You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The right-wing is dead wrong - Osama wants Bush elected [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
EarlG ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-04 01:29 PM
Original message
The right-wing is dead wrong - Osama wants Bush elected
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Sat Oct-30-04 01:33 PM by EarlG
Okay, I'm getting sick and tired of right-wing media brown-nosers trying to spin this Osama video in favor of George W. Bush.

Let's look at the facts.

* Bush ignored warnings before 9/11.
* After bin Laden attacked us Bush vowed to capture him "dead or alive."
* Six months later Bush said "I'm not that concerned about him."
* Now bin Laden shows up in a video laughing at America.

Bush has turned the "war on terror" into a joke. But much worse than that, he is giving radical Islamists exactly what they want. This latest bin Laden appearance should not be spun into a "boost" for Bush. Its very existence is a crushing indictment of Bush's disastrous foreign policy and mishandling of the war on terror.

Consider this partial translation of an Arab website's analysis of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi's recent "pledge of fealty" to Osama bin Laden which we were made aware of today:

In the name of God, the Merciful and the Compassionate

Thanks to God, Lord of the Worlds, and the outcome to those who fear Him; no aggression shall be except on oppressors; prayer and peace upon the one who was sent for the mercy of the people, upon his family and his companions.

I happened to read an analysis in one of the News sites, "Middle East," under the subject: "Why has Zarqawi decided to pledge fealty to Bin Laden now?" I found the writer to be in great confusion, quoting several opinions, and coming to the conclusion that: "The explanations are extremely contradictory in justifying this declaration!!!"

I believe that the flaw lies in the lack of understanding of Al-Qaedas strategy in managing the war against the Americans. In order to clarify the picture and show the truth, I am going to go through some of the opinions, adding some guidance to them.

(snip)

There is no doubt that the confirmation that this statement gave about the inexistence of a relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda was not intentional; for, in my opinion, Al-Qaeda is not aiming at getting Bush to lose the upcoming elections, as some might believe. Al-Qaeda knows very well that Bushs policy in Iraq and Afghanistan serves the Jihad to a great extent. The increase in hostility towards the Americans by all of kinds of people, is terrifying the wise Americans, to the extent that many of their allies (the Philippines, Spain, Honduras, ad the Dominican Republic) walked out on them after only one year of the war. What will be the case if the war lasts for years and years?!!

It is worth mentioning that the Mujahideen are prepared for a long lasting war, that could go on for decades, until the fall of America into the same trap that the Mujahideen had set for the Soviets in the past.

Nowadays, we hear of statements signed by hundreds of American politicians, military people, and thinkers warning of the consequences of the policy of 'Bush Junior' in his war on terror in general, and in Iraq in particular.

As for Kerry, we are positive that he is not less hostile than Bush, and so is the case of all the occupants of the 'Black House'

What I mean to say here, is that the Mujahideen prefer the re-election of 'Bush Junior' because his policy is a mixture of arrogance, pride, recklessness and eagerness. These qualities are most important in leading the Americans to an early defeat, God willing. This fact brings us to believe that Al-Qaeda is not necessarily looking at weakening Bushs election winning ticket, by exposing his lying about the motives of the war on Iraq.

Now here's Bush's former terrorism chief, Richard Clarke. This is a transcript of last night's Nightline with Clarke and Professor Akbar Ahmed:

AHMED: If president bush is re-elected, it helps osama bin laden. It helps president musharraf, the two enemies in that. It helps both of them. Because it secures musharraf in pakistan it secures osama bin laden, his base. He needs an america that is on the war path against him, to be able to say america's attacking islam, in fact, so he's twisting what is happening from america.

KOPPEL: Do you agree, richard?

CLARKE: I do. I think it's obvious he's trying to affect the u.S. Election. This is the second audio/visual tape we've received in the last week from al qaeda, addressed to the american people. And he attacked the president in the way that, i think, is designed to get the american people to move to bush's side. He's a smart guy, osama bin laden, and he knows if he attacks bush that will strengthen bush. Why does he want bush as president? Because bush, as president, gives him the symbol that gets all these people joining al qaeda. Bush is the symbol that has increased recruitment for al qaeda, and has increased money flow for al qaeda. Bush is the symbol for all of the jihadists throughout the muslim world who hate america.

There is plenty of evidence to support this:

The London-based Al-Quds al-Arabi said on its Web site that it had received a statement from "The Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri (search) (Al Qaeda)" in which the group reiterated its responsibility for the March 11 attacks (in Madrid) that killed more than 200 people and wounded more than 1,600 ... The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html

And then there's:

The occupation of Iraq has provided a "potent global recruitment pretext" for al-Qaida and probably increased worldwide terrorism, a leading thinktank said yesterday. Despite some losses, al-Qaida has more than 18,000 potential terrorists at large and its ranks are growing, the International Institute for Strategic Studies said, adding that al-Qaida now had a presence in more than 60 countries.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1224821...

Or how about:


The State Department acknowledged Thursday it was wrong in reporting terrorism declined worldwide last year. Instead, both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122403,00.html

And let's not forget:

TEHRAN, Iran - The head of Iran's security council said on Tuesday the re-election of President Bush (news - web sites) was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.

"We should not forget that most sanctions and economic pressures were imposed on Iran during the time of Clinton," Rowhani said of the former Democratic president. "And we should not forget that during Bush's era despite his hard-line and baseless rhetoric against Iran he didn't take, in practical terms, any dangerous action against Iran."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041...

The right-wing spin on this is despicable. Take the recent Washington Times story which Drudge has been touting. The title is "Terrorists hope to defeat Bush through Iraq violence." Oh really? From the article itself:

Mowafaq Al-Tai, a London-educated architect and intellectual, said different types of resistance fighters have different views of the U.S. election. The most pro-Kerry, he said, are the former Saddam Hussein loyalists Ba'ath Party members and others who think Washington might scale back its ambitions for Iraq if Mr. Kerry wins, allowing them to re-enter civic life.

The most pro-Bush, he said, are the foreign extremists. "They prefer Bush, because he's a provocative figure, and the more they can push people to the extreme, the better for their case."

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001136.h...

Foreign extremists inside Iraq = al Qaeda. Way to go, Washington Times.

So come on, DU. Let's crush this right-wing spin. Spread this around, and if you know of any other examples of the terrorists endorsing Bush, let's have 'em.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC