QandO

Saying that al Qaeda wants Bush out of office isn't the same thing as saying that al Qaeda thinks Kerry is a great guy. It's clear to me that al Qaeda would rather have anyone in office but Bush, and would do whatever they could to make that possible. The fact that Kerry is running against him is immaterial.

It's not that Kerry's election would advance their cause, but it is certainly true that having Bush out of office would.

Posted by: Steverino at May 28, 2004 07:59 AM

The bottom line Drum doesn't want to admit is that kerry being elected WOULD in fact be an inslamofacist victory.

And his not wanting to admit that, in my view earns him his own title: a despicable worm.. a revolting, loathsome, toad.

Posted by: BitHead at May 28, 2004 08:19 AM

>>kerry being elected WOULD in fact be an inslamofacist victory

Bithead, if you wanted to create a slogan, a meme, a single piece of rhetoric that would be perfectly crafted to drive moderates away from the Republican party, this is it. So by all means, keep saying it.

Posted by: Tom at May 28, 2004 09:05 AM

Comon, lets be real here. I think that it's not moonbattery to believe Kerry would be the adversary the terrorists would rather face than Bush.

On Iraq- which is a real battleground on terror- Kerry has repeatedly and constantly shown he wants more UN involvement and less US involvement. That is a MAJOR victory for the terrorists right there. Getting the UN heavily involved in anything at this point is a disaster. Kerry, if nothing else, also at least projects that he'd be more likely to be less resolute in committing troops where needed, or he would seek UN/international approval as a sort of veto power. Again- a victory for the terrorists.

Kerry- by his own words and deeds- is projecting that he'd be softer in the war on terror. So yes, the terrorists WOULD want him in office more than Bush.

And YES, the terrorists percieve a victory in Spain (even if the people voted against Aznar govt because of their response to the attack, AQ doesn't draw such a distinction) - so, putting those 2 together, why is it so despicable to posit that AQ wants to attack the US to influence the election towards Kerry?

Posted by: shark at May 28, 2004 09:13 AM

And now that Kevin is done with that, he can go back to his Al Gorish ranting about Ashcrofts jackbooted patriot-act fueled stormtroopers destroying civil liberties and intimidating valiant librarians...

Posted by: shark at May 28, 2004 09:14 AM

>> it's not moonbattery to believe Kerry would be the adversary the terrorists would rather face than Bush

No it isn't. I happen to believe Kerry will be better on terrorism than Bush; you're perfectly entitled to believe otherwise. And the waters are somewhat muddied because people are confusing whether the rhetorical line coming from some Republicans/Ashcroft is "kerry victory=actual victory for bin laden" or "kerry victory=perceived victory for bin laden on the part of terrorists" (Though I also think this ambiguity is calculated.) What's over the line and despicable is the assertion that if your fellow Americans go to the polls and vote for the candidate you, Rep. Tom Cole, BitHead, Darth Emperor Misha, etc. deem inferior, that it constitutes an actual "victory for bin Laden." That's bullshit. Any time we hold democratic elections it is a victory for the vitality and continued existence of our system, and is in and of itself an explicit repudiation of everything al-Qaeda stands for, and is therefore a defeat for radical Islamism. But as we get closer to election day, I fully expect to hear more handwringing and poisonous rhetoric like what BitHead and Rep. Tom Cole were saying, and I equally expect that kind of rhetoric to backfire electorally.

Furthermore, if there's a terrorist attack, and if Americans vote for Kerry and he wins, then who gives a fuck if al-Qaeda draws the conclusion that they've won a victory? Fuck them and their conclusions, Americans are going to vote for whoever we think is the best candidate at the time of the election, regardless of what the terrorists think, and I will be goddamned if I let a terrorist sway my vote with his approval or disapproval.

Posted by: Tom at May 28, 2004 10:03 AM

For the record, I don't pretend to know the hidden motivations of Bin Laden, nor do I know who they would prefer be elected President.

