

If we'd of stayed out of WW1, there probably wouldn't have been Nazis. Of course, no way to know. Roosevelt goaded the Japanese into war so we could help the Brits

Is that before or after we defeat the
Soviets in the Cold War?

Before...

hmmm .... maybe the North should have
followed that advice and let the South
secede in 1860?

HELL YES!! The South had as much right to secede from the union as the colonies did from the British.

You are the definition of an "idiot".
You are living in "your own world; not
reality".

Takes one to know one, NA NA!

We MADE bin Ladin attack us? He had
no say in the matter? It was just
our actions?

He chose to attack us because to the threat he perceived us to be. If you break into my house to harm my family, are you MAKING me shoot your ass? No, but that is what I would choose to do.

And take Israel. In 1956 Eisenhower forced
them to give up the Sinai. Maybe he should
have followed Washington's advice. In 1973
Nixon made Sharon stop before Israel captured
Cairo. Maybe he should have followed
Washington's advice.

Let the Israelis take it all

We Americans don't get to say ... "OK World
just leave us alone". We are king of the
hill and the rest of the world wants to take
us down.

I don't want us to be king, just rich and free and peaceful - and a fucking bitch to mess with.

You really think PRC will just leave us alone
if we only want to sell them hamburgers and
insurance?

I know that they WON'T leave us alone if we keep messing with them.

We don't get to choose our enemies. We only
get to choose our friends.

and you can't pick your friend's nose...

[chthus]

Read the transcript, first impression is, umm, only confused as to the desired effect. Possibilities cross the board.

1) Reads like a Michael Moore ad for Kerry. Maybe Bin Laden is trying to be smart and swing the election to Kerry.

2) Almost too stereotyped, trying to push emotional buttons, "but he's attacking the president." Maybe BinLa is trying to be subtle and smart, swing things to Bush.

3) BinLa is being quite clever. Fodderstompf touched on this earlier. Close enough to a very close election, unless a very decisive victory for one or the other (and probably even then) he can claim influence on the result, either way.

Other thoughts. Back in late August, early September there was word about of a tape by Bin Laden triggering a major assassination which would trigger a wave of attacks. Zawahiri put out a tape around sept 11, but nothing exceptional came of it. If this is the tape that those words were about, then an assassination attempt, then attacks. But how quickly? Before the election? Gotta move fast. Was delivery that accurately timed? We'll see.

As for attacks, can't see those really helping anyone but Bush, while the tape alone could go either, or no particular, way. Generic attack in the US helps Bush, stirs up emotion plus likely occurs in a major city, which tend Dem. Scare reduces the vote, benefit Bush. Say there's an attack in Philly on Monday. Fear keeps people from the pools, PA goes Bush.

Unless, the elctorate has been studied more closely. Unlikely to be the case, but I'm brain storming. WWOBLD. Church attacks Sunday, protestant, swing states. Many likely voters with the edge to Bush. Dead, wounded, families of such, less likely to vote. Doubtful, but who knows.

I don't know, just chewing on things a bit. One thing for sure, he just threw a cluster into an already fucked up election situation. maybe that's all that was desired. Take that which is torn and rip it further.

[Rick Barton]

Josh,

Well, Lenin and OBL have both been mass murderers; Lenin a far, far more prolific one of course. But, it doesn't follow at all that Bin laden is pandering. Who do you think he is? John Kerry?

[Trey]

Gulf War I was not self-defense. It was action mandated by treaty with Kuwait. Believe it or not, Kuwait was and is our "legal" ally.

George W called 'm ?entangling alliances." They're bad 'cause they get us all entangled on other people's troubles.

Gulf War II: Not self-defense. A neo-imperialist attempt to change the politics and culture of the Islamic world...

Empires fall...

I hate the way that Islamic medievalists treat woman, gays, and basically most people.

So do I, so do most Muslims. That doesn't justify our government going over there to tell 'em what's what.

[Trey]

Look, I don't doubt that OBL has some grand and horrifying plans for the Islamic* world, all in the name of Allah, but by making ourselves out to be the bad guy, we are actually making it easier for him to do this.

Right or wrong, all he has to do is keep pointing at the US to prove that we are the enemy, and that only he can effectively strike back at the Great Satan, a' la 9/11.

Our best weapon against this is to hold the moral high ground. Every Abu Grab and collateral casualty lower us further in the eyes of the people we are supposed to "civilizing."

* That's the whole world, I'm sure?

[Curtis]

Jeff Taylor: I agree with your assessment.
Regarding the tape, OBL is clearly showing weakness by any conciliatory statements.

[EricD]

OBL doesn't give a rats ass who is elected. Either Bush or Kerry it won't matter to him because it is not a fight with a person, it is a fight of different ideas and religions. This is much bigger than OBL and Bush (or Kerry). This conflict has been going on for thousands of years and will be for thousands more. Does anyone but me find it strange that OBL did not mention Badnarik.(Heh heh heh)

[Jon]

"I'm eager to watch this and read the transcript, but from the little I've gleaned reading about it, it seems as though Bin Laden has got himself a western saavy PR man."

I understand Ahmed Chalabi's been looking for gainful employment lately...

[Michael Jones]

The appropriate emotional reaction is "Why the fuck is this man still alive?"

Bush would've got a bounce out of this in 2002 or 2003. Now? Hard to say. OBL's continued existence rationalizes the War on Terra but also shows how it's been a colossal failure under this administration.

The mastermind behind 9/11 is not only still around, but is taunting America on the eve of an election. Detaining OBL was the ultimate post 9/11 goal. It clearly has not been met. Mission not accomplished.

[Jon]

Osama pretty obviously knows about Moore's film, or at least the issues raised in it.

If Osama really wanted to tie his statement in with F9/11, he should have walked over to a little putting green with a little White House at the cup, said "Now watch this drive!", smacked the ball into the White House (which would blow up), then broken into a song-and-dance routine of "Vacation" by the Go-Gos.

