Roger L. Simon: Not MY Al Jazeera?

That most progressive of all media outlets actually censored "Bin Laden's" tape, only showing six of eighteen minutes, fearing it might make Binny seem weak. That's the strongest evidence I have seen yet that it actually is Bin Laden. According to the New York Post:

Officials said that in the 18-minute long tape - of which only six minutes were aired on the al-Jazeera Arab television network in the Middle East on Friday - bin Laden bemoans the recent democratic elections in Afghanistan and the lack of violence involved with it.

But those who have seen the tape have said there was no specific information regarding an attack.

It's those pesky elections again. If they come off well in Iraq and Kerry has won ours, what an irony that will be! (Let's make sure it doesn't happen.)

UPDATE: MEMRI (no surprise - they may be the greatest single information resource on the Internet) has the most complete analysis. Apparently (again no surprise) the US media mistranslated Bin Laden and there is more direct intervention in the US election intended by the "Sheik," against Bush, of course. Hindrocket wonders why the mainstream media isn't covering this. I assume... no, I know... he's being rhetorical.

MEANWHILE: Via PeterUK, the Beeb's readers react to the Bin Laden tape. [Pour yourself a double-brandy first.-ed.]

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

This undercuts the last justification the Democrats have for ousting Bush (unless one believes the most important issue is "taxcuts for the rich" or "the 'uninsured'" or some other relatively trivial issue.)

The Democratic charge the Bush "neglected Bin Laden to undertake an unjustified war against Saddam Hussein" is refuted by Bin Laden himself!

Now, perhaps they can take some comfort in Bin Laden's "confirming" that Iraq is "all about oil."

It's less than 48 hours to election day. If the terrorists are going to lauch an attack, if they can, they'd better do it soon.

And when they do, the East Coast Democracts will cower at home while the rest of the country votes George Bush into office. I doubt the terrorists understand that even yet.

Has anyone been able to get their hands on the full tape? From the NY Post comments, it seems to be a pretty strong endorsement of
(i.e. complaint about) our country's actions so far--so it would seem that the electorate ought to see the whole thing.

“A portion of the left-out footage includes a tirade aimed at President Bush and his father, former President George H.W. Bush, claiming the war in Iraq is purely over oil.”

My guess is that the editors of al-Jazeera are far more politically sophisticated than Osama bin Ladin. They are likely very well aware that this alleged portion of the tape would help George W. Bush’s reelection chances. Osama does not seem in the best of health. His silence in the last few years is most assuredly due to severe physical problems. Nothing else makes any sense.

Osama is a supreme example of the true believer mindset. He will gravitate towards any hate filled ideology, however contradictory it may initially seem, to fuel his nihilism. This monster must be killed. Osama is like a rabid dog. He is existentially unable to ever again live a normal life.

What does it say about bin Laden's actual remaining clout that Al Jazeera dared to edit him?

Could it be that bin Laden's near-death experience three years ago still affects him. I seem to recall that Khadafi's survival of the bombing of his tent compound in Tripoli in 1986 provided similar epiphany. If I recall correctly he maintained a very low profile for years thereafter.

OBL's weak appeal against GWB and America convinces me that our campaign against Islamic radicalism has been hugely successful to date.

I pointed out to my Dem wife that OBL was evidently supporting Kerry. She seemed sincerely worried that it might be true, and it gave her pause in her decision to support Kerry on Tuesday. I just want to thank OBL for providing me this ultimate ammunition in swinging her vote. I'm confident that two more days will bring her around to make the right decision.

Something troubles me about the alleged unedited tape: Why would bin Laden, who is not stupid, whatever else he might be, publicly state that his organizaton has been weakened?

Who here believes it is possible to get a reliable translation of the full original, or knows where to get one?

There is plenty of evidence available that the tactic of "Hudna"is used today,the Oslo Accord for example and the speech of bin Laden just another instance.The following example was just quickly culled from the web.

"The most famous Hudna took place in 628 when the prophet Mohammed entered into a peace pact with the elders of Medina in the town of Hud ay Biyyah. The truce was to last for 9 years, 9 months, and 9 days. After two years, Mohammed violated the treaty and attacked and defeated the tribal leaders.

This story from the Koran teaches followers of Islam two important lessons. That one can make a treaty with non-believers when you are weak and it is in your best interest, and after you have revitalized your strength you may break the treaty. It is the Koranic or Muslim version of a Trojan Horse -- the gesture or the gift becomes the catalyst for your enemy’s defeat."

Calling for a Hudna is one thing, but I still share Alina's concern that Bin Laden would state that his organization was weakened. This doesn't appear in character, and even if you are calling for a truce you generally try to do it from a position of strength.

I remain unconvinced that Bin Laden isn't dead. Although, if I turn out to be wrong--and he is captured in the caravan of limos that is being reported--that would require some interesting thought and analysis! I think this is one time when I actually hope that, if he is alive, we don't capture him, because the timing would just be too coincidental.

