I am not sure that it will help Kerry to have OBL's endorsement.

Not sure yet how the media will spin it, but I am not convinced normal Americans are going to be too appreciative of OBL's thoughts on how our government is run.

New slogan: Who would Osama vote for?

"September 11 would have been less severe if George Bush had been more alert," Bin Laden said.

Um... wouldn't September 11th have been less severe if he didn't instruct planes to fly into buildings? Jesus, what a fucktard!

Next thing you'll hear Mike Tyson saying his rape victim would have suffered less trauma if only she had put up more of a fight.

Wow, another pro Kerry foreign leader!

The left has been making the ridiculous argument for months that Bin Laden would actually like to see a Bush win because his policies are helping Al Qaeda recruit.

This tape will show how incedibly wrong they are. Bin Laden is dying to get out of his rat-hole. He may have the opportunity with a Kerry Presidency.

Does "Al Qaeda for Kerry" have 527 status?

What to make of this?

I think most Americans will think, "What an idiot," and ignore Mr. bin Pigpen's "advice."

Infidels,

In case you were unable to interpret my comments, I officially endorse John Kerry for President of the Corrupt States of Amerika.

Sincerly,
Yo Mamma Osama

He must have just finished watching the Tora Bora premier of Fahrenheit 9/11.

He has both the talking points of ZarKerry and M Moore.

And at least he had the common financial decency to wait until after the markets closed... He must have some investments hes tracking...

Maybe it's just me but he sounds like Al Gore, pre-firebrand.

I was hoping this guy was smoked. Probably tucked away safe in Iran w/ full medical.

And a couple of other things:

a) I'd like to think this will finally put to rest the "hey, Israel / NeoCons were really behind 9/11" talk you hear from the Arab quarters. Of course it won't, but I'm looking forward to even more outlandish theories to explain why Bin Laden admitted on tape he was responsible. ("Its really Dick Chaney in a wig!" maybe?)

b) This will be of no help to Kerry what-so-ever. The only thing he can say is that he would have caught Bin Laden (which he's already been banging on about for months). Any talk of "see, if we had a different policy we can protect ourselves" would just make him look like public pussy number one. In fact, I think this will actually help Bush, highlighting the fact that there are still homicidal maniacs bent on our destruction. Speaking of which...

c) Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Read between the lines. No longer are there boasts about crushing us infidels under some perfect Islamic theocracy. Basically he's now saying "uh, look, just be nicer to us and we won't throw fits anymore." They're hurting and they know it. The Islamic world, while bitching about the US and Israel (as they have done for the last 30+ years), haven't fallen in line with his "lets take over the world" plan (how many countries came to the aid of Afghanistan and Iraq? That's right, big fat zero). The US (and the UK, Oz, the Poles, et al) and grinding up his henchmen / foot soldiers at a nice pace, and his cash flow has been severely hindered. Bin Laden is having his nuts squeezed, and this is proof positive.

Ignore that infidel who dares to impersonate me. Everyone knows I like it better when people spell my name with a "U" instead of an "O".

Oh yeah, vote Kerry. We will kill you anyway, but vote Kerry.

O Infedelic UBL impersonator:

Allah willing, the U key on your keyboard will become stuck with the blood of 72 virgins.

Vote Kerry!

We will still kill you, but our reasoning will be very nuanced and the war to the death we wage upon your sons and daughters will be very, very sensitive.

OBL

PS,

Mary Cheney is a LESBIAN!

OBL

Paul Begala is saying "you should have caught him already"

Of course Obama supports Kerry! He gave the keynote speech at the convention!

Oh.

Nevermind.

Of course Paul Begala is saying that. I'm quite sure bin Laden faxed him over the talking points memo just prior to the release of this endorsement.

UBL basically endorses Kerry, and certainly endorses the fact that he doesn't want Bush.

What should we do? The answer is simple: vote for the guy that the terrorists do not want, and that guy is definitely Bush.

If Hitler had had a choice for British PM, he would have preferred Neville Chamberlain over Churchill any day.

Why doesn't that bastard just die. Where was the dialysis machine?

Is it just me, or does anyone else find this tape and the tape of Azzam the American pathetic and a little ridiculous?

Azzam, get a life, boy. You are about as scary as Dennis Kucinich. And OBL, if you were on your game, you'd be bombin' not trash talkin'. Rivers of blood, my freaking a**.

As some have pointed out, it is a sign of our success in the War on Terror that UBL is releasing a videotape, instead of a terror attack on us.

We know which he would prefer...

Jonah Goldberg NRO

tape ABC got looked like it was starring his "pizza delivery guy"

Funny

I dont find this remotely funny. There is a very good chance this is a signal for an attack.

OK, now, Mark, relax a bit. We have had tape after tape after tape from theze bozos for the last 3 years. Not one attack here.

Do I think it's still possible they will attack? Of course. There's no way to know that this tape has anything to do with it.

The amount of hatred I feel towards Kerry has been overshadowed by this bearded monster. I will do what Kerry suggests and forget about OBL and focus on the initial war, the war on Kerry.

In the light of this tape from UBL, and in the wake of the American Muslim tape of earlier this week, I think that President Bush needs to do something that is "Presidential" to respond to these threats. Perhaps an address to the nation or some other well-thought out way (other than another anti-Kerry ad) that takes this out of the make-believe soundbite realm of political campaigning and back into the real world of a tough and dangerous war on terror. We are looking to him for leadership, and right now. I wonder if W has any of those old FDR "nothing to fear but fear itself" kinds of throw-away lines to use about now?

What about his comment about Bush listening to a "girl talk about her goat"?

I think he HAS been watching F 9/11.

I knew we should have been watching the movie theaters in Iran.

A great comment over on Kerry Spot.

When AQ wanted to influence the Spanish election, they blew up some trains and killed a bunch of people.

When AQ wanted to influence the American election, they... sent us a video.

So how are we doin'?

I actually belive the terorists would want to strike after the voting occurs. They could attack the counting places (or better yet, the trial lawers that are prepped), or actual polling stations. That would totally screw up the counting and everyone's security in who acutally is president. Also by not attacking for so long, it helps us become more comfortable with our safety, and forget that terroists are actually out there, giving Kerry an edge. After the election, they catch us with our pants down.

Did you hear the end of it? I could've sworn I heard, "I'm John Kerry and I approved this message."

"The infidel Mary Cheney is a lesbian."

Hahaha. Bill, I salute you.

Notice how he's basically reciting Fahrenheit 9/11
"So he transferred the oppression of freedom and tyranny to his son and they call it th e Patriot Law to fight terrorism. He was bright in putting his sons as governors in states and he didn't forget to transfer his experience from the rulers of our region to Florida to falsify elections to benefit from it in critical times. "

I'm also really confused...bush has a son?

OHOHOH Bush 41....*smacks head*

This is the man who mastermined the largest mass murder in our country. He is still at large.

So I agree with you Bill: "I hope it helps sharpen your focus, America."

Pound sand, Rollins. You support a party that comes close to treason with its embrace of a man that celebrates the Iraqi resistance as "the Minutemen." Doesn't bother you one bit, does it?

