Quelle Surprise
Oct. 30th, 2004 01:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eggwardsIt's not surprising to think that a terrorist group might want to influence the US elections. Of course, the question is, between the two candidates, which candidate would truly would be the "terrorist's choice"? It's not as easy as the Spanish elections earlier this year where the minority Spanish Socialist Worker's Party (PSOE) party promised to pull troops out of Iraq if elected. Here the war would continue if either major candidate were elected, if only managed differently. Kerry has often gone out, in speech after speech saying "I will kill the terrorists," just to combat the claims of a war time pho never served in a war.
A strike against the United States has been hinted again, in a videotape received by ABC news and reportedly from an Al Queda operative, and now a new video appears with Osama Bin Laden in it. Bin Laden also makes a vague threat of another attack, but no specifics are given. He makes mention of the 1000th American soldier's death in Iraq, and that America is not safe, whether we elect Kerry or Bush, in an attempt to show that the tape is recent, and he is alive, and not Michael Eisner with a Disney Anamatronic in the back of the Hall of Presidents.
The launch of a large scale terrorist attack before November 2nd isn't the slam dunk for terrorist operatives that it was last March in Spain. You have to understand that this would likely lead to a greater US aggression against the Middle East, rather than a backing off, no matter who became president, and at home, Bush might lose for failing to keep the country safe, or might win because he might most likely be the one who would blast a hole into the desert. Kerry could win out of sheer mandate that he wasn't there when it happened and be forced to take on the battle alone, to further feed our need for vengeance.
It would be a very bleak future for all involved.
So then there's the soft sell. The hints. The taunts. The re-emergence of an old enemy. It's the Cold War version of terrorism. Why actually have to plan a major operation when you can do the psychological damage with a videotape? Suddenly both of the men who would be president for the next four years must drop everything and respond, and once again you have a nation's attention without having to smuggle in a single bomb, or awaken a single sleeper.
So again, what's the strategy? Do you want bush to win, and hope he plays his cards out in the next four years over extending the US troops in Iraq, or do you try to get Kerry in office and hope he will eventually pull troops out of Iraq and leave the Middle East so Islamic regimes can work on taking back Iraq and Afghanistan? What is the ultimate goal? Is there one beyond the re-creation of the Islamic empires before the 14th century?
Now, the cynical mind, like mine, might think it's awful convenient that Osama Bin Laden shows up just days before the national elections like some sort of unwrapped Halloween candy-bar with a knitting needle in it. Certainly there had been talk since the time of the Saddam Hussein capture that Bin Laden's capture might be presented to the American public as an "October surprise" by Bush in order to ensure his election.
Bin Laden had been rumored to have been hiding out, in ill health, or possibly dead, in a cave in the border regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. suddenly he turns up in relatively good health, if a little gaunt, looking like he's in a conference room at the Topeka Holiday Inn Express trying to tell us that he's got the next fiendish plan readied, and there's no-one you can vote for to save you (except Nader).
Yes, I'm taking this a little lightly (it's the expresso) and hopefully in a few days I won't be having to retract this, but it all seems to smack an odd ring. Sure, terrorists are at best, opportunists using our fears against us. Remember the whole Blankety-blank, or the terrorist win thing? The time where we tried to steel ourselves from being afraid, from falling into the trap of not being rational and letting our emotions run away?
This election is where it all was reversed. The whole thing has been played on your fears. Who are you voting for? The candidate who doesn't scare you, or the one who you think will protect you from the fears of the outside world? Bush's entire campaign is focused on the fear of another attack, the idea that if we fight them over there, they somehow will not be able to attack us at home.
If Bush hopes to gain points with the appearance of Bin Laden, it might occur in the daily polls, but not at the ballot box. With record turnout for early and absentee voting, many ballots have already been cast. Will these new terror messages really benefit either candidate? How many undecided voters are their really? Will enough of them suddenly be motivated to go to the polls? How many more security Moms and NASCAR Dads could there be?
Strangely, Kerry could actually benefit if he actually goes on the attack, pointing out again how Bush "took his eye off the ball" and left the hunt for Bin Laden as he went off to fight the war in Iraq. The question is, will he actually ratchet up the rhetoric in these last few days to actually put it to the president?
Most people have already made their decision on how much the war on terror, and a candidate's foreign policy positions will affect their decisions, I suspect. Now that we have lived with three years of color-coded terror alerts and increased airport security, the thought of security and terror isn't far from our minds, but how we deal with it in our live determines what kind vote the will cast. Despite the current news, the votes have been cast.
Do we let terror rule our lives, or do we take charge and move forward? That's the question we face this year. Choose wisely.
