The Mesopotamian writes about the US Presidential Election. This quote is also quoted by Alice in Texas (also of Samizdata). It is, you might say, another letter to voters in America (see immediately below)..
So, I have been, personally very attentive to the debates and positions of both candidates, and I have some thoughts which I would like to share with you, my American friends. To start with, Senator Kerry may be a very good man and quite patriotic. Also we have to respect the almost 50% of the American people who lean towards the democrats. I don’t know much about domestic issues in the States so naturally, as might be expected, the position of any Iraqi would be mainly influenced by the issue that most concerns him. Thus, regardless of all the arguments of both candidates the main problem is that President Bush now represents a symbol of defiance against the terrorists and it is a fact, that all the enemies of America, with the terrorists foremost, are hoping for him to be deposed in the upcoming elections. That is not to say that they like the democrats, but that they will take such an outcome as retreat by the American people, and will consequently be greatly encouraged to intensify their assault. The outcome here on the ground in Iraq seems to be almost obvious. In case President Bush loses the election there would be a massive upsurge of violence, in the belief, rightly or wrongly, by the enemy, that the new leadership is more likely to “cut and run” to use the phrase frequently used by some of my readers. And they would try to inflict as heavy casualties as possible on the American forces to bring about a retreat and withdrawal. It is crucial for them to remove this insurmountable obstacle which stands in their way. They fully realize that with continued American and allies’ commitment, they have no hope of achieving anything.
On the other hand if President Bush is reelected, this will prove to them that the American people are not intimidated despite all their brutality, and that their cause is quite futile. Yes there is little doubt that an election victory by President Bush would be a severe blow and a great disappointment for all the terrorists in the World and all the enemies of America.
Man, you are dreaming. Bush gave Osama the greatest gift possible by invading Iraq. They are in it for the long haul, whether Bush or Kerry wins.
“In case President Bush loses the election there would be a massive upsurge of violence, in the belief, rightly or wrongly, by the enemy, that the new leadership is more likely to “cut and run” to use the phrase frequently used by some of my readers.”
Do you really think that the level of violence is going to diminish if Bush wins the election. Do you really think that the islamists and insurgents care one way or another?
Even if that is true, that doesn’t speak for his domestic policies.
I cannot think of a single time that he used a veto. Doing a quick check with google, the last president to do something like this was garfield… over a century ago.
Do you really think that the level of violence is going to diminish if Bush wins the election. Do you really think that the islamists and insurgents care one way or another?
Errrr…yes, actually, that’s exactly what I think. They care tactically who wins. It will change the way they approach the fight.
Whether they “prefer” one man over the other…no, of course not. But I’ll wager they’d find John Kerry’s sort of languid approach much more to their taste.
I don’t think it makes any difference at all to the terrorists. People who want to blow up US embassies are not going to find it any easier under Kerry.
I suppose you could say that Kerry would bring the US troops home from Iraq sooner rather than later, and that in turn would give some possible advantage to the more fringe political groups in Iraq. But those groups are only interested in power in Iraq. I don’t think Sadr or Badr or Sistani gives a damn about OBL’s war against the West. They just want a slice of the pie in Iraq.
Perhaps more importantly, the WOT isn’t really much down the the military, and the whole Iraq thing is a distraction from it. Can the CIA under Kerry do a better job of infiltrating terrorist groups than the CIA under Bush? I don’t see why not.
He didn’t say that he thought Bush’s re-election would dimish the violence. He said a Bush loss would create an upsurge in violence. They’re not the same thing.
You said you don’t see why the CIA under Kerry would NOT do a better job than the CIA under Bush. Would you tell me why you think they WOULD?
But what is the motive of the terrorists? They want the US out of the Middle East. It seems that Kerry is more likely to get us out of the Middle East, or is at least less likely to continue an offensive invasion, than Bush is. Attacking after Kerry is elected would make it seem that prefered Bush over Kerry.
But what is the motive of the terrorists? They want the US out of the Middle East.
Goodness, no. Nothing so attainable, I fear.
Conversion is what they want. The whole world under Shari’a law. We won’t go to a place I want to be by giving the terrorists what they want.
Our dislike of Bush’s domestic policies here on this blog are well known but so what? The article was not about his domestic policies, it was about an Iraqis views of his foreign policy.
The insurgent strategy has two prongs. The first is an Algerian-style campaign against the Iraqi middle class. The second is a “Tet Offensive” aimed at American and world public opinion via the media.
“The presence of a foreign journalist, American for preference, was more important for us than a military victory.”
-Che Guevara,
Ouevres Revolutionaires 1959-1967
Unfortunately, it took the Vietnam War for Americans to learn this. At least some of us did. Kerry (along with the rest of the left) is the part of the Vietnam Generation that didn’t. His obsession with America’s “image” in the world and his constant harping on how the war appears on television demonstrate this. Kerry is just the man the insurgents need to win. He would be very easy to manipulate.
With all due respect, anyone who thinks that the insurgents don’t want Kerry in the White House is a fool.
A man without very strong beliefs and convictions will wilt under the pressure of the terrorists abroad and the left biased media at home. Kerry will crumble like a cracker. Bush for all of his faults will stay the course. The question remains that even if Bush is reelected, will his successors have the same commitment?
Israel has lived under terror for fifty years. Iraq will likely be subject to the same. Will the Iraqi people be as resolute as the Jews?
And what about the Iranian Mullahs and Dear Leader? Kerry has already commited to pander to all of thm.
The election of Kerry would be an international disaster.
Our military expeditions into the Middle East are only creating new terrorists, though, people who are willing to harm the western world — particularly America. They will then seek out the terrorist organizations. If we didn’t give them a reason to hate us, then there would be no new terrorists to join the terrorist organizations and they would crumble.
Wrong.
Iran hopes for Bush Re-election
“TEHRAN — The head of Iran’s security council said Tuesday that the re-election of U.S. President George Bush was in Tehran’s best interests, despite the administration’s axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country’s nuclear ambitions.”
“Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran’s top security decision-making body”
Vote Badnarik.
If we didn’t give them a reason to hate us, then there would be no new terrorists to join the terrorist organizations and they would crumble.
But they will always have a reason to hate us. We are infidels.
Islamist violence is not just in the Middle East, and it’s not just aimed at Americans. Not by a long shot.
Della – I’m going to assume that you aren’t purposefully trying to mislead people here, after all the article you linked to does feature Rowhani saying a number of things that are entirely in tune with the article’s title “Iran hopes for Bush re-election”
However, it is perplexing to me that the article you referenced didn’t bother to include a bit more of what Rowhani
had to say
The article goes on to say:
Now, please be honest and ask yourself why the additional quotes above weren’t mentioned in the AP article. Do you think they could have titled the article
“Iran hopes for Bush Re-Election” if they’d bothered to include these additional Rowhani quotes?
YogSothoth,
In the two paragraphs you added one saw it as neutral if Bush got elected, the other saw a plus point in Bush getting elected (his actions worked against Americas interests). What about a bit more of what Rowhani said that further backs up the point in my original article:
There’s more quotes in the article but it is not clear if they are by Rowhani or were all made by Iranian political journalist Said Leylaz, they do make a good point though:
Vote Badnarik.
Della,
I note you made no attempt to answer my question about the article title. Why did the AP opt to leave out the quotes I referenced? Particularly the very straightforward statement (definitely reported as being made by Rowhani).
I mean, they quoted Rowhani – by name – extensively in the original article – why leave out the bits that would have made their choice of title less credible?
Are you prepared to chalk that behavior up to just being an amazing coincidence?
YogSothoth,
Because that particular set of words you point out is neutral and he did say other things which would indicate that he was keener on Republicans than Democrats because although the Republicans talk a lot of talk loudly of defending Americas interests in the Middle East they are benign from Iran’s point of view. Also the text you quote is in the AFP original article, the AP article is a rip-off of an AFP article and maybe they thought there was a limit to the proportion of content they could rip off wholesale from AFP.
> Conversion is what they want. The whole world under Shari’a law.
I see this mentioned all the time, but I’ve not actually heard anybody say it except bloggers. We have bin laden on video stating that his aim is to get the US out of Saudia Arabia, nothing more. Can you actually point to any terrorist leaders claiming they want world domination?
I don’t mean to be snarky, I genuinely want to know. I wouldn’t be too surprised to see Islamists express this opinion, but while I utterly condemn acquiescing to terrorist demands, I have yet to see these demands extend to worldwide adoption of Sharia.
I don’t think Osama has ever called for it explicitly. Abu Hamza has, at least rhetorically, and more specifically for Britain. A worldwide conversion is arguably a basic tenet of the Islamic faith (as it is of some Christian sects).
” if President Bush is reelected, this will prove to them that the American people are not intimidated despite all their brutality, and that their cause is quite futile”
Utter tosh! You really think a religious fanatic who believes the world should convert to his particular brand of Islam or die will suddenly have his faith shaken or destroyed by the result of an election in a country he believes to be the mother of all corruption? It won’t prove squat to them. Your reasoning only makes sense if they a) view GW as their nemesis, and b) view Kerry as an ally or at least a soft rag doll who won’t resist. Given that neither perception is particularly true, & both of them would be seen as great satans anyway, I don’t know what you’re driving at.
