"All that is old and already formed can continue to live only if it allows within itself the conditions of a new beginning."
Osama's 'Little Gift'
Posted 1:30 a.m., Oct. 31, 2004
|
If Saturday's edition of the New York Daily News is any guide, the Bush campaign is feeling good about Osama bin Laden's October video surprise.
According to reporter Thomas M. DeFrank's piece, an unidentified "senior GOP strategist" baldly states that bin Laden's late-hour videotaped intrusion into the campaign Friday was "a little gift"--for the president.
"We want people to think 'terrorism' for the last four days. And anything that raises the issue in people's minds is good for us. ... Anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush."
-- Unidentified GOP strategist,
"See Tape as Boost for Prez,"
New York Daily News,
Oct. 30, 2004Obviously, we don't know who said that--the suddenly accessible Karl Rove? Who knows? Whoever it was, I agree with the logic, though not the predatory sentiment.
Though it is not yet reflected in the latest polling, I think Osama bin Laden probably has thrown the 2004 presidential race to George W. Bush. What's more, I believe that was precisely bin Laden's intent.
Consensus Opinion
A consensus is forming that the new tape will help Bush. DeFrank's piece says strategists from both parties believe bin Laden has boosted Bush's chances, by refocusing the nation on terrorism and reinserting into the public imagination the repellent face of the national bogeyman--Osama bin Laden. The Daily News piece doesn't, however, offer supporting statements from Democrats expressing this belief.
Instead, the New York Times' Adam Nagourney obliges, getting a prominent Democrat--former Howard Dean campaign chairman Joe Trippi--to cop to it on the record.
"The more these images are out there now, the more it helps Bush. Every American wants to keep this fight out of the country, and that has been the hallmark of the Bush campaign."
-- Joe Trippi,
"Terrorist Tape, Political Angst,"
New York Times,
Oct. 31, 2004I've seen the pollsters and pundits contending that there is no way to know which way the injection of bin Laden cuts in the election. Some indicate it will cut against Bush, by reminding Americans that bin Laden remains on the loose, that the president has let the bandit slip through his fingers because of his obsession to go after Saddam Hussein.
Maybe they're right. Frankly, they should be right. Despite the president's ludicrous assertions that John Kerry is "making wild charges" about the U.S. failure to nab bin Laden when he was trapped at Tora Bora, in fact the government admitted as much--conveniently in "background briefings"--in early 2002. Kerry is telling the truth about Tora Bora. Witness this Washington Post story from April 2002.
"The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge."Intelligence officials have assembled what they believe to be decisive evidence, from contemporary and subsequent interrogations and intercepted communications, that bin Laden began the battle of Tora Bora inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border. Though there remains a remote chance that he died there, the intelligence community is persuaded that bin Laden slipped away in the first 10 days of December."
"... [I]nside the government there is little controversy on the subject. Captured al Qaeda fighters, interviewed separately, gave consistent accounts describing an address by bin Laden around Dec. 3 to mujaheddin, or holy warriors, dug into the warren of caves and tunnels built as a redoubt against Soviet invaders in the 1980s. One official said 'we had a good piece of sigint,' or signals intelligence, confirming those reports."
-- Barton Gellman and Thomas E. Ricks
"U.S. Concludes Bin Laden
Escaped at Tora Bora Fight,"
Washington Post,
April 17, 2002Peter Berger, who has spent a good deal of time in Afghanistan himself, also recounts the Tora Bora story in detail.
"Indeed, in an audiotape released on al Jazeera television last year bin Laden himself recounted his own memories of the battle. 'We were about three hundred holy warriors. We dug one hundred trenches over an area of one square mile, so as to avoid the huge human losses from the bombardment.' In short, there is plenty of evidence that bin Laden was at Tora Bora, and no evidence indicating that he was anywhere else at the time."
-- Peter Bergen
"Tora Bora: What Really Happened?"