A strike against the United States has been hinted again, in a videotape received by ABC news and reportedly from an Al Queda operative, and now a new video appears with Osama Bin Laden in it. Bin Laden also makes a vague threat of another attack, but no specifics are given. He makes mention of the 1000th American soldier's death in Iraq, and that America is not safe, whether we elect Kerry or Bush, in an attempt to show that the tape is recent, and he is alive, and not Michael Eisner with a Disney Anamatronic in the back of the Hall of Presidents.
The launch of a large scale terrorist attack before November 2nd isn't the slam dunk for terrorist operatives that it was last March in Spain. You have to understand that this would likely lead to a greater US aggression against the Middle East, rather than a backing off, no matter who became president, and at home, Bush might lose for failing to keep the country safe, or might win because he might most likely be the one who would blast a hole into the desert. Kerry could win out of sheer mandate that he wasn't there when it happened and be forced to take on the battle alone, to further feed our need for vengeance.
It would be a very bleak future for all involved.
So then there's the soft sell. The hints. The taunts. The re-emergence of an old enemy. It's the Cold War version of terrorism. Why actually have to plan a major operation when you can do the psychological damage with a videotape? Suddenly both of the men who would be president for the next four years must drop everything and respond, and once again you have a nation's attention without having to smuggle in a single bomb, or awaken a single sleeper.
So again, what's the strategy? Do you want bush to win, and hope he plays his cards out in the next four years over extending the US troops in Iraq, or do you try to get Kerry in office and hope he will eventually pull troops out of Iraq and leave the Middle East so Islamic regimes can work on taking back Iraq and Afghanistan? What is the ultimate goal? Is there one beyond the re-creation of the Islamic empires before the 14th century?
Now, the cynical mind, like mine, might think it's awful convenient that Osama Bin Laden shows up just days before the national elections like some sort of unwrapped Halloween candy-bar with a knitting needle in it. Certainly there had been talk since the time of the Saddam Hussein capture that Bin Laden's capture might be presented to the American public as an "October surprise" by Bush in order to ensure his election.
Bin Laden had been rumored to have been hiding out, in ill health, or possibly dead, in a cave in the border regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. suddenly he turns up in relatively good health, if a little gaunt, looking like he's in a conference room at the Topeka Holiday Inn Express trying to tell us that he's got the next fiendish plan readied, and there's no-one you can vote for to save you (except Nader).
Yes, I'm taking this a little lightly (it's the expresso) and hopefully in a few days I won't be having to retract this, but it all seems to smack an odd ring. Sure, terrorists are at best, opportunists using our fears against us. Remember the whole Blankety-blank, or the terrorist win thing? The time where we tried to steel ourselves from being afraid, from falling into the trap of not being rational and letting our emotions run away?
This election is where it all was reversed. The whole thing has been played on your fears. Who are you voting for? The candidate who doesn't scare you, or the one who you think will protect you from the fears of the outside world? Bush's entire campaign is focused on the fear of another attack, the idea that if we fight them over there, they somehow will not be able to attack us at home.
If Bush hopes to gain points with the appearance of Bin Laden, it might occur in the daily polls, but not at the ballot box. With record turnout for early and absentee voting, many ballots have already been cast. Will these new terror messages really benefit either candidate? How many undecided voters are their really? Will enough of them suddenly be motivated to go to the polls? How many more security Moms and NASCAR Dads could there be?
Strangely, Kerry could actually benefit if he actually goes on the attack, pointing out again how Bush "took his eye off the ball" and left the hunt for Bin Laden as he went off to fight the war in Iraq. The question is, will he actually ratchet up the rhetoric in these last few days to actually put it to the president?
Most people have already made their decision on how much the war on terror, and a candidate's foreign policy positions will affect their decisions, I suspect. Now that we have lived with three years of color-coded terror alerts and increased airport security, the thought of security and terror isn't far from our minds, but how we deal with it in our live determines what kind vote the will cast. Despite the current news, the votes have been cast.
Do we let terror rule our lives, or do we take charge and move forward? That's the question we face this year. Choose wisely.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-30 07:16 am (UTC)My cynical mind agrees with yours. Except that would have to be an awful big candy bar to hide a knitting needle.
A friend has suggested that a failed assassination attempt might be the most effective strategy for a losing incumbent -- at the cost of a couple of secret service guys (one to shoot, one to take the president's bullet), you could get a huge sympathy vote.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-30 12:19 pm (UTC)Of course I exaggerate. It was a bit of a interesting hyperbole, made more interesting at 1:30 in the morning hyped up on cappuchino, and I don't drink coffee..
I'll choose not to talk about assassination at this time. That's a little too much.