Two observations:

1. Teresa "The Mouth" did say that Bin-Laden would appear right before the election. She just didn't tell us he'd be in Florida ready to vote for Kerry.

2. What do you want to bet that the Democrats will say that this is a GOP dirty trick planned and orchestrated by Rove to discredit Kerry?

I am laughing at the liberal spin that this his endorsement of Kerry is really a backhanded way of endorsing Bush. Yeah, right, about as likely as Bush losing Texas.

This tape doesn't help Kerry at all, and I don't think Kerry will successfully spin it to his favor, although his camp will certainly try.

I would have bet money OBL was dead. At the risk of sounding like I'm eligible for membership in Conspiracies R Us, how do we know it isn't old tape of OBL with a new voice-over provided by someone other than the currently dead OBL?

OTOH, Kerry is cooked if he complains about 9-11 being the topic of conversation/news for the next few days.

Rollins favors a man who would probably propose a summit with OBL, so whaddya know.

Waitaminute.

I haven't seen the vid, or read a transcript, but does he actually criticize Bush for talking to a girl about her goats, rather than doing whatever on Sept. 11?

Funny. Sounds like OBL's reciting a Dem talking point.

Go easy on Rollins. After all, Kerry probably "has a plan to make Usama Bin Laden into a belt." I know I believe him.

Bill, did you see this quote from the tape?
"Liberals do not neglect their security, contradicting Bush, who says that we hate freedom," Bin Laden said.

Sounds like an endorsement to me.

Kerry is cooked if he complains about 9-11 being the topic of conversation/news for the next few days.

Why would Kerry complain if we have to talk all weekend about how OBL is still alive and making videos?

This video reminds me of "Weekend at Bernie's" without the sunglasses.

Thank you for the laugh. This has been a fast moving, significant news day - I needed a humor break. As a fox contributor put it 'next to killing OBL, the best thing is have him endorse your opponent'.

Okay, I had never seen the picture of Terry M. and Michael Moore before. Take a look at the expression on McAuliffe's face: it looks like a teenage girl meeting a rock star backstage after a concert. That expression tells it all--"thank you Mr. Moore, thank you, can I get you a glass of water..." Pathetic. And what is worse: Moore is ignoring the guy.

There is your pictorial metaphor for today's Left.

Does anyone have a transcript of the first Kerry statement to the lady journalist, I mean the split screen interview.

All we get to see now is his airport statement.

I think that in the first statement he said something to the effect that the American people were united in hunting down the 9-11 killers (the whole law enforcement thing again) - and thus he was saying by implication that they might not be united when it comes to fighting terrorists elsewhere.

Certainly, he is much clearer in his 2nd statement at the airport.

It might be worth reviewing the first statement and analysing it for what it tells us about John Kerry’s ad hoc, under pressure reactions to significant news- i.e. he blunders.

According to the Corner:
Dick Morris just outlined very cogently the five or six ways the OUBL tape helps the President. Says there is “no way” there is any good in this for Kerry.

Bill;

Your article was hysterical...laughed out loud. UBL does sound like a Kerry scampaign speech.

Not only is the UBL tape a Kerry endorsement, but it also tells you that we're kicking Al Qaeda's ass. "If you'll just leave the Middle East now we'll promise not to hurt you again." Yeah right. This psychopath has realized that he has unleashed an American fury that he can not deal with. He's already regretting the day he attacked the WTC.

Four more years so we can finish the job!

Something about this tape is not right at all. It is totally out of character for UBL. It does not sync with his core beliefs to be offering what is in effect a truce if America backs off. This guy believes to his marrow that God is on his side. Fanatics like that do not offer truces He is either getting very bad advice from someone and believes that his tape will resonate in America and scare us out of the GWOT, or this is a fake.

It's totally bogus. It's so obvious it's Eleanor Smeal in drag. LAME

Bill, go over to Andrew Sullivan's blog and see his comments on it.

He says Bin Laden's objective is to help Bush win. And he's also peddling that story about the Iranian regime endorsing Bush which you showed was untrue:

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001173.php

Andrew Sullivan has given up all pretense of honesty and objectivity.

Instead he is willing to say or write anything to further his agenda of gay marriage, no matter what the consequences to national security.

Whether one agrees with Sullivan on the gay marriage issue or not, he cannot escape criticism for the way his bias has tainted his commentary on other issues.

Steve-O:

Al Qaeda won't be able to hit the election officials offices - - - they won't be able to get past the Dem lawyers trying to steal votes.

the guys at defeatjohnjohn.com ended their analysis with this:

--

Why would he do this? Well, I suppose I can insert the typical "because they know he'll be soft on terror" talking points, but really, I don't know. And, at least when it comes to making a decision on election day, I don't care. Osama bin Laden just got on international television and told us two things: 1) There will be more attacks on your country no matter who's elected, and 2) I'd really really really like it if you elected John Kerry.

Gee, I wonder which way we should vote.

--

i may not care for bush, but i think that's exactly right.

docweasel -

I deleted your link the first time because it sucked. Do NOT re-spam my comments section.

OBL's advice and commentary will have no impact on the results of Nov. 2. OBL's relevance is limited to the cave he inhabits, and perhaps also to a few zealous true-believers.

What is relevant, however, is just how dangerous the world is for Americans now. Bush has incited more hatred against our nation than any other president (yes, this includes Johnson in the 60s and Truman with the A-bomb). To mitigate this, we must 1) defeat and destroy terrorists wherever we find them; 2) repair our badly-damaged alliances; and 3) end Bush's policy of using pre-emptive military force in the absence of strong evidence.

Because Bush has bungled #1, and simply cannot do #2 and #3, he must go.

To quote Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (who clearly had a better understanding of American resolve than does UBL), "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve."

If he intends to remind us all of 9/11 all over again, he just did it. If he thinks this will have the same effect as it did on Spain, he's lacking a fundamental understanding of American soul and spirit.

Kingboss:

Of those so-called allies, when did they ever do anything for us? Seems to me we've been doing for them with no valuable return.

And how, pray tell, are we going to 'defeat and destroy terrorists wherever we find them' in the midst of countries that won't let us in voluntarily? Unless you are under the impression that Iraq and Afganistan at some point said 'Oh, yes, come on in...would you care for some tea and dates? Perhaps some terrorists for target practice?'

Finally -- I believe that more than adequate evidence was presented for the military actions against both Afganistan and Iraq. Harboring terrorists, financing terrorists, training terrorists, refusing to disclose the status of WMD, moving WMD to a terrorist client state (Syria) for safe keeping...on and on and on. The fact that you disagree does not make your argument correct...it just means that you haven't been paying attention.

If for no other reason, we should reelect Pres Bush to send a big message to UBL...to tell him to screw off...we won't be intimidated by him...

Bkayel:

I see that you find Sean Hannity persuasive. His arguments, made by him directly or through you, remain weak.

1. Those "useless" allies helped us to substantially degrade Hussein's weapons systems over a 10+ year period. Those allies supported us in Afghanistan. They have been strong trading partners for 50 years or more. And there's much more, as any casual review of a western civ text book will tell you.