My day? Wake up. Stand up. Hit head on cieling. Stoke fire pit. Prepare couscous. Burn couscous. Eat burnt couscous. Step out onto front ledge. Stare down at rock filled gorge. Stare up at vulture. Go back in. Beat Achmed. Beat first wife. Beat other wives. Beat head on rock wall. Fall down on filthy carpet. Decide to make tape. Address tape to infidels: PLEASE INFIDELS, TIME OUT!!!

"WHY BUSH LET ZARQAWI GET AWAY....What's the real reason that the Bush administration failed to go after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi back in 2002 when it had the chance? We may never know for sure, but Daniel Benjamin, author of The Age of Sacred Terror, suggests that it's yet another example of the Bush circle's outmoded and dangerously blinkered fixation on state-sponsored terrorism:

What seems evident is that the administration viewed Zarqawi as a lower-tier concern, despite his well-known history of running an Afghan terrorist training camp and conducting terrorist operations in Europe. The White House was unwilling to divert any effort from the buildup for war in Iraq to this kind of threat.

The idea that states are the real issue and terrorists and their organizations are of secondary concern has been present throughout the Bush presidency....After 9/11, senior officials such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, simply refused to believe the assessment of the intelligence community that Iraq had no hand in the attack and that al-Qaida operated independently of state support. In the Pentagon's conduct of operations in Afghanistan, the overwhelming focus was on unseating the Taliban, the effective state power, while less attention was paid to pursuing al-Qaida, which had just killed nearly 3,000 people on American soil.

....Similarly, the relentless focus on Saddam Hussein has led to the removal from Afghanistan of key intelligence and special operations assets, including much of the elite commando unit Task Force 5. This, like the case of the pulled punch against Zarqawi, suggests that the Bush team continued to believe that states were the key threats in the post-9/11 world; terrorist groups could easily be swept up after the rogue nations had been dispatched.

9/11 woke everyone up, but that's not enough. It's hard to see how we're going to make serious progress in the war on terror until we have an administration that understands not just that the world has changed, but how it's changed. The Bush team seems peculiarly unable to get its arms around that."

That piece from the Washington Monthly about sums up why objective and intelligent voters won't be going Bush's way on November 2nd. Above that post, Drum points out that a much higher percentage of Bush voters have false beliefs about Iraq's connections to Al Qaida (75% think they were closely allied) and to have possessed WMD's on the eve of the war (72% missed the boat on that one).

Bush's supporters have also had to perform mental gymnastics when it came to listening to their Chosen One on the subject of 379 tons of missing explosives: Bush criticized Kerry for allegedly blaming the troops (which Kerry, being smarter than that, didn't) for the missing explosives, while virtually simultaneously, Rudy Guliani blamed the "troops in the field" for the fiasco. Guess Rudy didn't pick up his copy of the Talking Points for the day.

By the way, anybody else hear the chants of "Four More Years" at a recent Bush rally and get chills from the eery similarity to the faithful shouting "Sieg Heil" 70 years ago? Maybe it's just the mindless chanting of a mob, something which seems very un-American.

P.S. to the Internet Faithful: if you've been wondering if I've somehow been chased away by rude comments or "brilliant" deconstruction of my arguments- Nope. Just Roger censoring his site to limit uncomfortable arguments and facts which can not be refuted. If you doubt this is true, just check the archives and you will see where he deletes posts that conflict with his tremulous and fallacious observations. Of course, it's his site, and he can do with it what he wants- just don't pretend that you're actually having reasoned debate here. If you were, I'd enjoy participating.

So why do I post? It's just a fun time out from my efforts to defeat Bush and get someone other than him in office. And for the n'th time (where "n" equals any number greater than 1) I'm not in the pay of George Soros or anybody else. You're not in a battleground state, and even if you were, you're (a) too few to matter and (b) ideologically blinded to contrary facts. But if anyone out there working for Soros does want to slip me a few bucks, give Roger a call. He knows how to get in touch with me.

P.S. I was interviewed by a New York Times Reporter the other day about efforts to stifle the Hispanic Vote (I was involved in assisting dozens of voters who had been challenged because of their Hispanic surnames) and the reporter was interested in my opinion as to whether or not the effort was part of a Republican strategy of stifling the vote. I said no. When the reporter asked what I'd say if our state's Democratic chair or the Kerry campaign said otherwise, I replied that I was the one who was actually there and they weren't. I was the one who talked to everyone involved- the challengers and the Hispanic voters challenged, and in my opinion it was a purely local affair related to local politics, not part of a nationwide effort.

