So, Bin Laden is still alive and is now threatening new attacks against the USA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3966741.stm

The question is very simple.

What does this mean for the war on terror, for the war in Iraq and for the US presidential elections?

What does this mean for the war on terror, for the war in Iraq and for the US presidential elections?

Interesting. I mentioned in one of the October surprise threads that Bush would pull OBL out of a hat just before the election, but this I didn't expect. (I'm not quite paranoid enough to believe OBL is being held somewhere by our government and forced to make this tape to scare people into voting for Bush...not quite...)

I'm sure the veracity of this tape will be argued about for days. Meanwhile, it may give the "insurgents" a morale boost. It will also ratchet up the "be scared, be very scared" rhetoric. Hysteric accusations will fly from both sides. Tonight's news will be a must-see.

It's a shrewd move on OBL's part this close to elections. The scumbag.

What does this mean for the war on terror, for the war in Iraq and for the US presidential elections?

I think it is rather funny that Bin Laden has come out endorsing Kerry. They are both working from the same page. Here is how:

OSAMA: "Despite entering the fourth year after 11 September, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened," he said.

KERRY:"[Bush] failed to tell you the truth. ... I believe that it is important to tell the truth to the American people."

Wait just a second, yehoshua. The same link said:

Looks to me like Osama bin Laden endorses neither Kerry nor Bush. The fact is, Osama bin Laden would want a leader who is no friend to Israel. Just who would that candidate be, hmmm? Nobody in this presidential election.

So please don't suggest that Kerry would be more of a friend to terrorists such as bin Laden, unless you have some documentable proof. You don't have to be pro-Bush to be anti-terrorist!

Now on to the question:
What does this mean for the war on terror, for the war in Iraq and for the US presidential elections? I surely don't know, except that those who think that Bush is doing a swell job protecting us against the terrorists will vote for him in the hope that he will continue to do so.

Those of us who were alarmed that only 5% of incoming cargo ships are being searched for terrorists and bombs/weapons, and that there are Arabs and other non-Mexicans sneaking across the southern border into the U.S. relatively unimpeded will vote for a change: for John Kerry.

There are just too many variables right now in this election to say this will tip the scales one way or the other.

The endorsement is for Kerry. He makes the same claims against Bush as Kerry makes against Bush. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Furthermore lets question this person who is anti-Israel running for president. Kerry supports a global test that is ran through the UN. Kerry supports our troops dying under the UN Flag. The UN is anti-Israel. Therefore Kerry who supports the UN supports a group of people anti-Israel. And again the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

If that is what constitutes documentable evidence, yehoshua, I guess I don't really know what documentable evidence is. I'm not going to bother to argue this one with you further.

Back on topic:

I don't think it bodes better for Kerry or Bush (the bin Laden communication). Again, both candidates support Israel, as does established U.S. policy. So we may expect bin Laden and his fellow terrorists to continue with their plans to harm the United States in any way they can. And that is why we need better Homeland Security.

Endorsement? What endorsement?

Ho-hum, another day, another attack from the Hate Kerry Krew. The theme for this week seems to be "John Kerry is a traitor." Okay, that dog won't hunt, but maybe if the Kerry-haters throw enough mud voters won't know who to cast their ballot for Tuesday. It's not a very smart strategy but here in the 11th hour the level of negativity gets shriller and sillier.

Your tortured, convoluted logic, Joshua reveals far more about the depths you'll plumb to slam Kerry by making the inane suggestion that a man who went to war to defend America would want an endorsement from one of its worst enemies. Additionally, who do you think is going to get a greater share of the Jewish vote next week, Bush or Kerry? You'd better recheck your magic 8-ball.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend?" Does that mean that by your "logic" bin Laden "endorsing" Bush's opponent, hurts Kerry and helps Bush?

Wouldn't that mean that Kerry is the mutual enemy and Bush and bin Laden are the best friends?

That's the thing about the tortured, convoluted logic. It's like shaking up a bag full of rattlesnakes. Open it up and everybody gets bitten.

Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden is still alive and well. Not sick. Not captured. Certainly not dead. Is that why George "Elmer" Bush needs four more years to hunt down that wascally Osama bin Rabbit?

Honestly, I don't think it means much for any of the above. If anything, it might give Bush a slight bounce because he is overwhelmingly favored in polls asking which candidate is best suited for fighting the war on terror.

Of course, however, it will give Kerry another opportunity to transform Bush's Afghan venture into a failure -- a botched operation in which Bush let Osama bin Laden get away because he "outsourced'' bin Laden's capture to "warlords'' in the battle of Tora Bora. (Nevermind, of course, that Kerry had previously praised the administration's use of regional fighters: "What we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will'' -- i.e., not throwing American lives away in tunnels and caves in alien territory.)

Osama says the attacks wouldn't have been as severe had Bush been "more alert". Kerry voted repeatedly to reduce our "alertness" during the Clinton years, so...

I seriously doubt that the Osama tape will sway anybody's vote. What it MAY do is motivate more people to get out and actually vote, i.e., "turn out the base." Personally, I think that the base which will react more strongly are those who's reaction is "blow Osama away." That is not Kerry's base.

Osama may have managed to tip New Jersey to the red...

It will be interesting to analyze after the fact whether this had any effect. I think UBL does intend for it to have an effect...that's the whole point of releasing it. Not because he's any friend of Kerry, or even especially because he's an enemy of Bush. Rather, I think, he wants to effect the election just to show he can. That would be a demonstration of his power, regardless of who the incumbent and challenger were. Nothing would suit his purpose more. Given that, I think it is clear that UBL would prefer Kerry to be elected, solely because only that would indicate any effectiveness of his threats.