2. We will defeat and destroy terrorists by doing what the USA correctly did in Afghanistan. We identified the enemy; we publicly stated the basis for our strike for all to see; and we acted swiftly. No one "let us in" to Afghanistan. But because we were on sound footing, our allies and our citizens in the US were united in supporting us.

3. Only you and Dick Cheney still cling to the WMD defense. It has been discredited. Here are the facts:

The WMD were not there at the time of the invasion. The Bush people manipulated the intelligence reports to disguise this truth (don't you recall the tell-tale remarks of Colin Powell?). Then, when the war went sour, the Bush people dreamed up other reasons for the invasion ("Hussein kills his own people" then "Hussien communicated with the terrorists" then "we're trying to establish democracy").

Oh, I've been paying attention. It's just a pity that Bush's supporters can't see through his rhetoric.

bkayal,
Does no evidence qualify aas adequate evidence?
Your kidding right ?
I know it's hard to believe your leaders lied and liea to your face, but believe it.

At this utterly pivotal point in our nation's history, may I remind folks (go ahead, laugh at "folks" as per Jon Stewart), that this video is extremely odd and not at all what we expected? We expected railing and ranting and a threat of blood uber alles. What we got was a very odd negotiating moment. What in the world he means by it all being up to us, the American people, would need one wiser than I to work out. Nonetheless, I find it an encouraging sign of OBL's toothlessness.

kingdope,
welcome to america.
we're watching you.
you're new best friend,
smilin jack

"your"

and the preview button is MY new best friend,
sja

It's pretty simple, really. That videotape was the best shot OBL could take to influence this election. Measured against what he did in Spain, it's pretty darn weak, isn't it.

Oh, and need I remind you that Spain recently broke up a fresh terrorist plot? Wow, pulling out of Iraq sure did the trick for them, didn't it.

It is not Bush who damaged our alliances. It is our so called allies whose press has been propagating anti-American views for years preceding 9/11, who have chosen to deal with vile totalitarian states even as they are attacking Americans trying to protect civilians of that nation, and whose elected leaders have chosen to appeal and encourage anti-American sentiments. Our so called allies enjoyed a world made safe by Americans willing to take a stand but were perfectly willing to take advantage those security guarantees to gain commercial advantages by coddling those we are trying to contain.

Do you really believe that our officials manipulated the intelligence with regards to Iraq's WMD programs? Why did Clinton's team claim that Iraq had them? Why did Clinton put us into al Qaeda's sights and harms way other than to contain a country that refused to verfiably disarm? Why did many of our allies including the so called allies who opposed doing something about Iraq believe that Saddam had WMDs? Why did Kerry demand that we turn our attention to Iraq in the months after 9/11?

Kingboss, your first remarks are of interest, but your last paragraph is just silly.
"The WMD were not there at the time of the invasion." Whaddya mean, 'at the time of the invasion'? You mean in our 14-month rush-to-war there was an opportunity to move whatever may have been there? Should we cry for Saddam because he never even got close to having ICBMs? And what do you think of the Kurds who reported a chemical attack by Saddam's forces - are they lying to protect Dick Cheney too? No, we haven't found any stockpiles -- why is this a -bad- thing??
"The Bush people manipulated the intelligence reports to disguise this truth (don't you recall the tell-tale remarks of Colin Powell?)." Tell-tale remarks, is that like the tell-tale heart? Seriously, what remarks are you talking about? How did Bush et al 'manipulate the intelligence' in the US during Bill Clinton's terms, or do the same in France, Russia, Britain, etc?
"Then, when the war went sour, the Bush people dreamed up other reasons for the invasion ("Hussein kills his own people" then "Hussien communicated with the terrorists" then "we're trying to establish democracy")." Oh, get real. Each one of these issues was raised emphatically in Bush's speech leading up to the war. IIRC Andrew Sullivan(!) quoted the NY Times whining that Bush was presenting too -many- reasons for the war. Saddam did far more than 'communicate' with terrorists; he sheltered the guy who led the attack on the Achille Lauro, paid $25K to families of Palestinian murderers, and more.

OBL doesn't really care who gets elected - Kerry was a war hero after all.

OBL's goal is simple - to make everybody in the world think about OBL. Think of Sept 11, think of OBL. Think of the election, think of OBL. Think of Iraq, think of OBL.

OBL is creaming in his jeans (or his robe I guess) knowing that everyone is thinking of OBL.

dope of chili town,
"dope of gitmo"
your new best friend,
smilin jack

Michelle:

Rather than react to all of this blather (who has the time?), let me address the silliest of your arguments:

1. When Bush & Co. invaded Iraq, they did so to avoid the mushroom cloud event that they promised would happen if we did not invade. Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and others promised that Hussein would deliver the nuclear, biological and other WMD against the USA on short notice unless we invaded. They made these statements to Congress, and to the American media. Bush & Co. carefully selected intelligence reports to support their case, knowing that these reports were either outdated or inconsistent with other more reliable reports.

2. The "blame-Clinton-first" mantra is wearing a bit thin. Bush and Clinton relied on the same intelligence agencies and reports. Those reports said in the 1990s (and in the 2000s) that Iraq's weapons systems were low-grade, broken, and lacking in parts and maintenance. Bush, of course, knew this. But he carefully selected info from those reports and misconstrued it in order to sell the American public on the invasion (remember the bio-agent trucks -- and the aluminum tubes for nukes -- that were no such thing?)

3. Your final sentence is the biggest whopper, and shows just how effective the Bush people have been in misleading you. Hussein was obviously a horrible guy. But his contacts with Palestinians, the Achille Lauro guy, etc. do not magically render him capable of attacking the USA with WMD. Similarly, Hussein's bad company does not render him responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Bush & Co. have confused the issue, and they have done so on purpose. The USA should strike to retaliate against those that attacked us on 9/11, or when threatened by WMD. Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. Iraq did not possess WMD. Case closed.

We should also remember the oddity of the latest Zawahiri video, in which he encourages jihad to continue even if he and OBL are inoperative. The defeatist rather than crowing tone of that and today's video are striking. Don't they know how to gloat anymore? Unless today's message is being triangulated against other messages (i.e., Azzam the American's) as a kind of operational message, these messages are more signs of weakness than on strength.

kingdope,

my cousin vinny:
"your honor, everything he just said is b******t."

your pal,
smilin jack

Kingboss:

Who's drinking the partisan Kool-Aid? Talking about Iraq having no WMDs NOW, when EVERYBODY, including Mubarak and other Middle Eastern leaders, said he did have them BEFORE the invasion shows you're clearly out of touch with reality. In light of 9/11, the ONLY prudent course of action was to do what Bush did. To suggest otherwise is simply not being intellectually honest.

Kingdope,
1.promised?
2.pppppptttthhhhhh!?!!!?!!?!...
3.dope closed.

buddies for life,
smilin jack

OT-
Are we going to hear about Kerry and his dishonorable discharge this weekend? I was on Swiftboat earlier today and it looked as though it was going that way, then poof, nothing more.