The upshot: I'm a Democrat and Kerry supporter who had an opportunity to further demonize the national Republican "Stifle the Vote" campaign in an article which will (or has) run in the NY Times before the election. But I passed up the chance in the interest of speaking the truth. That may cause some further cognitive dissonance in primitive Republican brains- I'm sure some of you (Terrye, John M., Rhod, etc.) will mentally edit this story and come up with the opposite as so many of you have in the past to my amazement- when I said X and not Y, many of you said I said "Y." Guess it's part of the psychological defense mechanism Republican Kool Aid drinkers are using this year.

However, even though on this one occasion the RNC wasn't involved, you don't have to look any farther than recent stories from Ohio and Florida for unashamed up-front Republican efforts to tie up voting in black and Democratic precincts on election day- a strategy somewhat foiled by a recent judge's decision (in Ohio) to limit them to one poll watcher per precinct.

Gee, high self-opinion maybe? How impressive that you told the truth even though it didn't benefit your side. You know, those of us on the right have never done that. We just spout the party line, marching in lock-step to our master.

C'mon. You say you want a reasoned debate, and yet you evoke Nazi imagery when talking about the President? That isn't the type of thing that leads to reasoned debate. Sorry if Kerry's crowds tend to be scarily apathetic--or is that the epitome of reasoned politics?

Do a little more research into the missing explosives. There was more to the story than reached the pages of the New York Times. The Washington Post did a fairer job.

And, as to whether "our guy" understands the war we are in, Michael Totten posts an article by Marc Danziger from Winds oof Change that discusses what is likely to be the Kerry strategy. (read the article here http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000580.html)

Ah, Clayton, we caught you making up stuff long ago. No one is paying any attention to you anymore.

I'm posting the following for two reasons: (1) to see if anyone here can find any similar efforts by the DNC or local Democratic parties to disenfranchise Republican voters in 2004 (repeat- "in 2004") and (2) to observe the mental gymnastics you use to avoid confronting the facts that the Republican Party is determined to win, even if the majority of voters reject their candidate. Think about it for a minute: since the last election, minority voters no longer trust the process. Current efforts to challenge their right to vote by the Republican Party only reinforce that belief and drive them further away from the Republican Party.

“In Akron on Thursday, Summit County election officials dismissed all 976 challenges and gave those voters immunity from challenge on Election Day as well. Even Republican members of the county election board were critical of the state party after an angry hearing.

"The state party made us look bad," said Alex Arshinkoff, the county Republican chairman and one of two Republican members of the board of elections. He said the party's failure to provide evidence had allowed the Democrats to shift the burden of proof to the challengers instead of the challenged. ...

During the hearing in Akron, a Democratic board member, Russell Pry, asked a Republican volunteer whether she knew a voter she was challenging or had been to the voter's home.

The volunteer, Barbara Miller, said that she had not. She said someone from the state Republican Party had told her to challenge the voter and several hundred others.Mr. Pry warned that because Ms. Miller had no direct evidence, she could be prosecuted for election falsification. She refused to answer more questions, citing the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination....

In addition to petitioning the election boards, Republicans are planning to put monitors at polling sites, mainly in heavily Democratic urban areas, to challenge some people when they show up to vote.”

from the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/politics/campaign/29ohio.html

Loki the Dog,
When you were a kid did you ever wrestle with someone who yelled "I give in let go of me" only to find on doing so you got a bunch of fives in the eyeball? These people are going to say anything to get the coalition to loosen their grip.
It is safer to treat this as Hudna you can only be betrayed by those you trust.

JoHn Clayton,
You earned yourself a brownie point,sadly you lost it again,Jarqawi has been in Iraq since before the invasion.

PeterUK: I agree with the sentiment! I was only commenting that I am still unsure of whether Bin Laden is alive. Whether he is or not doesn't change the strategy we need to follow.

Courtesy of Loki's link on how the Kerry Administration plans on combatting terrorist groups:

1. Focus on Winning the Struggle of Ideas.
2. Invest in Education and Development in Islamic Nations.
3. Implement Tailored Strategies for Key Countries.
4. Defuse Sources of Islamic Hatred for the United States.
5. Improve U.S. Intelligence and Law Enforcement Organization.
6. Reinvigorate Efforts to Combat Terrorist Financing.
7. Bolster Special Forces and Improve Their Coordination with Intelligence Community.
8. Accelerate Security Investments for Ports, Trains, and Chemical Plants.
9. Strengthen and Improve Oversight of Nuclear Terrorism Prevention Efforts.
10. Improve U.S. Energy Security by Reducing Reliance on Middle East Oil.

Looking at their point, one by one, we begin to see a very different strategy than the one pursued by President Bush, and one that is likely to be close to the center of what a Kerry Administration might do."

Thanks, Loki. That approach works for me. But I can see where anyone with a vested interested in an unfocused generic "War on Terror" (as opposed to specific human beings committing terrorist acts) wouldn't want us to have an effective workable strategy. Because it is (a) effective and (b)relatively inexpensive, it wouldn't boost the huge corporate contributors to the Republican Party. They would be heartbroken if we ever did have a coherent and rational foreign poicy, because they would lose out on the concomitant exorbitan expenditures of our precious national resources on unrelated and irrelevant weapons systems (anyone yet figure out how a missile defense shield would stop a nuclear attack in a truck from Al Qaida? I didn't think so).

