In recent weeks, various analysts opined that al-Qaeda, as it did in 2004, would somehow try to influence the upcoming elections. It did not. At any rate, how did al-Qaeda try to influence the elections in 2004? By issuing a video communiqué of Osama bin Laden “explaining” why he masterminded 9/11, that is, due to oppressive US foreign policy towards Muslims. He also spent a considerable amount of time lambasting current president Bush, his father, and his entire party, portraying them as greedy war-mongerers.
Bush Jr was depicted as being "blinded by the black-gold [oil]," which he killed "millions of children in Iraq" for. Bin Laden even managed to mock Bush for the now infamous anecdote -- thanks to Michael Moore -- concerning the president reading a goat-story to children when the strikes of 9/11 commenced. As for Bush Sr, Bush he was depicted as a wanna-be "monarch," who established his sons on "thrones," and was responsible for "the mass slaughter of [Muslim] children."
Not a word about Kerry, though, nor any complaints about the eight year term separating the Bushes of former president Clinton.
Even though bin Laden tried earnestly to portray Bush Jr prior to the 2004 elections as Satan—including by making some popular assertions that many on the Left also stressed—Bush won. Kerry went on to bemoan al-Qaeda’s role, saying that the communiqué was intentionally meant to make Americans vote for Bush—all smear attacks on the latter aside. “Analysts” then and now concur; in recent weeks, the media has tried to read al-Qaedist strategies as favoring McCain.
The logic of this view is that al-Qaeda wanted Bush then -- McCain now -- to win in order to continue pursuing their “aggressive” policies in Iraq and other Muslim regions, thereby further fueling Muslim anger at the U.S. Reverse psychology, in other words.
Here, however, is an alternate reading of these events. 9/11 occurred during Bush’s watch, though it was clearly planned and organized during Clinton’s.This simple fact alone may reveal much about al-Qaeda’s strategies vis-à-vis American elections. For starters, it is imperative to keep in mind that preparation and planning for a terrorist attack is somewhat more fundamental than the attack itself, as the latter is predicated on the former. Thus, that one president’s term was relatively peaceful and another’s is typified by war does not say much about the policies of either president.
Another important question is, Did al-Qaeda intentionally plan the attacks during Bush’s term as opposed to Clinton’s? Many have suggested that the date 9/11 was chosen for its symbolic worth (from battle dates to Koranic verses). If that is the case, then the first instance of that date coinciding with Bush’s presidency was 2001. That Bush was already in office for nearly a year may also have been an incentive—just enough time to somehow make him culpable of the attack.
Here, then, is a theory: al-Qaeda, ever knowledgeable of Western ways, has reasoned that, based on history—from Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton—it is always best for them to have a Democrat in office, someone who, while not taking radical Islam seriously, that is, not appreciating its “metaphysical” components, will try to appease by making “physical” concessions. And above all, someone who will not wage an offensive war against the terrorists, thereby giving al-Qaeda types worldwide that one thing they desperately need: Time. Time to regroup; time for the Western economy to falter (“We will bleed you like we did Russia”); time for Muslim nations to grow stronger, possibly acquiring nukes. Time to resurrect the caliphate.
Conversely, when a Republican takes office, the strategy may be to attack the US, as with 9/11, the logic being to convince American voters that their choice, the Republican, is the source of all woes, and make them earnest for as “open-minded” a candidate as possible.They also get to test their might and aggrandize themselves vis-a-vis the Muslim world.
It should also be borne in mind that al-Qaeda is not indestructible, that it too needs time—especially after nearly seven years of an American military assault—to regroup, to take a breather. Bin Laden’s truce offers to both Europe and the US demonstrate as much. It is therefore not logical for them to want McCain, who certainly appears more assertive in regards to radical Islam (he at least uses such terminology), in office.
All this leads to the following question: could al-Qaeda be following a cycle? When a “liberal” Democrat is in the Oval Office, they may have reasoned that it’s best to lay relatively low, simply to bide time, build strength and grow in recruits, while still, of course, maintaining the “grievance” propaganda campaign to receive more concessions.
By not staging any major attacks during the liberal president’s term, they also confirm the notion, to Americans, that Democratic presidents—not blinded by the “black gold” as their greedy Republican counterparts—are better at maintaining peace with the rest of the, especially Islamic, world.
Then, when a Republican president takes over, they launch their attacks, such as 9/11, to convince the world that the “conservative” president and his policies are the source of the conflict, as well as receive sympathy and support, from both the West and the Islamic world.