We have discussed in other threads what the effect of another attack or warning would be. There are two schools of thought...one says it will help the Republicans, since they are generally the party of security, and also because people might not want to change power in time of war. I think UBL may be unaware of this sentiment, as he misjudged our reaction to the attacks of 9-11. I also think there are those who will view such things as the failure of the Republican party to provide that same security, and would therefore go the other way (as both CJ and NT indicate in their perspectives). This is the reaction that UBL intends, I think, but he is viewing things from his societal perspective, where I think such sentiment would be more prevalent. I think that basically these two camps will tend to cancel each other out--this message from UBL may indeed sway a fair number of voters, but with neglible overall effect. It may, as Bikerdad suggests, get out some more voters, probably especially in the NY NJ area, and those particular voters may indeed swing NJ in Bush's favor. If that is the case, I don't think anyone will suggest that Bush and UBL are in the same camp---as NT points out, the idea is equally preposterous for Kerry.

Yehoshua, sometimes it seems that you're on Bush/Cheney campaign's payroll... come on, following the party line doesn't mean you have to abandon common sense. Both Kerry and OBL say "Bush lied" - but does it mean that they're talking about the same lie? I say "Bush lied" - does it mean that I am now a friend of Osama bin Laden? Along with tens of thousands of other Americans? In your zeal to deliver the daily bucket of mud towards a candidate who, by the way, is going to get close to 50 percent of the popular vote, you claim that:
1) Kerry is a friend of Osama bin Laden
2) Kerry is anti-Israel
3) Kerry supports out troops "dying" ... (not "fighting" or "serving"...)

Come on, man... As falafel-loving Bill O'Reilly would say, it smells of intellectual dishonesty.

What does this mean for the war on terror, for the war in Iraq and for the US presidential elections?

For the war on terror? It means exactly what a lot of us have been saying for months now, we aren't fighting the war on terror and we have taken our eye off the ball. Many have suspected that Bin Laden was still alive, but no one really knew for sure. Now that he has been confirmed to be alive, I think that really puts things in focus. So we have killed a few of his Lieutenants, big deal it appears he still holds the reigns of power and is certainly still dangerous. He can recruit a fresh crop of Lieutenants from Iraq where young men are furious with the United States for bombing women and children, I don't even think he'll have to work hard at it.

For the election is a different story. Personally I think that it is proof positive that Bush's mantra of "The American people are safer" is complete nonsense and the reality is much worse.

But, I think that as far as the election goes it really is going to be a wash. Even George Stephanopolous on ABC World News suggested it was going to be a wash and that isn't exactly Kerry friendly country there.

I think the assertions flying around that Kerry isn't strong on terror or wouldn't agressively pursue terrorists is pure bunk. To those that hold that view I only have two words - prove it.

To those suggesting that states are all of a sudden going to "go Red" because of this that is also ridiculous and unrealistic. What exactly do we have to be afraid of, did Bin Laden even threaten to attack before the election? This isn't spain and I think that people are smarter than that. It'll take much more than Bin Laden coming back on the scene to alter the election results. If he slams planes into the Statue of Liberty Monday morning then year, it'll effect the election. But as it stands, it is a non-issue.

I'm presuming you are referring to the Kerry Amendment of 1994? If so, then you do know that Kerry proposed a defense cut (humorously recommended by George H.W. Bush in his 1992 State of the Union speech) of $1 trillion and keeping it to such levels for the next five years. This, of course, amounts to less than 4% of the defense budget. And when Kerry's budget cut wasn't passed, Porter Goss co-sponsored a bill in 1995 which would have eliminated 20% of CIA jobs over five years. Goss is now head of the CIA. (source: FactCheck.org)

Throwing tired Bush arguments around does little to help your stance, Bikerdad. In fact, FactCheck.org (which Dick Cheney referenced in the VP Debate) has had to debunk quite a few misleading Bush ads recently. Once an avid listener of Sean Hannity, I've had to stop because his perpetuation of misinformation was too overwhelming--I no longer had any time to update my blog to counter his arguments. There were simply too many.

As for the topic of debate, the video tape does little by itself, but with both parties spinning it, someone will get hurt. In my opinion? It will harm Bush more than Kerry. Not capturing Osama bin Laden has been one of the biggest problems I've had with the current administration. Senator Kerry merely needs to point out the failed attempt by President Bush in capturing the perpetrator of 9/11. This could be damning, far moreso than the Al-QaQaa weapons cache (which, by the way, has little evidence supporting either party's arguments).

And the proof that we are not safer? A videotape of a Madman? A videotape of a Madman that was passed on a couple of days after "Ralphie the Terrorists" videotape?

Come on CJ, you must be kidding on this one.



I would agree with the above. However, the effect that "guessing if he will" to many voters may sway them toward Bush. The "a bird in the hand" mindset.

This Video will be played over and over and over again all weekend which will destroy all the last minute planning by both sides.



I disagree, especially in New Jersey where many of those that died in 9/11 lived and in States like Minnesota and Wisconsin that are comprised of highly Independent people. I think if it appears that OBL and "Ralphie" are trying to sway the election, these "rugged individualists" will not want to be a party to it.

Of course this is all speculation, but CJ I will again agree with you that neither Candidate is going to be weak on terrorism.

BTW: Does anybody really take that nerdy terrorist on the Video earlier this week serious? The guy needed more then a gunbelt and an AK-47 to make him look tough.

EDITED TO ADD:



Problem is, he can't. Looking like an oportunist at this point would likely backfire on either side. This is one that both sides might want to score points on, but they HAVE TO TREAD LIGHTLY.

Personally, I didn't hear anything on the tape to suggest that Osama has changed! HE STILL HATES ALL AMERICANS! It doesn't matter who the president is--he will still hate Americans. Ihave several points to make on this:

1. Bin Laden is simply using this as a way to get attention and get all over the televisions of the world. He is not tyring to influence voters. Why would ANYONE care for one second what a lunatic like bin Laden thinks! Every madman has a reason for being the way they are and Osama CRAVES attention. With all the focus on Iraq lately, he felt it was time to make his return to the big screen!

2. I support John Kerry in this election, but I always try to be fair. If bin Laden would start carrying Bush/Cheney signs, I would still say "Who cares what bin Laden thinks?" yehoshua, your blanket statements that have no support, such as "Bin Laden endorses Kerry" need to stop. Think about what you are saying...are you a Republican first, or are you an American first? Bin Laden is responsible for the death of thousands of Americans...show some sensitivity in your comments before you blurt things out that have no evidence. Based on your "logic" of " the enemy of my enemy is my friend," why aren't the US and the Iranians best buddies? We both had enemies in Saddam right? Yet, Bush put them both in the "Axis of Evil." Give me a break.

3. The RNC sent out advertisements in the mail in yesterday with pictures of John Kerry, planes flying into buildings, and Osama bin Laden all superimposed over each other. One of the most insensitive advertisements I have ever seen. I sent a letter to the RNC stating how I felt about it. Sometimes, you just have to take the high road and not try to benefit from the hurt and suffering of others, such as families of victims of 9/11. I don't like Bush, but equating Osama nd Kerry is like saying Bush is like Hitler. Both are baseless claims.

What a load of nonsense, yehoshus. I think sometimes you see what you want to see rather than what exists.



Moif’s Original Link

How anybody can get an endorsement one way or the other out of this puzzles me. It just isn’t there. Ron Reagan just said on MSNBC that anyone who let this decide their vote one way or the other needs to be smacked.




I agree.

I do not see how this helps Bush. How does seeing a man responsible for the murders of thousands of Americans looking fit and content reassure Americans towards the man responsible for hunting him down? This is an intentional slap to Bush and a direct scare tactic against Americans. Bin Lden is saying that he is free that Bush has not stopped him that the attacks are not going away irregardless of who wins. In fact doing this to me insinuates that he is afraid of Kerry and maybe of Kerry's ability to push America back into the international community. This was Bin Laden's stand to say that he doesnt care if Kerry is elected he will still resist.

I think Bin Laden is afraid that if Bush loses he will be unable to maintain the current discontent and hatred in the muslim world and the grand dream of global muslim Jihad will be lost. Laden may be Lee at Gettysburgh right now. Bush is the great satan. This is who they want. They are not fighting a tactical war they are fighting a spirtual war. I see and have seen nothing that suggest they want anyone but Bush in office. Bush is a great recruit tool.

George Bush said we would not stop until we got Bin laden....he is free and apparently healthy and safe. Bush then said that Bin Laden wasnt a worry. Bush said he would not seek a permission slip to defend America...and then does nothing as the Taliban and Bin Laden are grantd basic asylum in Pakistan......Hey maybe Bin Laden is afraid of Kerry. Bush has seemed to have forgotten about him. With Bush in office he can keep planning and remain safe. Kerry is an unknown. Not a new threat Bin Laden wants to deal with.

"Fit and content" "Healthy"

In case anybody hasn't noticed, Osama's in an "undisclosed" location, not looking especially fit (albeit better than Yassar), and had to get his tape out via a minimum of TWO layers of middle men. Now, I'm mighty disappointed that he's not dead, but conversely, it will simplify things when we DO catch him. If he'd died in some blasted cave in Afghanistan, blown to smithereens along with a few dozen of his flunkies, the lack of a body would be a problem.

Stickin it to The Man may show the vulnerability of The Man, but then having to spend the next 3+ years hiding out shows the power of The Man.

On a semi-related note, I'd like to point out how UTTERLY impotent the media has been. Think of it, the much vaunted 4th Estate, able to squirrel the deepest secrets out of our government, or mobsters, or eeeeeevil corporations, hasn't been able to find this guy.

The press ain't doing anything more with bin Laden than getting his press releases through tertiary intermediaries.

One would almost think they have less interest in finding him than the Administration purportedly does.

What does this mean for the war on terror

Pretty obvious- we haven't got the bad guy- real bummer there, no matter what the political philosophy.

, for the war in Iraq

Possibly the biggest blunder in US history? Wow, talk about going after the wrong guy!

and for the US presidential elections?

I think they are both very aware they have to tread lightly- I think OBL will be highly disappointed with a Kerry victory- Kerry just doesn't have the perfect anti-muslim pro-imperialist feel that GW has- there has never been a better American adversary to further Al-Quaida's cause than GW. It is easy to recruit extremists against an unreasonable extremist- it is very hard to keep the 'mo going with a reasonable centrist.

I don't see how this could help Kerry, as his far-left base is as energized as they are going to be already. I do see how it could help Bush. Having OBL rail against Bush can't help but make one wonder who he'd prefer to see in office. No, he didn't come right out and say it, but it could make some think twice before pulling the lever. Probably a very minor effect, if any. But this sure is some weird, freaky, scary video to ponder. It was nice of Walter Cronkite (on Larry King) to remind us that despite the fact that OBL was 'as clean shaven as those people get, he could still blow us up. Thanks for the reminder.

An aside - Not that he's the best source, but OBL taking credit for the bombings, naming Atta as the planner, and saying point blank that he wants to create a greater Muslim state, could maybe quell a few conspiracy theories floating out there.



Since someone brought up factcheck.org, I wondered if this non-partisan organization had anything to say on the misleading Kerry talking point about 'only inspecting 5% of incoming cargo.' However, a search of 'cargo' doesn't find anything there. So, from The Cincy Enquirer / AP - Reality Check


And after reading John Kerry's detailed plan for container inspections, from his website, I am not convinced that he's on top of this, really.
Kerry's own plan for making us safer from nukes is to secure them in places like Russia, before they reach our shores. So why is inspecting containers and cargo manifests before they get here such a bad idea?


So, we have taken our eye off the ball, and we are not safer. Contrast:
- Al-Qaeda bombed Madrid to affect their elections.
- Osama Bin Laden released a video to try and affect the US elections.

I'll take a videotape over hundreds of dead commuters anytime. What do you think that OBL would have preferred to do, seriously. They did not attack us because they could not attack us. Our eye is not off the ball. We have captured or killed tons of these guys, kept them busy overseas, and even former terror enablers like Musharraf in Pakistan are increasing the pressure. When someone that wants very badly to kill you cannot, that is called winning, not losing.