[Jon]

It's pretty bad, actually, that even a guy in a cave in Waziristan knows about the pet goat.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

The first candidate that uses this tape loses.

For a truly scary RedState post, see this.

I have to ask, does John Kerry have a COINTELPRO staff that plants things like this, or is it from a real Bush supporter? If the latter, will it help among those are not amoral scum?

Note also that Bush is featuring multiple shots of the burning WTC towers in a mailing to Pennsylvanians. Will they then vote for Bush? Or, will they take a moment and wonder why Bush is seeking to profit off a terrorist attack?

[huskermet]

OBL wins either way.

He scares people into voting Bush, he has a recruiting tool.

He pushes people into voting Kerry, he doesn't need a recruiting tool because we will likely withdraw.

Either way, if you let anything this insane bastard has to day affect the way you vote, he's already beaten us.

Just forget you saw this tape.

Having said that, it completely blows my mind that on a libertarian board there would be OBL apologists. In fact it blows my mind that on any board there would be OBL apologists.

The guy is nuts and homicidal the same way Hitler and Stalin were. Whatever his stated reasons for being that way are, it doesn't justify his actions. However you feel about Iraq, WoT, imperialism, whatever, OBL never came to the US to negotiate any of the demands he's made or is making. He chose to kill innocent people. That deligitimizes anything, ever after, that he might stand for.

[Jack]

I tend to think this will break even for Bush & Kerry. Yes, some people will freak out and decide they have to vote for a "strong" president, but probably similar numbers will decide this is proof that Bush was distracted by the Iraq war from the real post-9/11 mission, i.e., getting bin Laden.

[Bart S.]

1) OBL has probably seen F9/11. It's very big over here in the Middle East. In fact, it's on sale at all the supermarkets and video stores right now.

2) Of course OBL wants Bush re-elected. As some British pol said, Bush is al Qaeda's most effective recruitung tool.

[Jimbo]

Clearly it's time to take out OBL. Then, we need to knit his beard into a nice hair-shirt. Rick Barton, what size are you? I think the grey will go nicely with your arm-band and black boots.

[gaius marius]

If your enemies want to kill you, you must kill them first.

i'm no pacifist. i'll shoot the first person i see who i think is hellbent on killing me.

but the trick, i think, mr bill, is to know the difference between people who are bent on your destruction -- and people who are fighting for their own preservation.

there's a lot of confusion as to which bin laden is. what is CERTAINLY true, however, is that the millions of muslims who make him powerful are fighting for their preservation.

i'll say it again! al qaeda is an insurgency against indirect american misrule, real and perceived.

insurgencies rely upon popular sympathy. remove the causes for sympathy -- in this case, indirect american misrule -- and you remove the power of the insurgency.

mr eric, mr phocion: i understand what you're saying -- and i have no idea if bin laden is being honest or not, whether he is honorable or not, if he is sincere or not. my point is that it doesn't matter.

address the rational grievances that make millions sympathetic to al-qaeda insurgency -- which bin laden gave voice to in that tape -- and you will destroy the insurgency. whether bin laden himself is personally satisfied with that or not would be immaterial. someone would turn him in, and we'd kill him.

but what we're doing now is *building* the insurgency, throwing gas on the fire. that MUST stop, for all our sakes.

bush and the neocons plainly have no conception of this; they, arrogantly, assume that they can kill it with force. imo, they've completely misassessed the problem by thinking (or hoping) it is a war.

it isn't -- it's an insurgency.

[deron]

"Clearly it's time to take OBL." I'm relieved to know that we've only been waiting for the perfect moment.

Bin Laden comes off as a pox on both your houses kinda guy. Very liberterian of him. He may be all about fundamental islam, but he's also about local control. In the middle east that means arabs control the arab lands. Can't blame them, but the Israeli's probably don't think it's such a nice idea. It actually appears to deliberately try not to endorse, but lay out a fairly clear demand.

As for unintended results. It's too late short of an attack, but I think this doesn't work for Bush very well. It simply reminds people that the guy who pulled off 9/11 is still around while we're arguing about Iraq. Anecdotally I'm biased I spend my days with conservatives who have been expecting Bush to trot out OBL in an October surprise. Seriously.

[gaius marius]

Until all people like Osama are dead or reformed, there will never be world peace. Until the vast majority of people on this planet are civilized--meaning that they accept that individual liberty is fundamental--there will never be world peace. Essentially, people are still too wild--we have not yet suppressed enough of our animal instincts; we have not all been properly domesticated.

and i'd further submit, mr bill, that if this is the best we can manage -- a condescending sneer at the savages who haven't accepted an absurd and decadent life-without-responsibility-or-tradition as holy writ, as we all have -- this is going to be a very bloody century for both us and them.

[von]

Ummm, maybe we should start having a rational discourse surrounding our fledging of Isreal? Isn't time for them to leave the nest, yet? How long do we have to protect their god-damned sovereignty? Seems that a lot of animosity geared towards us in the region would dissipate if we stopped giving billion dollar arm deals to Isreal.
Not that I'm for capitulations of any sorts to those shit heads, but it just makes sense to shut the door on the prodigal son of our foreign policy.

[gaius marius]

Another interesting thing is that Bin Laden addresses different audiences in different ways. When speaking to the West, he doesn't often mention religion, and instead concentrates on the oppression of Muslim peoples that gaius seems to believe is their driving force. He gives the impression that if the West were just reasonable, and simply made it easier for his organization to operate without Western interference, all the terror would end. This is especially true of today's video and his offer of truce to Europe a few months back.

a sign of a politician, mr phocion? all the more evidence that he's altogether rational, i'd say.

i suspect you're right in the observation. but duplicity? don't forget that tape played on al-jazeera all day today, heard all round the muslim world. what he said in it resonates with them as well as some of us.

it's too easy for us to impose our hollowed-out remnants of western "ethics" on bin laden. in traditional culture, your word carries a different meaning. the entire arab world views the west (and their own monarchs) as fundamentally dishonest for a reason.

here mr eric would insinuate that i'm seeing

the mentality of the US in the worst possible light.

and that's because i am. i don't view westerners as biologically different, of course. but i am a student of history and i do have a strong viewpoint on where america and the west are in the scheme of rising and falling civilizations.

read barzun and welcome decadence. it affords you a life of complete irresponsibility to society. it's hedonism. enjoy it while it lasts.

but don't expect me to praise what little remains of our ethics and morals, which were once the bedrock of western society and are now barely visible in the shadow of total emancipation and consuming self-consciousness. muslim society, among others, has much more to offer along those lines.

i'm afraid that i'm an old-time conservative in some respects. i can see why muslims fear what the west has become. i fear what the west has become.