And only during a period of "war" (remember, "I'm a War President.") can the Republicans try to get away with trashing civil liberties and uncontrolled defense expenditures- and winning elections despite their horrible record on the environment, the economy, health care (and on and on. They need a "War on Terror" that will never end, because the "war on drugs" has lost its cachet, especially since the anarchy in Afghanistan has resulted in record opium crops in that country without a single effort by U.S. forces their to derail their providing the heroin supply to the U.S.

Remember the infamous $87 billion program that Kerry supposedly voted for, then against? Two points: one, it came after the war (5 months after "Mission Accomplished" 7 after the war started) so it makes Bush look incompetent for asking for body armor after the war, not before. Two, how much of the $87 billion went for body armor and armored vehicles? Answer, probably not more than one billion. The rest was corporate pork for Halliburton, Blackwater, Titan Corp., Veridian, etc. on our "outsourced" privately contracted war in Iraq. The only thing I fault Kerry for is not pointing that out on national TV during the debate- it would have accurately made Bush look like an incompetent and corrupt leader.

What's the real reason that the Bush administration failed to go after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi back in 2002 when it had the chance?

Unh-oh. Secret keyword real detected. Bullshit ahead. The intellectuals with the secret decoder rings are now going to expose the hidden truths.

Look, when the author blows it in the first sentence, there is no point reading further. The pasture of life is littered with cow pies, why stop to taste each one?

Don't forget mom and apple pie. That list is just the most incredible collection of vaporware and talk. That which makes sense is already underway, the rest falls into the category of make a wish.

You have to actually read the article, in which the author notes that some overall objectives are correct--the difference is in the strategy to get there. But then, you already knew that.

People like you are the reason people like me are not Democrats anymore you thread stealing bandwith hogging son of a bitch.

I am not going to waste time reading your too long posts. You can bitch about Bush all you want but if Dmeocrats had dealt with people like OBL and Saddam and Zarqawi years ago Bush would not have to now. So why don't you ask yourself why Bill Clinton and company completely dropped the ball? Why should I give these yahoos like Holbrooke and Kerry yet another chance to do the same?

Peter UK- first of all, your Queen, the P.M. and his wife are apparently leaving the sinking ship of the Bush Administration, especially on the issues of global warming, human rights and international law. http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1340306,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=577867
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3968843.stm

Second, the report is that the Bush decision makers deliberately decided to let Abu Musab al-Zarqawi go because he was in an area of Iraq not controlled by Saddam- they could have taken him out in 2002, but that would have raised uncomfortable questions as to Saddam's links to 9-11 when a terrorist organization had to move to areas outside his control in order to operate freely.

But what the hey. Don't confuse yourself with any facts contrary to your firmly held opinions. As the Bush official said, they create their own reality, they don't have to deal with everyone else's. I'm looking forward to your trashing your Queen, Tony Blair, and Cherie Blair. And if your countrymen & women took a vote tomorrow, how many do you think would vote to pull British Troops out of Iraq? Here's what a former head of MI5 had to say:

"Dame Stella Remington, until recently head of MI5, the British domestic intelligence service, was quoted as saying Saturday that poor intelligence on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction had seriously damaged the government's credibility. And a political source in London told United Press International, "It all comes down to the issue of trust. In the public perception, Blair's government lied.""

When I traveled extensively in your country last year, I found little support for the war and much befuddlement over the U.S. willingness to destroy its long held alliances and working relationships for reasons that passed their understanding. And unfortunately for Americans abroad, your country was one of very few in which I felt physically safe identifying myself as American. We Americans can take the Bush arrogant and ignorant foreign policy for that.

Well, John, I'd say that if you travelled extensively in our country last year and found little or no support for the war or for Bush, considering his favorables were in the 60-70 percent rage, that might suggest to you that you weren't meeting a very representative sample.

Let me guess: you visited New York City, New Haven, Cambridge Mass., Ann Arbor and Berkeley.

As far as your point about challenges in Cuyahoga County, no, I'm not aware of much like that being done by the Democrats. All I've heard about from the Democrats is mobs breaking down doors, and breaking arms, paying crackheads in crack cocaine to register Micky Mouse or forge registration changes for people registered Republican, multiple counties in Ohio that now have more registered voters than residents of age to vote, thugs shooting up Republican offices, and beating and intimidating people in line to vote early.

You're right: that's nothing at all like a court challenge that's resolved in court.

Does us all a favor and stop peeing in Roger's swimming pool. Get your own blog if you want waste pixels.

Then come back here on Wednesday for your punishment and two thousand told-you-sos. Asshat.