And since when did smuggled materials (or people) get accounted for on ships' manifests? Isn't that what smuggling is--putting things aboard secretly to sneak them somewhere? Witness the influx of illegal immigrants from places like China, who pay exorbitant rates to be smuggled to America where they are kept as slaves, working in illegal sweat shops. If cargo were inspected as well as it is supposed to be, this wouldn't be happening.

Why such a reluctance to recognize that our borders and coastlines are porous, and that security needs to be strengthened where people and goods enter and leave the country?

Again, those who trust Bush regarding our nation's security will vote for him. Those who think that the color-coded alert system, duct tape & plastic sheeting, and the intrusiveness of the Patriot Act don't fill the bill and are overly intrusive for our citizens have the choice to vote for John Kerry.

We should have gotten Osama bin Laden before we ever thought about taking the war elsewhere.

I'm not saying that Bush has been correct on the borders, nor that we couldn't improve our port security - Tom Ridge has said the same. It's just that the 95% figure is a scare number, which doesn't really mean anything. Kerry's not going to inspect every single container, he's going to have a similar system of profiling too. You can't physically open 9 million containers coming into 350 ports and keep the economy moving. It's not practical to tell Wal-Mart that the sealed container that left their order point in Guandong, arrived in LA has to wait 2 weeks to be inspected, and it would bring things to a screeching halt.

He seems to have the same answer for everything - a scare quote worst economy since hoover, 95% of containers, loss of the middle class - all of them lies or distortions, then followed up by "I'll do better" with no specifics. It's easy to tell that Lockhart and the rest are writing his script. Why would anyone believe a vague promise of "better" from someone who has lied about everything from being in Cambodia on Christmas to being at game 6 of the 1986 World Series and running the Boston Marathon. He's just not credible.

Veering back on topic, one more thing on the Bin Laden tape and the election. Kerry showing his "leadership" character again. From The AP wire


3000 people are murdered by this guy, and Kerry uses the tape to build up his toughness credentials and take pot shots at the president. Like no one will notice that both Kerry and Osama have the same talking points.

Carlitos, your own link clearly mentions that Kerry's response to this tape in *Florida* was devoid of any "pot shots" at the president. Later on, in Milwaukee, he brings up the fact that Bush outsourced the job of capturing Bin Laden. It is extremely disingenuous of you to act like Kerry addressed this tape and in the same speech went on the "take pot shots of the president." For either of the candidates to use this tape for political gain would be in extremely bad taste and they realize it, which is specifically why they did not "take pot shots" at each other while addressing it. However, later on it is perfectly valid for Kerry to mention Bush's mishandling of bin Laden, because it's not like all of a sudden after this tape came out that he started doing so. He has been criticizing Bush about his handling of Al Qaida since his campaign practically began, so don't act like he's using this "opportunity" to take "pot shots" at Bush, when the "opportunity" has been there all along.

I would suggest that Bush is the one who started this. Shortly after Kerry became the apparent Democratic nominee, Bush ran some opening, positive ads with the ruins of 9/11 as a backdrop. The ads quit running when 9/11 widows sharply criiticized Bush.

Bush and Cheney have kept this issue bubbling for months. It brings to mind the saying "people who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones." My what short memories some of us have.

You can't directly produce a quote where he endorses Kerry, therefore your statement is pure conjecture. The "enemy of my enemy" language is not the right context in this. Are you maintaining that we shouldn't hold an election in time of war? Everyone can agree to kill Osama, but can't disagree about how best to do it? Let alone elect people who have different views as to how best to carry that out?

The "anti-Israel" thing is not as sinister as it is often made out to be. If the Israeli's can't win, then why are they members of that body in the first place? It's also a simple fact that there are more developing Islamic nations with palestinian sympathies than there are Jewish ones. With each nation getting one vote on a given issue, is it really the world ganging up on Israel? No, it's other Islamic nations using an international process to air grievances. Keep in mind that is why there are permanent members who can veto anything. With a good number of them around, that guarantees that no individual nation will be picked on unduly.

You're assertion about Kerry's "global test" statement is also troubled in that it has little basis in fact, but widespread basis in spin. He was taking about global acceptance(i.e.-among one's own people, etc.) and the "test" is nothing more than proving(i.e.-Reagan administration at the U.N. showing Libyan planes armed with missiles, Kennedy at the U.N. with missile photos of Cuba) beyond a doubt, that the action you are taking is right. When it comes to defending yourself, allies don't hesitate, but when you go on the attack when attacks are less imminent and less threatening then what others perceive them to be(and they're right) then you have some serious credibility issues.



That was his statement, and here is where fact launches into famous fiction...


source

We had a global test in Afghanistan and our cause was obviously right according to every other nation. The "global test" allows you to throw your moral weight around and gives you lots of credibility with other nations, and less resistance from even the most recalcitrant.

Sad to say that while the RNC may no longer be airing TV commericals of the 9/11 attacks, they are sending flyers in the mail with pictures of Kerry watching planes fly into the Towers and Kerry and OSama on the back. This alone shows you what this administration will do to be re-elected.

Well I'd say that rhetoric is better than what is coming from the official Bush-Cheney campaign right now - link.

What kind of sense does that make exactly? Why in the world would you want to elect someone that wants you to be afraid?

U.S. foreign policies and the Middle East for Dummies

Would anyone please answer me some basic questions? To the United States, where abouts do we consider Yasser Arafat on the "Our Side" to the "Other Side" continuum? He is the leader of the Palestinians and Bin Laden said in an article posted on CNN.com that the attacks on the U.S. were the result of our foreign policies in Arab lands, referring specifically to Lebanon and the Palestinians. It seems to me, probably due to lack of knowledge on the situation, that Arafat and Bin Laden have something in common. Does Arafat condone Bin Laden's behavior?

Also, could someone give me a generalized reason as to what the U.S. has done or is doing to Palestinians or in Lebanon that would cause Bin Laden to direct his aggression towards the U.S.?

It's greatly appreciated.