[gaius marius]

maybe we should start having a rational discourse surrounding our fledging of Isreal? Isn't time for them to leave the nest, yet? How long do we have to protect their god-damned sovereignty?

mr von, that would be an immense step -- but one a long time coming. we can be israel's partner without being likud's bitch. there is an israeli left, and we can engage it.

[nic]

I will dance the fucking jig when our foreign policy experts figure that one out. excellent point, gaius.

[Andrzej]

Well gee, Jeff, one way you could simply see how this may benefit Kerry is that OBL is a constant reminder to Bush and the rest of the country of the mission Bush has failed to accomplish, i.e., not capturing America's enemy number one, who is able to stand and smirk behind a podium as a result of this failure. Not that this obvious point crossed your mind.

Don't get me wrong - this country, I am convinced, has an inordinate number of human dipsticks who will be scared enough by the sight of the Prodigal Sun(ni) to run off and "rally 'round the prez'dent." But the utter glee with which you make your proclamation makes one wonder if, perhaps, you mistakenly thought you were posting at some Republican partisan rag instead of Reason.

So much for all this anti-war talk coming from libertarians when the first reaction to an 18-minute video is to wet the bed with fear.

[martin]

I wonder if Al-Jazeera sat on that vid for a bit to get the perfect timing for release or if they just followed instructions.

Anyone seen any mention of this?

[von]

hey now...most of us appreciated the much over-do two minutes hate. I felt purely homicidal watching that bastard. No bed wetting, here....

[gaius marius]

The guy is nuts and homicidal the same way Hitler and Stalin were.

mr huskermet, i'll ignore your mischaracterization of me as an "apologist" -- because you're plainly not factually examining bin laden.

what -- except what the government has told you -- convinces you that bin laden is "crazy" like "stalin"? i see nothing.

he committed what we (myself inclued) consider a terrible crime by killing 3000 new yorkers. we've killed many times that many innocents in iraq since we invaded -- possibly as many as 100,000 killed in total, as estimated by the primary british medical journal 'the lancet'. for a war we didn't have to fight -- for a war that has nothing to do with al-qaeda or any threat to the united states. to instigate a Global Democratic Revolution.

between the two of us, i know which looks closer to "crazy" like "stalin". and the rest of the world outside the fishbowl of the united states can see it too.

he frankly has more in common with castro, lenin, bolivar or washington at this point than anyone else -- unfortunately for us, we're making him into a visionary and a hero for millions. he's asking for the arab world to be left alone, and to leave us alone in return. what are we asking? shut up so we can control some oilfields? we're losing that debate.

or are you a simple manichaean like bush -- and need *him* to be "evil" so that *we* can be "good"?

[lindenen]

gaius marius, the 100,000 stat is BOGUS. It's already been debunked.

[fyodor]

Yeah, it's probably more like 10 to 20 thousand killed.

[Rick Barton]

Each death is a tragedy. What a hideous thing government can be. Also, 1200 US deaths, 3200 US amputations. All for what? What likely result could possibly justify anymore US casualties? Bring the troops home now. I wish this bloody power mania of our nation's government would take flight away as Autumn's leaves do in the wind. Elective wars are counter to the founding ideas behind our republic.

[chthus]

The American revolution was an elective war.

[raymond]

It is with regret that I agree with the title of this article.

[berg]

What a boring thread. This fucker should be killed, period. Let's not waste time hand-wringing over his propaganda.

Just a reminder: 9-11-01.

[bandersnatch]

durka durka durka, baka laka laka durka

[John M. Joy]

He should tell us why we didn't hit Sweden for instance.

...and the first thought to pop into my head was: "Sweden? Did he say Sweden? You mean, the 'country that has no army?'"

JMJ

[gaius marius]

the 100,000 stat is BOGUS. It's already been debunked.

what difference does it make if it's 10,000 or 100,000? my point's the same regardless.

[gaius marius]

What a boring thread. This fucker should be killed, period. Let's not waste time hand-wringing over his propaganda.

Just a reminder: 9-11-01.

unfortunately, mr berg, i'm certain that 90% of americans put no more thought into their world than that. it's one of the reasons an imperial democracy is doomed to a short life, either as an empire or a democracy.

it's frankly a powerful testament to the massive good fortune and geopolitical advantages of the american incarnation of same that we've lasted this long, imo.

[dhex]

as much as i appreciate mr. marius' analysis of the situation, i will never understand his insistence on the "decadence" of the west in general and america in particular. near as i can tell "decadence" is another way of saying "no longer society's slave."

unless you're really referring to governments, in which case i can only shrug. i don't think you are, though.

[drf]

"...and the first thought to pop into my head was: "Sweden? Did he say Sweden? You mean, the 'country that has no army?'" "

um. they have one. (were you thinking of switzerland? swaziland?)

[An American]

So, uh, how does this help Bush? Maybe with the stupid people, but Bush already has the stupid vote. Bin Laden killed 3,000 of us and three years later he's on national TV taunting us and looking better than ever. This is another one of Bush's blunders.

Oh, and you're all overlooking the real point here -- Osama says neither Bush nor Kerry can keep us safe. He's endorsing Badnarik!

[W.]

No, I'm pretty sure, Sweden does not have an army.

[dhex]

according to my swedish friend, they do indeed have an army.

[Whack-A-Sama]

An American,
Because you are the one wise American getting my point, I will spare you and your family (except, I will turn your wife into salt. Sorry.)
Badnarik's the one!

[huskermet]

gaius:

So you're trying to get across that Osama is some kind of FREEDOM FIGHTER?

Just exactly whose freedom is he fighting for? He wants to set up a 7th century Muslim caliphate in south Asia. Sharia is not exactly congruent with libertarian ideals.

The fact is killing people because they went to work doesn't constitute a political statement, God's work, or an act of liberation. It's murder. Explaining motives and assigning user-friendly monikers doesn't change what I and about 80% of the world know. And what you have either forgotten or choose to ignore.

[joe]

Based on this thread, the video seems to be hardening people in their positions, not changing anyone's minds. It reminds Democrats that Bush failed to catch bin Laden, largely because of the massive distraction in Iraq and an inappropriate strategy in Afghanistan. It reminds Republicans that they really, really want to kick ass, and who kicks more ass than George Bush?

For all the hype, it's probably going to be a complete wash on the election.

[a]

lindenen:

"the 100,000 stat is BOGUS. It's already been debunked"

by whom? care to provide a link? why doesn't the Pentagon release civilian deaths counts so that we are not left with 'bogus' (as you put it) sources?

[Ruthless]

But joe, even the stupidest Republicans must be beginning to wonder where kicking ass is getting us.

I mean, last week, even my raving lunatic barber was beginning to doubt.

[joe]

"But joe, even the stupidest Republicans must be beginning to wonder where kicking ass is getting us."

Don't underestimate these people. 62% of them answered yes to the question "Do you believe Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for the attacks on 9/11?"

Sixty two percent. A landslide majority. I'm not resting my hopes on the analytical skills of Republicans.

[chilly]

This totally helps Bush. This is the October Surprise everyone was waiting for. UBL WANTS Bush elected. Why? Because Bush will continue to invade muslim countries (Syria anyone?) and kill muslim citizens. This is EXACTLY what UBL wants. At the same time Bush will be destroying our freedoms here at home. It's the same reason Bush doesn't really want to catch UBL. They need each other. It's a classic co-dependent relationship. BTW, I think Kerry sux too.

[Adam]

GAIUS - The fucking report is based on a 95% confidence interval that ranges from 8,000 extra deaths to 194,000 extra deaths.

Saddam killed THOUSANDS of people yearly over the course of his reign, but the report is biased against the U.S. because we actually REPORT every single death that we cause, whereas people "Disappeared" by Hussein who ended up DEAD in mass graves, were "off the books."

We're saving lives, and that's the inarguable fact.

[Adam]

Link to Slate: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/
From the article:
"This isn't an estimate. It's a dartboard."

[a]

"we actually REPORT every single death that we cause"

No you don't. How many Iraqi civilians were killed during the invasion?

[raymond]

No, I'm pretty sure, Sweden does not have an army.

Sweden

You mean, the 'country that has no army?'" ... (were you thinking of switzerland? swaziland?)

Switzerland

(Here's another fun Swiss site. You can do all sorts of things here.

For those Americans whose geography is weak

To find Europe...

Face Canada. (That's where it gets cooooooooold. It's the country O'Reilly doesn't like. It's in the direction we call "North".)

Point right. (That's the hand you change gears with.)

That's where Europe is.

[TWBA]

I suspect that al Qaeda has suffered devastating damage and would like to see the U.S. military back off. Bush may be a great recruiting ad that attracts losers. The 9/11 hijackers were angry, young and smart men. Perhaps the mounting al Qaeda losses have motivated the smart men to stay in school and study something more useful than religious texts. The recent Afghan election was a major setback for OBL's dream of a totalitarian theocracy. The petro income in Iraq is now administered by foes of islamofascism. OBL is in need of an immediate exit strategy. This is no time to ease the pressure. Damn the videos. Full steam ahead!

If Kerry is elected, he can actually wage war more effectively because he will not be villified by American leftists as Bush has been. After aiding his election, they will hold their tongues as Kerry unleashes the dogs of war, whereas Bush has been too soft and sensitive in an effort to appease the peaceniks. I doubt Kerry would have been hammered for levelling Fallujah and killing al Sadr. Bush negotiated with al Sadr and made him seem legit. Bush has been far too cautious in pursuit of OBL. Kerry could capture and personally chop off OBL's head on national television without complaint from leftists or Republicans, unless of course, Janet Jackson's hooter flops out of its holster during the half-time show.

On the other hand, Kerry may turn out to be as incompetent as Jimmy Carter, in which case, al Qaeda will be able to recover from its heavy losses, continue to kill liberal people and recruit for jihad to install totalitarian theocracies around the world.

As poorly as Bush has conducted the war against jihad and for freedom, he shows no sign of giving up. You can vote for a guy who will fight for freedom sloppily, or you can vote for a guy who may or may not fight for freedom at all. It's your choice. Enjoy your freedom to vote, because many people around the world only dream of choosing the man who will be chief executive of the military.

[Curtis]

If OBL is alive and the tape is authentic and if OBL is being "conciliatory" in some manner, it shows weakness on his part and that makes me smile. OBL bit off far more than he can chew. Now the asshole can choke on it.

[a]

Adam:

from the slate article you provided:

"The IBC estimates that between 14,181 and 16,312 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war?about half of them since the battlefield phase of the war ended last May. The group also notes that these figures are probably on the low side, since some deaths must have taken place outside the media's purview.

So, let's call it 15,000 or?allowing for deaths that the press didn't report?20,000 or 25,000, maybe 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed in a pre-emptive war waged (according to the latest rationale) on their behalf. That's a number more solidly rooted in reality than the Hopkins figure?and, given that fact, no less shocking. "

[fyodor]

Based on this thread, the video seems to be hardening people in their positions, not changing anyone's minds.