You have to admire the charge of the not too bright brigade. Brandishing arrogant stupidity in a public forum requires a level of pig-ignorance that is rarely seen outside of institutional settings.

Go for it, John, your namesake expects it of you and so does Joshie. I would advise restarting your meds on Tuesday, though.

Jihads are not executed by states, but by brotherhoods. At times, the brotherhoods strike at the Islamic state because they believe that the rulers are not pure enough in their faith. This is the case throughout the history of West Africa. At times, the brotherhoods are the front-men for the state when the state wants to influence and/or overtake another "state". This is the case with regard to Hamas and Hezbollah "fronting" for Syria (i.e. the virtual takeover of Lebanon, the desire to eliminate Israel).

Mr. Drum ought to educate himself about the historical realities in how violent jihad is executed in Islam before he ways in on how something has or has not been implemented regarding the developments in Iraq. Iraq was a state sponsor of terror exactly in the same tried and true vein of how jihad has always been perpetrated - through brotherhoods. You would be hard pressed to ever find meticulous documentation of such a relationship. It's a wink and nod relationship, focused on a mutually acceptable outcome. Jihad follows a template that was established long before the advent of the modern nation-state. The state was formerly an empire; a kingdom. The first jihadist was Mohammed, and he established Islam in Arabia by taking his brotherhood and defeating the rulers in Mecca, and then Medina. (Yes, he was in Medina prior to his attack on Mecca, but the Medinans only tolerated him and his brotherhood. When he struck at Mecca, the rulers of Medina actively supported Mecca against him. Once he achieved his goal in Mecca, he turned on Medina hard.)

But don't be deceived, the true power always lies with the base in this relationship. It was from the base in Arabia that Islam was spread, up into what is modern day Jordan, Syria, Iraq and on into Northern Africa. And these were perpetrated by brotherhoods. But they would not have succeeded without the base in Arabia. Mr. Drum is trying to involve his readers in a shellgame. He is trying to state that Zarqawi's group had more power than the state in which he festered. But if Saddam was not supporting him, he would literally not exist. The simple fact that he does exist is proof of the relationship. Then why not take out Germany for the Hamburg cell? Germany is not an Islamic state (yet). It Sharia starts rearing its head there, all bets are off.

Modern day states are the key to power, money, munitions, logistics, etc. This is why it is so difficult for modern day brotherhoods to take down the modern day states (i.e. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, et al) that they are unhappy with, but they have had much more success working in conjunction with a state sponsoring them. These states find it to their advantage to support these brotherhoods; it keeps the heat off of the state and may very well help the state achieve its own goal of increased clout and power over a region. It also always allows for plausible deniability in the international forum.

So how does one take out these terrorists? You either get the state that has been sponsoring them to side with you (i.e. Pakistan) or you have to take out the sponsor so that the base for the brotherhood is no longer something they can feed on for life and eventually the terrorist group dies from starvation. The Taliban in Afghanistan was given this choice, and they chose poorly. Saddam was given this choice, and he chose poorly as well.

The state sponsor and the terrorist cells (i.e. brotherhoods) are like the body and heads of a hydra. Zarqawi was a head. To have hacked at him first would have been foolish, if not downright dangerous. You don't get your powder wet over Zarqawi, just one of the state-sponsored heads, when your goal is to strike at the body (i.e. the state that is sponsoring).

As for Mr. Clayton's post script, I'm sure I am expected to say thank you because you chose to tell the truth, but I find it difficult to go around and thank all the people in the country who "choose" not to bear false witness. I think that is the least one should expect from one's fellow citizens. That you find the experience so unique as to feel compelled to record it does not give me great comfort.

We cannot have one-world one-government until all the peoples of the planet can elect their representatives. Kerry's status quo will never get us there.

Clayton,
I am indifferent to to the three people you mention,I have seen two monarchs and no doubt will see a third,as for Prime ministers I have seen umpteen of them scuttling in and out,there is always one somewhere.The Queen you might note never makes political statements,it is part of being a constitutional monarch.
What I am worried about is you,you seem to blithely regard dispatching hit squads around the globe to assassinate members of enthnic minorities as reasonable.Do you have any experience at this,if so shouldn't you be putting yourself forewards,or are you on the FBI watch list? We should be told.
Stella Rimmington was talking about Government credibility not withdrawing troops.
Now you many have dropped by my country with your dinky knapsack and the guide book to "Swinging London",or the International Leftoid Dating Agency Hand Book but my people have been here for over two thousand years and you kind of get the feel for the place that a tourist perhaps won't.
1939 tells you what kind of a nation we are,but don't mistake the political manouverings by a Government which is going to hold a snap election in the new year,trying to finesse the European Constitution onto the British,with the will of the British people.You don't know us.
Oh,and Clayton,they didn't dislike you because you are American,it was personal.