What does this mean for the war on terror...

It means that for three years, the 'war' on terror has been neglected and our world leaders have been negligent in allowing the worlds foremost terrorist to escape justice.


...for the war in Iraq...

It demonstrates that the war in Iraq has had no effect what so ever on global terrorism. In fact, if anything, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has led to a more dangerous world.

Hold up your hand if you believe the people of the middle east will think kindly of us for killing 100,000 Iraqi's


...and for the US presidential elections?

This is the scariest of the lot.
All day I've been listening to Americans saying that they are going to vote for Bush, because he's tougher on terrorism!!!

Here we have the greatest terrorist in history, STILL at large, attempting to manipulate the US elections to his agenda, and there are still people in America who believe that GW Bush is 'tougher' on terrorism?!!!

I mean, what planet do Bush supporters live on?

How can the abject failure to bring to justice the man responsible for the worst terrorist act in all history equate to being 'tough' on terrorism?


Did taking out Saddam Hussein make these Bush supporters all feel so good about themselves that they are blind to the fact that GW Bush has done almost nothing to capture or kill Osama Bin laden?

I can't understand how any one can look upon George W Bush and not feel anger at the danger this man and his incompetence represents.

I totally agree with you moif I hear all different tv pundits saying that this should push more people to vote for Bush which completely confuses me, because to me it only reinforces like Cube Jockey said earlier in this thread that this guy is definitely still alive and free. Just like the pundits were saying if we were hit before the election it would do the same, but again the only thing I can say is HELLO you say we are safer but we aren't. The guy that is responsible for 9/11 is still alive, seems pretty health to the way he did 2 years ago from his last video, and he's still not captured. How can that mean we are safer? Just because we have not been hit in 3 years don't mean anything the last time they hit us was back in 93.

I think it's a big mistake to judge President Bush's success in fighting the war on terrorism on the failure to capture or kill Bin Laden. First, 3/4 of Al Qaeda's leadership has been captured or killed. That, in and of itself, is a huge success, and we can attribute much of that success to this administration's ability to completely flip Pakistan's support of the Taliban and turn it into support for the war on terror. (As you might recall, Pakistan was largely responsible for installing and supporting the Taliban regime.)

Second, included among the Al Qaeda members captured alive was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who actually was the mastermind behind 9/11. He concocted the idea and orchestrated the operation. Bin Laden approved of the plan, financed it, and supplied the suicide operatives from his Afghanistan training camps.

Third, although this cannot be confirmed, it appears that Bin Laden has largely been marginalized. He doesn't have a safe haven to operate training camps. The U.S., along with many foreign allies, have frozen much of Bin Laden's access to funding. Indeed, Mohammed has told U.S. interrogators that post-9/11 measures taken by this administration have made it much more difficult for Al Qaeda to operate in the U.S.

Sure, it would be nice to have Bin Laden in our hands, and I think we will, eventually. Bin Laden is not, however, the "be all end all" of terrorism. I think it's shortsighted, and quite dangerous, to focus so much attention on one individual (even if he is the most identifiable face of terrorism today).

I'm not sure how anyone can say that we are "winning" the war on terror or that we have even made good progress.

1. Bin Laden is still alive, and regardless of what Al Qaeda lackeys we kill or capture, he has an almost god like status amongst his people. Do you think that if someone had assassinated Hitler in say... 1942 the war would have lasted until 1945? Taking out Bin Laden would have a huge impact on the war on terror. To deny that is simply to try and defend the fact that Bush hasn't caught him.

2. The number of terror attacks worldwide is on the rise, not in decline. To me that doesn't suggest we are effectively stomping out terrorism.

3. Do you think that events in Iraq have produced more terrorists or are we winning friends left and right? Hint: for every person with relatives blown apart by coalition bombs, you have a potential new terrorist where none existed before.

4. What have we done to combat the idea of terrorism, or address the reasons behind it? Nothing. Terrorism isn't some state we can conquer, or some ground we can take - it is an idea and a method. When in the history of the world has any army ever successfully killed an idea? We still support Israel, the social, political and economic conditions ripe for terrorists still exist in the middle east and we still have an agressive foreign policy there.

5. Are people more afraid of terrorists today or less afraid? I'd say more, and not necessarily because things are more dangerous, but because our government would like everyone to believe they are.

The thing that is touted as success most frequently is killing or capturing Al Qaeda Lieutenants - why does this really matter? If Bin Laden is still in the picture don't you think there will be hundreds of men waiting to take their place? We are simply cutting off heads on the hydra, with two more to spring up in its place - we have not killed the beast.

I would agree with everything Cube Jockey has said as well as saying we killed or captured 3/4 of Al Qaeda's leadership is sort of drawing at straws because Al Qaeda is not one organization it is many working together for a cause, which also goes to funding their are many resources to these organizations all you have to do is look at the funds coming from fundamentalists from Saudia Arabia. Al Qaeda is sort of like a company with branches all over the world they work independently of each other to further their goals and do work with each other at times. CJ is exactly right terrorism is an idea going back 1000's of years you can't fight it conventionally.

Hitler was the individual primarily responsible for the rise of Nazism. Bin Laden is not the one primarily responsible for the rise of Islamic Fascism. Unfortunately, the destruction of Islamic Fascism will not lend itself to the death or capture of a single, individual person or entity, including Bin Laden. Now, I agree that the death or capture of Bin Laden would serve as an important symbolic victory. But, do you really think that, if he were caught or killed today, Islamic Fascism and the terrorism that it begets would simply vanish?


That may or may not be true. However, we haven't had another attack on U.S. soil. Further, this problem was not created in the three years since 9/11, nor should we expect it to have ended three years after. Remember, terrorism has been festering for the last 20 years. It's only now that the U.S. has decided to take it seriously. The important thing is to stay on the offensive and wage this war where the terrorists are, rather than allowing them to attack us on our own soil.