True enough...for 80 to 95% of the electorate, anyway, which is almost always the case. To say it'll have no effect on the election based on that is to ignore that there's a handful of undecideds out there who may yet decide the election.

[Rick Barton]

chthus:

"The American revolution was an elective war."

No it wasn't. It was necessary for the liberty of those who fought it.

[Native NYer]

So from reading this thread it seems that about half the folks think this is good for Kerry, and half that it's good for Bush.

Maybe that's what UBL wants, to be able to say to the Arab world that he influenced the election no matter which one wins?

[Adam]

a -
I'm more concerned with the irresponsibility on the part of the Lancet and on the efforts of the British left more generally to influence this election than I am with 15 or 20,000 additional deaths to Iraqi civilians. How many of those "civilians" were insurgents? And how many Iraqi and non-Iraqi lives will be saved by not having a belligerent douchebag dictator in power over the long run? And what about quality of life?

None of this, of course, touches the basic facts, that Hussein supported terrorists, continued to support terrorists, refused to cooperate in the war on terror, and above all, consistently and deliberately threatened our allies and his neighbors for years, and even an outside chance that he would have worked with al-Qaeda is absolutely intolerable.

[Rick Barton]

joe:

...who kicks more ass than George Bush?

The RAMONES!! http://tinyurl.com/6lttl

[Adam]

Re: the Swiss Army...I lived in Switzerland for a few months back in 2001 and they'd take the trains to Army training on weekends...First time I ever saw it, I was going to Zurich from Geneva and we had to switch trains somewhere in the German region. We walked into a car that STAAAAAAANK like reefer and there were all these long-haired punks in Army uniforms getting high. It was the god damndest thing, and it warmed my heart. (Yes, for the most part you can get away with smoking pot in smoking cars on Swiss trains, though you can also get ticketed for it, more often in the French-speaking regions).

[joe]

Well, yes, there's the Ramones.

And for the edification of the confused, the "no Swedish Army" shtick is a reference to George Bush, who insisted in a conversation with Ronald Suskind that Sweden didn't have an army, and refused to be told any different.

[raymond]

I'm more concerned with the irresponsibility on the part of the Lancet and on the efforts of the British left more generally to influence this election than I am with 15 or 20,000 additional deaths to Iraqi civilians.

I'd like you to reread that statement, Adam, ponder it, and decide if it really expresses your thought.

[Adam]

Raymond -
In the long run, more than 15 or 20,000 lives are going to be saved. No argument from me - it sucks for the 15 or 20,000 dead and their families.

Between 1987 and 1988 alone, 180,000 Kurds "disappeared" under Hussein's regime.

Damn right it really expresses my thoughts - and my impatience with the "Public Health Left" wingnuts who will use their "science" and their "expert judgment" in establishing "facts" about "risk" and "excess" mortality to tell me or you or anybody else how to live their lives, and if you don't think they'll twist it and bend it to fit their candidate, their vision of "proper" foreign policy, you're out of your mind.

Putting an INSANELY large number out there for a media feeding frenzy days before the election to give Kerry's campaign a boost is just the kind of horseshit I expect from the Public Health Left (you know, the "For Your Own Good" tyrant types) and from the European "center", and here you have it from the European public health AmLeft/EurCenter. Horseshit is horseshit, and the Lancet is lookin' like a horse.

[Adam]

Re: 100,000

Even MORE egregious is using the 14-month period before the war as the basis for this comparison.

Clearly, the long-term trend of Hussein was toward mass murder, but those mass murders didn't occur every 14 months, and the Lancet did NOTHING to account for civilian deaths at the hands of Saddam Hussein over any significant period of time.

That is some JUUUUUUUUNK "science."

[chthus]

Rick,

Not according to Jimmy Carter, he said that freedom and liberty would have come anyway.

Then again, I understand if you don't take Jimmy's word for it. But to your definition, it was not elective because it was necessary in order to attain something. Would that mean the Iraq invasion was necessary, if only to attain oil (or whatever else one thinks it was meant to attain? Were the invasions of Ghengis Kahn necessary in order for him to attain the riches and women of a city?

The American revolution was indeed elective, electing mot to do so meant accepting the status quo, where as electing to fight it offer better things, in particular the liberty you mention.

[gaius marius]

It's murder.

indeed it was, mr huskermet. i'm not pardoning bin laden -- how could anyone get that out of reading what i wrote?

i'm saying that what he did is irrelevent to the point. he is speaking for millions of muslims nonetheless.

he is telling you how to defeat al-qaeda! he is telling you where the roots of popular sympathy for his organization are.

and all anyone can say is "he's evil". well, really? big help!

[gaius marius]

We're saving lives, and that's the inarguable fact.

that is the most poignant, sublime, absurd thing i've ever heard here.

mr adam, i think you've just summed up the entire western "empire of liberty" delusion of arrogance in one sentence.

[joe]

Adam, the 14 months immediately preceding our invasion are EXACTLY the proper time frame to compare with the 14 months following it.

We weren't faced with a choice of Iraqi Invasion vs. What Saddam Was Doing in 1988, or 1992, or 1982. We had a status quo, and we decided to alter it. Saddam was not capable, in the Spring of 2003, of carrying out chemical attacks against Kurds, or sending his army to slaughter Shias, or invading Iran, or invading Kuwait.

If we kill a million Germans in a regime change war next month, would it be a noble moral act because of what happened in 1944-45?

[Badmofo]

I have always said that UBL has taken Fleming/007 fiction much too seriously, and indeed thinks he is the real Ernst Stavro Blofeld. This latest stunt again proves my point...

[Adam]

joe -

Is Hitler still running Germany? Is Hitler threatening the fabric of Western civilization with deluded imperialist dreams? If Hitler had laid off killing Jews for a few months after killing just a million because international sympathies would lie with him aided by heinous scumbags getting paid off by Hitler at the League of Nations "inspections" and all he had to do was hang out until the League of Nations stopped inspecting before resuming his mass murder, would we have been wrong to destroy his regime and install a democracy? Nice try, homie.

