Great. Thanks for giving them hope, Kerry/Edwards.
It is not Kerry/Edwards that started this adventure.
It was Bush/Cheney
9/11 was done by Bin Laden. Who has not been caught.
Converting Iraq into a breeding ground for Terrorists is
based on Rumsfeld failed policies.
Where is Bin Laden ?
This president had 3 years to get him
Posted by: Sam Miller at October 27, 2004 06:46 AM (jN9Nx)
I don't think the point was to claim that Kedwards started it(although they both went right along with it in word and deed until after the primaries). The point is that Kedwards has been impeding progress and victory at every turn, simply for political gain. It's almost as if they don't seem to realize that the world is paying attention to this race, even as they use the world's opinion of them to bolster their case. If the left would shut up about how terrible the US is and how badly everything is bungled and get behind the president on the world stage there might be less optimism from the terrorists and their state sponsors...
Just my opinion...
Posted by: M@ at October 27, 2004 07:11 AM (gSJFa)
That was the point I was trying to make too. Where do you think the insurgents got the idea that we might leave Iraq soon? Certainly not from the "bring it on" candidate, but from the "wrong war" guy.
Posted by: Sarah at October 27, 2004 09:02 AM (WxvAH)
If we didn't have the American media telling the terrorist they have 380 tons of the highest grade, most stable explosives known to mankind, used to make nuclear weapons, but can also be used to destroy buildings, blow up airplanes or make roadside bombs they probably would just go home and let our president bush win this war like he wanted to.
Posted by: dc at October 27, 2004 08:16 PM (fLlQ8)
Why do they want to defeat Bush/Cheney? The terrorists (as opposed to the native insurgents) must have some end-goal in mind. What would that be? And why would knocking B/C out of office help them?
Thanks for answering.
Posted by: jpe at October 27, 2004 08:41 PM (2Pm+H)
Evidently the thinking among these people is not monolithic. Note this paragraph in the story: The most pro-Bush, he said, are the foreign extremists "They prefer Bush, because he's a provocative figure, and the more they can push people to the extreme, the better for their case" It brings to mind the article on the Madrid bombings that you linked to on August 4, 2004 in which an Al Qaeda operative was quoted "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections.Bush's idiocy and religious fanaticism are useful, for they stir the Islamic world to action."
Posted by: Dave at October 27, 2004 09:41 PM (ymDfe)
Boy, I ran that post all together. Hope it can be sorted out. I'm just trying to point out that there is as much disagreement among them as there is among us, and thank god they can't vote anyway.
Posted by: Dave at October 27, 2004 09:50 PM (ymDfe)
Boy, I ran that post all together. Hope it can be sorted out.
No, I think that what you said made eminent sense. To flesh out your post, I'd imagine that there would be quite different preferences between the native Iraqi insurgents and the foreign terrorists. The former may be better off with Bush, since he's arguably more steadfast than Kerry; the latter, whose goal is purportedly a new pan-arab caliphate, and who depend on ideological indoctrination, are arguably assisted in their goal by Bush's explicitly ideological Middle East project.
Posted by: jpe at October 27, 2004 11:29 PM (2Pm+H)
A defeat for Bush/Cheney will be seen in the Middle East as a defeat for the policy of "taking the fight to the terrorists" as well as a defeat for the "no difference between terrorists and those that harbor/support terrorists". I'm not saying that's an accurate analysis, but I guarantee you that's how the editorials will read in Al-Hayat and the rest of the ME press.
Kerry and the democrats could have laid out a case that the war was right but could have been handled differently- something a Lieberman would have done- but that's not the path they chose. Instead, I'm afraid, Kerry's tactics often have had the effect of telling the terrorists that "hope is on the way". I don't think that it was intentional, just what you get when you'll say anything to try to win. I couldn't be more disgusted with his campaign, but if he wins (and I pray not) I'll shut-up and soldier, sailor.
And Sam, Bin Laden's Dead. On the remote chance that he's not, I don't see how his ego could keep him from popping up in a video with a current NYT just to say "Hi" before the election... so unless he does, I'd say that settles it. (and no, I can't "prove" it, but we sure haven't seen him much lately...)
Posted by: Jack Grey at October 28, 2004 05:08 AM (Jq8H8)
And Sam, Bin Laden's Dead.
Guess you know better than the US government then.
Posted by: Sadly, No! at October 28, 2004 07:56 AM (Q0kxM)
possible answers for jpe
I had to double check this to make sure it wasn't a story from The Onion, but it's not. A terrorist group, claiming links with al Qaida, called Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades stated that it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry. They state that it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom." In comments addressed to Bush, the group said: "Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
Clearly, they want to endorse Bush so that he will win...
Or they want to fool us by pretending to endorse Bush so that Kerry will win!
Or they know that we will assume that they are falsely endorsing Bush so that Kerry will win and thus we will vote for Bush, as they want!
Or they assume that we will come to the above conclusion, thus voting for Kerry, JUST AS THEY WANT!
I say let's boycott the election, conpletely destroying al Qaeda's plans!
Unless they think we will come to that conclusion and they want us to not vote, in which case we should...
In this sense, some of Bush's rhetoric has been interpreted both by some of Bush's more rabid supporters and islamic extremists as being in favor of destruction of "Islamofascists" and the occupation and westernizing of Muslim civilization. As a consequence, I can see how some Muslim extremist groups might see Bush as an attractive vessel to "bring it on" when it comes to this fantasical apocalyptic clash between Islam and the West.
Posted by: jHc at October 28, 2004 07:52 PM (Cg5fz)
| Add Comment