Yes, I think Osama deliberately helped George W Bush win the election, and he believed that his tape would help do the trick. It’s no secret that terrorist organizations exist because of some sort of existential crisis, and in the case of Al Qaeda, it was a crisis of America and the West’s ability to corrupt heads of state in Muslim countries. Bin Laden wanted to keep the cause alive and he figured that President Kerry’s messaging to the Muslim world would have been less hostile, which would have undermined his rason d’etre.
Where I disagree is with the notion that Bush wanted Bin Laden alive. I don’t think taking him out in Afghanistan or Pakistan was a simple, straightforward matter. Bush had successfully built an international coalition to go after Al Qaeda. He had even succeeded in building a relationship with Pakistan even over the objections over bombing the Taliban within Pakistan’s military - probably not an easy tightrope to walk. Not killing Bin Laden might seem suspicious but I think the real concern was avoiding being too aggressive with Pakistan. The US badly needed Pakistan’s knowledge of Al Qaeda. Push too hard and it might cause a popular backlash against cooperation with the US, possibly fueling extremism to take a shot at Musharraf. Meanwhile, on the Afghan side of the border, the US was trying to gain the trust of multiple constituencies, so they had to be careful how they (we) proceeded there as well. I’m no apologist for Bush or American foreign policy but that situation wasn’t as easy as it looked.
It’s a situation, though, that gets a hell of a lot easier when you take a second look and say “You know, we’re in quite a hole here, maybe we should stop digging.” The fact I said it is proof that it doesn’t take a genius.
All the assumptions that something had to be done are covered by the same answer: “Why? Prove it.” I think if Bush had from the start of his term paid all the generals and military advisers double, on the condition that they stay home and shut up, the world would be better.