Clayton doesn't seem to get it. Almost every inch of land in the world is controlled by states. Terrorist organizations are complex and expensive to run, and they need much that is available only in states. Furthermore, the biggest danger we face in the future is the acquisition by terrorists of nuclear weapons or contagious biological weapons. The former require sufficient resources that only states can build them. Hence the Bush strategy is to prevent states that might provide such weapons to terrorists from doing so.

Today we have North Korea which is a danger, but also very dangerous to destroy, and Iran which is rapidly approachining nuclear status.

Once there are a number of nuclear rogue states, it becomes easy for one to provide a nuclear weapon to terrorists and hide its tracks. Without warning, a weapon, or five or ten, go off in US cities, killing millions and rendering large areas uninhabitable.

If there are a small number of suspects, they can expect retaliation, and hence be deterred. But a large number and retaliation becomes a slaughter in which most of the states and people are innocent.

Another part of the Bush strategy is to make rogue states into states where peacefullness comes naturally - and that means democracies. Whether it works or not we shall see, unless Bush is defeated Tuesday. Afghanistan was the first experiment, and seems to be doing pretty well. Iraq is the second, and will probably do okay once the insurgents are crushed. I think in the next week we will see a very deadly attack into Fallujah, that will not only kill a lot of insurgents but also send a message that you don't want insurgents in your neighborhood, and you certainly don't want to be one.

The problem with Kerry's approaches is that nobody really believes he will be able to carry them out. We are talking a relatively unsuccessful Senator, who became the presidential candidate only because of a very flawed primary process in the Democratic party, and who is competitive in the election only because the &(&*(&^ press is so biased in his favor. The New York Times and CBS should be investigated for election law violations for their advertising disguised as news.

Kerry would bring in a standard democrat cabinet - full of people who believe that talking is more important than action, and that the opinion of "the world" is of great importance. We would see a retreat from Iraq, which would cause a bloodbath there with either the Baathists (Nazis) or Iranians would take over. We would see inadequate measures to stop Iranian nuclear weapons acquisition, and if Israel hadn't already acted, the prevention of an Israeli pre-emptive strike (and of course we would do one, we would be depending on the UN like all good internationalist fools do).

We would also see another deal with North Korea like the Clinton administration did - we pay blackmail, and they pretend not to sell nuclear weapons to terrorists.

We would also get a Supreme Court that consisted of constitutiion benders - justices who believe in the "living constitution," which really means that they don't have to pretend that the constitution backs their rulings - they can make it up as they go along (Sandra Day seems to have gotten the hang of that already). We would be lucky to have traditional civil liberties by the end of that. Hate speech code could be used to silent the sort of dissent the Democrats have been involved in. The second amendment would be found to be meaningless, just some ink accidently dropped on the document. Environmentalism would trump all property rights, instead of the 90% it trumps at the moment(in violation of the clear intent of the constitution).

I hate election season! This one is especially bad, with MSM outlets competing for the most bias, a person mean consider to be a traitor running for president, the war on terror and the Supreme Court hanging in the balance.

Your initial post really does invite--as you put it--deconstruction. I have neither the time nor inclination as I am in the midst of a NASCAR race followed by an evening of world wrestling federation.

I apologize in advance for an ad hominum argument, but you, sir, really do typify the arrogance and ignorance of the liberal "elite." (Mind you: I am not giving you credit for being an elite). My suggestion is to seek professional help: (1) a counsellor who can help you through your meglomania; and (2) a teacher of introductory logic. Both will be of immense assistance. I do hope we see your commentary on the evening of the second of November.

I assume the readers of this thread understand by comments were directed to Mr. Clayton.

"I am in the midst of a NASCAR race followed by an evening of world wrestling federation."

Have you guys noticed that the thing that really burns guys like Clayton is that when they go abroad people don't seem to like them? They need the approval of foreigners.

My Dad did not feel "liked" abroad 60 years ago and so far as I know other than sending our young men off to die for and with them we had not really done any thing all that outrageous. yet.

Loki the Dog.
It is best to regard him as alive and act accordingly,just in case.

Terrye, Clayton is making that stuff up. Either that, or he only hangs with people who would hate Americans one way or the other. I traveled on business, worked with people who worked for a living, and ran into no anti-Americanism. (With the sole exception of the hotel staff and cabbies in Geneva. Beautiful town, ugly people).

[He asks, hoping to get a reassuring answer before another trip to the "medicine cabinet"... ;-) ]

Mason/Dixon, the goldstar of state pollsters, has Bush winning the states he needs and more.

The tracking polls are not worth looking at. Their samples are too small and allow for too many statistical spikes. That goes for the Fox poll too which has just changed to the tracking format. If looking at the internals (according to Jay Cost, I think it was) Bush would have had to lose something like 15% of the male vote in one day for the poll to be realistic.