Nor do I care. I won't be voting to spite them, and I hope nobody else does.

That having been said, it doesn't matter who they want to win, or whether we change our votes in response to an Al Qaeda attack....it only matters that they may percieve themselves as having some influence.

That would be a "victory for Bin Laden", regardless of who it theoretically "put in office".

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 28, 2004 10:13 AM

Jon, I'm glad to see you don't think we should change our votes according to how we imagine al-Qaeda might interpret them. I think we can agree that the only real influence al-Qaeda wants to have on our system is to destroy it. But I'm a bit confused by what you meant here:

>>"it only matters that they may percieve themselves as having some influence."

But if we both agree that we can't really do anything about their perceptions, then why does it "matter"? And again, I refer you to my earlier point: Fuck al Qaeda and their perceptions. ;) With either a Bush or Kerry win, they'll have a way to spin it in their favor, so why worry about it?

Posted by: Tom at May 28, 2004 10:38 AM

Hm...I guess the best answer would be this multiple choice question:
- Al Qaeda is more likely to attack the US around election time if:
a: they think they can sway an election through terrorism.
b: they think terrorism will not sway an election.

Note that neither choice depends on whether they actually *can* sway an election...just on whether they believe they can do so.

And, of course, I am operating on the belief that "making an attack less likely" is important. So, the trick is to make them believe that an attack will only make us more determined to get 'em.

However we could do that.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 28, 2004 10:47 AM

Furthermore, if there's a terrorist attack, and if Americans vote for Kerry and he wins, then who gives a fuck if al-Qaeda draws the conclusion that they've won a victory?

I give a fuck. Because if AQ thinks that they can sway elections through terrorist attacks, then look out for a terrorist attack before just about every Presidential election for the rest of your life. I'd much rather AQ didn't believe they were so powerful.

I will repeat myself: it's not a Kerry win that AQ is looking for, it's a Bush loss. AQ likely doesn't care a whit about Kerry, they just want Bush to lose. But any slogan that says Kerry is the choice of terrorists is just stupid.

Posted by: Steverino at May 28, 2004 11:03 AM

What's over the line and despicable is the assertion that if your fellow Americans go to the polls and vote for the candidate you, Rep. Tom Cole, BitHead, Darth Emperor Misha, etc. deem inferior, that it constitutes an actual "victory for bin Laden." That's bullshit. Any time we hold democratic elections it is a victory for the vitality and continued existence of our system, and is in and of itself an explicit repudiation of everything al-Qaeda stands for, and is therefore a defeat for radical Islamism. But as we get closer to election day, I fully expect to hear more handwringing and poisonous rhetoric like what BitHead and Rep. Tom Cole were saying, and I equally expect that kind of rhetoric to backfire electorally.

Yeah, you know it's great that a free election is held, it's a repudiation of AQ yadda yadda yadda, but comon- if AQ gets the desired outcome (for ANY reason, even thorough nothing they did) that's what they'll see. Not that it was a free election or any of that pie in the sky stuff that we can figure out.

I think it is 100% reasonable to take into account WHO the terrorists are rooting for to win the election when you go into the voting booth.

Vote whoever you want, but be aware of the consequences. Remember all the people who voted for Gore? I wonder how many of them would admit it today...

Posted by: shark at May 28, 2004 11:16 AM

Let's see here. The Bush administration has blundered and mired us into an occupation with only a peripheral relation to the well-identified enemy in the WoT, that has, in fact, served to recruit the increasingly disaffected to the terrorists' banner. The occupation has strained our military to the limits, for all the world to see, and thus has profoundly limited our ability to pursue the WoT on all its fronts. Those in the world who don't view us uneasily are laughing their asses off, squandering any good will that being the victims of 9/11, and a beacon for democracy, had brought us hitherto.

Hell, I think the terrorists can't wait for a second Bush term. If I were Kerry, I would worry that al Qaeda was plotting an assassination attempt in me.

Posted by: Bloggerhead at May 28, 2004 11:54 AM

Judging by Al Qaeda's demands that we withdraw from Iraq - and the fact that they are diverting quite a lot of their members to fight and die in Iraq - I don't think reality quite measures up to the scenario you describe.

In fact, they seem quite concerned about Iraq.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 28, 2004 12:02 PM

>>"I give a fuck. Because if AQ thinks that they can sway elections through terrorist attacks, then look out for a terrorist attack before just about every Presidential election for the rest of your life."

This is the world we're living in, Steverino. Do you really think we can appease them so they won't bomb our elections? I don't. I think Al Qaeda is going to continue to try and murder us and disrupt our system whenever and wherever they can, regardless. So we vote for the person we think is the best candidate. We don't let them disrupt or directly affect our elections by voting based on some hypothetical message we suspect the terrorists may or may not receive from our elections; or worse, vote for one guy because you think it might prevent a bombing. By your logic, we should wait for al-Qaeda to endorse a candidate, then vote the opposite. Are you for real?

>>"I think it is 100% reasonable to take into account WHO the terrorists are rooting for to win the election when you go into the voting booth."

It might make sense if there were a way to determine it. Obviously you think it's Kerry. Personally, I think they will spin it to their benefit either way. But we can't believe anything AQ says, so why play their guessing game to begin with? Me, I'm not interested in appeasing or anti-appeasing them one way or another; I'm voting for the candidate I think is the best, al Qaeda be damned. I advise you do the same.

Posted by: Tom at May 28, 2004 12:09 PM

Of course, I meant "an assassination attempt on me." Actually, not on me, on...well, you get the idea: an election victory for Bush is quite arguably a victory for al Qaeda, contrary to the conventional wingjob wisdom.

Posted by: Bloggerhead at May 28, 2004 12:10 PM

Tom;

You suggest that Kerr would be better on terrorism. I'm curious on what you base your assertion. Keep in mind if you're dealing basing your assertion on what the candidate has said, it can be easily counters, in his own words. The point being, a matter of trust.... or in Kerry's case, mistrust. This is not a matter of nuance, as his supporters like to suggest, but rather opportunism at best, and in truth lying for political gain.

And the victory for BinLaden depends utterly on whom it is we elect.

Kerry has shown himself to be all over the board on every issue under the sun, including, unfortunate for us and the remainder of the world as well, terrorism. He is therefore unqualified, untrustworthy, and a danger to America, and to the world.

Posted by: Bithead at May 28, 2004 12:16 PM

Do you really think we can appease them so they won't bomb our elections?

Straw man. I never claimed al Qaeda could be appeased, nor would I make such a foolish claim. What I said was that if AQ thinks that they have manipulated our election through their own actions, they will continue to attempt to do so, whenever they wish. Moreover, AQ isn't the only terrorist organization out there; if other organizations see success by one group, they will also be emboldened to act.

The only solution is to start eliminating terrorists: fight them wherever we find them.

Posted by: Steverino at May 28, 2004 12:19 PM

>>The only solution is to start eliminating terrorists: fight them wherever we find them.

I totally agree.

>>if AQ thinks that they have manipulated our election through their own actions, they will continue to attempt to do so

Like you, I really, really wish there was a way to stop AQ from making irrational inferences. Should I take this to mean that if Kerry's winning in the final week, and there's an attack, you will vote for him to prevent AQ from thinking they affected the elections?

Anyway, there is no AQ anymore; it's diffused into hundreds of groups, so there's no point speculating or even caring what any or all of them think. Secondly, given that this is likely to be a close election, if there's a bombing near the election, at least some terrorists are going to believe that they affected the election one way or another, either by preserving or affecting the margin. There's literally no way to stop them from making irrational inferences, Steverino, and it's not the voter's job to prioritize AQ's hypothetical perceptions over the primary purpose of elections, which is to select the best candidate.

