Well obviously bin Laden released the tape in order to be able to make some sort of claim, to himself or his followers and the world, that he had some influence in the election - which he could claim no matter who wins. That much seems logical and even likely. My point though was separate - while a conscious conspiracy between the two is unlikely, it is at a minimum, ironic, that each of these two mortal enemies has reaped so much political capital out of the other - they almost need each other. It's like Spy vs. Spy. The black spy hates the white spy and tries to kill him and vice versa - but without the other spy, what's the point?
Clinton was president when Osama declared war on America. He blew up the Cole and took the first shot at the WTC then. It doesn't matter who is president to that guy. He doesn't need one party to win to keep up his fight.
The argument that enemies profit from each other is reasonable, it happens, but it's not orchestrated. The reason it's not orchestrated is because the winner of the feud has even more profitability and power. So both enemies are always seeking victory. Bin Laden would have more power and money had Kerry won. Bush would have more power and money if he could kill Bin Laden. If the video had any puprpose it would have been to get Kerry elected.
But your formula breaks down empirically with regard to real world results- bin Laden and his movement has, net, become more popular, and hence more powerful, since his movement is at heart a popular uprising, - over the last four years despite the increasingly aggressive nature of American foreign policy. This analysis is supported by empirical data, by practically every intelligence analysis, foreign & domestic, and pretty much everybody with any knowledge of the area. His camps in Afghanistan are (mostly) gone, but now it's even more difficult to find them all as they have dispersed - and having Iraq as the jihadi boot camp playground, where they can learn to fight US troops on their turf, is a huge benefit.
WORD. OBL released that tape when he did for his own political purposes. It is irony writ large that OBL and GWB assist each other in achieving the other's poitical goals. I really like the "you forgot Sweden" part of OBL tirade against the chucklehead-n-chief.
Was it OBL's goal to have free, democratic elections in Afghanistan and Iraq? Was it his goal to be riding around in a donkey hiding in the mountains of Pakistan?
True, he gained credibility, but that is already achieved. He has our attention long before the election. Now he has to win or sustain the cause to maintain his credibility or power. But either path he takes leads to the inevitable. Thus making the choice easy for a rational person. Bush wins election > Laden sustains conflict > thus escalating war naturally> Bush cannot let it continue in order to maintain his power and credibility > resulting in ultimate victory or defeat for Bin Ladens cause. It is inevitable. Bush wins election > Laden lessens conflict > Laden loses all respect and power in community. Kerry Wins election > Laden gains support and power for knocking Bush out and clearing Arab countries of US influence > Laden achieves his goal > So Ladens choice is easy. Kerrys route leads to credibility and power without risking defeat. Without risking the alienation of the world.
i never dreamed it possible that there would be free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq. and i don't know about OBL, but riding around on a donkey, hiding in the mountains of Pakistan, well, that's always been a dream of mine.
Your assumptions above are way too oversimplified, but anyway, how about this choice: Bush wins, continues to polarize world and isolate america and weaken it by overextending its military - Al Qaeda takes advantage therof, like it has for the past 4 years. Easy choice, see the explicit endorsement of Bush by Al Qaeda groups.
A normal person would read your last statement to say that AQ (and OBL as the leader of said group) was actively supporting GWB to be president. And a normal person could infer that the release of the tape would be designed to help OBL further this goal. In other words, OBL released the tape to help Bush win the election. If you want to draw further distinctions between your statements to deny that premise, in the end you really aren't saying anything. MadMax had the right idea. There's no point in discussing anything with you. You are arguing semantics, not ideas.
A normal person would have read the thread and not misinterpreted the context as you did. The explicit endorsement of Bush I refer to by the Abu Hafs al Masri Brigade, an Al Qaeda affiliated group, said this: [n.b., Fox News has since scrubbed this portion from their originall wire story that I used to always link to , I wonder why?] This was widely reported last spring, with redfaced republicans touting it as "it must be reverse psychology" You then confused my citation of the above with an allegation of conspiracy with regard to the tape released in October. I made no such allegation, so your attempted "gotcha" has been gotten, TL. Anyway, ACTIVE support of bush by Al Qaeda related groups, as I have documented, does not necessarily mean there is a conspiracy or any kind of contact between the two. I actively support the Rockets. Am I conspiring with them? Of course not; maybe the problem is semantic, but it's not a problem on my end. Of course "passive" support is more likely here; other than the above endorsement, one would be hard pressed to find active support. So read the posts next time and we won't have this problem.
Stop being overly defensive for a few seconds and find where I inferred anything about a conspiracy. I was never confused about that and know you weren't saying anything about a conspiracy. I know precisely what you were saying and I noticed the distinction between OBL and the faction of AQ you referenced. You have just chosen to insert words for me to suit your purposes My point was not at ALL a "gotcha". My point was, as I blatantly said, that you are arguing semantics and not ideas. Have fun continuing on with that. You're going back to the ignore list.
His idea was correct and the semantics didn't enter to it. There is a myth going around that Bush is bad for Al Qaeda. Sam responded to that myth, with a statement that is on the record. He never argued that Bush and Al Qaeda were working together in a cooperative manner. Sam's idea was a solid idea with documented statements from Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists to back it up. The problem arose when Mad Max responded to a post where the wording looked as if it was claiming OBL released the tape on purpose to help Bush. Sam believed that Max was saying that the two weren't helping each other fulfill their objectives. It is clear that Bush helps OBL fulfill his objectives, and OBL helped Bush fulfill his, whether the help was intentional or not, Sam never made a claim.
Look, when was that bin Laden tape produced? Everyone wants to assume it was fresh, hot off the presses and rushed to network TV. Or could it have been sitting in Karl Rove's vault for a month or two, until right before the election? Are Bush and bin Laden in cahoots? No. Do they each owe their fame to the other? Yes. Without bin Laden and Bush's spectacular failure on 9/11 and since (the more spectacularly you fail, the more successful you are, it seems), Bush would never have invaded Iraq, would never have legitimately won an election. George: "How do we stop this slide, Karl? Save me, Karl?" Karl: "Relax, Dubya. We got The Tape. We got the bad guy on our side." George: "Willie Horton?" Karl: "Geez, you're dumb. No! bin Laden! He made a tape. I've been saving it. No way you can lose when the American sucke--er, people---see it. BU WA HA HA HA!" George: "Karl, you're the best. Now go get me a BBQ sandwich, you bald f**k."