Oct. 28, 2004
Repulsion
This will not endear me to my conservative friends, but I do accept the Richard Clarke line of thought on this subject. Clarke, Bush's former counterterrorism chief, asserts that by blurring the line between the real war on terror and the president's preexisting desire to oust Saddam Hussein, Bush effectively has advanced bin Laden's cause, spreading his corrupt Islamist gospel to new listeners. Not on purpose, certainly, not even willingly. But effectively, just the same.
"Osama bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country.' ... This is part of his propaganda. So what did we do after 9/11? We invade ... and occupy an oil-rich Arab country, which was doing nothing to threaten us. In other words, we stepped right into bin Laden's propaganda. And the result of that is that al Qaeda and organizations like it, offshoots of it--second-generation al Qaeda--have been greatly strengthened."
--Richard Clarke,
60 Minutes
March 21, 2004I'd like to think Americans, after four years, could see this for themselves.
Many do, of course. But I just don't think that this is how, in the main, the remaining sliver of persuadable voters are going to view bin Laden's reemergence. They won't be reminded of Bush's incompetence and arrogance. As one of my most politically astute friends said to me today, their more likely response will be visceral, fearful and emotional: "Look at that guy bin Laden, thumbing his nose at us! Screw him! I'm voting for Bush. At least he knows how to talk tough right back at this bastard."
Bin Laden--Politician
Bin Laden made it clear he keeps abreast of contemporary American politics. In his videotaped speech, he even seems to indicate he has watched Michael Moore's movie, insulting Bush about reading "The Pet Goat" to those schoolkids in Florida on 9/11, making the rotten, disgusting assertion that Bush's inaction during those seven minutes gave him critical time he needed to kill more Americans.
It's enough to make the skin crawl, and it's also a load of crap. Had Bush leapt into action immediately, he could have done nothing to save a soul in the twin towers or the Pentagon.
But don't think this guy doesn't know what he's saying. One particularly insightful Los Angeles Times piece notes that the videotape released Friday is far different in tone and appearance than anything that bin Laden has pushed forth before. He clearly wants to appear statesmanlike. This is bin Laden trying on a new mask--one that in its way is almost as frightening as his terrorist persona. Now he wants to become a politician. What or who he might wish to lead politically is almost too ghastly to contemplate.
Politicians, let us recall, try to exert their influence over events.
As such, I personally think that bin Laden is well aware that, in the United States, the longstanding trend in times of crisis is for Americans to jump into line to support the president. And while authorities have not raised the national threat level in the wake of the bin Laden tape--he might well have expected they would--Homeland Security officials, in the wake of the video's release, have made moves to clamp down as though bracing to thwart an eminent attack. Boosting inspections of cargo containers (finally), for example.
The message to Americans will be clear whether we stay at threat-level orange or move to red: we have new reasons to be scared. It may not be openly portrayed as a crisis, but to many it will feel like one.
Ergo, voters fall into the Bush camp.
None of this is to suggest that Kerry would necessarily be an effective antidote, or that bin Laden is afraid of a Kerry victory. I frankly doubt that, too. Kerry hasn't laid out a real strategy for solving the crisis in Iraq, though he has signalled to bin Laden that he has a bull's-eye all ready for the Arab's khaki-covered back. But a Kerry administration would also have to find a way to deal with the mess in Iraq, so the likelihood is that Kerry too will be forced to perpetuate policies that continue to advance bin Laden's aims of recruiting more and more disaffected and raging Arab youths.
Still, Bush is a known quantity from bin Laden's perspective, and the president has given absolutely no indication that he will change course to target bin Laden directly after the election. The suggestion, from bin Laden's perspective, must be clear--he will be more assured he will be free to continue operating under President George Bush. So he has done his bit to get the man elected--to select his own enemy of choice.
I could of course, be wrong about all this. I hope I am. I'd like to see a new president in office to give us a new start--and to render my whole theory moot.
-- Kevin Featherly
