In May Kerry was criticized for saying foreign leaders support him. Today Putin put in a public word for Bush. Although Putin also says "We respect any choice the American people will make," he offers several reasons why he hopes Bush will win.

1. Terrorist attacks in Iraq are aimed at preventing the re-election of U.S. President George W. Bush
2. If [terrorists] succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror coalition
3. This would give an additional impulse to international terrorists and to their activities
4. A Bush defeat could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world

Are the increased bombings and kidnappings in Iraq aimed at influencing the election?

Will terrorist attacks in Iraq abate if Bush wins?

Speaking on a global scale, will terrorist efforts decrease with a two-term Bush administration and increase under a Kerry administration?

Should foreign leaders make overt comments for or against presidential candidates? (Or vice-versa, a president make overt comments about foreign candidates.)

Excellent topic Lesly:



In Putins view they are. That speaks volumes. Putin has his own intel organization that has been busy working with Russia's brand of terrorists, so he may have some knowledge that we do not have.



Probably not initially. The terrorist would likely increase these attacks a bit just as a spoiled child puts up a greater fuss after Mom says no.



In the case of Bush: Hard to say if it would decrease initially, but long term the attacks may be the same in number, but less in severity. A growing and developing intel would stop major attacks, limiting terrorist attacks to smaller, less dramatic events.

In the case of Kerry: If Putin is correct, the terrorists would see the overthrow of Bush as a Major victory, one where they have the United States "on the run". I could see a full scale effort to exploit this.



Tough question. Putin, having just dealt with a major terrorist event on his soil is an important voice in this war, so in this case it may indeed be pertinent.

Are the increased bombings and kidnappings in Iraq aimed at influencing the election?

We are occupying another country, whether we want to admit it or not. These things would probably be going on even if there weren’t U. S. elections. The attacks may have more to do with the supposedly upcoming Iraqi elections in January.

Will terrorist attacks in Iraq abate if Bush wins?

No and they will not abate after Iraqi elections take place, that is, if they take place.

Speaking on a global scale, will terrorist efforts decrease with a two-term Bush administration and increase under a Kerry administration?

I really don’t think it will make much difference.

Should foreign leaders make overt comments for or against presidential candidates? (Or vice-versa, a president make overt comments about foreign candidates.)



http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/18...iraq/index.html

Although endorsing Bush, Putin’s above comments, were a bit cautious. I think this is dangerous precedent. Will this create tension between Putin and Kerry, if Kerry is elected? If other world leaders endorse Kerry and Bush wins, will this create international tension between Bush and those leaders? How will the American voters take this? I’m waiting to see how the two campaigns play this. My advice to Kerry would be to ignore the endorsement and Bush might do well to do the same thing.

Of course, Bush might wish to have Putin address a joint session of Congress next week. I’m just joking.

The answer to the second part of the question is NO, American officials should not comment publicly on foreign elections.

Are the increased bombings and kidnappings in Iraq aimed at influencing the election?
No, I think that Iraqis have much more important things to worry about than which side got lit up on crossfire or what the talking heads are saying about the candidates. The kidnappings and bombings I believe are because of two things:

1) Terrorists using the opportunity to strike at the US.
2) Iraqi insurgents trying to exert political influence in the only way they know how, violence. I also think that some of it may be simply lashing out at the Americans for things like Abu Gharib, etc.

Will terrorist attacks in Iraq abate if Bush wins?
No, they most certainly won't. They are going to continue to increase, because it is the policy that is broken and the Bush administration simply can't see that. If Bush stays in office, then the status quo remains and the conflict will continue to escalate.

Speaking on a global scale, will terrorist efforts decrease with a two-term Bush administration and increase under a Kerry administration?
Why would they decrease with a second term Bush administration? That would imply that Bush is winning or at the very least being effective in the war on terror. The simple fact that terrorist acts have increased suggests that he is in fact not winning.

We have whole debates basically dedicated to this subject, but I'll say that a change of tactics and style is in order. I think that the quote in my signature sums this up nicely:


Will they increase for a Kerry administration? I don't think they will simply because Kerry becomes President, but his policies could certainly fail and cause them to increase. I think the policies he has laid out are sound and reasonable, but I also feel that he is the kind of person that will constantly examine how things are going and make strategic and tactical changes as necessary.

Should foreign leaders make overt comments for or against presidential candidates? (Or vice-versa, a president make overt comments about foreign candidates.)
I think they can make whatever endorsements they feel like making, but I also think that people should take those endorsements with a grain of salt and decide if they truely mean anything or there is an agenda behind them (that goes for either candidate by the way).

I don't believe in anyone telling you what to do or what to think, it is up to you to assimilate the information around you and make up your own mind. It is unfortunate that a great many people don't really exercise their minds in that way.

The increasing bombings and such are aimed at turning elections?