Everyone has some convenient rationale to explain why the terrorists attack; having totally rejected any suggestion that the US was at fault after 9/11, since then the idea that “they attacked us because Clinton made us look weak” has emerged; no blame, eh? Meanwhile, for the Left it’s all about America’s terrible policies abroad. Personally I think both sides are talking mainly bollocks & just trying to score cheap political points.
Terrorists in general may or may not have a preference over who wins, but whichever way the result goes, I can’t see it changing their actions much to be honest; just the US reaction to such actions (which obviously in the longer run will have an effect).
Della, before I expend any more energy trying to get you to admit the obvious (that the article you referenced used selective reporting to bolster their choice of title) let’s address the issue of where the article originated. You make the claim that the AP
article was ripped off from an AFP article – fine, perhaps you are correct – but the longest version of the article I’ve seen is this one.
The author’s byline says:
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
And there’s a graphic showing the AP logo next to it.
Now, your supposition was:
So, what I’m expecting from you is an article from AFP whose length exceeds that of the yahoo article by enough that your claims of “proportion of content”
make sense. Let’s begin there.
PS. your idea that if Kerry wins there might be an upsurge in violence to test the newcomer may have an element of truth in it. However, to let that affect one’s voting preferences sounds suspiciously like letting terrorists dictate one’s actions; something which has (rightly) been condemned here time & time again.
Plus, one more… ” it is a fact, that all the enemies of America, with the terrorists foremost, are hoping for him to be deposed in the upcoming elections. ”
Letting the misplaced comma slide for a moment, it’s a ‘fact’, is it? You’ve conducted a scientific poll of Enemies of America (TM) around the globe & they all agreed they’re rooting for Kerry? Whatever. It’s your opinion, nothing more. You have no facts to back it up with, or at least none that you’ve presented here.
I’m sad to see that so many of the electorate have bought the Kerry is weak and Bush is strong spin. The republicans have nothing to shout about, the economy is diving, the war is slipping out of control. So they try “Kerry is weak, Bush is strong. Kerry will give into terrorists”. Nice, clear and simplistic, similar to the idea of terrorists having “vote kerry” parties. Can you ever see any US president giving into terrorists? The electorate would never allow it.
Bush’s general attitude to the middle east has made him the best recruitment sergeant the islamic fundamentalists have ever had. Just because you start fights doesn’t make you strong.
It is obvious that the article you are quoting is a typical example of the medias left bias…
[a bunch of people who were with me up to this point will now begin disagreeing!]
Which of course was caused by the left leaning that was ingrained in them during their college years, which was caused by the left leaning of modern philosophy, which started with Kant, and his “critique of pure reason”, as a means to make room for god in a world dominated by science and the rennaisance, reached a cresendo with Hegel and Nazi party… Essentially eminating outward from it’s source (in germany) and reverberating all over the world causing untold amounts of destruction…
That’s the objectivist dogma anyhow… 🙂
tanstafl@gmail.com
Terrorism is obviously designed to control enemies by creating fear, rather than by direct domination. Therefore, when we react in fear, we encourage more terrorism.
It is possible to “appease”, but it is unclear what we would have to give up to end Islamic terrorism (certainly Israel would have to be sacrificed), and it is certainly clear that doing so would encourage future terrorists of any cause.
Not just Clinton, but Carter and Reagan encouraged terrorists by retreating rather than accepting politically unpopular Americans deaths.
George W. Bush is the first American president since Truman (or maybe Johnson) who has been willing to endure the political risk of accepting American deaths in order to pursue a foreign policy objective. And W accepted this risk only after 9/11.
Kerry is nothing if not a politician pandering for votes. He has never stood by any position longer than it appeared favorable to him. He opposed the Gulf War as a Senator from Massachusetts. He supported the invasion of Iraq as a potential Presidential candidate, but opposed it when Howard Dean appeared to be winning the Democratic nomination as an anti-war candidate. After he won the nomination, Kerry went back to pro-Iraq war, until he decided that he was better off being pro-war on terror but anti-war on Iraq, which has been his position for almost two weeks now.
Short of appeasement, terrorism can be defeated only by demonstrated willingness to sacrifice American lives in opposition to terrorism.
We have a clear choice. Kerry is appeasement. Bush is war.