Interesting update on the OBL tape on NRO by Yigel Carmon, president of MEMRI. He says that Al Jazeera translated bin Ladens threats about states wrong. It should be: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security." This should be interpreted as U.S. states that vote for Bush will be targeted while those that vote against (I won't say for Kerry, that wouldn't be nice) will not. Happily, I live in NY so don't have to worry. OTOH seems like in '93 and '01 our cheese-eating surrender monkey ways didn't give us pass!

I have refrained from commenting last 2 days because I got such a bad case of pre-election jitters that I started to fear that I might make statements that will provoke Charlie into finally coming over here to knock sense into me. Or knock me senseless. Both would work.

I have been surviving with the help of “chemicals” and this blog this last week.

BTW, again I report surprising lack of stickers on cars in the city. Today I saw 2 pro Bush and 2 pro Kerry stickers and one “Promote Peace” message, whatever it means. That is all. I have no idea what it means. Maybe all Kerry supporters are at Democratic HQ making phone calls.

Do you think Kerry will pay a surprise visit to his troops in Iraq before the election? I'm talking about Kerry's troops in Fallujah, the ones the US marines will probably kill later this week. You know, Kerry's troops that speak arabic and dream of 72 virgins? He owes them a visit, since they have so little time left.

Peter UK: On my most recent visit to your country I got to see my old flat in South Kensington. So my exposure to U.K. over the decades is more than a brief tourist excursion. Also, on all of my trips I had nothing but good experiences with the British. I even had a pleasant half hour in Cairdeeth (Cardiff) conversing with some soldiers who had been in Basra in March and April of 2003. And your "people" haven't been there for over 2,000 years. I think more than a few invasions (Angles, Saxons, Jutes, et al.) in the first millenium pretty much took care of the natives who were there 2,000 years ago.

As for the polls, Packers 28, Redskins 14 (and Sox 4, Cardinals 0) pretty much tells you all you need to know about Tuesday's outcome.

Moore: modern terrorists have been with us since at least the mid 19th century (the anarchists who first used bombs), and didn't require state sponsors then. You're right about Syria and Iran (and you left out Libya) been states which have sponsored terrorists. Of course, you forgot the United States. Remember Reagan's assistance to the both Iran and the Central America Contras, and how embarrassed he should have been when trading arms for hostages ended up assisting Hizbollah (every time we paid for a hostage to be released, they took another to take his or her place), and when his efforts to violently topple Nicaragua ended up a complete failure, while the locals voted out the communist regime of Daniel Ortega?

Al Qaida, on the other hand, seems to be doing quite fine without the Taliban to sponsor them. With Bush helping their recruiting drives, they have managed to inspire emulators in Spain, Indonesia, and elsewhere.

Jeez, Katherine, I wasn't going to knock sense into you. Snif. What is it about being 300 lbs and wearing a 52-long jacket that gives people these ideas?

Lose the Redskins thing. Either the Redskins-loss myth or the Halloween-mask myth must die. Pick one. Oh, and don't forget Ray Fair's uncannily accurate model, which has been predicting Bush at 56-57% (+-3%) for months now. You've really got to slay a lot of dragons to come up with a Skerry victory.

...his efforts to violently topple Nicaragua ended up a complete failure, while the locals voted out the communist regime of Daniel Ortega?

So the vote just happened, all by itself, eh? No pressure or anything like that?

Oh, this is all new, huh? Never existed before? The long planning of the attack in Spain never took place. The attacks in Clinton's watch were all based on a premonition that Bush would be elected?

John, you are intellectually bankrupt and hopelessly deluded. With folks like you in the Democratic party, I will never return. The party of self importance is headed for extinction.

Here are the internals for the last Pew which gives it to W at 51-48. Here is the Summary of Findings for the same poll. Gallup has a +3 spread for W and Battleground had a +5 advantage to W. Those are the polls that The Horse Race considers the cream (with maybe Time added - which is +3 W).

Read the Pew internals very carefully, especially where they note the strength of W's support with married women and especially with women with children. Also note the comparison of W's strength to that of Reagan's in '84. In actuality W is showing much stronger than Reagan because his "soft" support is less than half of Reagan's. Pew is being very, very disingenuous in noting W's strength. Also note that they allow themselves a very large escape hatch with the sentences "While 6% of likely voters are undecided, another 8% still leave open the possibility of changing their vote." They also not that they are using a 57% turnout which means total vote of over 120 million.

The big story on Wed. will be "unexpected high turnout reflected a level of support for Bush that pollsters were unable to identify". If the top three pollsters are correct then it will be 52/48/1 but I really think that it will be at least 54 for W and perhaps as high as 58 (which puts me at the end right where I started in the beginning).

Which likely means nothing more than they would have struck there or someone else anyway. Or are you suggesting Afghanistan's Taliban regime should have been left in power as well? Or, that in taking it out, OBL and fellow jihadists would not have used that as an excuse for additional jihadist (terrorist) actions? And what exactly was the provocation in terms of 9/11? Or even WTC '93 and the Cole and the African embassies for that matter?

