Who Does Al Quida Want As President?

[ulTRAX]

Listening to Drudge... a caller claimed that Al Quida would prefer Kerry to Bush as President. Of course Drudge, ever a Rightist propagandist, agreed. Why?

Why can't a stronger case be made that a predictable lughead like Bush is just what they hoped for? The ever-arrogant Americans would once again believe that might equaled right... and would stir up the mid-east hornet's nest better than Al Quida ever could. Hell... Bush has now not just incurred the wrath of Islamic nut cases but secular Ba'athists. Who else will be inspired by the US's second attack against an Arab/Islamic nation to join Al Quida?

I believe that Al Quida has MUCH more to fear from a change in US policies that aims to DEFUSE tensions in the Arab world... than from a George aWol Bush who seems oblivious to this alternative. Of course I don't know if Kerry is up to this either. It might mean pulling the rug from beneath the Israeli hard liners to finally come to an agreement that creates a viable Palestinian nation.

[coloradodem2005]

1. Bush. Definitely Bush.

[aquart]

2. Bush is an al qaeda recruiting ad.

They have similar macho posturing, too.

[DNA]

3. Bush

and Al Qaeda were made for each other. They have a lovefest going.

[rumguy]

4. arguments like that do a great disservice and minimize the terrorist

threat...

Al Queda is not going to lay down its arms if Kerry is elected...what a joke...they would still be gunning for us...

[Zero Gravitas]

8. Of course, but

Bush is giving them everything they want. A more rational multilateral reaction would not have been nearly as encouraging for them however. Bush's belligerent blundering has played into their hands.

[ulTRAX]

10. I'm not suggesting...

rumguy wrote: "arguments like that do a great disservice and minimize the terrorist threat... Al Queda is not going to lay down its arms if Kerry is elected...what a joke...they would still be gunning for us... "

I don't believe that Al Quida would give up attacks on the US if Kerry were elected. My question would be given that we already are at war with Al Quida... who could better disable/defeat them?

My ideas for this war differ radically from Bush's. I certainly believe in defending ourselves... but I'd include steps that would lower anti-American hostilities. I'd like to see some public acknowledgement on the part of the US that we have done despicable things in that region... all to protect our oil interests... and that we put a choke chain on Israeli hardliners like Sharon. Why oppose Islamic radicals and embrace Jewish ones? If we have to cut aid to dismantle the illegal settlements... it's fine with me. We have let this conflict fester much too long.

[rumguy]

12. my post wasn't aimed at you, but at freeper-types that think that

al-quaeda is trying to influence elections in Spain and here in the US...they don't care who's in charge, they would have done 9/11 regardless of the party in office...

[fearnobush]

5. So long as the Chimp is the selected one, terrorists will

florish. Even if the Chimp were to steal it again, with a 1% to 10% victory, the world will blame the victory on Diebold, Wally O'Dell, Jeb Bush, the New Kathy Harris (that Karen bitch) and ES&S voting systems. Bush will turn the world against him.

[Newsjock]

6. Of course Osama wants Bush in office

Bush is doing everything that Osama demands -- U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia, loss of civil liberties at home, crackdown on "decadent" popular culture, and on and on.

With Bush in office, Osama doesn't need to do a thing. Chimpy is doing it all for him.

[Zero Gravitas]

7. Bush of Course

They want conflict between Islamic fundamentalism and secularism in general and the US in particular. Bush has given them what they want from pulling out of Saudi Arabia on one hand and invading Iraq on the other. Pulling out of SA lets them think that their tactics are working and invading Iraq gives tens of thousands of new potential recruits for the terrorists. I'm sure that they are well pleased with how Bush has mis-reacted to 9/11.

[Aidoneus]

9. between Clinton & Bush, there's been no relevant policy changes

(and indeed, long before either of them) so I doubt they really give a shit. Bush has done more to fill their recruitment rolls in a direct sense, but it is equally so that the zionist occupation of Palestine and genocidal sanctions against Iraq within the general framework of an imperialist construct worldwide were maintained under Clinton all the same.

The unfortunate truth is that a "President Kerry" is incapable (even if he was willing, his hands would be tied) of signifigantly altering the conditions that created the existing situations, whereas Bush's regime is interested only in inflaming them.

I'm betting on the tidal waves.

