« The Dream is not Dead | Main | "Sensation"al Art Up in Flames »

May 26, 2004


At this point, I would say it is decidedly unclear both how another a-Q attack (and the absence of one) would affect the election.

If attacked, some would argue that it's punishment for our ME policies (just as was argued about 9/11), others would argue that it shows the need to keep fighting.

If not attacked, some would argue that it shows that the Bush folks are exaggerating the terrorist threat, others that it shows that our current policy of taking the fight to the terrorists' home turf is paying off.

The thing is, all four arguments above are plausible; none can be proven or disproven, and I doubt we can predict with any confidence what argument voters will find most persuasive.

One major problem with this analysis is that Al Qaeda doesn't know a terrorist attack would effect the election. Does an attack help Bush by highlighting the danger of Al Qaeda or does it help Kerry because it would mean that Bush can't protect the country?

Hell, I'm not sure I know how that would pan out, and I know for a fact that I understand Americans better than Al Qaeda does.

Or if I had used the preview button I could just say, "See Fredrik".

One major problem with this analysis is that Al Qaeda doesn't know a terrorist attack would affect the election. Does an attack help Bush by highlighting the danger of Al Qaeda or does it help Kerry because it would mean that Bush can't protect the country?


Of course, what al-Qaeda might do is what they did in Spain: carry out a terrorist attack on the eve of the elections, and claim whoever wins as a victory for them.

I haven't the slightest doubt that Al Qaeda would rather have Bush win again. Bush took the pressure off Al Qaeda in order to invade Iraq. They love having Bush for an opponent.

So if Bush is way ahead, they'll do nothing before the election. If Kerry is way ahead, they have nothing to lose by attacking. If the race is close, my guess is that they'd attack, based on how Spain swung against the incumbent.


I'm confused. You feel they want Bush to win, but that if it's close they'll attack so he loses?

It may be my allergies, but I don't get the reasoning there.

what terrorists want

It seems to me that it is fun, but not very useful, to speculate on what your opponent is thinking in situations like this. Such speculation can lead to analysis paralysis, as you must leave too many questions unanswered.

Such as, does al Qaeda like Bush in power because they think he is more likely to spark the global religious war that they appear to desire? Or, do they want him out of power because they attribute their recent losses of men and money to him? What effect would an attack have on the election? And, what effect do they think an attack would have on the election? Do they even take the election into consideration? Who can say?

Al Qaeda wants me to lose the election.

Therefore, write in "asdf" on your ballots.

No, Al-Qaeda would rather I lost.

You should write in JeSurgisLac on your ballots.

See, Nathan S. was right. This is fun.

The problem as I see it lies solely with the idiot pundits who discuss it seriously (see CNN link above).

Oops, I meant that if the election is close, Al Qaeda would NOT attack because of the experience in Spain.

One point, Al Qaeda might want Bush to win simply because his administration is so distrusted/disliked in the Arab world. What better way to drum up recruits?

I was discussing this with one of my professors, herself an avid Bush fan, and likened it to the idea that Muslim extremists prefer Ariel Sharon to be in charge of Israel, so they can point to his policies and say 'See? We must fight back'.

This is probably too simplistic to be accurate, but worth the two cents it was written on.

forgetting is correct.

I think the whole AQ discussion is an innoculation against the truth. AQ's endorsement has had the desired effect, which is to distract everyone and get them into deep and meaningful discussions about who he wants to win. I mean, really.

And while I'm on the topic, let me also say that the discussion about what Iran had to gain by feeding us false information regarding WMDs is another innoculation against the truth. I mean, who the frick knows what's really going on? We have insight into Iranian intelligence and their objectives? The end result was that we're left with the occupation from hell and looking for a quick exit out of there leaving who knows what behind.

If nothing else, we look like stupid buffoons with a boat anchor around our millitary and all our enemies chuckle around the dinner table over a fine dessert wine when the Iranian representative tells everyone the story (for the 800th time, doesn't he realize that story is so old?).

Al Qaeda is probably happy to see us all waste our time trying to discern their subtlety instead of dealing with the elephants we have standing around in this cramped room we call the "war on terror". I mean, they could have a book of 1001 random rants that they use a dart board with GW's face on it to choose which rant to release to the American public.

It's like stirring up an ant pile for "Bob's" sake. It simply doesn't matter.

The title of this post is most appropos.

When it comes to true manipulation maybe alQueda should define their long term goals then consult the true manipulation masters: Chalabi and Iran.

The comments to this entry are closed.