July 5, 2006
This Ad Approved By Osama
Bush voters, go ahead and surf away from this page. You’re not going to be interested in this. I’d rather not have to apologize to you afterward, so you may as well just not read it.
OK. First, a banner I created during the 2004 campaign:
It turns out that Osama Bin Laden is smarter than some Election 2004 Bush supporters, according to CIA analysts. Sorry for the harsh take, but when a terrorist can manipulate a bunch of people from halfway around the world and barely lift a finger doing it, it seems like he’s outsmarted you. You see, a lot of Bush supporters (neocon bloggers f’rinstance) spun Kerry as the choice of the terrorists.
CIA analysts who considered the evidence had a different opinion on that question, and that opinion was supported when Bin Laden made an announcement late in the campaign that denounced George W. Bush. The analysts figured this was an attempt to rekindle the USA’s commitment to continue Bush’s policies (a failure for the American people but a boon to terrorist recruiting).
As their internal assessment sank in, the CIA analysts drifted into silence, troubled by the implications of their own conclusions. “An ocean of hard truths before them – such as what did it say about U.S. policies that bin-Laden would want Bush reelected – remained untouched,” Suskind wrote.
One immediate consequence of bin-Laden breaking nearly a year of silence to issue the videotape the weekend before the U.S. presidential election was to give the Bush campaign a much needed boost. From a virtual dead heat, Bush opened up a six-point lead, according to one poll.
The above is from an article on this website, but ultimately from Ron Suskind’s The One Percent Doctrine.
Many righty blogs took Bin Laden’s announcement at face value. For all their blustering tough self-images when it comes to the “war on terror” they ironically took Bin Laden at his word. But, of course, this is when a mark is the most vulnerable to a con. Bin Laden was telling them exactly what they wanted to hear, and many bought it.
The CIA analysts weren’t the only ones who noticed this. But nobody finds it easy to swallow that they’re being manipulated by a crazy terrorist.
The effect immediately following the announcement could not have been more clear. The only question then is whether you believe that Osama could have predicted that reaction.
Terrorists seem to know a thing or two about getting a reaction out of people. And Osama had plenty of recent examples of American reaction. Our hawkish reactions are all over the news and easy to predict.
You don’t learn from a terrorist by taking him at his word.
Update:
In case you’re still wondering why Bin Laden would want the Bush administration to continue, see today’s NYT story:
C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden
In recent years, the war in Iraq has stretched the resources of the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, generating new priorities for American officials. For instance, much of the military’s counterterrorism units, like the Army’s Delta Force, had been redirected from the hunt for Mr. bin Laden to the search for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed last month in Iraq.Posted by James at July 5, 2006 1:55 AM
Thanks for the links and the concise write-up of this issue.
Posted by: Leslie at July 5, 2006 8:25 AMWhat does it matter who Osama wanted to be President? Only a fool would listen to him either way. Anyone who based their vote on what Osama wanted or who let him manipulate their vote in any way has some issues.
The really interesting question is why Kerry didn't make an issue of the video. If Kerry would have said something along the lines of, "Hey, this guy's still alive, GWB didn't kill him, but I would have, and I will if I'm elected", he would have been much better off.
Posted by: Northbound at July 5, 2006 12:40 PMAfter the election, I was really smarting. So I guess my readers are getting treated to some really late Monday morning quarterbacking now that the pain has subsided.
As far as the election goes, it doesn't really matter who Osama wanted for president. In fact, that's the argument I made on EAForums at the time in response to arguments that Osama wanted Kerry. And I still hold that opinion. Partly because even if we knew definitively that Osama wanted Bush or Kerry:
1) He could be wrong about his reasons.
2) Reasons for choosing a president are more complex than that what one terrorist wants.
3) Doing the opposite of what a terrorist wants isn't automatically a good thing.
4) It's none of his goddamn business.
Making the banner was more a blowing-off-steam activity on my part at the time. Ahh, those crazy, heady times! "It doesn't matter who Osama wants for president" doesn't make a good banner, and my own suspicions at the time were based on less data than the CIA had at their fingertips.
I also agree about Kerry. We shouldn't have had to wait until Osama's announcement to hear from Kerry that Osama had benefited from having our attention diverted to Iraq. The NYT article I've linked to above isn't the first we've heard of this. I know it came up during the campaign, but it's a mystery to me why Kerry didn't hammer it early and often. It's not as though he was actually using that time to fight the Swift Boaters, as he was rather quiet there as well.
Terrorists are not experts on presidents. But it's as though I expect we'll either go back in time and un-elect Bush on this startling "new" information.
I expect that we notice that (simply stated) terrorists that need to recruit angry people thrive on conflict. And that some terrorists are at least smart enough to take advantage of that.
And, personally, Osama has benefited from our being occupied elsewhere. Bush said he wanted to fight terrorists there so we didn't have to fight them here. (ignoring, for the moment, the lack of terrorists there when we started) Maybe Osama thought that he could get Bush to fight insurgents there so that he didn't have to fight America wherever he was.
Posted by: James at July 5, 2006 1:23 PMSorry, I mean to say:
But it's as not though I expect we'll either go back in time and un-elect Bush on this startling "new" information.
Posted by: James at July 5, 2006 6:02 PMIt matters who Osama wants for president only in that it shows that the current administration's policies are pro-terrorist. If a president asks "are you better off now than you were four years ago" and a terrorist answers "yes," and it appears that the president's policies have directly improved the terrorist's ability to recruit, then I think that's a substantial piece of information. Of course, most of the readers of this blog already knew that. :-(
Posted by: Maggie at July 6, 2006 9:49 AMIf anything I hope that somebody learns that "stickin' it to the libruls" at all costs has consequences--many of which we'll be spending decades to repair.
Posted by: Chuck S. at July 6, 2006 10:19 AMThis has really got me thinking, though.
There clearly was a bump in Bush's numbers when Osama made his appearance. Who are those people?
Posted by: James at July 6, 2006 10:26 AM