Posted on 06/24/2004 8:28:46 AM PDT by SJackson
Osama bin Laden could have made a good living as a political consultant if he did not choose to kill babies instead. The al- Qaida/Ba'ath Party strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan is, at core, a political one. They seek not just to pull Iraq into chaos, but to defeat President Bush as well.
Every bomb, terror attack, suicide raid or urban guerilla offensive is aimed squarely at ending Bush's political career. Ironically, the real test of American resolve will not be our willingness to stay in Iraq, but our desire to keep Bush in office.
The history of terrorists messing around with the political systems of their victim countries is a long one. The Viet Cong/North Vietnamese Tet Offensive in January 1968 set in motion a chain of events that led to Sen. Eugene McCarthy's excellent showing in that year's New Hampshire primary, Robert F. Kennedy's entry into the presidential race and, finally, Lyndon Johnson's withdrawal from the contest.
In 1994, when Yasser Arafat wanted to defeat the moderate Labor Party in Israel so he could posture himself in opposition to the hard-liners, he resorted to terror attacks in Israel right before the election. The carnage so shocked Israeli voters that they turned against the frontrunner -- Labor candidate Shimon Peres -- and elected Likud hard-liner Benjamin Netenyahu instead.
In March of this year, al-Qaida turned the Spanish election on its head with its railroad bombing and defeated the favored candidate from the party of pro-Iraq war President Jose Maria Aznar and elected an anti-war socialist instead.
But to fathom the al-Qaida/Ba'ath strategy, we need to remember how the Iranian militants manipulated the hostage crisis in 1979 and 1980 to defeat their bete noire, President Jimmy Carter. By dangling and then retracting the hope of releasing their hostages, they made Carter look weak and overmatched. Once Reagan won, they quietly let the hostages go. As he was sworn in, they were flying home and Carter was frantically handling the wire transfers of funds to pay their ransom.
Al-Qaida and the Ba'ath Party want to defeat Bush to avenge his tough stance against them after the 9-11 attacks. They know that John Kerry would usher back the Clinton days of timid U.S. reaction and that the Democrat's likely repeal of vital sections of the Patriot Act would open the door for their terror strikes in America.
The thugs want Bush out and are determined to ratchet up the cost of the Iraq War to bring about his ouster. That's why they will target any American they can. By having the troops continue their current activist role in Iraq, Bush is sticking to his policies at the risk of committing political suicide.
Turning sovereignty over to Iraq won't stop the terror attacks. They will decline only after Bush is either re-elected or defeated. It is the elections in the United States, not those in Iraq, that the enemy most seeks to influence.
Bush's surrogates should bring to America the message that the terrorists would be overjoyed to see the end of his presidency.
During the Cold War, American politicians regularly used to campaign as the candidate the Russians wanted to lose. Bush's people should begin to speak of the message a Kerry election and a Bush defeat would send to the terrorists. The Spanish example is worth citing.
It is obvious that Osama and his allies all want Bush out. It might profit Bush's supporters (though not the president himself) to point out this obvious fact to the American people.
Dick Morris, former adviser to President Clinton, writes a weekly column for the New York Post and is a Fox News Channel commentator. His e-mail address is dmredding@aol.com.
"Hmmm on the one hand, W is chasing us around with US Marines and tough Army troopers. On the other hand, lurch wants to send the french u.n. after us. Seems like a no brainer. 'Go lurch.'"
U.B.L.
I was recently in Hollywood(Home of the Caliban), and thought I saw an "Al Qaida For Kerrey" bumper sticker!(humor)
Low hanging fruit that will be picked in due time, IMO.
Should be either "who would the terrorists vote for?" or "for whom would the terrorists vote?"
Who would Osama vote for?
Find out - http://members.aol.com/KEEFESM/KERRY/OSAMASVOTE.WMV
Who would Osama vote for?
Find out - http://members.aol.com/KEEFESM/KERRY/OSAMASVOTE.WMV
No, that is not correct.
John Kerry is absolutely the best thing the al-Qaeda/Ba'athists in Iraq have going for them. Iraq, like the US, is in the midst of a political campaign right now, the difference being that in Iraq real bullets and beheadings are used instead of press releases and character assassinations. The threats have no less venom behind them as they are uttered, and the interest in the outcome is deadly serious. Since Bush is inextricably tied to turning over political power in Iraq to the Iraqi Governing Council, Kerry by definition has to take the opposite position, that the power NOT be turned over, it is too soon to trust the Iraqis to govern themselves, the Ba'athists deserve representation, the Kurds and the Shi'ites have too many differences between themselves and with the Sunnis for a civil government to exert real national unity, it was all just for oil, we never sent in enough troops to begin with, the Neo-Cons are the real driving force behind the war in Iraq, this is a diversion from the real aim of capturing Osama ben Ladin, and all this is costing the US government WAY too much, taking funds better spent for the care and feeding of new Democrat voters.
Any questions?
ARE ???
need you ask?
Or, "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee".
.
"BILL CLINTON told me that he had refused Offers from the Sudan in 1995 & 1996 to hand over OSAMA bin LADEN to us. BILL CLINTON said he did this while saying...
..'OSAMA, Who..?'" =
...DICK MORRIS, twice on 'The Judicial Watch Report Radio Show' - June 2003
DICK MORRIS went on to say that the only reason he couldn't confirm BILL CLINTON's refusing a 3rd OSAMA Offer from the Sudan in 2000 is because MORRIS was no longer in the CLINTON White House by then.
1995 = OSAMA bin LADEN was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing in 1993.
1998 = OSAMA bin LADEN was indicted by the RENO Justice Dept for his bombing of 2 American Embassies in Africa.
1995 = OSAMA Offer refused by CLINTON
1996 = OSAMA Offer refused by CLINTON
2000 = OSAMA Offer refused by CLINTON
CLINTON = OSAMA = 9/11
.
A point that bears repeating - they do not want Kerry because he would "understand" them and thereby allow them to stop attacking us; They want Bush out because he actually does their cause damage.
If they were to get Kerry in, it would only cause many more deaths and then there would be the very real danger of a imbecilic knee-jerk that could cause real world disorder...
Preposition ending a sentence...
It seems, there are two schools of thought here...
Winston Churchill said, for example: "This is the sort of English up with which I cannot put."
:)
The Muslims and, especially the French, are INTERNATIONAL KERRORISTS!!
They all practise KERRORISM!!
KERRORISM is very highly nuanced so as to allow an elitist multi-million who has more houses than most people have shoes and more servants than most people have relatives to convince the despirate left winngers, blacks an union memebrs that he is a man of the people, one of them.
.
NEVER FORGET
The Communist Vietnamese Government is now using KERRY's 1971 comments, calling American Soldiers fighting for Freedom in Vietnam ..rapists & terrorists.. to question America's treatment of Iraqi prisoners..!!!
Sen. KERRY's Remarks Coming Back to Haunt America, Lawmaker says
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158692/posts
LOL......that's a real classic!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.