Posted by: Tom at May 28, 2004 12:52 PM

>>You suggest that Kerr would be better on terrorism. I'm curious on what you base your assertion.

Look, man, I'm not here to troll. Likewise, I'm not here to expand this into a big debate about why I support Kerry in general, esp. on a conservative blog where I'll get piled on. While I think Kerry's a better candidate regarding terror, I'm not trying to convince you of such; nor would I refer to a Bush victory as a "victory for bin Laden," so let's just leave it at that.

I just want to make my point about how the best response to election bombings is to "stay the course," so to speak; as well as the foolishness of trying to calculate your vote to give the terrorists the opposite effect from what you imagine they desire.

Posted by: Tom at May 28, 2004 01:02 PM

Look, man, I'm not here to troll.

- - -Obviously not, and I appreciate your contributions.

"esp. on a conservative blog where I'll get piled on"

- - -I can't speak for the readers, but the 3 bloggers at this site are not conservatives. We are all libertarians (or, more accurately, Neolibertarians)

"the best response to election bombings is to "stay the course," so to speak"

- - -We agree, wholeheartedly.

Frankly, I don't think the AQ leadership has a great stake in our election. What we perceive as dramatic differences between Bush and Kerry are, to them, shades of black. A good argument can be made either way, but I'm not terribly interested in those arguments....they largely rest on your assumptions about the nature of the war on terror and the Iraq war, anyway.

What bothers me, though, is Kevin's assertion that Ashcroft is saying that Al Qaeda is rooting for Kerry. Kevin's inferences are his own problem.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 28, 2004 01:21 PM

Well, frankly, Jon, I don't think Ashcroft said it. Which is too bad; he'd be correct. Consider Spain; explosions for the purpose of tilting their government to the leftist appeasers
.
Do you seriously think they don't want the same result here in the states? Sorry, no sale.

Posted by: Bithead at May 28, 2004 01:47 PM

Well, that's good to hear. I'm glad we can agree that whenever we read or hear anyone speculate which candidate al-Qaeda would prefer, we can immediately tell they're a hack. Apparently CNN did this today. It's going to be a long summer, and I think this particular issue is going to pop up again and again.

What's a neo-libertarian? And also, I'm curious about the etymology of the ancient joke saying that a libertarian is just a Republican who smokes pot. Do you know its origin? Lenny Bruce? Bill Hicks?

Posted by: Tom at May 28, 2004 02:26 PM

I like your style, Bithead (any relation to Buckethead by chance?). Vote Bush if there's no attack, vote Bush if there is an attack. Either way it's a vote for "appeasers." Fine. But I don't really understand the nuances of your position. Are you saying that if there is a bombing, people can't react by supporting a different candidate? That they are supposed to vote according to their best guess as to what would keep the poll numbers the same as they were the day before the bombing? Or is it keep the polls going in the same trajectory, i.e. the rate of gain and loss the same for each candidate, and that rate of change cannot change? Because if Kerry's losing one point a day before the bombing, and afterwards he's only losing half a point per day, then the terrorists will think they've been appeased and will therefore win!

>>Do you seriously think they don't want the same result here in the states?

No doubt by this point you've seen that the group responsible for the Spanish bombings, "the Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri," has endorsed Bush.

>>"We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections." The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world.>> (foxnews.com, not sure how to post links)

But hold off on buying those John Kerry yard signs! It may be that the Masri Brigades are going for a double-reverse psyche-out, in which they pretend to support one candidate, knowing we'll do the opposite, instead of the one they really want! So we should vote Bush! Unless they knew we would draw that conclusion, in which case it's back to Kerry. But notice they're totally silent about Nader -- maybe he's the one they fear the most!

I hate to say it, cause it's so cliched, but by playing this game, Bithead, you're letting the terrorists win.

