This article makes a number of interesting points about “the curious symbiosis” between the Bush and Bin Laden families. To encourage others to read the article I won’t quote or summarize it.
It is interesting that Bin Laden led a good life in Pakistan for several years after George Bush said “The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.”
The Pakistani military, supposedly one of America’s most important regional allies, was probably fully aware of Osama’s location. Leaving the boogy-man alive helped Bush-Cheney to instill fear in Americans, and thus to pursue their agenda.
I don’t think it’s disputed that al-Qaeda was delighted to have Bush-Cheney in power; this helped provoke anti-American hatred among Arabs. (One al-Qaeda leader told another that “prolonging the war is in our interest.” It was in Cheney’s interest also.)
On October 29, 2004, Osama bin Laden risked his safety to publish a videotape in which he ranted against Bush. It had been 20 months since his most recent video, and it would be almost 15 months before he released another, but this video was on the eve of the American Presidential election. Coincidence?
On October 22, Newsweek’s poll showed Bush with a 2% lead. One week later, the same pollsters showed Bush with a 6% lead. Surely Osama’s videotape helped Bush, the “war president,” with some voters.
Bush spoke publicly as though Osama had miscalculated, helping the anti-terrorist Bush win re-election. The article cited above takes the opposite view: that Osama’s videotape was a deliberate attempt to make Bush re-election more likely.
Ridiculous to think Bush wouldn’t have wanted to capture/kill OBL if he could have.
Ridiculous to think OBL making a videotape proving Bush still hasn’t caught him would somehow be helpful to Bush.
Bush would have had no problem continuing the same policies with OBL captured or dead. “Leaving the boogieman alive to instill fear” would not have helped the agenda at all.
Well, OBL’s tape could also be simplistically interpreted as an anti-endorsement of Bush. Which could only help him in 2004 America, as I experienced it. (I do remember the tape’s release getting news coverage and worrying that it would hurt Kerry; the polls were close.)
The Parry article cited in the OP is interesting but not convincing. While OBL might have been canny enough to realize that his tape might help Bush in the election, he might well not have been. And there’s a much simpler explanation for why the Bush admin didn’t seem to care that much about OBL: they wanted Saddam instead.
But they had Saddam well before the 2004 election.
I don’t think it’s any stretch to say that ObL preferred Bush to Kerry in the WH, so release of the tape might very well have been a calculated ploy to help Bush win. Whether or not Bush deliberately preferred to have ObL at large is a different matter and a harder sell. If Bush really wanted to seal the deal on an iffy election, an October surprise of a captured or killed ObL would have done the trick. And the administration would still have and the rest of the al Qaeda operation to use a boogeyman going forward.
I don’t think anyone claims that the Bush Administration knew exactly where O.bin.L lived. The mission under Barack Obama to capture O.bin.L was complicated, required several months, and relied on information not available to Bush.
So, one week from October 22 is October 29: the day that the tape was released. Any data in the October 29 poll would have been from prior to that date. Therefore, none of the poll respondents from either date would have taken the tape in account.
Good point! I thought Saddam stayed at large a lot longer; :smack: Of course, they also had a lot on their hands what with having a new country to rule and rebuild.
Good point! In looking at the Wikipedia article, I did find a Telegraph article citing a bump in a Newsweek poll taken (partially) post-tape: Bush takes a six-point lead after new bin Laden tape . It also cites some other opinions – including CIA people – that the tape helped Bush, but no firm evidence that OBL had that outcome in mind when he dropped the tape.
Seems to me that half the complications were efforts to keep our supposed ‘allies’, like the Pakistan military, the Saudi government, etc. from finding out how much we knew, because they would have promptly leaked the info to ObL.
The minute I heard about the Osama tape, I knew Bush was going to win reelection. I talked myself into thinking that wasn’t necessarily so because I didn’t want it to be, but it was my first reaction.
Yes, I think it was Bin Laden’s intention. The continuation of GWBush as Prez meant more recruitment towards his viewpoint within the Islamic world.
Is there any real evidence that bin Laden preferred Bush over Kerry? Otherwise it seems like circular reasoning - we know he preferred Bush because he released the tape, and we know he released the tape because he preferred Bush.
FWIW I doubt if he cared who won the election. He thought of it as his brand of Islam vs. the USA and the West, not himself vs. the President of the US.