Anyone Know?

midst all the gaiety...

make sure you and yours vote BC'04!!!

yes, it IS that important.

your pal,
smilin jack

p.s. do you remember that book you never returned to the library?

i do...
sja

Hilarious Bill, very hilarious but I was waiting for the moonbats to claim Osama is actually in Karl Rove's custody and was forced to make this statement......LOL

well all the dudes on MSNBC even Matthews figure this is advantage Bush with Bush already up and Kerry's been backed into an tough corner, it is exactly what Kerry didn't want which was bringing the War on Terror and worse 9-11 back into the collective psyche and then to have Osama trash Bush, almost quoting Michael Moore verbatim, and did he repeat a Bill Maher remark too, all add up to advantage Bush because unlike the Spanish, Americans don't like to be told how to vote.....

hey Theresa was right, Osama is one of the October surprises but Osama came out of his cave voluntarily supposedly, the editor of Al Hayat made a good point, she thinks this must have been a tape meant for the 4th anniversary of 9-11, which is why there are no specific threats but something must have happened, they couldn't get the tape to Al Jazeera in time, which to me is good news, it means Bin Laden still can't operate like he used....

and the other good news for Bush, thanks to Osama Haliburton got shoved to the side, three bets 60 Minutes rushes a piece on this for Sunday night though - will they bump the Ashlee Simpson story though?

Here's a chuckle GOTV Mallard Style

Kingboss--

I've read your posts, they make absolutely no sense. So "Bush & Co" manipulated intelligence to make the case for WMDs. Then when the war went sour they made up new reasons for the war? HUH??? If they knew there were no WMDs, then how did the war go "sour"? They knew the WMDs wouldn't be there then right? So, hmm, I don't get your point.

And quite frankly, you're just flat out lying when you say this anyway (either that or you just have a very poor memory). Bush talked all the time about establishing democracy, human rights, etc in Iraq before the war. If you didn't hear it, you just weren't listening. It was one of the main arguments before the war, or did you forget all the intrigue about the evil "neo-cons" trying to promote democracy in the middle east at the time.

So please don't condescend those on the other side by saying you can "see through Bush's rhetoric" when you don't even have the facts straight yourself.

As for the "tired" Clinton argument, if these reports all said Iraq weapons weren't a threat, then why did the Clinton administration make "regime change" the official policy of the US in 1998? And why did he bomb Iraq in 1998? Again, I guess I have to make the same point, I guess Clinton was lying too right?

If Bush was lying, was Tony Blair lying too? And why lie, why go to war to begin with, what was the point exactly???

I'm sorry, I'm just sick and tired of this "Bush lied" crap from the left. You have no proof, you just make assertions like "manipulated intelligence" etc. without evidence.

And I notice when an inconvenient point comes up you just ignore it ("Rather than react to all this blather")

What really galls me is this "allies" crap. First, many of them were on the take from Saddam, a point you have yet to address in any of your posts.

Second, let me give you a counter-factual: What if the intelligence had been the same, we invaded, and we did find WMDs. Do you really think this would've mattered to France, Germany, Russia, etc??? Of course not, Iraq is a smokescreen, they resent American military power, period. That's what this is about.

And John Kerry has done a great job with our allies. Let's see, he's insulted the Poles, the UK, Australia, not to mention the Iraqi provisional government. Oh, but I guess they don't count as "allies" in your mind though huh?

As to people around the world hating us (as opposed to governments), if we did the right thing, who the hell cares? People all over the world hate Israel too. What is about liberals that you feel the need to be loved by a bunch of Euro-weenies? If that's the price we pay for defending ourselves, tough shit.

Yes, we do need allies and trading partners. And allies will still help us when it's in their interests to do so. They didn't go to Afghanistan out of the goodness of their hearts, they went because they had a stake in not seeing their own capitals blown up. If you think otherwise, you're just incredibly naive. (And a quick note on trading partners--I'm sure John Kerry's protectionism will go over really well with them.)

Anyway, I thought the topic was OBL parroting Michael Moore and the Democratic Party's embrace of Moore. But you'd rather not talk about that I suppose.

kingboss

Watch the videos:

http://www.brain-terminal.com/video/nyc-2004-03-20/index.html

http://www.republicanfilms.com/

Hey Kingboss

We already got the mastermind of 9/11: Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

Mission Accomplished.

If our war is only against the masterminds of 9/11 then it's over.

Pfeh.

Bill is so right on this. If this isn't a McAuliffe/Moore clip I don't know what is.
It is so unlike anything OBL has done before. He even has all the DNC propaganda almost verbatim Kerry.

Huck I agree with your post, although I would ad that withthe criticism of the missing 300-400 tons of explosives, he has taken to insulting our military as well (yeah he will deny it, but missing a bunch or trucks and work party hauling away 300 tons of explosives on the roads you control is a screw up at the ground level, not the administrative level).

Kerry is bad for our country, and bad for our military, and definitely bad for dealing with terrorism.

Here's the relevant question. Bin Pigpen tells us in the tape that if we had a foreign policy more like Sweden, bin Pigpen and its minions wouldn't attack us again.

So, who is more likely to give us a foreign policy more like Sweden's?

That is who bin Pigpen endorsed.

Next question. Do we take our election orders from the likes of bin Pigpen?

I don't think the majority of Americans will accept diktats from mass-murdering psychopathic Islamofascist swine.

We ain't Spain.

"Rollins favors a man who would probably propose a summit with OBL, so whaddya know."

only if OBL had POWs and were torturing them.....

I think OBL is definitely about to learn that the US is NOT like Spain.

It's astonishing how Osama's rant sounds like the script from Fahrenheit 911!

Can anyone doubt that Moore and UBL are simpatico!

Once again, the most of you prove that you don't "get it."

This video helps Bush. Why?

1. The "rally round the flag" effect. When populations feel threatened or there are domestic or foreign attacks on a nation, that nation tends to "rally round" the leaders who have to deal with the problems. Witness: 9/11 and 90% approval ratings.

The same thing goes for foreign sources trying to tell us what to do (witness the unfortunate Guardian write-in campaign). In 2000 14 European nations imposed sanctions on Austria for the inclusion of the xenophobic Freedom Party in the governing coalition. What happened? Austrians on Left and Right said "we don't appreciate these other countries coming in and F'ing with our domestic politics" and they "rallied round the flag." Freedom Party support jumped.

2. The Warner Brothers "reverse psychology" effect. Someone you absolutely hate tells you to do something, or voices an opinion. What do you do? Well, you go out and do exactly the opposite. UBL says "I hate Bush, I hate Cheney." It's the old Warner Brothers reverse-psychology. Duck Season. Wabbit Season. Next thing you know you're grabbing the shotgun and shooting yourself, just because the other guy told you not to.

Don't agree with me? Well, FoxNews does. From an earlier comment: "As a fox contributor put it 'next to killing OBL, the best thing is have him endorse your opponent'." A tacit endorsement of Kerry by UBL (which this was not), considering how much we appreciate UBL's opinion, will not help Kerry. This SHOULD be obvious.

Furthermore: "because unlike the Spanish, Americans don't like to be told how to vote..."

That's just a misrepresentation of the situation in Spain. You're forgetting that one of (if not the) major decision to vote out the Popular Party government was the perception that it LIED to the Spanish public, by trying to pin the bombing on the Basques. Electorates don't like foreign groups telling them what to do, but they also don't like being lied to by their governments.

Finally, why would Al Qaeda prefer a Bush presidency? Call it the "Uncle Sam wants You" effect, for those old recruiting posters.

UBL isn't stupid. Quite the contrary, he's outlived one superpower and managed to evade the world's most powerful nation for three years (more, if you take Clinton's efforts to get him seriously). UBL realizes that whoever is in the White House come Feburary, he'll still be Public Enemy Number 1. This has gone too far to just forget about him.

UBL would prefer to have the neo-cons in power, because they provide the perfect foil for his war against the West.

This is a war about "Hearts and Minds." Each time we call this a "crusade" (as Bush did) or make it a war about religion (as at least one general has done) or do something that can be perceived as "proof positive" that UBL was right about the West (like invading Iraq), the Al Qaeda recruiting office on the Arab street gets 10 new recruits. For all the things John Kerry is, he isn't a religious fanatic and doesn't come off like one. Bush does, even among our friends. And that plays into the hands of the terrorists, who want to make this into an "Us or Them" war about religion.

One of the most laughable statistics the Reps throw out is that we've "captured or killed 75% of Al Qaeda." Implying, of course, that Al Qaeda hasn't kept recruiting. The Al Qaeda recruiting base is potentially up to 1 billion people, if you push the Muslim world hard enough. Killing a few thousand stormtroopers isn't going to make a difference (killing the head? a better start).

A better estimate of Enemy Strength is: How many Al Qaeda operatives are there today? In how many countries? How many Iraqi insurgents? If that number is greater now than in the past, DESPITE killing or capturing 75% of the operatives active at the time of 9/11, you're doing something wrong.

If you don't think that every time you shoot a civilian, or bulldoze a house, or even kill a terrorist you aren't convincing someone else to become a suicide bomber or at least aid and abet the Intifada or Jihad, you haven't been paying enough attention to Israel/Palestine. Or Iraq, for that matter.

Is Body Count the answer? Or should we be addressing where terrorism comes from; inequality, perceived injustices, and corrupt governance.

Flame On.

"I dont find this remotely funny. There is a very good chance this is a signal for an attack."

My thoughts exactly. Why do the messages appear to simply express the left's talking points?

"UBL basically endorses Kerry, and certainly endorses the fact that he doesn't want Bush.

What should we do? The answer is simple: vote for the guy that the terrorists do not want, and that guy is definitely Bush.

If Hitler had had a choice for British PM, he would have preferred Neville Chamberlain over Churchill any day."

No, he doesn't endorse Kerry. It's just the echoing of previous Republican campaign fodder. He adds the statement about not attacking if he isn't threatened, no matter who's in office.

In fact, the unbelievable timing of this release wreaks havoc on my conscience, because I'm not sure whether he actually wants Bush out or whether he echoed the left's talking points to further polarize us and strengthen Bush support to keep him as president, and I don't have much time to make that call.

This smacks of a predator weakening his prey, a divide-and-conquer methodology, in which he attempts to weaken our resolve to bring him to justice and severely divides the two major political factions by repeating their extremes. I think we might have been better off by keeping this one out of the press, since a united America is a strong one, but now it's going to be more arguing for who bin Laden likes instead of who will actually do some good for this country, playing right into the current politics of fear being propagated by both Bush and Kerry -- fear that your vote may contribute to an increased threat of terrorism. We've played right into his hand by releasing the video, attack signal or not.

So I ask again: what's so funny about being baited by a terrorist?

Now...what was that UBL video REALLY about: It was about fucking with us. And it succeeded.

This video, and any terrorist attacks that might follow, are meant to sow doubt in the minds of Americans that the outcome of the election was legitimate. Or, better yet, to sow chaos in the days before the election, throwing the whole process into doubt.

Let's say that on Nov. 2nd, terroists attack 10 polling places in the United States, probably on the East Coast. Casualties are moderate (100-500 dead, and a thousand injured).

What happens? I can't answer this question, but possibilities are we have to stop the election on safety concerns, or we keep going but hundreds of thousands, if not millions, stay home from the polls for fear of safety.

If Bush wins, the Dems are going to say that the terrorist attacks prevented the American people from making an honest choice, and they'll call for a redo. If they GET a redo, then that will add to more chaos, as the losing side won't except that this would have been the final outcome if there were no terrorist attacks.

If Kerry wins, the Reps are automatically going to start propogating a "stab in the back" myth: the American people were pressured into wimping out, thanks to college professors/Michael Moore/the MSM.

The net result is the President looks that much more illegitimate, and American Democracy takes another blow.

I have a question for Osama:

Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?

Is Body Count the answer? Or should we be addressing where terrorism comes from; inequality, perceived injustices, and corrupt governance.

Heh heh heh. Good one.

Oh. You were serious? Sorry. Why not just call them "root causes" and be done with it, I mean as long as you're spouting the same tired cliches you could at least call them by the accepted goodspeak names.

"Why not just call them "root causes" and be done with it, I mean as long as you're spouting the same tired cliches you could at least call them by the accepted goodspeak names."

If by goodspeak, you mean "academic," then sure. These are the "root causes" of terrorism. That you don't understand that speaks volumes.

Why do we have terrorism coming out of the Middle East? Do you want to blame it on Islam? Islam is not inherently violent. Any more than Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, or Buddhism are inherently violent. Yet all of them have been the motivating ideologies for terrorist organizations in the last 100 years.

Terrorism in the Middle East seems to be the result of two "root causes," with Wahabbism as the "covering ideology":

1. Poverty and Inequality; why do they REALLY hate us. Do they hate us because we're Christian (or Jews, or Atheists). Or do they really hate us becaue we have wireless Internet and central air? How do you think a few thousand Germans convinced tens of millions to go on a killing spree? 33% unemployment didn't help.

It also doesn't help that the young men buying into Wahabbism live in authoritarian systems, where they feel like democratic participation is not a viable option.

2. The perception that the West "keeps the Arab world down" by supporting Israel, taking oil and giving nothing in return, and now extending a history of colonialism by putting military bases in Saudi (and now by invading Iraq).

It's funny that "academic" has become synonymous with "liberal" (and therfore "treasonous") on Right-Wing boards.

Solving, or even understanding, a problem requires understanding the causes of the problem, assuming you want to solve it in the first place.

There are three ways to address situation in the Middle East:

1. Body Count: Kill as many terrorists as you can, and hopefully they'll get the message. Considering the recruiting pool for Islamic terrorism is what could be deemed "large," how you do that short of killing tens of millions of people, in 60 different countries, is unclear.

2. Turn terroism into a "nuisance": Israel, understanding that #1 doesn't work very well, has decided to "kill the head" by killing the leaders of Hisballah and IJ, in the hopes that they'll weed out the competant planners and take down the C3I capabilities of these organizations. Terrorism doesn't go away in this situation, but it does become a "nuisance" that can be dealt with, because the attacks become less sophisticated and easier to foil.

3. Address the root causes of the problem: Get off Mid-East oil, and force those governments to start listening to their populations if they want to stay in power. That's going to mean some reduction of inequality, in exchange for some reduction of monarchical power.

The answer is probably some combination of 2 and 3. But if we never address 3, then terrorism isn't going to go away.

I've had enough with the bs spin about who do the terrorists "endorse". They hate all of us, folks. If you look at OBL's declaration of war on America from 1996: http://www.jihadonline.bravepages.com/expel.htm
you'll see that it's addressed to Clinton's then-Secretary of Defense, William Perry. So, OBL isn't in the Dem's pocket, right?

Oh the irony...took my 12 yr old daughter to see Bush yesterday in Toledo. She was very excited and listened intently to him. She then left this morning for a soccer tournament in Akron. Upon arriving at the hotel, guess who she saw getting into his limousine? Why Michael Moore, of course. Can't wait to hear what my politically astute child has to say about that one.

It's funny that "academic" has become synonymous with "liberal" (and therfore "treasonous") on Right-Wing boards.

Has ANYONE called "academic" arguments "treasonous" here, Moebius? Anyone at all? Don't put words in our mouths. I mean, it seems to me that if you want to call us stupid and ignorant right-wingers, it'd be easier for you to just do it, rather than dance around the subject.

Solving, or even understanding, a problem requires understanding the causes of the problem, assuming you want to solve it in the first place.

And you've decided we don't understand.

There are three ways to address situation in the Middle East:

Only three? Who says?

1. Body Count: Kill as many terrorists as you can, and hopefully they'll get the message. Considering the recruiting pool for Islamic terrorism is what could be deemed "large," how you do that short of killing tens of millions of people, in 60 different countries, is unclear.

Seems to be working so far. There haven't been any major attacks on American soil since 9/11, Libya has begun to play ball, and even bin Laden in his latest message is laying off of the "blood will flow in the streets" messages.

Y'see, I keep seeing this argument that killing terrorists creates more terrorists. What I don't see from people like you, Moebius, is PROOF of this.

2. Turn terroism into a "nuisance": Israel, understanding that #1 doesn't work very well, has decided to "kill the head" by killing the leaders of Hisballah and IJ, in the hopes that they'll weed out the competant planners and take down the C3I capabilities of these organizations. Terrorism doesn't go away in this situation, but it does become a "nuisance" that can be dealt with, because the attacks become less sophisticated and easier to foil.

No reason we couldn't combine #1 and #2. Remember, Moebius, that in addition to killing off the head of terrorist groups on a regular basis, the Israelis are building a wall around the disputed areas, effectively cutting off most access to their country and letting the Palesitinians rot. For this, as well as for their program of assassinations, they've been loudly and regularly condemned by most of the world.

3. Address the root causes of the problem: Get off Mid-East oil,

That'd be great, Moebius, except you didn't mention HOW to do this.

and force those governments to start listening to their populations if they want to stay in power.

How do we "force" governments to do this?

That's going to mean some reduction of inequality, in exchange for some reduction of monarchical power.

That's not an "exchange" for the rulers. They lose money AND power.

I don't think they're going to go for that. Any ideas on how we're going to "force" them?

The answer is probably some combination of 2 and 3. But if we never address 3, then terrorism isn't going to go away.

Personally, I think that's what Bush has been *doing*. Iraq can be seen as a combination of all three. Kill terrorists by the metric assload? Check. Kill or imprison their leaders and/or the ones funding them? Check in the case of the Hussein family, working on it in the case of others like al-Zarqawi. Install a reasonably democratic government in Iraq? Working on it.

There. Wasn't that nice? Seems like the US "strategery" *IS* to address the "root causes." Turns out we can do that while killing terrorists.

Beth:

Can't wait to hear what my politically astute child has to say about that one.

Probably, "Mom, I didn't know they hired the Goodyear blimp for the soccer tournament."

Forget about the message of Osam shoulda-bin Dead. In a way, it was good that we didn't plaster him since that would have made a martyr out of him. Meanwhile we've been decapitating the rest of the AQ leadership.

More importantly is how it comes across to the so-called Arab street. I mean in all this time, the young were swayed to join in the struggle against the Great & Little Satans. And now ObL is saying leave us alone and we'll leave you alone. WHat's a young Jihadi to think?

More so since Zarqawi has taken lately to proclaiming ObL a "wimp" hiding out in the mountains while he, Zarqawi, has bravely taken over and is leading the fight against the West.

In a sense, ObL in his insanity is falling apart. Who knows how close he came to getting creamed, but being cooped up all these years is surely eating away at him. So in resurrecting himself in our conciousness, he is unable to both rally the jihaiis and strike fear in us.

Score: sKerry loses to Bush; ObL loses to Zarqawi.

Oh my, life is so unfair

"taking oil and giving nothing in return. . . "

OK, I don't follow that. I pay two f-ing dollars per gallon for gas, and I buy at least ten of those gallons each week. So do millions upon millions of other Americans. The Saudis produce something like 9 million barrels of oil per day, and sell them for more than $50/barrel. Where do you get the idea that we "give nothing" for oil?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12961

The above an article on "root causes" first published in The Weekly Standard.

It's insightful; certainly not the usual trite blather.

-------------------------
"And you've decided we don't understand."
--------------------------

Well, considering most (note the use of "most") of the right-wing posts on this board think UBL is endorsing Kerry in his statement because he attacked the Administration's policies, I think that's a reasonable conclusion. They are unable to connect the dots that UBL criticized US policies during the Clinton Administration, and now UBL is criticizing US policy during the Bush Administration, so UBL will probably be critical REGARDLESS of who wins on Tuesday.

-----------------------------
"Y'see, I keep seeing this argument that killing terrorists creates more terrorists. What I don't see from people like you, Moebius, is PROOF of this."
----------------------------

You and I both know objective proof is going to be hard to come by on the current situation. But and think critically, and use historical examples. 30 years of killing Palestinian terrorists hasn't reduced the problems of Palestinian terrorism. The wall HAS, but interdiction and extermination are not mutually inclusive policies.

Body count also appeared to fail in such fan favorite insurgencies as Vietnam and Algeria.

Al Qaeda APPEARS weaker, but we don't have good numbers on their membership. What we have done is get many of their leaders. Unfortunately, we didn't finish the job. Bush's 2002 statement that UBL doesn't matter is unfortunate, and a mis-representation of UBL's power as a symbol.

Finally, 19 months of guerilla war in Iraq, and it looks like the Iraqi insurgency is growing (though again, good luck going out and polling on this; still, independent security estimates and even defense estimates tend to support my claim). You can say this spate of attacks is just an election spike, or things will get better after Fallujah; that's a point of difference without more data. But the trends are unfavorable.

--------------------------
"That'd be great, Moebius, except you didn't mention HOW to do this."
--------------------------

Funny that I'M the one responsible for figuring out how, rather than the Administration, who's done absolutely nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (we import more Mid-East oil today than we did under Clinton), and very little to pressure the Saudis (oh, no...I forgot Arctic drilling!).

I have given a suggestion, which you've ignored by saying "it will never work."

1. America undergoes a crash-course, remeniscent of the Manhattan Project, with the goal of making us energy independent in 10 years. Result: Global oil prices crash, and Mid-East leaders lose their major source of revenue. That those leaders do not like this is not our concern, unless you're saying we should put the interests of the Saudis above the interests of Americans (which some pols do). To answer your question, we "force" the leaders to bargain with their populations by unilaterally ending or drastically reducing oil purchases from the Middle East (through energy independence). America certainly hasn't had problems being unilateral recently, so I can't see why we'd be skittish about doing it again.

Your counter could be that "China and India will just pick up the slack," and that's possible, but it's also possible that they'll push for energy independence as well, and try and learn from our mistakes. Energy independence definitely represents a strategic advantage over reliance on foreign energy sources, as those can be cut off.

2. Mid-East leaders are now in a bind: How do we keep our power without the oil money? Historically, leaders without recourse to great natural resources (which they can just extract and sell) are forced to rely on popular taxation. Taxation without representation generally forces leaders to "bargain" with their subjects. Raise the taxes too much, and your subjects revolt. So, in exchange for more taxation you agree to grant them some limited rights. Over time, as the rulers want more and more from their populations, and rights from past bargains are "locked in," this leads to some form of representative democracy. Which should go some way toward reducing inequality in those countries.

If you'd like a great book on this subject, try Charles Tilly's "Coercion, Capital, and European States."

----------------------------
Install a reasonably democratic government in Iraq? Working on it.

There. Wasn't that nice? Seems like the US "strategery" *IS* to address the "root causes." Turns out we can do that while killing terrorists.
-------------------------------

Well, first of all the Bush Administration has ignored or screwed up going after the "root causes" in fundamental ways:

1. By repeatedly making statements (Crusade, etc.) or taken actions (invading Iraq without meeting "just war" criterion) that incite the Arab street into greater hatred against the US.

2. By grossly mismanaging the reconstruction effort in Iraq (how much of that money has been spent?), and by sending mixed signals to Iraqis about our intentions for their oil (by making hand waving gestures that Iraqi oil money would be used in Reconstruction, or would pay off international debt from the old regime). We shouldn't have gone in if we didn't expect the Coalition to foot the whole bill. Right now, it probably looks on the Arab street like we just went in for the oil...or the Crusade.

3. By not addressing the problem where we KNOW terrorists are being bred and trained; countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt.

There are countries that breed terrorists, then there are countries that harbor terrorists. Iraq was neither of these before we invaded.

5. Py picking the "wrong horse" (Chalabai and the INC) to back in the democratization process, making us look like we want puppets. Sistani has the power in Iraq, but again I get the sense that we will not maintain a cordial relationship with him or his party, because it's too close to admitting that the best we can hope for in Iraq is another Iran.

6. By letting the Israel-Palestine peace process die, and giving carte blanche to the Sharon government to do whatever they wanted in the Occupied Territories. This has resurrected the tried and true conspiracy theories that America is "controlled by Jews" (again with the Hearts and Minds).

I keep seeing this argument that killing terrorists creates more terrorists. What I don't see from people like you, Moebius, is PROOF of this.

Here is a FoxNews story right after the invasion about the rise in terrorist recruiting in Pakistan.

Here's a report from a pro-war think tank that says,

"Overall, risks of terrorism to Westerners and Western assets in Arab countries appeared to increase after the Iraq war began in March 2003"

Of course it's impossible to get hard numbers on terrorist groups because, well, they don't answer a census, but ask Tom Friedman or Bernard Lewis or General Sanchez, and they'll tell you the Iraq war has helped terrorist recruitment. The most revealing thing that I've heard lately is this. Do you know what the Iraqis (the ones that don't like us at least) call the American troops? Jews. They call them the Jews. They don't see a difference at all between us and Israel. If we invade in a muslim country we are all Jews. Now, let me ask you, do you think Israeli incursions and occupations of the Palestinian territories increases or decreases terrorist recruitment? They don't see us as any different. You ask for proof where it is impossible to get it, then claim the lack of proof therefore validates your point, but that point is nonsensical.

Matt:

-----------------------------
"I pay two f-ing dollars per gallon for gas, and I buy at least ten of those gallons each week. Where do you get the idea that we "give nothing" for oil?
-------------------------------

The problem is: how much of that revenue does the broader population actually see? How much goes directly into the pockets of the princes, or goes to pay for arms sales or training the security forces to keep order, or goes to maintaining the oil industry? How much of that is actually getting redistributed downward?

Cecelia:

Thank you for the link, which I'm finding mighty interesting.

One thing to remember: we have to separate the masterminds (UBL, etc.) from the people who actually go out and do most of the aiding, abetting, and suicide bombing. The masterminds of Islamic Fundamentalism are NOT the products of inequality and "injustice"; I would argue that they really believe what they are saying.

It's the masses, the ones who actually strap the bombs to themselves, where we can be effective. These people either 1) feel they have no control over their lives/have no options in their current political system, and get suckered into Wahabbiest "cults," or they've had some past experience where they feel they've been humiliated by the "West," or they've lost someone in the WoT (brother, spouse, child)(see the work of Thomas Friedman, the most centrist of the NYT columnists).

moebius,

I had a feeling that would be your answer. To which I might say, "fair ehough, but that's not our fault. And you might reply, "yes it is, because our government supports the regimes in question."

But even if anti-Americanism in the Middle East can be fairly traced to American support for corrupt, autocratic regimes that grow rich on the backs of their citizens, isn't the main reason we support those regimes -- as opposed to more liberal alternatives -- the fact that the only current, viable alternative appears to be Islamofascist theocracy? If resolving the "root causes" of terrorism means abandonding Israel in a sea of Islamofascists, and hundreds of millions of people to rule by mad mullahs, is it necessarily something to be wished for?

In the same vein, while I find your analysis of how to deal with the problem very interesting, I wonder what would happen if it worked. Suppose we do become independent of Middle Eastern oil. Oil prices crash, revenues dry up, the House of Sa'ud goes bankrupt and collapses in popular revolution, or democratizes. (Taxation doesn't really seem like an option, because the economy is based so heavily on oil. With no oil revenues, no one's making any money and there's nothing much to tax.) And it seems likely to me that the same would be likely, with more or less certainty, in many other Middle Eastern nations. Regardless of how government changed in the wake of a major fall in demand for oil (revolution or democratization), isn't Islamofascism the only likely candidate to fill the power vacuum?

Assuming that it is -- or at least that it prevails over the other candidates -- you have hundreds millions of pissed off, desperately impoverished Muslims under the sway of those same mad mullahs I mentioned earlier. Would this be an improvement?

I don't claim to know that this would happen; I'm no subject-matter expert on Middle Eastern politics. But seems to me like it's at least a realistic possibility.

You might respond, "what, so you're saying we should remain artificially dependent on oil just because you think it might forestall a wider Islamofascist revolution?" The truth is, I don't know. I don't think we ought to do that indefinitely, but I don't think things are quite as simple as just curing our oil addiction, bailing out, and leaving Middle Easterners to fight it out amongst themselves.

Let me make clear, also, that in the preceding comment I was using Saudi Arabia as an example, and I think the problem would be much more widespread than just that country. Thus my references to "hundreds of millions" even though the population of S.A. is only about 25M.