Honestly, I don't know whether the events in Iraq have produced more terrorists or not. I don't think anyone has performed any detailed, public investigation into terrorist recruitment trends before or after the invasion. I think it's important to remember, however, that one of the reasons the Clinton administration never took serious measures to eliminate the Al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan was the fear of stirring Muslim anger towards the U.S. Unfortunately, on September 11, we learned the ramifications of that policy of appeasement.



In Afghanistan, we've turned one Islamic Fascist regime into a fledgling democracy. In Iraq, we've deposed a dictator that starved and murdered his own people, and we're actively working towards turning the country into a functional democracy. In the long run, the political climate in the entire middle east must change before the underlying causes of terrorism can ever be eliminated. Can you consider some of the grievances that may underly terrorism as justified? Possibly. But that's the same mindset that led the U.S., the U.K., and other allied powers to appease Hitler, rather than confront him and eliminate the threat.


Certainly less afraid than the weeks and months following 9/11. But, contrary to Michael Moore's assertions, the terrorist threat is real. Do I let it affect the way I live my daily life? No. But we cannot sink back into the mindset we had in the 90's, when terrorism was something that occurred "over there." Do you really doubt that, given access to WMD, terrorists would not hesistate to use them in a large U.S. city? I don't. And I honestly believe President Bush is waging an effective war on terrorism by keeping the front lines in the middle east and promoting, slowly but (hopefully) surely, the rise of democracy in the region.

cwadley



You say 3/4 of al qaeda's leadership has been captured. How do you know that?

Because GW Bush (who wants to be re-elelcted) told you so?

My understanding is that any support Pakistan once lent to the Taliban came about as a result of the previous Pakistani government. That once Musharref took over, (Before GW Bush became president) that support was no longer in place.

I don't see how GW Bush (who in those days couldn't even tell you who Musharref was) was in any way responsible for Pakistan withdrawing its support for the Taliban.




As wonderful as that is, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was not the motivating factor of 11 September so taking him out has not diminished the focus of al qaeda.

What troubles me about your position is that you seem to be suggesting (as does GW Bush) that Osama Bin Laden is not important.

In my estimation, he is very important, because he has become the focus for the Islamic fundamentalism that is seeking to over throw the USA and the western world's domination of the planet.
For example: when the IRA were fighting against the British in Northern Ireland, they had a clear agenda. A focus. They were united behind the idea of a free Ireland.
For al qaeda however, their goal is so huge and so ambitious that they can't define it in simple terms. They need a focus. Osama Bin Laden has become that focus because he has hurt the USA and survived. For all those in the Islamic world who sympathise with Bin Laden, this shows clearly how weak the USA really is. The subsequent deaths in the war in Iraq have only served as a further lesson to the middle east how indiscriminate in its impotency to deal with the threat posed by Osama Bin Laden the USA really is. The USA needs to catch (not kill) Osama Bin Laden and put him on trial for mass murder.

There seems to be some sort of a misunderstanding happening in the hearts and minds of America, that fire power equals strength. That 'conviction' equals understanding and that patriotism equals right.




Unless you can point to Osama Bin Ladens actual where abouts, then this is pure speculation.
The thing is, he could be any where.
The CIA say he is probably some where in the Afghan Pakistan border region, but how do they know? Bin Laden could simply arrange for his people on the ground to plant rumours there and have the CIA on a wild goose chase whilst he himself may be any where on the planet.

Until this video popped up, a good many Americans were unwilling to concede that Bin Laden was even alive at all!

The point is, in our ignorance, how can we make sound decisions about Islamic fundamentalist terrorism that will result in the deaths of innocent people? We're all just fumbling in the dark, and the same goes for the CIA, the Pentagon, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush.

They have no clue what they are doing, they're simply operating on the old idea that its better to do something than nothing.

I suspect that al qaeda is far stronger and more popular now than it has ever been in the past.

GW Bush has given Osama Bin Laden everything he wanted. The two of them exist in a weird symbiosis where either party is using the other as justification for the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

The rest of the world is being held hostage by two polarised fundamentalist religious ideologies, neither capable of creating an end to the violence they have created.




Its a simple question of accountability, and the demonstration that you cannot kill thousands of Americans with impunity.

Instead what you have is a 'war president' who threw fuel on the fire by starting a war.

That we'd better elect Kerry. He wants to improve our domestic defense by inspecting import containers, locking down nuke power plants, and various other things that Bush SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING all along, but has not and has not indicated he will do these things in his next term (if there is one).



Nothing. OBL is probably quite pleased at the way Iraq has turned out. He didn't even have to do anything. Bush played right into his hand.



The gullible might actually think that OBL wants Kerry in. The rest of us know better -- OBL doesn't care who is in charge here, and he has quite a bit of contempt for anyone who wins this election.

Since I know OBL is a bright guy, he probably wants to keep a known entity in, and that would be Bush. But, he'll be able to adjust his strategy to Kerry. Might Kerry be tougher to deal with? I suspect so. Kerry's a bright guy too.

Need to add via edit: Kerry is criticized for his flexibility. In a war against the likes of OBL, you need that. Bush doesn't have it. He's bullheaded and never admits to mistakes.

Three-fourths of al Qaeda's membership has been reputedly caught or killed, that is from what our human intelligence was able to gather some time ago. While the mission of al Qaeda hasn't changed, the faces have. I hate to say it, but you know as well as I do that the premature talk of having dealt al Qaeda a death blow is just that, premature, and inaccurate.

Never mind the fact that a picture of President George W. Bush in Islamic fundamentalist neighborhoods is so effective in recruiting young, disaffected Muslims (both male and female) to the cause of terrorism and martyrdom suicide.

For these 3/4 of the al Qaeda membership captured or killed, how many more terrorists have sprung up?

The importance of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden rests in the fact that the Bush administration placed the blame of 9/11 so squarely on his shoulders, and Osama so willingly took credit for it. Bush said immediately after 9/11 that it was our Number One priority. Another case of Bush dropping the ball.

