Home > GOP & The Election, Political Ranting > Because Bush Wants to Say It But Is Too Chicken

Because Bush Wants to Say It But Is Too Chicken

November 1st, 2004

From the AP, in the SC State:

A new videotape of Osama bin Laden was meant to help elect Sen. John Kerry president, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson says.

“There’s no question in my mind, and I think to anybody who knows how close this election is,” Thompson later told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in an interview. “Osama bin Laden would not give out a video report 72 hours before the election unless he wanted to influence it.”

The rest of the article shows the depth in which Thompson discusses his belief. The inappropriateness of such a bald declaration by an administration official is staggering; if, say, John Edwards or any Kerry campaign official had said that bin Laden wants Bush elected, we’d be hearing Bush decry the act as “shameful” all the way to election day.

The fact is, Bush has played into bin Laden’s plans–and vice versa–almost so seamlessly that one can hardly fault the conspiracy theorists that believe they are in cahoots. Bin Laden gave a failing Bush presidency a gigantic boost, allowing Bush to get almost every political agenda point he could wish for rammed through Congress, and to this day provides Bush with his strongest rallying point; if Bush wins the election, it will be because of bin Laden. Conversely, Bush has provided bin Laden with exactly what he wanted: an administration with its eye off the ball so that the 9/11 attacks could be carried out (unlike Clinton, who foiled the Millennium attacks), propelling bin Laden and al Qaeda to stratospheric fame; Bush then alienated the U.S. from a sympathetic world, deprived his own people of their freedoms, and let bin Laden escape while they invaded Iraq, an action which drove tens of thousands of new recruits into the waiting arms of al Qaeda, whilst the Bush administration only succeeded in capturing a few dozen noted members of the terrorist organization. In short, both Bush and bin Laden have gotten exactly what they wanted through each others’ actions.

Bin Laden does not want Bush re-elected because he quakes in his boots at the idea of a Kerry presidency; rather, he wants Bush re-elected because Bush’s policies are what bin Laden wants: an isolated America, focused on a fracturing Middle East war that fuels terrorism while it does little to attack al Qaeda directly. Kerry, on the other hand, would bring America back into the world fold, strengthening its ability to fight terror, and would be more sympathetic in the eyes of the people of the Middle East–forming alliances and winning hearts and minds instead of invading nations and turning millions against him. The only way Kerry stands more of a chance to get bin Laden than Bush is in that Kerry will not put all his energy into Iraq or whatever next Big War Bush will get us into. But the whole point is not really to catch bin Laden, but rather to fight al Qaeda. And that’s what Kerry will do better, and that’s what bin Laden would prefer not happen. See this post for a longer explanation of why bin Laden prefers Bush stay in office.

There. I can say that, because I’m not an senior official in either campaign. Thompson is, which is what makes his statement reprehensible and worthy of note and attack by the Democratic side.

Categories: GOP & The Election, Political Ranting Tags: by
  1. Tim Kane
    November 1st, 2004 at 02:48 | #1

    Very well put. I am in complete agreement.

    The fact is Bush benefits politically from an uncertain world. So what does he do, he creates turmoil rather than reduce turmoil.

    Fear triggers a conservative reflex in the electorate. Bin Laden is at large because he is the boogeyman that Bush needs to have at large to scare the electorate into voting for him.

    We have a situation that echoes Israeli politics. Extremist on both sides cooperate to undermine moderate positions: witness the assasination of Rabin by an Israeli. This is a revolting development.

    The policies of the Bush administration are ruinous to the U.S. and the World at large. That he might get re-elected signals a nation bent on self destruction.

  2. Tim Kane
    November 1st, 2004 at 02:49 | #2

    Very well put. I am in complete agreement.

    The fact is Bush benefits politically from an uncertain world. So what does he do, he creates turmoil rather than reduce turmoil.

    Fear triggers a conservative reflex in the electorate. Bin Laden is at large because he is the boogeyman that Bush needs to have at large to scare the electorate into voting for him.

    We have a situation that echoes Israeli politics. Extremist on both sides cooperate to undermine moderate positions: witness the assasination of Rabin by an Israeli. This is a revolting development.

    The policies of the Bush administration are ruinous to the U.S. and the World at large. That he might get re-elected signals a nation bent on self destruction.

  3. Paul
    November 1st, 2004 at 03:34 | #3

    Point of information: To a significant extent, Clinton and his policies didn’t foil at least one planned Millenial attack- it was an alert Customs agent in Port Angeles, Washington, who noticed that what’s-his-name (escapes me now) was really, really nervous… and turned out to be a terrorist.

    Paul
    Enumclaw, WA

  4. Luis
    November 1st, 2004 at 09:56 | #4

    Paul: yes, the Washington capture was good luck (though the customs agents was also put on alert, so there is a connection with Clinton’s policies), but there were several other simultaneous roll-ups of al Qaeda operations at that time, and nothing to make us believe that the Washington suspect wouldn’t have been caught in that net as well.

Comments are closed.