Does this mean that a vote for Bush is a vote for terrorism?
You mean you didn’t notice that it was a tongue-in-cheek endorsement? There are two possibilities, both of which occurred to me when I was in second grade:
-
They’re serious in that they want to see Bush re-elected because that would give them self-justification for continued attacks in retaliation for the ass beating they get every time they’re found. That’s pretty weak.
-
They’re saying this because they want to throw the vote to Kerry by making it seem like voting Bush is what they want, which I find hard to believe. Nobody likes being a punching bag, not even psychotic madmen lacking consciences.
Either way, consider the source of the letter. They have an agenda, and since it has been the goal of our country to deny them of the ability to fulfill that agenda, the natural tendency is to immediately do the opposite of what they say/order/demand. AFAICT, this is just an attempt to cynically sway the election.
As opposed to Bush’s cynical attempts? 
There were far tastier bits to be gleaned from the article:
Proof that the Islamists applaud the cowardly decision of the Spanish to cowtow to terrorism.
Regardless, the ‘Abu Hafs Blah Blah Blah Brigades’ (they really need to work on shortening those names) doesn’t do a good job with psyops. On one hand, it applauds the decision of the Spanish Surrender Bridage in election appeasment-minded socialists (and demonstrates that by calling for an end to attacks in Spain), on the other hand, it purportedly does not want America to do the same. Obviously, the ‘Bush Doctrine’ approach scares the little goat-humpers, and this is their cute little attempt at reverse psychology. I am sure that the hardened terrorist-types are quaking in their boots at the thought of Mssr.Kerry wagging his finger at them from the UN…
Well, if your goals involve inciting religious warfare, it’s better if your opponent is willing to play along.
There’s evidence that W’s circle was aware of this in 1991: witness the diplomatic activity that preceded the Afghan invasion.
Riiiight… so the part that makes Bush look bad is obviously tongue-in-cheek, but the part that suggests the Spanish did what the terrorists wanted is Gospel?
Moron.
Why is this a surprise? Did anyone truly believe that Wolfowitz, Rove, Ashcroft, or Cheney would have endorsed anyone other than boy George W. Bush?
The best case scenario for the terrorists is that Bush is reelected, and at the same time our allies leave us.
Bush is the ultimate helper for terrorists, because he has shown a proclivity for taking out secular arab leaders and leaving their countries open for a fundamentalist takeover, which is exactly what fundamentalist terrorists want, while at the same time largely ignoring actual terrorists (other than increasing their recruitment drives). Bush is also the most likely candidate to help terrorists in their cause of starting a holy war, and getting more arabs on their side that were not leaning that way without Bush.
Bush has revealed himself to be easily manipulated into ignoring terrorism, appeasing terrorists by removing troops from Saudi Arabia, and helping the terrorist cause by eliminating secular arab leaders.
At the same time it is in the terrorists’ best interests to eliminate support for Bush from other countries, for the obvious reason that widespread dislike and mistrust weakens their enemies.
Yeah, Bush is quite scary.
I mean, look at how he completely reversed the good will we had in the fight against terrorism, and instead made the U.S. hated around the world.
Look at how he has turned even our allies against us.
Look at how he has ignored actual terrorists, and been manipulated by them into doing exactly what they want.
Reverse psychology is too obvious. They would have known that we would suspect reverse psychology - in fact they would have counted on it. By supporting Bush, they know that we will suspect them of actually supporting Kerry, and in the end they will accomplish their goal of helping Bush win.
I completely agree with your thoughtfull analysis, untill the very last paragraph. Is it really reasonable to think that endoresments by terrorists will influence American votes? I mean I really do not think it would matter if they all sceamed “WE LOVE KERRY”, Americans are not going to be swayed to vote for bush just because terrorists say they like him or another guy. (Saddly I think they will vote for him anyway, and the new computerized voteing machines, along with Rhenquist (est?) and CO. will make up for any inconvenient things like somebody else getting more actual votes.) 
If this letter had been an endorsement of Kerry, the right-wing punditry would be playing it as 100%, no bullshit, proof positive that a vote for Kerry is playing right into the hands of the terrorists and is tantamount to treason.
However, since it appears to endorse Bush, it must be some sort of reverse psychology.
There are plenty of reasons for al-Quaeda to support Bush over Kerry–Bush’s us-against-them rhetoric is the ultimate recruiting tool, and Kerry’s apparent willingness to build up international support and actually attack THEM instead of a secular government to which they too were opposed might spell trouble. If indeed, as we’re told, their major beef with us is that they “hate freedom”, they should find plenty to love in the workings of Ashcroft, et. al.
Then again, our logic is almost certainly not their logic.
Dr. J
Clarke:
I think you’re giving too much credit to the average voter. If they’ve heard of this story at all, the thought process will be more like “Oh yeah? You want more Bush, you got him!! Let’s nuke them sumbitches back inta th’stoneage!! YEEHAW!!! SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!! FRY 'EM UP GEORGIE!! <frantic waving of faded tattered flag which has sat neglected on the front lawn, rain or shine, since 12 Sep 01>”
But I think it more likely they haven’t even heard the story. Unless it’s a crawler on CNN or something.
Big, fat, hairy deal.
Al queda endorses Bush, Kim Jong Il endorses Kerry. Who in hell cares? I can’t stand either of those slimeballs, and the fact that one of them is going to occupy the White House for 4 years makes me sick, but I honestly am not going to pay any attention to what some whackjob in Asia has to say about the election.
Actually, only the lunatic fringe would be saying that. Who believes terrorists? If they told me that the sky was blue I’d open a window to check.
Yeah. Frankly, these guys do not understand our system. To them, we must be insane. The President of the US is the most powerful man in the world and [here’s the WTF? part] he just gives it all up evey 4 to 8 years and walks away!
Here is what they know: For 8 years under Reagan and Clinton (and a little bit Bush senior) and Reagan, (but they weren’t as active then) the US did nothing to fight terrorism. When they hit us and killed Americans, we walked away and bowed our heads. We showed them weakness and they pounced on it.
Quite frankly, they know one thing about US politics: Kerry could not be worse for them than Bush. The Big B will hunt them to the ends of the earth and kill them by the hundreds if he can. Kerry is an unknown. In this case, better the devil you don’t know…
Actually, Kerry may not turn out to be better for them than Bush, but they don’t know that. But he won’t have a prayer this election unless he starts actually talking to people, not mouthing empty platitudes.