From FactCheck.org:



Here's a good read on first through fourth generation enemies and how we're botching it up in Iraq in terms of our approach toward the insurgency and threats to national security at home. It gives a bleak prospect for both candidates.

My remaining hope, despite Mr. Lind calling hope a fool, is that Kerry does not have an Oedipus complex, does not feel undermined when he is challenged, and will appoint people who are not afraid of challenging our strategy as opposed to surrounding himself with yes-men.

Oh yeah. Obligatory bin Laden wants you to vote for Kerry so we'll all die in a horrible cataclysmic death. Except... al Qaeda is already working on it.



Hurray for compassionate conservatism's amnesty gift to illegal immigrants.

A common thread that I see asserted by many opposed to the war in Iraq is that it has "played into Al Qaeda's hands" or increased Al Qaeda's ability to find and train suicidal holy warriors.

That assertion is, however, pure speculation. Not enough time has passed since March 2003 for scholars, journalists, and writers to travel among the Islamic militants to get an accurate idea of what is actually happening in mosques and religious schols in the greater Middle East and Europe -- the two primary breeding grounds for the jihadism of 9/11.

I'm not saying it's impossible. But, a vast array of other factors also come into play. What we do know is that Al Qaeda was born and grew rapidly in a time when the U.S. was ignoring Afghanistan, wasn't occupying Iraq, and was committed to negotiating Palestinian nationalist and religious aspirations through the Oslo Accords. We also know that Bin Ladin used as a tocsin call American retreats from the Middle East; that the defining moment for him, and perhaps for his movement, was President Clinton's "Black Hawk Down" withdrawal from Somalia.

At bottom, it's too soon to know how this will play out. In the end, particularly if the U.S. precipitously withdraws from Iraq, we may discover that Al Qaeda has been born again, vastly stronger than it was before. But we may also discover that the Iraq war becomes a starting point for the spread of democracy throughout the region, which will kill off the fundamentalist mainspring for Islamic Fascism. The latter hope is, admittedly, quite idealistic, but what other realistic option do we have? The Middle East status quo cannot be maintained.

What does this mean for the war on terror, for the war in Iraq and for the US presidential elections?

This is debatable on what affect, if any it will have on the elections. I believe most people have allready decided who is best to overcome the terrorist threat of our time.

(I said this in another thread and will clear it up here because it pertains more to the subject)

There seems to be two camps of thought regarding the terrorist threat. Some see it as soley using military force to destroy Al-Qaida, the group whom it is widely seen as to carry out the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Yes this can be seen as a "war on terror" but I prefer to call it a "war on Al-Qaida".

Some see it as the "war on terror". Note the word war i.e. military action against "terrorists" not limited to a specific group.

When confronted with this, one may think, so you are telling me we should attack every terrorist country?

Of course that is not reasonable or plausible. So you have to equate what is realistic in terms of resources and gathering threats and as to what those actions may cause. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You have to determine a global long term strategy to "uproot" terrorist regime's and their supporters. The short term effect is to see an increase in attacks because the war has begun and that always results in increased attacks and increased terrorist activity because now the "infidels" are attacking Muslim countries. The long term objective is to stabilize a pattern of and achievable government's that do not encourage or endorse radical ideals but encourage freedom of the mind and does not opress thoughts, and when this happens the end result is that the thoughts of opression tend to lose steam on their own. Terrorism can only ultimately be fought within countries by the authorities that preside over their educational establishments. Replacing the radical education is what must be achieved either through force or through pressure (pressure being a variety of outside and inside intervention through political means, force being a gun to the leader's government if that fails). This strategy will take decades and is risky with many downfalls and at the cost of many lives but the prospects are attainable and if the end result is achieved it will be the underlying end to the radical movement and will only become an isolated ideal as opposed to what it is today where it is openly endorsed and is seen as acceptable and encouraged in many countries.

If the objective is to go back to post-9/11 policies that is a very dangerous proposal as to it led to 9/11 and could lead to worse.

UBL is extending the offer of a truce in this speech (I will explain this further down).

UBL is a dangerous terrorist mastermind. He is not a raving insane lunatic that is completely ignorant. He know's what he is doing and he believe's that it is right. He is educated and know's powerful ways to achieve his objectives.

UBL stated that "we" choose through our foreign policies as to if we are attacked again. Foreign policy meaning less military intervention (as stated in his speech about soldiers leaving muslim lands). Less intervention meaning Kerry. And that is ok if that is what you believe that we should not be meddling in the affairs of those in the middle east short of a direct attack.

This speech is well out of line for UBL. He has never stated that if we simply leave from the Muslim land's that we will be safe. In the past he has stated multiple times that his objective is to :







Literally transform the US into a government form of what was once the Taliban.

Now his message is basically stating "leave us alone and we will leave you alone".


Sounds like an offer of truce. Something UBL would never have uttered if in fact his organization was expanding and not being taken into submission.

Im sure Kerry will be determined to catch and eliminate Al-Qaida so UBL's "truce" is a desperate call in futility.

We will continue to hunt down Al-Qaida no matter what the outcome of this election.

However I do not believe Kerry has a viable global strategy to deal with the idealogic movement of radical Islamists throughout the world.

Just to add one more thought that has been discused. Closing the border's will never work. It will not prevent anyone from expanding outside of our borders and it will not prevent those determined to come into our country to do us harm. Simply renting a boat and coming ashore is all that is needed. The Cubans have been doing it for years.


Just to point something out. Bush has tripled the amount of money spent on Homeland Security and new rules are being applied to shipping containers - including x-raying the ships - and protecting nuclear power plants.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh10_...0914nukest.html



http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interweb/asse...heet-062104.pdf

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/waronterror/a/homeland04.htm

Most interesting to me about the OBL video was that he quoted some of Michael Moore's F-9/11 themes - Bush and the Saudis, reading about a goat, etc. This strikes me as curious given the insane email that Moore sent out on Sept. 12, 2001 (below). Moore was the only guy on the planet that thought we were bombed for pulling out of Kyoto and the Durban conference on racism. And of course, it's a shame that Bin Laden killed people "who didn't vote for Bush."