[agincourt]

11. Bush by all means,

He's a pompuos big bag of wind who doesn't even know which country to attack. Plus Bush probably figures we deserve terrorist attacks because we're "sinful", except in the red states of course. Al quaida would be smart to want shrub as president, as a real president would have them shut down already. Kerry has a little more between his ears to deal with the threat. I don't know though if stability in the middle east would get rid of Al quida though, it would just reduce their number.

[jsw_81]

13. Bush

The stupid conventional wisdom from the media is that the terrorists want the "weak" Kerry to win, but I think they really want four more years of Bush. He has done more damage and caused more chaos in three years than Clinton did in eight. He has made the United States into a pariah, and I shudder to think what he might do given a second term (which would really be his first since he lost in 2000).

[pca2002]

14. AlQ prefers Kerry .. so what?

Obviously, Al Queda would prefer Kerry because unlike Bush, he wouldn't have gone into Iraq. Invading a Muslim country ticks them off.

But so what? There are plenty of other awful people who would prefer Bush. We shouldn't be arguing the answer but rather than relevance of the question.

[HawkerHurricane]

17. HAH!

Like Al Queda gave a good goddam about Saddam and Iraq? Al Queda is happy as a clam: Bush has done exactly what they wanted him to do. Typical terrorist tactics are not about killing people, but provoking a reaction. What Al Queda wanted was a outside enemy (the US) to attack Moslem countries so that Muslims would unite (under thier leadership, of course). THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE 9/11 ATTACKS. They did better than they dreamed, getting TWO nations attacked, one of them a nation they wanted to overthrow the leader of anyway. WE DID WHAT AL QUEDA COULDN'T: Eliminate the non-religious government of Saddam Hussien.

So, we've provoked Muslims worldwide, pulled out of Saudi Arabia, and overthrew one of the few Muslim leaders who was anti- Al Queda. Bush is helping Bin Laden accomplish his goals... You think he wants Kerry in office? And lose what he's gained?

[ulTRAX]

19. Iraq invasion helped Al Quida?

HawkerHurricane wrote: "WE DID WHAT AL QUEDA COULDN'T: Eliminate the non-religious government of Saddam Hussien."

I believe that Bush was so blinded by the determination to get Saddam pre-911 that he began to believe the lies he used to sell such an invasion to the public: that Al Quida was operating in Iraq and had close connections with Saddam.

It was clear to most objective observers that was never the case... and Saddam had no tolerance for such Islamic psychos... which is not to say he didn't embrace other varieties.

Many predicted... even Cheney himself, that once Saddam was gone... then all that Islamic fervor he repressed would arise. Combine that with the historical dislike of the US... plus nationalistic resentment over being invaded... and Iraq was sure to become a fertile recruiting ground for Al Quida.

Bush fights this was as if one "terrorist" killed means there's one less. I believe this is a mistake. I believe that we must be at war with the dynamic that "inspires" some to start considering mass murder as morally valid means to an end. Of course they need not look far to see that this was the basis for Bush's neo-cons invasion of Iraq... a nation that did not attack us.

[newyawker99]

22. Hi pca2002!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[GoddessOfGuinness]

15. As long as Dumbyass occupies the office,

the U.S. lacks the support of the rest of the world.

Of course they want him there. He makes terrorists look good.

[RainDog]

16. gee, if you want to claim someone is a crusader

to inflame sentiment against a nation, seems to me the guy who calls his quest to overthrow every govt in the middle east a crusade would be the best recruiting video you could get.

but what do I know?

I thought there were no WMD or nuclear weapons in Iraq.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. Drudge agreed

1. Because he is an idiot.
2. Because he is ever the rightist propagandist.

Osama doesn't know or care about the differences between Bush and Kerry. They're both Americans to him; as far as he is concerned, the only good American is a dead American.

[ulTRAX]

21. Osama as a chess player

Jack Rabbit wrote: "Osama doesn't know or care about the differences between Bush and Kerry. They're both Americans to him; as far as he is concerned, the only good American is a dead American."

But Osama is not just a mass murderer. Whether we want to admit it or not.... he has a vision, albeit warped, and a strategy to achieve it. Given that he must see this war as a giant chess game... and he has to know that he can manipulate the opposition to serve his goals. Which brings up the question which President would Osama see as best serving his objectives?

[WoodrowFan]

20. Nadar!! (NT)