As far as I know, it’s circumstantial and inductive. A war between the West and Islam seems to have been his goal in the 9/11 attacks for reasons I hope I don’t have to spell out. Kerry was campaigning against the Bush admin’s conduct in the Iraq war, and his party’s voters were largely against it; therefore Kerry would be a worse outcome for OBL. (Citation: conventional wisdom of the time.)
It’s circular reasoning if the premise is unconvincing/false. I take it you don’t think OBL was happy with Bush’s response to 9/11, and you are entitled to think so absent evidence otherwise. Regards etc.
Pakistan is our ally only in a fairly nominal sense. There were plenty of people in the Pakistani government who were whole-heartedly on bin Laden’s side. They may have known where he was, but there was no way that they were going to tell us about it.
There is in recent history a phenomenon of Republican US governments having extremely strong “supporters” who are nominally “led” by mentally weak characters (W Bush, Trump) as president. That part is not really debatable, you can see it by looking. But there’s also, maybe more debatable, an appearance that these weak president characters are “being played” - Bush by bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, Trump by the North Koreans and the Russians.
In all fairness to W, it wasn’t him who was being played if we assume bin Laden really did release the tapes and did so in order to affect the elections. He was the beneficiary and his invasion of (wtf?) Iraq played into the hands of people who wanted an adversarial relationship between the Islamic world and the US, but just as the notion that 911 was a conspiracy by the administration looks downright silly when you look at how uninterested GWB was in invading Afghanistan and how foaming-at-mouth he was to invade Iraq instead, it also makes no sense to say he was played by either bin Laden or Hussein (“OK, you get your people to hijack planes and wipe out the WTC. That’ll make him retaliate by pivoting to attack my country. Profit$$$!!!”)
I doubt he considered them to be any different at all, from his perspective. As you say, his beef was with the US, not any specific president who, from his perspective would be little to no different than the current one. Consider…from AQ’s perspective, what was the tangible difference between Bush and Obama? Nada really.
As to the OP, I think you are projecting too much or reading too much in (and giving more credit than due). Finding ObL was a process, and it just so happened that all the pieces fell into place on Obama’s watch so he authorized the strike to take him out. Had one operative used his cell phone in 2005 instead of 2009-2010 Bush would have been more than happy to send in the SEALs to do the deed.
It was predictable that focusing the minds of the American electorate more strongly onto the subject of terrorism would benefit the Republicans. Look at the tracking polls for the final days of the campaign. The Bush and Kerry lines were converging. Then that tape was released and it was like the lines bounced off each other. Was this Bin Laden’s intention? Well, I often say that the predictable effect is the desired effect.
"Exalted Leader, our polls of likely voters, especially in the key swing states of Iowa and Colorado, show that the guy who smashed our camps flat, destroyed the government that protected us, and has promised to kill you and wipe our organization off the face of the earth, is only slightly ahead of an anti-war protester who voted against driving Iraq out of Kuwait!
Maybe you should make some campaign videos endorsing him…"
It doesn’t have to make sense to us, it only has to make sense to him. And whilst every thing Shodan has said about Bush is accurate, Bush also invaded the most secular regime in the Middle East, flubbed the search for Bin Laden, oversaw the mess at Abu Grahib and, like so many righties, bought into the whole “clash of civilizations” rhetoric that was AlQueda’s stock in trade.
All politics is local and, from their perspective, Bush was great for business.
I’ve seen no evidence that Osama bin Laden followed the political polls in 2004 as obsessively as many on the SDMB. As mentioned, I seriously doubt if he cared who was President - his beef was with the US and the West.
I think I might as well drop it - I feel a certain drift towards 9/11 Truther conspiracies about how Bush and the Saudis and the Illuminati and giant shape-shifting lizards are conspiring to compromise the purity of our precious bodily fluids.
I question this assertion. It does not seem to me, either at the time or thereafter, that we saw any general rise in the prevalence of terrorism. If anything we’ve seen a general trend of diminishing extremism in the Middle East, even considering groups such as ISIS. This is a persistent story that Westerners tell themselves, but it pretends that our actions drive events in predictable patterns and that others have no independant volition.
But there’s also, maybe more debatable, an appearance that these weak president characters are “being played” - Bush by bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, Trump by the North Koreans and the Russians.