While I cant say that I agree with a lot of what Della says, I do think a Badnarik vote would be well placed. The issue as I see it is that Bush is solid and resolute, but may not be handling things competently. I do not agree that Iraq was a distraction, that is bunk, but I do think that Bush’s strength is a bit exaggerated in some areas. Mainly I find that his willingness to commit political suicide for his beleifs is proven untrue by his attempt to use non-proven evidence to encite emotion and thereby gain popular support for the war in Iraq.
Iraq needed to happen in some form or other, there are more ideal scenarios, but the ideal is ever elusive in this thing we call reality. There are deeper goals, which I will not go into again here, that the Iraq war is intended to accomplish. The question, however, is who would handle things better. My primary issue with Kerry is that he is very obviously easy to manipulate. This is an issue because I do not want a leader who is weak in that manner. The idea of weakness on Kerry’s part that is harped on so much by the right is rooted in the fact that his actions can be quite easily predicted based on polls, be they foreign or domestic. Perhaps he is not as weak as he appears, just as Bush is not the pillar of strength he would like to appear to be, but the foundation for the idea is valid.
As for us “creating terrorists” by our policy actions, I find that historically unlikely. If the Islamic terrorist organizations were acting in a similar manner to freedom fighters under a corrupt and oppressive government, I might be willing to entertain such a concept. However, the closest parallel I have seen is history continues to be the Catholic crusaders of the Dark Ages. Catholic bishops and other theocratic authority figures did not profess a desire to rule the world in their statements. Such an admission would have discredited their moral authority. Lies and exaggerations about the evil of enemies, promises of redemption, and references to locations and landmarks in need of “liberation” were the tools used to encite masses to the cause of world domination. Interestingly enough, the Islamic leaders, who are the true enciters of the terrorist movement, and who are to blame if it is growing, exhibit very similar techniques and statements.
When it comes down to it, the differences between Bush and Kerry are minor in the area of forein policy, or so it would appear. Thus, even if sticking to that issue alone, a vote for a third party, which would send a far clearer message than a boycotting of the vote, would likely be the most productive thing to be done. It may be true that terrorists would test the resolve of Kerry, and from what I have seen he would fail miserably, but I do not like those who vote on fear, nor those who use fear for their own political gain. Both candidates are doing this. Both parties have done so for many years. I for one am immensly tired of voting for the ^@^%$mn lesser of two @%&*!ng evils.
To deviate from the Iraq issue, I find the domestic side horrible on both counts, with being the far worse candidate. Again, however, that impact of a third party vote may be the most efficient use of the vote this particular election. The effect of either president being in office is not something that we as a people can not overcome. The state of the economy, in particular, has far less to do with who is in the oval office than most people try to claim.
On the “Vote Badnarik” issue, I consider the Libertarian Party to be the enemy of the American people and nation and would quite happily involve myself in armed insurrection if an LP candidate ever gets anywhere near the Presidency.
The situation in Iraq will become increasingly worse whether Bush or Kerry wins. Assuming a Bush win, the Islamists have only to “fear” 4 more years of “tough” action against them. As far as they are concerned, this is a drop in the bucket.
I just finished an interesting, provocative book that I would highly recommend – Imperial Hubris, by Anonymous. This “anonymous” is a high ranking serving CIA officer who thinks that we are losing the war on terror. His basic thesis is that Islamists hate us not for who we are, but for concrete, specific policies. I dont agree with everything he says, but i do agree with this. Either way, I highly recommend the book.
I voted Kerry (Absentee write in….) and straight libertarian for the congressional seats (im registered in California) Badnarik is nice, but lets be realistic. Libertarians, start small, think local, and maybe we’ll get somewhere someday….
I’m moving back to the USA within 2 wks, so I might not be posting for a while. Thanks for the opportunity to participate here. Cheers.
His “foreign policy” views in Iraq are liberal “domestic views” – that a govt can sweep in and create a stable, healthy society by fiat. Bush is proposing a govt health care system for Iraqis – what can he say to someone who wants one here? Face it, Bush is your guy all around. Your “disagreement” with his domestic views are purely for show.
“The situation in Iraq will become increasingly worse whether Bush or Kerry wins”
On the contrary I expect it to get increasingly worse if Kerry wins, and increasingly better if Bush wins. Despite the violent and desperate tactics we are slowly winning the ground war in Iraq.
“His “foreign policy” views in Iraq are liberal “domestic views” – that a govt can sweep in and create a stable, healthy society by fiat”
That is not the administrations view. Their actual view is that with blood sweat and a lot of hardwork the start of a functioning democracy can be installed in countries with previously totalitarian systems. Thats not a liberal point of view, its a pragmatic/realist one.