November 01, 2004

Pins and Needles


From last week in The Washington Times: Terrorists hope to defeat Bush through Iraq violence. (Via Little Green Footballs)

Leaders and supporters of the anti-U.S. insurgency say their attacks in recent weeks have a clear objective: The greater the violence, the greater the chances that President Bush will be defeated on Tuesday and the Americans will go home.

"If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, [Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John] Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people," said Mohammad Amin Bashar, a leader of the Muslim Scholars Association, a hard-line clerical group that vocally supports the resistance.

Resistance leader Abu Jalal boasted that the mounting violence had already hurt Mr. Bush's chances.

"American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together," he told a Fallujah-based Iraqi reporter. "We've got to work to change the election, and we've done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud."

Today The Wall Street Journal noted What's At Stake: Tomorrow Americans decide whether to continue confronting terror with freedom.

It's tempting to think that al Qaeda is a localized problem and, although a concern, not something that can seriously undermine our way of life. After all, if Israel can survive in the face of daily terrorist attacks, why can't this nation as well? That, apparently, is what the Spanish electorate decided earlier this year. And it is one of the arguments of Michael Moore's propaganda film "Fahrenheit 9/11." But the truth is that America does not have such a "luxury." America stands as a symbol to the world that a society based on liberty is indeed possible and, yes, preferable. Because of that, the threat we face goes far beyond the few attacks a collection of thugs could pull off. This is a battle over the future of liberty at home and abroad.

This is something Osama bin Laden fully understands. In a video released Friday afternoon, bin Laden said that Americans would be free from terrorists attacks only once "our security" is assured. But America's very existence is a threat to his own security and the security of all those who perpetuate a culture of hate, oppression and death. [Emphasis added]

UPDATE I -- November 2: I forgot to include this item from yesterday. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reports that Osama is not merely watching the election: Osama Bin Laden Tape Threatens U.S. States Not to Vote for Bush.

The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to "each U.S. state," designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" (which means "each U.S. state") to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state. This suggests some knowledge by bin Laden of the U.S. electoral college system. In a section of his speech in which he harshly criticized George W. Bush, bin Laden stated: "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security." ...

Another interesting aspect of the speech is the fact that while bin Laden made his specific threat to each U.S. state, he also offered an election deal to the American voters, attempting to influence the election by these means rather than influencing it through terrorist attacks. This peace offer is a theme that follows up on his April speech directed to Europe, in which he offered a truce.

UPDATE II: Robert Tracinski writes in today's TIA Daily about today's election and Osama bin Laden's recent threats:

[Osama bin Laden] is offering Americans a truce. Vote against Bush and in favor of American withdrawal and passivity -- and you will be spared further terrorists attacks.

Does any of this sound familiar? This is precisely the kind of deal bin Laden proposed to Europe, and it is precisely the deal the Spanish cravenly accepted when, after the al-Qaeda train bombings of March 11, they voted for a Socialist candidate who promptly removed Spanish troops from Iraq. Bin Laden hopes to achieve the same result in the US. ...

If you want a little glimpse of the future we can expect under such a "truce," take a look at a story from today's London Daily Telegraph about the murder of a Dutch filmmaker who dared to criticize Islam. ...

There can be no peaceful coexistence with a religion whose central goal is to assert its dominance over the individual mind through the use of brute force.

That is the reason why it is important to vote today, and to vote for Bush. Your vote will be a message -- not just to bin Laden or to the Europeans, but far more importantly to our own leaders -- that America has not lost the will to fight, that we want to remain on the offensive against terrorism, that we will not be so cowardly as to seek a little temporary safety by making a deal with terrorists.

Voting for Kerry is a vote for the success of bin Laden's strategy. I mean that, not only because Kerry stands for American withdrawal and restraint in foreign policy, but also because of another striking theme that leaps out at the reader of bin Laden's message.

What is most remarkable about bin Laden's speech is the extent to which it repeats, in exact detail, point for point, the rhetoric and arguments of the American left. Anyone who has seen Michael Moore's propaganda or is at all familiar with the ravings of the "Angry Left" will recognize every element: Halliburton and "My Pet Goat"; the Patriot Act; the "stolen" election and the Florida recount; Iraq as a "diversion" and a "quagmire" (translated in this version as "swamp"), and Iraq as the cause of soaring budget deficits; praise for weapons inspections and taunting about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; it is all direct from the Democratic talking points.

UPDATE III -- November 5: Reader Lawrence Peck sent us this photo which looks familiar...

Posted by Forkum at November 1, 2004 09:18 PM