Serial slanderers like Dennis Hastert say terrorists want John Kerry to win. The facts say George W. Bush is al-Qaida's best recruitment tool.
I left this subtitle in here for dramatic (or in this case, humorous) effect.
In recent days, the Republican campaign has descended still further into unrestrained fear-mongering. Not only would John Kerry's election put America in greater peril from terrorism, cry the party's spokesmen and their media enablers, but terrorists themselves are actually hoping that Kerry will defeat George W. Bush. Such raw demagoguery is scarcely surprising in an election season as soiled as this one.
I have noticed a trend among leftist columnists to preface an article with an elitist condemnation of a political tactic, only to employ the same tactic later on in the article.
This nauseating hypocrisy will be prominently displayed in this gem, where you will later arm yourself with slimy paralogisms and disgusting demagogy in order to forward your point that the terrorists want Bush to win.
I suppose "fear-mongering" is only contemptible when Republicans do it.
Thanks, though. It makes it a lot easier to rebut this garbage when this garbage rebuts itself.
But what about other more reputable figures who echoed his slur against the Democratic nominee?
Attention, Readers: This "slur" is different than Conason's opening statement that "George W. Bush is al-Qaida's best recruitment tool." There is a difference. Really.
The very next day, CNN political analyst and American Enterprise Institute fellow William Schneider endorsed Hastert's remarks about terrorists:
"Well, I can guarantee you, they don't like George Bush. Do they think there's a difference? I think Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaida network, who I am certain follow American politics -- look at the messages coming out on their tapes -- they seem to follow politics very closely. They would very much like to defeat President Bush. But the question is: Can they pull off the same trick that they pulled off in Spain? What Dennis Hastert said is, 'They'd better not try that. It won't work here.' And my guess is, he's right about that."
Schneider didn't divulge how he knows that al-Qaida wants to defeat Bush. His expertise lies in the field of public opinion, not terrorist tactics, and he cited no poll that measured the preferences of Osama bin Laden's followers. To put it bluntly, the CNN analyst was talking out of his ass.
A CNN analyst is talking out of his ass by concluding that terrorists would like to see Bush lose?
From which bodily orifice does your logorrhea emanate as you enunciate the contrary argument? Or as a syndicated columnist, is your expertise so redoubtable that your opinions are gospel?
There is no evidence of any kind that indicates al-Qaida's preference in the presidential election.
Right...that's why this article is entitled "Bin Laden's Candidate."
For the sake of grins, let's see how long you stick to that opinion.
Let's assume for a moment, however, that our Islamist enemies care who prevails in November. What might sway their preference for one candidate or another?
If we can't determine their preference, why would we bother? Unless demagogy is just too darn tempting...
Competent surveys of international opinion -- which might be of professional interest to Bill Schneider -- indicate an important reason why the crafty bin Laden might conceivably prefer Bush over Kerry.
And 56 words later, Mr. Conason abandons his previous claim that such discussions are slander, fear-mongering, demagoguery, and unprovable.
That was fast.
According to an EOS Gallup poll of Europeans and Americans released on Sept. 9 by the German Marshall Fund, support for U.S. foreign policy among our traditional allies has declined by 20 percent since 2002 -- with more than 76 percent of Europeans now expressing disapproval of the president.
The Europeans, whose assistance we rely upon in Afghanistan, and whose help we continue to need both there and in Iraq, believe that the invasion and occupation have "increased the threat of terrorism" around the world.
(Incidentally, the same poll shows that 49 percent of Americans agree with that dismal assessment, while only 20 percent believe that the Iraq war has diminished the terrorist threat.)
Nearly half of all Americans also believe Saddam was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Is public opinion only significant when it assists your point?
It isn't that the Europeans don't worry about terrorism, since 71 percent of them said that international terror is an "important or extremely important" problem. It's just that they have lost confidence in the world's sole superpower to lead the war against the terrorists.
If it is important, they won't stray from their commitment even if they differ ideologically from President Bush. In fact, they have always differed with much of Bush's policies - foreign and domestic - before and after 9/11.
Yet our allies unequivocally supported Bush after the WTC attacks despite his opposition to Kyoto, the World Criminal Court, stem cell research, and myriad other policies that are important to Europeans.
We don't need to agree on everything to agree that terrorism is evil.
Thanks to Bush, the nations that united behind America after 9/11 are now divided and dispirited. Why would bin Laden want that to change?
As illustrated above, there is a difference between disapproval of a president and the refusal to assist the prosecution of the War on Terror.
Likely, the Europeans dislike our policy because it is too aggressive. This is what their rhetoric would indicate. However, they should be counted on to support us in the War on Terror itself, assuming the specific exercise satisfies their irenic sensibilities.
However, if they are unwilling to assist us in the War on Terror at all, then obviously terrorism isn't a concern of theirs. Neither Bush nor Kerry will change that.
The German Marshall Fund survey echoed similar findings earlier this year by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, which tested opinion across Europe as well as in four major, predominantly Muslim nations. In those countries -- Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco and Turkey -- Bush policies have stimulated grave doubt about the purposes of the war on terrorism, which they regard as "an effort to control Mideast oil and to dominate the world."
