October 31, 2004
— Ace Mickey Kaus will of course spin this as some clever reverse psychology on the mass-murdering cave-dweller's part.
The big news in Osama bin Laden's message to American voters was not his intercession in our election; that clumsy ploy was not as successful as his pre-election panicking of Spain's voters.
Nor was the news his delight in the "pet goat" sequence in Michael Moore's Bush-bashing film, and his admonition that "Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you," echoing the central Kerry theme. Nor was it the frustrating fact that our Global Enemy No. 1 is alive and well and still at large.
The unremarked news is that this mass murderer evidently seeks a kind of truce. Although some coverage of his pre-election message noted an unexpected "conciliatory tone," we have not fixed on the reason for this change in his attitude.
"Each state that does not harm our security will remain safe," bin Laden promised, which was "why we did not attack Sweden, for example." His unmistakable import: if the U.S. were to stop our war on Qaeda terror, which has killed or captured an estimated 75 percent of his closest collaborators, that would be what he called "the ideal way to avoid another Manhattan ..." Stop warring on terror and you will "remain safe."
Generals do not call for a truce when they're winning. Only warriors thrust on the defensive become conciliatory, hoping that negotiations will give them time to regroup and resupply. Bin Laden's vain hope seems to be that the defeat of Bush will give him time to buy or steal a horrific weapon as an "equalizer."
He moves on to other foreign interlopers in our election:
Bin Laden was the second outsider to try to influence our election in an "October surprise." I suspect the first was Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief U.N. arms inspector, said to be miffed at the Bush administration's refusal to support his bid for an unprecedented third term.
He has long known about the presence of "nuclear trigger" explosives (evidence of Saddam's nuclear ambitions?) in one of Iraq's thousands of ammo dumps. But, The Wall Street Journal reports that with exquisite political timing, on Oct. 1 ElBaradei sent a "reminder" to a Baathist science minister renewing the U.N. interest in these particular explosives. That produced a dutiful letter from the Iraqi bureaucrat to the U.N. nine days later that was promptly leaked to CBS News, which apparently turned to the more credible New York Times to do most of the reporting.
He lets the NYT entirely off the hook for its role-- something I've come to expect. The New York Times is like a very exclusive club, or rather, perhaps, a very exclusive cult. Once you're inducted, you don't say anything negative about it.
Even if you're a conservative who knows better, like William Safire or David "It's a balanced newspaper" Brooks.
"Bring it on, asshole." -- NH, PA, WV, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, TN, KY, OH, IN, WI, MN, IA, MO, AR, LA, TX, OK, KS, NE, SD, ND, MT, WY, ID, UT, CO, NM, AZ, NV, AK, HI, Nov. 2
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at November 01, 2004 05:35 AM (0sVlQ)
Posted by: Richard at November 01, 2004 06:55 AM (mu7gu)
First time I've ever seen anybody call MEMRI "right-wing" before. I guess they are in the same sense that Charles Johnson and everybody else who doesn't ignore/cover up the true nature of Islamic society is.
Posted by: DTLV at November 01, 2004 07:13 AM (KOirE)
Posted by: Sortelli at November 01, 2004 09:19 AM (4Ija7)
62 queries taking 1.6171 seconds, 240 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.