The funny thing is, I know plenty of Republicans who think like you that an attack would mean America would go wobbly and "appease" the terrorists with a Kerry victory. I know even more Democrats who think a last-minute bombing would lead to a Bush landslide. So it's funny to think, Bithead, that even though we can't decide what we think would happen, that you imagine we can somehow predict what the terrorists would expect to happen, and plan our votes accordingly.

Posted by: Tom at May 28, 2004 02:56 PM

The fact of the matter is they got what they wantd, in Spain... the leftist candidate... the one sure to reduce the fighting they'd have to go through to achieve their stated goals. I ask again, do you realy think they'd not want that here, as well?

Posted by: Bithead at May 28, 2004 03:59 PM

>>The fact of the matter is they got what they wantd

Apparently they want a Bush victory, too. Did you read their statement?

Posted by: Tom at May 28, 2004 04:10 PM

LOL Tom, that was their moronic attempt at reverse psychology

Posted by: shark at May 28, 2004 04:22 PM

MAN IN BLACK

All right: where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right and who is dead.

VIZZINI

But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet, or his enemy's?

He studies the Man In Black now.
VIZZINI

Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I'm not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

MAN IN BLACK
(And now there's a trace of nervousness beginning)

You've made your decision then7

VIZZINI

Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

MAN IN BLACK

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

WACKY HERMIT

Vote your conscience.

Posted by: Wacky Hermit at May 28, 2004 08:10 PM

I believe the following things.

AQ and other terrorist organizations would rather have Kerry as President than Bush. Bush is a known factor as far as going to war and without the UN's blessing. Kerry on the other hand is known to sway with the wind on his current beliefs and (if you pay attention to the media) half the Democratic party want the soldiers to come home right away anyway.

I think that AQ will attack before the elections and believe that this will help Kerry get elected.

I believe that the attack will have just the opposite affect. Saddam understimated the US twice. Once with Senior Bush and once with the current Bush. Both times he wanted to create a holy war and both times it failed to appear.

Terrorist attacks in Spain influenced that election and it would influence ours, but in my belief the opposite way. Americans would be more ticked off and willing to stay in and finish the fight if more civilians got killed.

What is a good way to create terror? Stick some car bombs filled with nails outside a school and about 10 min after school lets out blow them.

Why hasnt this happened yet? Schools are very soft targets and cars parked outside around the time for them to get out wouldnt be unusual. Dynamite is relatively easy to get within our country not to mention a number of other relatively volatile chemicals to make a bomb. Number of casualties would be medium to high depending upon size of bomb and when it was detonated. Amount of terror created would be quite high. Parents wouldnt be sending kids to schools for weeks. On top of that put the bombs in heavily minority areas in the battleground states.

Now an outsider who only views America through our newspapers and TV programs would think that Bush would be drummed from office for such an act. Reality though, IMO, is that people would be up in arms enough where the first reporter asking about civilian casualties from bombing or talking about Abu Graib may well become a casualty himself.

Just my thoughts.

Posted by: retired military at May 29, 2004 06:17 PM

As much as I enjoy discourse, for the sake of discourse, this becomes a stupid debate...

We're talking about terrorists. Terrorists look for events to make a statement, even when the statement is no clearer than "we hate you and you are vulnerable to our attack." That makes the election an event which would strike our confidence and cause a chaotic debate.

It makes sense for the administration to warn AQ not to attack to influence the election, without stating what AQ's electoral preference might be. Who cares what AQ's electoral preference might be, considering that they even have one? Would it influence your vote if you knew authoritatively what it was? With or without the attack?

AQ wants a weakened US first. It wants an anti-Israel/Islamic-friendly US second. We can debate whether AQ thinks either candidate has or will be more favorable to those desires, but if the choice is attacking the US or not (and the unpredictability of an election and the impact of an attack), I'm guessing they'll lean for attacking. Ashcroft should warn them not to, and that we'll be looking for them, but they'll do it anyway if they can.

Posted by: Tim at June 1, 2004 10:44 AM