Another item, via PowerLine, fuller MEMRI transcripts of OBL's recent appearance here. (These are extremely interesting btw as the fuller transcripts are also newly translated with significant changes in the message OBL emphasizes. Which begs the question: Why isn't the MSM widely reporting on this new information?)

(Finally, apologies to our bandwidth host for posting on this topic in an adjacent thread, before I took notice of it in this thread.)

Update on my $87 billion comment. CBS (in LA) reports on 60 Minutes that the Defense department has allocated $800 million for armor plating vehicles. My guess of less than a billion was pretty accurate.

The story also notes that the reservists and National Guardsmen didn't have bullets for training, night vision goggles, radios, body armor, GPS equipment, and computers. It's now 18 months since the "Mission Accomplished" landing on the Abraham Lincoln (which I saw berthed in the Puget Sound in December of 2001 at a time when no one dreamed it would be used against Iraq within 16 months). Do any of you think that George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld feel any shame or any responsibility for this incompetence which has cost the lives of Americans?

John McCain points out, helpfully, that Bush's tax cuts in the midst of a war are partially responsible for these failures. What he didn't mention is that defense contractors have reaped billions in unnecessary weapons programs while the basic needs of ordinary grunts went unmet.

John Moore: it's time to write your Congressman and ask him to end pork barrel handouts to defense contractors and start providing for the regular GI's! And be sure to vote for someone other than Bush or a Republican Congressman or Senator on Tuesday. After all, the Republicans have controlled the presidency for almost four years, and both houses of Congress (with one brief interval 2001-2002) for almost ten. So we know where the blame squarely lays. They have controlled the purse strings, the defense budget, and the decisions on when, where, and how to wage war.

Jamie Irons: As Taranto pointed out, the Redskins haven't played home games in DC since 1996.

--The story also notes that the reservists and National Guardsmen didn't have bullets for training, night vision goggles, radios, body armor, GPS equipment, and computers.--

How long does it take to make a vest? Did we supply any to our allies? If so, how many? How many mfgrs are there of these vests?

Should I tell you about my dad's 2 years in Germany in the 50s and bullets then? How many bullet mfgrs do we have?

Pubbies do not control the Senate, if they did, I'd have my judges. The Gang of 41 could have held up the budget if they so chose, they did not. But they've been magnificent in holding up the judges for 3 years.

As to Spain, didn't you know there was a document translated by Norweigans about how AQ was to target Spain before their election because they were a weak link? And they were right.

There's a site called Rantburg and you should start visiting it. It'll get you up to speed.

After all, the Republicans have controlled the presidency for almost four years, and both houses of Congress (with one brief interval 2001-2002) for almost ten.

John, I used to think this was a bad thing. No more. Straight Republican for me this time around. I think it is time for you to start worrying about the next midterms. The Dems have alienated enough of their old supporters that I suspect they will be out of power for the next decade, if not more. Democracy is a bitch, no?

Please - It does not make great sense to question why the press is doing nothing with this information - If there is a credible threat of terror, Tom Ridge should be going into action. Is he?

Please - It does not make great sense to question why the press is doing nothing with this information - If there is a credible threat of terror, Tom Ridge should be going into action. Is he?

Wow -- three dumb things in one sentence. I'm not sure it's a record, but it's certainly a worthy effort.

(1) "It does not make great sense to question why the press is doing nothing with this information...."

Actually, it makes excellent sense: the unpublicized section of the bin Laden tape makes several very specific statements (ie, one that threatens individual states based on their vote) that make it much clearer this was a Kerry endorsement. From Ed Rendell's explicit argument that the tape was a Bush endorsement, which did get into the MSM, I'd say it's significant that this is not in the MSM.

Actually, this could be just being misinformed, rather than straight out native stupid. It does suggest, though, that you're unaware of the press conference Ridge had to talk about what steps were being taken (very generally, but then you don't go broadcasting your plans) and wouldn't take (no plan to raise the alert level).

I saw the 60 Minutes piece last night on the armed forces in Iraq not having what they needed. Yet in every poll of the military, they overwhelmingly support GWB. I'll take the opinion of the men and women in our armed forces over CBS News anyday.

"John McCain points out, helpfully, that Bush's tax cuts in the midst of a war are partially responsible for these failures. What he didn't mention is that defense contractors have reaped billions in unnecessary weapons programs while the basic needs of ordinary grunts went unmet. "

You're kidding right? If you're upset about 1200 deaths in Iraq and a fraction of that figure in Afghanistan, realize that it would be several orders of magnitude worse if not for "unnecessary weapons programs" over the past quarter-century.

If we tried to take out the Taliban and disrupt Al-Queda with Vietnam-era equipment and tactics, I think we'd be wishing we had another Vietnam on our hands.

October 31, 2004: Not MY Al Jazeera?

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post