Indeed, there is reason to suspect that this sort of cycle, including the dramatic strikes of 9/11, have all culminated in the meteoric rise of Obama: not only is he a liberal Democrat (i.e., "tolerant," "peace-minded," even "enlightened"); he is black (i.e., understands what it means to be a minority, to be the "other"); and his name is Barack Hussein Obama (i.e., as opposed to yet another George or John -- very Christian names -- he has a decidedly Arab/Muslim name that, so the logic goes, will surely endear Muslims to America). Who better to make peace with the rest of the, especially Muslim, world? Who better to make “them” like “us”?
Thus if Obama wins today, al-Qaeda may increase its rhetoric but possibly decrease its activities against the US, though their original jihad against the apostates of the Middle East, including the Zionist entity, will of course proceed in full force. Americans will be lulled into thinking peace is within grasp, and will only want more of Obama or other liberal Democrats who have less-than-tough foreign policies, and who are convinced that “dialogue” and concessions are the ultimate tools for peace.
Conversely, if McCain wins, al-Qaeda will need to reassess its position: it may not be capable of a major attack to start with; and their propaganda campaign—no doubt something to the effect that McCain is simply following in Bush’s footsteps—will become moot, as McCain will have already been elected and president for at least four years.
All of this is, of course, conjectural. However, here is an anecdote that may further support these views:
Three days before Spain’s 2004 general elections, explosions in Madrid commuter trains planted by al-Qaeda operatives killed 191 people. Three days later, Jose Zapatero and his ultra-liberal Socialist party won the election. A number of analysts have suggested that the Socialist party received a big boost in votes precisely because of the Madrid bombings, as many people were convinced the attack came in response to their involvement in Iraq.
The very day after winning the elections, Zapatero promised to withdraw Spain’s 1,300 troops from Iraq, saying, "The war [in Iraq] has been a disaster [and] the occupation continues to be a disaster. It has only generated violence." One month later the last of Spain's troops left Iraq. Bin Laden must have been delighted, evinced by the fact that he later pointed to this Spanish response as a step in the right direction. More telling is the fact that the first question Jamal Zougam (one of the arrested suspects of the Madrid bombings) asked upon arriving at the Courthouse on 15 March 2004 was, “Who won the election?”
Were the bombings directly geared at making the Spanish vote for the anti-war Socialist party? Even so, even after pulling out of Iraq, Spain is still on al-Qaeda's radar, as only recently (October 20) AFP declared that “Spain remains Al-Qaeda target.”
At any rate, it is hardly likely that al-Qaeda’s motive is to see McCain, as opposed to Obama, elected. If anything, the latter—often depicted as “savior”—is perfect, from al-Qaeda’s perspective, for lulling Americans into thinking peace is on the horizon, while giving Islamists worldwide that one thing they mostly need: Time.
When a “liberal” Democrat is in the Oval Office, they may have reasoned that it’s best to lay relatively low...
But that's not what happened. In 1993 Clinton was in office barely six weeks when the World Trade Center was attacked. THAT attack was planned in the first Bush administration. The fact that it killed "only six" people allowed Clinton to ignore it and to allow the Justice Department to handle prosecutions. That bomb exploded around the noon hour. Had it been more powerful it might very well have knocked one tower into the other as the bombers had intended, possibly killing tens of thousands.
If al Qaeda wanted McCain, they would have laid off the bombing in Iraq. The first year of the campaign was devoted to who could get us out of Iraq first - and Obama won. If this were November 4, 2007 and Iraq was in the state it is in today (peacewise, with none of the violence that has occurred in the past year), Hillary might well have been nominated. Her support of the war might have been seen as prescient. She could have talked about leaving Iraq head held high, mission accomplished.
The media is hopelessly compromised. No one should believe any of their analysis of al Qaeda's intentions. It's the media that is practicing reverse psychology. Put al Qaeda and McCain on the same side and people will conclude Obama might not be that bad after all.
We'll soon find out.
Al Qaeda likes Democrats for several reasons:
1) It's considerably easier to attack us when a Dmeocrat is in office because they don't take national security seriously. Were a Democrat in office we would have been attacked several times over the last 7 years.
2) They are less likely to retaliate in the face of an attack. Can you imagine Gore getting on TV on 9/11 and calling it an "act of war?" Not likely.
3) More jizya to their Islamic hellhole countries, which means more money funding terror against us (suicide dollars).
4) Easier Islamization within the Islamic hellhole countries. Republican money comes with strings. It's not a coincidence that Egypt relegalized fgm and lowered the age of marriage to 9 once the Legislature went Dem. Sandmonkey has written quite a bit about this.
5) Dems are more likely to tolerate endless Islamic crap from their nations in the international sphere, to back the "Palestinians" (which is unlikely anyway since they elected HAMAS to govern them), and to allow more Muslims into our America.
OT, but not by much:
I just got back from my local polling place, a Methodist church. I had to wait in a small line. I've never had to wait before. Another first: the church sanctuary was, according to a sign, "open for prayer". How's that for ominous?
Lots of tunout, today. I saw two elderly people with walkers--something unusual. It's a physical effort to get around with a walker. That didn't stop these folks, this election.
I also saw two neighborhood Muslims. I guess they considered Democracy to be better than Shari'a.
The image that Al-Qaeda is a ragged bunch of un educated primitives, still living in caves, is killing us...
PMK,
I immediately had the same thought.
Al Qaeda declared war on the US in the 90s. The first WTC attack, then the Khobar Towers bombing, then the African Embassy bombings, then the USS Cole...
Each attack was more spectacular than the last and yet each time, Bin Ladin was unable to elicit a sufficient response from Bill Clinton to bring the 'clash of civilizations' irrevocably into the open. Clinton, like Kerry and perhaps Obama, saw it not as a war, but as a law-enforcement issue.
It took 9-11 and the determined reaction of a Republican Administration to fulfill Bin Ladin's aspiration of bringing Jihad to the fore of the Muslim consciousness.
The article above is not only nonsense, it is egocentric. It implies the Islamist's world revolves around ours. They were pushing hard for Jihad all through the Clinton years...but they were dealing with a reluctant warrior who was more interested in satisfying his personal desires than defending his country.
Muslims have their own timetable. It's not all about us.
Overall a Democratic regime in the White House is more likely to appease Muslims than to fight them. Witness Clinton's attack on Serbia and his refusal to pursue Al-Qeada during his time in office despite them murdering many Americans.
Carter was another great appeaser and weak president that only inspired scorn and derision.
Even in Europe where the left of center runs the show, they are notorious appeasers and dhimmis.
In the end I have every confidence that Obama will do his utmost in protecting Muslims here and abroad and gutting all attempts by law enforcement and the military to protect the American people against Muslim terrorists.
It's a good a reason for a lame Duck to show he can still fly before migrating to warmer climates.
It is the only option to Obama selling us down the River to oblivion.
Like Iran, it's a use it or lose it situation.
radical Islam (he at least uses such terminology)...
Small thanks for that. Just call it Islam. The very idea of radical Islam is patently absurd.
Can you imagine Gore getting on TV on 9/11 and calling it an "act of war?"
jdamn,
I sometimes thought that was exactly what he would do. Maybe not in those exact words but I couldn't imagine him treating it as something to be handled in the courts. Even if he wanted to bring bin Laden to trial he still had to find him first. Clinton could do that, since most of the perpetrators were still in the States.
After the smoke dissipated in 1993, the damage done to WTC wasn't visible to anyone who couldn't get into that garage. How could Gore have ignored the towers falling down for all to see? How could he disregard the Pentagon attack?
Clinton got a pass because all the other attacks on his watch took place overseas. Who cared about an embassy in Africa or an army barracks or even a US warship? Not Clinton's supporters, that's for sure. Everyone continued to buy the fantasy still being peddled by Bush - that solving the "Israeli-Palestinian problem" will make Muslims happy. That, and that Muslims in America are different.
The United States will never win because there is no one, in either party, who is willing to do what it will take to win. For different reasons.
The Democrat/Liberals have no principles to fight for, and the Republicans/Conservatives let their morals preclude them from fighting for the principles they do have and hold dear. For too many of them, God will always be dearer than anything else. In that respect Christians, Jews, Muslims, and all religious people, are equal.
Because Islam presents itself as a religion it will win. There is no way to fight it when there is no compelling reason to defend what it attacks, and no way to claim superiority against someone elses divine inspiration, than to use your own, which the enemy has contempt for and is the basis for his fight in the first place.
When you don't fight for yourself, and your own ideals, but for some imaginary ideal that has no tangible benefit to you personally, except how it makes you feel, then there really is no defense.
Ronald Reagan should have bombed the US embassy in Tehran as soon as the last hostage got off the plane. When 241 of our boys were slaughtered in Lebanon, Reagan should have sent a message that America will not stand for our troops being attacked. Ever.
I'm not blaming Reagan. The list of attacks against this country that were ignored goes on and on and on. Why were they ignored?
Because Democrats only go to war over things that don't much matter, like a stain on a blue dress, and Republicans aren't willing to do what it takes to win a war even when it's been forced on us by an enemy.
We cannot win.