What does this mean for the war on terror?

In a New York Post article, written about the whole, unedited tape (not just the edited portion that we saw on ABC), it appears that the 'war on terror' is getting Osama down. I think that this is a good thing for us all around. As I noted in another post, yes he's still alive, but he has not been able to hit us again.

I have to wonder, Carlito, what you and other unabashed Bush apologists would be saying if Gore was president and the same exact situation had occurred of OBL remaining uncaptured, healthy, and actively scheming further attacks, yet they had not attacked a second time.

Would you be making the same assumptions that Gore managed to make America safer?

Al Qaeda does not execute attacks quickly and without years and years of pre-planning, I think we all know this. Are you willing to hedge your bets on Bush, by assuming that they've even tried an attack similar to 9/11 SINCE 9/11? What evidence are you basing this on?

This video not only shows that Bush's war on terror has utterly failed in the same The War on Drugs has failed. You cannot wage war on an idea, but you CAN wage war on OBL and Al Qaeda, something Bush and his adminstration has utterly botched.

It's humiliating really, I would be humiliated if I had voted for Bush 4 years ago, and it blows my mind that any kind of reasonable person wouldn't feel the same way. Do you still feel OBL is even important? Or do you share the same feelings as Bush: not really a concern in 2004?

In this video OBL clearly lays out WHY Al Qaeda has attacked America, and this war is never going to be won until we take three seconds to think about reasonable responses in the War on Terror as opposed to taking over entire countries that are completely unrelated to the ACTUAL enemies.

I fail to see how OBL producing a new tape shows that we are WINNING the War on Terror. To me, it suggests that we are losing.

This tape was recorded in a well lit area which is to say that it was not recorded in a cave or in a field for that matter. He was standing at a podium which suggests that he is more established today than in previous tapes.

He looks, healthy and clean.


The President has said that he is not concerned about Bin Laden's whereabouts. A fact that he denied in the third debate. The President has used outdated numbers to give us a 75% capture rate on Al-Queda. Something we all know to be a less than honest tactic.

This President's credibilty has been stretched beyond belief over the last 4 years.

Why would anyone trust this guy?

Getting Osama down? Bummer, dude.

What does this mean for the war on terror, for the war in Iraq and for the US presidential elections?

The video can be interpreted to fit one's bias. If you believe that the effort is going well, then the video serves to justify that conviction. The opposite can also be similarly justified. The fact is OBL is still alive and well and making videos. Both the timing and content of the video demonstrate that he hopes to affect the US election. The outcome is immaterial; what matters is if the polls change and thus the outcome changes based on his statements. This serves to boost his ego as well as to test the hypothesis that he can make a difference even without a terrorist attack. The polls have shown a modest boost in Dubya's numbers; if Dubya were elected, then the video could have made all the difference. This would be fairly consistent with a recent study showing a correlation between terror warnings and boosts in Dubya's approval ratings.

This, I find truly troubling. Some percentage of voters are so emotionally overwrought sitting on the razor's edge of rationality that something like a video can affect their votes. In some sense, I suppose the terrorists have won.

The terrorists have won but not because they put out another tape.

The terrorists want us to live in fear. Bush has all but given them their way. In fact, fear of another 9/11 is his only strong point.

Terrorists want us to lose some our most precious rights, privacy rights. Not only did Bush and his buddy Ashcroft make that a reality but they made us willingly give those things up by keeping the fear alive.

Those are the two objectives for terrorists and both have been awarded to them on a silver platter.

I am sure OBL is not upset that he is still alive, neither is Bush. I am sure OBL is not upset about the fact that Bush has generated hate towards us across the Muslim world, neither is Bush in fact he seems to delight in it.

This videotape will make a difference and it should. We are not a closed minded society even though Bush would like to portray us that way. We take everything into consideratin and make a final decision, that is our strength.

That nails it pretty well.

If the purpose of terrorism is to make us afraid, how does it NOT work? Orange, purple, and blue terror alerts, searching grandma's shoes for explosives, wiretapping without probable cause (Thanks Patriot Act), and the platform for a presidential election. If terrorism is a tool to scare us into altering our everyday lives, how is Bush using it to scare us into voting for him any different? The only difference is, is someone else is doing the dirty work - he just "enjoys" the results.

This whole Bin Laden thing should not be a deal. In fact, Kerry is flat out wrong in using this as a political tool. All this flap is giving Bin Laden far more attention then he deserves. We are not at war with a person. We are at war with a dynamic entity. Bush takes credit for removing 75% of the Al Qaida leadership as if they never got replaced with a new set of nutjobs waiting in the wings. Killing Bin Laden will only give us another world-class idiot bent on destruction.

When we went into Iraq, it was the same crap. Get rid of the sons, and the violence would go down. Wrong. Get rid of Saddam and the violence would go down. Wrong again. So, do you think Bin Laden is relevant? No...he's not.

But the problem is, if Iraq had anything to do with the war on terror, moving onto them in this fashion would have been correct. In fact, it would have been commendable. But Bin Laden has become a sore reminder of the reality of our current policies. We created a war with a false label while the real bad guy continues to stomp his foot at us. He stomps, we react. That's the underlying problem.

If Bush would have been in office in 1941, he would have went to war with Japan with a truly united world behind him, but them attacked Spain because they had airplanes and could have used them against us. That's what this tape reminded us of.

Bin Laden has won. He doesn't need anyone to fly airplanes into our buildings any longer because he doesn't need to. We've succumbed to more than he could have ever dreamt possible.

I voted for Gore in 2000 so I doubt I would be saying anything different so long as his strategy was global and not given tunnel vision.


Never heard that one before did you just make that up?

You cant wage a war on an ideal but you can wage a war on the movement.

I really dont get why people think UBL and Saddam would never have cooperated. Saddam offered to shelter him for christ's sake! And UBL asked Saddam for cooperation! Why do you think UBL didnt live in Iraq? one word : Afghanistan


Ill start another thread on it.