And Osama bin Laden would consider an American effort to control Mideast oil and dominate the world cognate with his desires?
The same poll showed that large percentages view Osama bin Laden favorably in Pakistan (65 percent), Jordan (55 percent) and Morocco (45 percent). Although bin Laden himself is unpopular in Turkey, where al-Qaida's allies have committed murderous attacks, nearly a third of the Turkish population feels that "suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable." As for Europeans surveyed by Pew, they too believe that the war on terrorism was damaged by the Iraq invasion -- and want their governments to pursue policies more independent of Washington.
Is it your contention that individuals who consider suicide attacks against Americans are either capable of rational thought or susceptible to American persuasion?
I, for one, find those who support suicide attacks disgusting human beings who have no place within American considerations. If you believe that those animals would efficiently be persuaded against religious fanaticism by some soft glove pandering, I'd like to see you prove it.
So Bush has improved bin Laden's standing in the Muslim world and damaged America's standing from East to West. Why would bin Laden want that to change?
He would want it to change because Bush's policies are those of aggressive action against Islamic militants all over the world. If aggressive action girds Muslim extremism against us and Europeans to the ranks of pusillanimity, so be it. 9/11 girded us against terrorism, although I highly doubt bin Laden planned it in order for us send the Special Forces out to Afghanistan in order to kill him.
No doubt Bush would argue, as he has done repeatedly, that American action has led to the death or apprehension of hundreds of al-Qaida militants, including some of the organization's top leaders. He deserves credit for those efforts, even though his decision to invade Iraq diverted U.S. intelligence and military resources from the war against al-Qaida.
Does bin Laden find the mercurial support from our European allies a more significant result of Bush's policies than the death and capture of 75% of his henchmen? Just curious...
The method by which you weigh your facts is reversed. Bush has actually killed and arrested hundreds of al-Qaida, yet you drift over the datum. Oh, by the way, the Muslim world dislikes us. Yet you not only blame their irrationality on George W. Bush without a logical nexus, but you consider the revelation more significant than al-Qaida's apprehension.
Speaking of talking out of the ass...
But in the view of real experts on terrorism, the bottom line of the Bush policies is less impressive than the president claims. A year ago, the respected International Institute of Strategic Studies in London released a paper warning that al-Qaida's ranks had grown in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. American claims that the terrorists were "on the run" showed unwarranted overconfidence -- and the IISS presciently predicted that postwar chaos and failure would help bin Laden recruit more young Muslims to his cause.
After 9/11, the allied ranks grew behind the President and he was able to recruit both Americans and other Westerners to his side. Would you say that Americans feel that al-Qaida attacks are beneficial to our cause?
When under attack, groups tend to rally. If the war in Iraq didn't have any effect on al-Qaida's ability to murder Westerners, the "growing ranks" you speak of wouldn't exist.
Michael Scheuer, the CIA analyst and terrorism expert formerly known as Anonymous, agrees with the IISS findings and goes further. He has suggested that al-Qaida is likely so pleased with Bush that its agents might try to help his campaign.
"Dear George,
Thanks for the apprehension of Zacarias Moussaoui, Mounir al-Motassadek, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mohammed Haydar Zammar, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Anas al-Liby, Omar al-Faruq and Mohsen F, and the deaths of Mohammed Atef and Ali Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, key al-Qaida leaders all. Not to mention the pursuit of Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Saif al-Adel, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and Ayman al-Zawahri. And the deaths of hundreds of our followers. If you need any help getting elected, let us know. We want more of us to die.
Love,
al-Qaida"
In an interview last summer, Scheuer told the Guardian that the White House and Department of Homeland Security alerts about a possible pre-election strike by the terrorists are credible but wrong about the purpose. The aim would be not to depose the Bush administration but to "mount an attack that would rally the country around the president" and "keep the Republicans in power." As he put it, "I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now."
First, how could they possibly derive satisfaction from an administration that has captured and killed hundreds of their myrmidons?
Second, why did al-Qaida attack both the USS Cole and World Trade Center while Clinton was president? Did they want to keep his party in office, too?
Third, by logical application, does that mean we shouldn't attack al-Qaida because it would rally the Muslim world around bin Laden?
Like Schneider and Hastert, of course, Scheuer doesn't really know what al-Qaida wants.
Oh.
Then why bring it up?
The terrorists are sure to continue their jihad against the United States and the West regardless of which party wins power -- but any realistic assessment of the "war on terrorism" is hardly flattering to those in power today.
I will take this opportunity to remind you - yet again - that your article is titled: "Bin Laden's candidate:..the facts say George W. Bush is al-Qaida's best recruitment tool."
Your glaring hypocrisy fails to change the fact that the Bush Administration has killed or captured large numbers of terrorists and their leaders.
Osama bin Laden has lost his followers, lost his partners, and is on the run. This can't be his ideal modus operandi. I don't need a CNN analyst to tell me this. I don't need the Europeans to tell me this. I just need common sense.