[Xavier]

"he is telling you how to defeat al-qaeda! he is telling you where the roots of popular sympathy for his organization are."

Are you equating giving in to UBL's demands with defeating Al-Qaeda? Either way the conflict might end, but there is a big difference between a Al-Qaeda victory and an Al-Qaeda defeat. It's better that we all die in terrorist strikes than allow UBL that satisfaction.

[a]

Adam:

"we actually REPORT every single death that we cause"

"Between 1987 and 1988 alone, 180,000 Kurds "disappeared" under Hussein's regime"

"Hussein supported terrorists, continued to support terrorists, refused to cooperate in the war on terror, "

Any more unsubstantiated claims? and I thought you cared about credibility of a claim.

"I'm more concerned with the irresponsibility on the part of the Lancet and on the efforts of the British left more generally to influence this election than I am with 15 or 20,000 additional deaths to Iraqi civilians."

Wasn't the study done by some from John Hopkins University?

Any way, I don't think there is a point of arguing with someone who cares more about the possible effects of a study on the US elections than the deaths of thousands caused by his own government.

[raymond]

It's better that we all die in terrorist strikes than allow UBL that satisfaction.

Hey! Be careful whose life you're willing to sacrifice here!

[SR]

The hawks are crowing that this latest tape shows weakness on bin Laden's part, but does it? Everyone is analyzing what the impact is on American attitudes, but the tape can be viewed as equally aimed at non-Muslim Europeans, Asians, and Latin Americans. Those groups may appreciate bin Laden's anti-Americanism, but they aren't going to support al-Qaida's religious goals. To the extent bin Laden can portray himself as first and foremost an anticolonialist (which he certainly does in this video), he can count on considerably more backing from outside of the Islamic world. (For a past example of this, reflect on how North Vietnam portrayed itself and the VC versus the United States, i.e., as anticolonialist freedom fighters, rather than Communist ideologues.)

[Curtis]

The tape is directed at anyone viewing it. The message is for everyone. It's clear to me, though, that he isn't very scrappy. I think he knows he'll have to find a better way to win over the long run.

[Curtis]

Drudge has something about Walter Cronkite's take on the tape. Is Karl Rove behind it? Oooooooo...

[Adam]

a -

Since you obviously prefer not bothering to exercise your poor little brain muscle, we'll call it game over. get back in your goddamn vw bus and do some more dope, hippie.

[kwais]

Here is the way I see the effect of the tape;

If you see it as proof that OBL is alive, and you think Kerry would do a better job at catching him. Maybe you would be reinforced in your vote for Kerry. I have no doubt that a large portion of the population do see it that way. Which I think is complete ignorance, and it is buying into the 527 type, pro Kerry propaganda, propagated by ABC, NBC and CBS.

If you see it as Osama trying to influence the electorate the way he did in Spain, I think it helps Bush. That is the way I see it, but I don't believe a large portion of the US electors will see that, or even know or remember Spain's ordeal.

You might also see the video and remember that you really liked the way Bush handled 9-11 and you may be under the impression that Bush is tougher on terrorists that Kerry. I think that might be a common reaction, and that might help Bush.

I am wildly curios to see if there are polls showing movement caused by this video/

[kwais]

All the lefties love to talk about what a recruiting tool Bush is to Al Qaida and all that crap.

I don't buy it.

For one, they don't have the home base of Afghanistan to go hide in. Their base country has been conquered, and a shit ton of them have been killed. I don't imagine they are too happy about that.

The the lefties like to say what a recruitment tool Iraq is. Yeah Iraq pisses a lot of Arabs off, but they are already pissed off. I don't think our Iraq deal recruits too many more.

Furthermore, Iraq was a safe haven for AQ, and Saddam did finance terrorism. Whether or not we can prove that he helped out in 9/11 itself notwithstanding.

Whenever I see all these lefties talk about Iraq being a recruitment tool, what I see is someone that hates Bush, and they have made up their mind and then they try to shape the facts to match what they want to believe.

Perhaps much like what I did of Clinton.

[Dan H.]

"The IBC estimates that between 14,181 and 16,312 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war?about half of them since the battlefield phase of the war ended last May."

So actually the number of people actually killed in the war is between 7600 and 8100? Why do people killed by insurgents count against America?

Of the 7600 to 8100, how many were actually fighters? Hard to judge that one.

No one disputes that some thousands of civilians were killed, and that it was regrettable. Going from there to claiming that 100,000 died is essentially a lie, no matter how much ass-covering is done by putting outlandish confidence intervals around that bogus number.

But if we're going to do a human calculus here, are we factoring in all the children that didn't die in the last year because they all received vaccinations? The Kurds that weren't killed at the hand of ansar al-Islam? All the political prisoners who were rotting in Saddam's jails, who are now free? All of the people who are alive today who would have been killed by Saddam's thugs for various crimes against the state? The women who weren't raped this year by the Uday Hussein and his henchmen?

How many suicide bombers decided not to blow up Israelis because the $25,000 checks from Saddam wouldn't be coming to their family?

How many people would have been killed in the inevitable airstrikes from Saddam shooting at American planes in the no-fly zones?

If Zarqawi werent' busy killing Iraqis this year, what would he be up to?

Trying to estimate the overall human cost of this war vs its alternative is difficult when the numbers are on the order of a few thousand people. You can't say which path wound up taking fewer lives. You CAN say it if the number is 100,000, which is why Lancet had to do flips and twists to come up with that gigantic number.

[boyroy]

Osama has to be for Bush. Bush provides the Christian Crusader Osama needs to fight. Hard to promote religious fanaticism without a fellow fanatic.