Absolutely not. The killings and bombings have been basically continual since the invasion and occupation. A force whose sole existence is repulsion isnt going to care who is the figurehead of the occupying force. The increased bombings are a result of opporunity and continual success. A force willing to die to inflict damage in all certainty would also be proned to inflict damage as often as possible.

Will the attacks fall off if Bush is elected?

Not unless he institutes a draft or pulls out. Bush doesnt have a plan in Iraq except to keep doing what we are doing....which is hold portions of the country with an overstretched military while small violent enclaves continue to do what they want. Fighters will continue to flow into the country to attack Americans even more so with the Zawahiri and Al Quada coalition. Al Quada was publicly stating that they wanted Bush to win the election because they could appreciate the way he mishandled the alliance and the war and in turn turned the will of the people of earth away from America in effect nullifying the great allegience in afghanistan.

Globally will the terrorists calm down if Bush wins and grow bolder if Kerry wins?

It doesnt matter who is in charge. It is impossible to win the global war on terror. Their isnt some huge nation called Terroristland where we can just swoop down and eliminate them all. The war on terror is unwinnable. People in the Bush administration have admitted as much. Terrorists reside within the borders of sovereign nations and they do not differentiate in appearance from the non combatants of that nation. What Bush did in Iraq going in on intel that was proven false was ensure that our allies will never follow us into a "terrorism" war again. The leaders of Britain, Australia, Spain and Poland no longer have that option. The people within those nations who elect those very leaders would never support such an action and such an action would be political suicide for those leaders. The US because of Bush has a huge world credibility gap. No one will ever again trust us to wage an allied war on terrorism. It just isnt feasible after Iraq. Global terror unless we go it alone with a massive draft like of World War II proportions and invade about 20 more nations will continue. Keeping the same overstretched troop strength in a partially controlled Iraq isnt going to solve any global terror problems.

Should foreign leaders make overt comments about other foreign leaders?

As a rule no. Of course if the leader is a world threat or a maniac then insults should be waged. However, should the leader of a nation that doesnt fall into that realm say something like this? I would say no. Then again Putin is freedom oppressing/ ex- KGB dictator. He isnt a respectable world leader. This is a guy who I think our state department condemned because he was forcing out free speech in his nation. People who publicly denounce his leadership have been harassed, imprisoned, forced to flee or in some cases simply vanish. He holds a complete monopoly on Russian politics and Russian media outlets.

I would think that they are more aimed at getting Americans out of Iraq.

Yeah, right. Is this a serious question? Of course they won't. Bush doesn't know how to get the soldiers out as it is. The situation will change when the soldiers pull out, and then the Iraqi government will probably become a theocracy after some more bloody conflicts.

Cheney seems to think so, but I don't. Why would the terrorist efforts decrease? Will the United States be any less the United States? Will we stop supporting their sworn enemy, Israel?

Regardless of who gets the next four years, the terrorists' objective will be to continue to strike at "The Great Satan."

Foreign leaders make comments about other leaders in order to further their own political aims. Nothing occurs in a vacuum. It might be that "Pooty-Poot" likes Dubya, or he feels that Dubya is more sympathetic to the Chechnyan dilemma. That's okay.

I understand that Brits, if they could, would rather see Kerry in power; Curmudgeon said that only 22% would be for Dubya.* This is similar to the situation in Spain, where the previous leader backed Bush and was a part of the coalition when the majority of Spaniards opposed the war.

I think it is best when foreign political leaders look to the well-being and the wishes of their own country.

*Curmudgeon is trying to find the link.

I think it is the situation with all our allies taking part in the Iraq coalition.
Yesterday when I head what Putin said..I did not believe it at first...thought I heard it wrong. Shocked. I am still parsing his comments.

Yes the British populace may not favor Bush but Tony Blair made and even far more generous political gesture to President Bush...
Blair will send troops 'in days'

Speaks VOLUMES????? Putin can't even stop terrorist attacks in his own country. He has no forces on the ground in Iraq to provide intelligence from that part of the world. How anyone can say that Putin's opinion speaks volumes simply doesn't have their facts straight.

I will say NO. We have plenty of statements from the Iraqi insurgents and NONE of them mention the election. I have not know these guys to be quiet about their intentions. The increase is directly related to the US making more and more Iraqis angry every day.



No they will not. Bush will remain on his path and the terrorists will remain on theirs, which is more killings and kidnappings every month.





What I fear is that a second term for Bush will add Korean and Iranian terrorists to the mix thus increasing terrorist attacks on America. I see NO reason why terrorist attacks would increase when Kerry is President. I would not view our regime change here at home to be "on the run". I would see it, and I think the world would see it as America beginning to self-correct itself. The Bush America is far different than the America that the world has respected for the last century, and we need to get back on a positive and respected path.