Matt:

Good arguments. Look at North Korea. North Korea largely exists at our (and the UN's) leisure. We give them food and supplies because we're afraid of what happens if things got REALLY bad. Our hope is that some sort of reasonable authoritarian (Deng-like) leader will follow KJI, start to open the country economically, and eventually the revolution of rising expectations will claim the government and the Koreas will reunify. It is simply not in our interest for the Korean peninsula to reunify tomorrow; the poverty discrepency there is many, many times worse that Germany.

In Korea we're searching for a way to cushion the transition, and that's what we SHOULD be doing against the Middle East.

You create a bleak, but accurate continuum: we leave the status quo in place (crappy though it is) or we go on a big unilateral program and bankrupt the Middle East by bailing out of oil in the hopes that they'll democratize. The Bush plan in Iraq is actually similar to this second world, in that we're unilaterally forcing the situation now so we won't have to deal with it later.

The problem is, and the reason I have been against the invasion of Iraq, we have no broader plan for what we're doing in the Middle East. You can't go into a situation like this expecting a three week invasion and two year occupation to magically transform the Middle East. It was frankly naive, and predicated on this Administration's refusal to work hard at anything.

Now, I've outlined the major way to successfully deal with terrorism in the Middle East; cut off the oil money and force them to resolve their problems through internal conversation. There IS an even more radical solution along those lines, but it would not go over well: the US, or some combination of the US, EU, UN and hopefully our reasonable moderate allies on the Arab Street need to rebuild the Arab Street, a la the Marshall Plan.

The Marshall Plan wasn't actually responsible for re-building Western Europe; what it really did was it provided democratic (and anti-communist) forces in Europe with the necessary "carrots" to ease the domestic rebuilding process. This was combined with a planned European-American trade deficit, which allowed European countries to build strong export economies, the proceeds for which were then rolled back into the infrastructure.

The Marshall Plan gave the Europeans the basic goods they needed to keep a lid on social unrest while the GNP was direct toward infrastructure. The same story is largely true in Taiwan and South Korea.

So, if I were in a position of power, my message to the Arab Street (not just the Saudis) would be: "Here's the deal. In 10 years, we're going to cut our need for your oil by 90%. You can do the math on that one.

"Now you have two options. The first is to put your heads in the sand, then watch your children go to the guillotine when the Revolution comes, or end up in exile like the Shah.

"The second is you can play ball and maybe keep some power. We're getting out of oil no matter what, but we'll give you a certain amount of matching funds (say, $100 billion a year for ten years) if you redirect oil revenues into public infrastructure and start to liberalize politically. We'll make sure your population understands that if the radicals take power they don't see a dime from us, and still get shafted when the oil runs dry. By the same token, if you don't use our funds the way we specify, we'll pull out and you'll get nothing.

"Don't worry. We'll help you with your radical clerics. The CIA will continue to run operations in your country to root them out and see they meet your notions of "justice." By the time we pull out, you will be sufficiently modernized that no one will listen to them anyway."

----------------
"fair ehough, but that's not our fault."
----------------

Whether or not it's our fault, this is a war for Hearts and Minds. If the imans convince the Arab street that this is our fault and they're desperate enough to believe it, objective reality starts to fall by the wayside. Is America controlled by a Jewish conspiracy? Ask that question in New York, then again in Cairo, and you'll get different answers.

----------------------
If resolving the "root causes" of terrorism means abandonding Israel in a sea of Islamofascists, and hundreds of millions of people to rule by mad mullahs, is it necessarily something to be wished for?
-----------------------

Or military dictatorships, as we have in Egypt and Pakistan. It's not a good situation any way you cut it. But we're clearly not doing all we can, if we just sit there and sell them arms and buy their oil, but make no effort to push them to develop and democratize. The House of Saud is going to fall whether we support it or not; the best we can hope to do is soften the blow.

We don't have to abandon Israel. We DO have to push the Israelis and Palestinians to get over it. That means statehood, it means Israel getting a leash on the crazy Orthodox parties that are hijacking its politics, and it means outlays of development funding for Palestine.

------------------------
Taxation doesn't really seem like an option, because the economy is based so heavily on oil. With no oil revenues, no one's making any money and there's nothing much to tax.
-------------------------

That's always been my criticism of my colleagues in Political Economy who call the Middle East "developed." A large part of the problem is these states are simply not sustainable, because the costs in infrastructure and border maintanence are so costly. But I would consider states like Baharain and Qatar as potential Middle East success stories; getting out of oil and focusing on construction and infotech.

-------------------------
Isn't Islamofascism the only likely candidate to fill the power vacuum?
-------------------------

The way things stand now? Yes. If you're not willing to deal with the poverty that tends to push people to support fascism, Nazism, Nasserism, Communism, and fundamentalism, then when you take away the old systems this is what's going to pop up.

If the Dems are guilty of 9/10 thinking, then the Reps are guilty of 1918 thinking; if we just pound them hard enough, if we just make the peace onerous enough without giving them anything, if we just use enough force, they'll go away.

What happens if we have 10 years of increasing energy independence, combined with heavy outlays of cash to develop Middle Eastern infrastructure (butter instead of guns)? Maybe something better.

wow moebius you make some really great points there buddy, you ought to have a blog to really get it all out there, a comments section just doesn't do you justice

moeby,

"Now...what was that UBL video REALLY about: It was about fucking with us. And it succeeded."

I guess they did with you.

"I guess they did with you."

What an insightful analysis, David. Thank you for adding insight and depth to the conversation, unlike Matt, who blathered on with actual arguments and facts.

How did you respond to the video? If it made you mad, then it fucked with you. Did it not make you mad? Did you blow it off? Shrug when you saw it?

Considering it owned the news cycle Friday and dominated both campaigns, I'd say it was pretty effective.

moeby,

"If it made you mad, then it fucked with you. Did it not make you mad? Did you blow it off? Shrug when you saw it?"

Well, you don't get to define the parameters of the debate. It obviously really did fuck with you.

Further, don't assume that what you have to say is worth debating.

As for me, the effect was negligible. Bin Pigpen endorsed Mr. Kerry. What did we expect? He said if we had a foreign policy like Sweden's, he'd play nice and not attack us anymore.

I kinda took that as a very good sign. Previously, bin Pigpen had been talking about recapturing "Andalusia" (Spain), and bringing down the whole of Western Civilization.

Now he's essentially crying "uncle" with a lot of bluster, saying, like children in the backseat of the car, "I'll keep my hands on my side if you keep your hands on your side."

Maybe he'll even draw an invisible line right down the middle.

He's on the mat, and he knows it. He sends videotapes instead of airliners, now.

And he figures the guy who'll let him up off the mat is Mr. Kerry. I figure he's right. Which is a big part of the reason I'll be pulling the lever for President Bush on Tuesday.

In the meanwhile, he did fuck with you. He's in your head, banging around, making you miserable, making you question your next step. With you, he got precisely the reaction for which he was looking.

My sympathies.

Really.

Notice the color of the robes. THE GREAT PUMPKIN HAS RETURNED.

Hugh McBryde

moebius,

This has easily been one of the most interesting exchanges I've had on a blog in -- well, since I've been reading blogs. Thanks.

Matt,

No problem...I enjoyed it too.