With Kerry, America gets all reasonable with other countries and goes back to exporting your seductive civilization. Look at Europe, China, and India, most of the population of the world, remove a few ethnic twists, and you got the States. Muslims bombing around in SUVs exchanging text messages with the hotty two lanes over aren't going to be big on strapping on gelignite and heading out to the bar mitzvah.

Coming from an oil rich region that is already really secular, gives me mixed feelings about the American election. I like Americans. The whole ugly American thing has been replaced by nice folks in RVs, who want to help me get satellite radio in Canada, and fellow business idiots, willing to compare company ethics programs. But oil over $50 a barrel, a government willing to let us steal your markets and bring hockey back home, gives me goose bumps.

[kwais]

boyroy,

"Osama has to be for Bush. Bush provides the Christian Crusader Osama needs to fight. Hard to promote religious fanaticism without a fellow fanatic."

No shit? Your kidding? Because it seems to me that OBL and other of his ilk were doing swimmingly before Bush.

Not to mention the earlier stated fact that apparently (knock on wood) OBL can't use terrorism to influence our elections, he has to use video tapes.

Or the earlier stated fact that Bush killed a bunch of his organization, and took away the home bases of Afghanistan and Iraq.

[a]

"Or the earlier stated fact that Bush killed a bunch of his organization, and took away the home bases of Afghanistan and Iraq."

Took away Al-Qaeda's home base in Iraq? Are you kidding me?

I don't know if the tape is going to affect the election one way or the other, what I do know is that both side will try to spin their way. But come on kwais, you have got to make some rational claims if you want the spin to go your way.

[kwais]

a,
right, AQ still operates in Iraq, maybe out of the same bases they were when Saddam was in charge. But they can't move around so easy anymore. It is only a matter of time before MARSOC or the CIA, or even the Iraqis come knocking down their door.

So, yeah, maybe they still have their bases, but they are not subsidised and protected anymore.

I am not trying to spin it one way or another. I state my opinions, and read others on the site. I learn facts reading items on this site. But I know enough to know that my vote wont change, and I don't expect to change the votes of others on this site.

[Adam]

"So actually the number of people actually killed in the war is between 7600 and 8100? Why do people killed by insurgents count against America?

Of the 7600 to 8100, how many were actually fighters? Hard to judge that one. "

"If Zarqawi werent' busy killing Iraqis this year, what would he be up to?"

bingo. hey a, why don't you take a swing at these?

[Ruthless]

Maureen Dowd and moi are so sympatico one of these days she'll invite me into her knickers. You H&R buddies will be the first to know. This is from her Sunday column:

"The Bushies' campaign pitch follows their usual backward logic: Because we have failed to make you safe, you should re-elect us to make you safer. Because we haven't caught Osama in three years, you need us to catch Osama in the next four years."

[Rick Barton]

chthus,

I define an elective war as one that is not necessary for OUR liberty/security. The American Revolution was necessary to liberate the proto Americans from the tyranny of the crown. (I'm glad the J. Carter didn't have any input back then)

Consistent with our republic's founding principles of limited government, an elective war which forces participation by the citizens of our republic is un-American.

[kwais]

Ruthless,
Maureen Dowd is wrong. If the Bush people were articulate this would be the pitch; "We are fighting the war on terror. We don't need permission from the french or the UN. We make decisions and stick with them regardless if they are popular or not. We have conviction. The fact that the turbaned turd can only make video appearances not blow stuff up here (knock on wood), and that he is apealing to the Micheal Moore crowd shows he is weakened.

Still I wish you the best getting into Maureen's knickers. Post pictures will ya?

[Rick Barton]

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

John Quincy Adams

[bart s.]

Barton:

Ther American Revolution was fought because a small number of wealthy slave-owning plantation owners didn't want to pay their fair share of the cost of a war that was fought for their benefit by British troops.

It was a triumph of freeloaders.

And to Mr. Kwais:

The only al-Qaeda related bases in Iraq before the war were Zarqawi's Ansar al-Islam bases in the Northern no-fly zone, in territory controlled by our good friends, the Kurds. Furthermore, the only terrorist funding Saddam was involved in was giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers *after they died*. That would appear to be a problem for Israel, not the US. BTW, when Saddam was murdering millions back in the 80s, he was our good little boy, and had Ronnie's approval and tactical assistance when performing his ethnic cleansings.

[Xavier]

"Osama has to be for Bush. Bush provides the Christian Crusader Osama needs to fight. Hard to promote religious fanaticism without a fellow fanatic."

Bush provides a great villain figure for liberal groups in America. I'm sure he's been very good for their recruitment efforts. That doesn't mean that liberals want Bush to win.

[kwais]

Bart,

I have heard that canard in the main stream media, or what Rush Limbough calls "Kerry's transcript services. But I am not sold on that. I have heard the contrary from other sources.

Here is a Quote from Christopher Hitchens;

(("In order to believe that Zarqawi is or was innocent of al-Qaida and Baathist ties, therefore, or in order to believe that he does not in fact represent such a tie, you must be ready to believe that:

1) A low-level Iraqi official decided to admit a much-hunted Jordanian?a refugee from the invasion of Afghanistan, after Sept. 11, 2001?when even the most conservative forces in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were keeping their distance from such people and even assisting in rounding them up.

2) That this newly admitted immigrant felt that the most pressing need of the holy war was the assassination of Kurdish leaders opposed to the rule of Saddam Hussein.

3) That a recently arrived Jordanian, in a totally controlled police state, was so enterprising as to swiftly put himself in possession of maps, city diagrams, large sums of cash, and a group of heavily armed fighters hitherto named after the Iraqi dictator?the Fedayeen Saddam"))

It would be easier to read and stuff if I knew how to make the quote italics.

Anyhow here is the whole artilce from Slate magazine;
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108636/

[cigar magnolia]

who kicks more ass than George Bush?

Well, FDR, for one, if you count total asses kicked.

If you want to insist that toughness is somehow based on tenacity and the ability to continue pushing the wrong rock up the hill, then maybe GWB gets the edge.