I think it is fair. Bush said that he is building a better "WORLD" not America, so I think that world leaders should chime in. Let us hear from ALL of the world leaders, not just one that is turning the tides on his own country's democracy. (appointed officials, state run media.)

We should remember that the only interests Putin has in mind are those of Russia, not United States - and his own. Nothing's wrong with that, he is not elected to care for United States, that's the job of our Presidents. Putin has had a tacit approval of current administration for the ways he governs since 9/11 - he is worried he will not have a similar "free pass" from Kerry if he is elected. The State Dept. took the side of neither European Union nor Russia on the Chechnya war, and such balance suits Putin just fine. While I see the war in Chechnya as necessary, Americans should decide what's better for them, not for Putin's agenda.

I would agree with English Horn here, but wanted to add that Bush has established a working relationship with Putin...which does indicate that he has the capability of forging diplomatic alliances. As I recall, he also had very good discussions with the Chinese delegation when they visited his ranch (you know, the one where everyone says he's vacationing...as if Presidents are actually ever allowed to take vacation )

Okay lets just take a step back here and try and think intelligently just for a moment. Bush is president now, and look at the state of affairs. Bush is responsible for everything that has happened in the last four years. Why should we expect anything different from a second term? Cheney claims that Kerry will make us less safe, but can anyone find any actual validity to this statement past: "uhh, democrats are (expletive)" or other stupid things. Bush does not fight terrorists himself, he lets our kids do that for him, and Kerry isn't likely to change that. Kerry is calling for a smarter war, the "right" war. I think h\he's an idiot for saying this, but either way isn't it obvious that the Bush "plan" is a failure, isn't improvement necessary?

I can't beleive that these truths aren't self evident.

Are the increased bombings and kidnappings in Iraq aimed at influencing the election?

Maybe, but who cares? The important thing is who will utilize the bombings to their advantage. The Bush camp is always prepared to try and scare us, and the bombings are no exception.

Will terrorist attacks in Iraq abate if Bush wins?

Oh, thats likely. Bush has established himself as the Muslim equivalent of the anti-christ. He has given the world so many more reasons to hate us, and will likely continue to do just that without ever admitting he might have made a small mistake. I guess it's all just collaterall damage.

Speaking on a global scale, will terrorist efforts decrease with a two-term Bush administration and increase under a Kerry administration?

I see no reason to support either conclusion. If anything I would expect that terrorism will contuinue un-abated with Bush in office, since he just breeds hatred. Kerry I have no idea, but it's worth finding out. Some improvement is better than none.

Should foreign leaders make overt comments for or against presidential candidates? (Or vice-versa, a president make overt comments about foreign candidates.)

No, I don't think that politicians should endorse eachother like this. However it isn't at all unusual. The US has supported militant dictator after militant dictator, all in the name of self interest, Putin is just doing the same. If you cant ever beat em, join em.

Putin can't even stop terrorist attacks in his own country? Oh, my.

Terrorist attacks, by their very nature are done by surprise. You seem to want to give the Governments of Russia and the United States super human powers.

It is because Putin understands, because of the attack, how hard it is to stop these attacks that he, better then others who have not endured such heartache, knows what it takes to Govern during these times. A vote of confidence from Putin, is a vote from a powerful World Leader that understands the horror of terrorism as well as the difficulty of dealing with these vermin.

Where are the statements you speak of GM. I seem to recall seeing statements that the United States is the great evil in the world. Do you think they were speaking of the American People, or the Administration?

Are you suggesting that terrorists attacks CANNOT be stopped? It appears that way.




And I have to assume that you agree with Putin's administrative responses to halt terror attacks. Appointing regional governors that were elected at one point. Resorting back to a state run media. Blatantly lies regarding the nature of attacks, (I am referring to the disparity in numbers of people being held at the school that was attacked.) I for one do NOT agree with the Russian President's moves and see them as a step away from Democracy. Oh, it is good that he knows how HARD it is. I wonder where he got THAT tag line.....




Well they are read prior to each and every beheading and also can be read on CNN or FOX if you choose. Sorry, I don't have time to dig up every statement that Al-Zarqawi has made. Why don't you save me some time and find one, just one where he claims his actions are intended to influence our Presidential election. That is the crux of this argument. Putin speaks out of his butt, and has absolutely no facts to back up his statement.....

Back it up Putin, back it up.

GM, If a terrorist attack has been stopped, how would you know? Terrorists do not send invitations to their "parties", it is, afterall, to be sneaky. We may stop individuals from acting on plans, but the attack itself? Sometimes yep, Sometimes nope.






And then, is it fair that I can assume that you beleive in the Easter Bunny? Talk about going off subject .

Lets see, who would be better to know the horror of a terroristic attack? Someone within a Country that experienced a terrorist attack that killed hundreds, or one who hasn't? The answer is clear. Putins words indeed speaks volumes.






Mule, call him, I am pretty sure he will share his intel with you!