Afghanistan was like a four touchdown-pass game. Iraq was like running the kickoff back for a touchdown, then throwing 5 interceptions.

[Rick Barton]

bart s.:

It (the American Revolution) was a triumph of freeloaders.

It was a triumph of a diverse cross section of colonial society, including freed slaves.

[Rick Barton]

"Well, FDR, for one, if you count total asses kicked."

Mao, Stalin and Hitler have him beat. I still say it's The Ramones who are #1.

[raymond]

Adam at October 30, 2004 12:44 PM : We walked into a car that STAAAAAAANK like reefer and there were all these long-haired punks in Army uniforms getting high. It was the god damndest thing, and it warmed my heart.

Adam at October 30, 2004 06:22 PM: Since you obviously prefer not bothering to exercise your poor little brain muscle, we'll call it game over. get back in your goddamn vw bus and do some more dope, hippie.

Why? So he can warm Adam's heart?

The American Revolution was necessary to liberate the proto Americans from the tyranny of the crown.

I disagree. The American Revolution was an illegal act primarily about money.

(Oh darn. bart s. has already said it.)

If the Bush people were articulate this would be the pitch; "We are fighting the war on terror. We don't need permission from the french or the UN. We make decisions and stick with them regardless if they are popular or not. We have conviction. The fact that the turbaned turd can only make video appearances not blow stuff up here (knock on wood), and that he is apealing to the Micheal Moore crowd shows he is weakened.

If the bin Laden people were articulate this would be the pitch; "We are fighting a war against people who violate the rights of Muslims. We don't need permission from the Americans or the UN. We make decisions and stick with them regardless if they are popular or not. We have conviction. The fact that the cowboy-booted turd can only make video appearances and staged landings on aircraft carriers and not blow stuff up here where I am (knock on wood), and that he is appealing to the religious-kooky-God-is-in-the-White-House crowd shows he is weakened.

Sounds uncompelling both ways.

[joe]

Actually, Al Qaeda seems to be MORE free to operate in Iraq now than before the war.

Saddam had enough troops in country. I don't recall reading about foreign contractors and Iraqi policemen being decapitated and car bombed in Baghdad in 2001.

[drf]

hey raymond:

leave me out of the geography and europe lessons.

i lived in copenhagen for a little more than five years. i've heard tons of people switch "danes" with "dutch" or "swedes" with "swiss". (jeg taler dansk og ka' osse forst? svensk) i know people in the swedish army. saab makes fighter jets. there are scandals when swedes in their trainer subs watch the girls on the beach. the other two countries (switzerland, swaziland) were for fun.

and, if you really are swiss, do you know B?ne Huber? do you remember the "die schweiz braucht europa" concert that was trying to get CH in the EU? or at least support the "europe" = EU bullshit? the only good part of that concert was the duet with Ostbahn Kurti, "Nachbarn". Du waast, wos i maane, g??

and were you the one that was talking about "europe"? that's how the EU'philes talk about being in the EU: "norway rejected being a part of europe". that's how they want to be considered.

trick or treat.

[SixSigma]

gauis -

You are appologizing for Bin Laden this entire thread, anyone that can put together two coherent thoughts together can plainly see that.

1. You give him reasons for his actions. You're basically arguing justifiable homicide.

2. You think other countries should capitulate to those reasons, because after all, he has a point. (BTW - The number two recipient to foriegn aid from the US - Egypt)

3. You even go so far is to call him rational. Please explain the rationality of murdering innocents in order to control an entire continent to murder more? (Taliban style government - death for adultery for example) As rational as Hitler and Stalin for sure, but rational????

4. You also imply the only reason people think that he is "evil" is because their government told them so. Are you saying, an average person, can't look at the murder of thousands of innocents and correctly identify it as evil?

[dhex]

"Please explain the rationality of murdering innocents in order to control an entire continent to murder more?"

are you not familiar with the history of the human race, or are you trying to be funny this lovely halloween?

[John M. Joy]

FYI...

The "Sweden has no army" remark was a reference to a quote purportedly by Dubya, as mentioned in a column by Ron Suskind in the New York Times Magazine (2004-10-17).

Discussion of this column has already made the blogosphere rounds, so I figured everyone was already familiar with it - a pox on me for assumption.

JMJ

[SixSigma]

dhex wrote -
are you not familiar with the history of the human race, or are you trying to be funny this lovely halloween?

Are you seriously saying that because other idiots have done something in the past for the sake of murder, it becomes rational today?

Just because someone, or even a majority of people, act in a certain way, doesn't automatically make it rational.

[Andy]

Something is rational if it has reason behind it. OBL has his reasons otherwise he wouldn't do what he does. You don't need to agree with him to see that.

What I'm wondering is whether OBL is explaining himself now, prior to the mother of all attacks, after which no-one will listen. He could say "I did give you an alternative, why oh why didn't you take it? You can only blame yourselves..." and pretend he was a moderate.

Or he could just be out of men and ammo and trying a different tack of course.

[Stevo Threadkiller]

So far, I'm thinking that Osama bin Laden's regurgitation of the Left's talking points will rebound slightly in Bush's favor.

Especially the way Osama's video worked in the reference "during my service in Vietnam" at least six times.

[Stevo Threadkiller]

I am also intrigued by the suggestion that OBL thinks he is some kind of evil mastermined from a James Bond movie.

We will see if, in his next video, Osama talks in an unctuous British accent while stroking a white Angora cat in his lap.

[dhex]

"Just because someone, or even a majority of people, act in a certain way, doesn't automatically make it rational."

i agree.

however, there is a certain rationality in "move in, kill their warriors, dilute their culture, take their stuff, fuck their chicks, etc." part of that is that it's effective and works well. north america being merely one example of that. doesn't make it rational from the sort of "human life is precious" or "human liberty is sacrosanct" points of view. but from a "my DNAway or the highway" position, which is the vast bulk of humankind (because they tend to live on literally and figuratively) it's perfectly rational.