Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (5966)	10/29/2004 11:55:09 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

CBS News: Osama Tape Bad News for Bush LGF Look out! CBS News is spinning out of control! They’re coming apart! A Rough Week For President Bush. The airing of a tape of Osama bin Laden capped a week of bad news for President Bush that threatened to derail his candidacy in the final days of the presidential election. For Mr. Bush, it was one piece of bad news after another — news reported of hundreds of tons of explosives looted in Iraq, tens of billions more for the war. And late this afternoon, a tape of bin Laden airing nationwide, where America’s chief adversary appears in good health and secure. Even before the latest bin Laden tape, Sen. John Kerry had put President Bush on the defensive in the final week of the presidential election. Unbelievable.

To: Sully- who wrote (5966)	10/30/2004 12:03:52 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

PERRY ON POLITICS BLOG The only thing missing from the OBL tape was "My name is John Kerry and I approve of this message." Folks, it has to concern you when the terrorists are hoping that we elect John Kerry to the presidency next week. What does that tell you about the message that Kerry has been sending to the world in the last year? It tells you that terrorists feel that the removal of President Bush would give them comfort and time to regroup and plan another horrific attack.

To: Sully- who wrote (5966)	10/30/2004 2:08:57 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Politicizing the bin Laden Tape The Kerry campaign's extraordinary response to the newly released tape from al Qaeda's leader. by William Kristol and Stephen F. Hayes Weekly Standard IN THEIR FORMAL STATEMENTS reacting to the new videotape from Osama bin Laden, both President Bush and John Kerry were statesmanlike. Each man called for Americans to unite against terror and vowed to defeat bin Laden and al Qaeda. The Bush campaign wisely avoided going political. But the Kerry campaign--in comments from a top adviser and the candidate himself--did not. Kerry gave what appear to be his first extemporaneous comments about the tape in a previously scheduled satellite interview with Kathy Mykleby, a veteran anchor with WISN TV in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. "I find myself in the unexpected position of giving you breaking news at this moment because I don't know if you're aware of the Al-Jazeera tape that has just aired with Osama bin Laden admitting to the 9-11 attacks for the first time. What is your reaction?" Mykleby asked. "My reaction," said Kerry, "is that all of us in this country are completely united. Democrat, Republican--there's no such thing. There's just Americans, and we are united in hunting down and capturing or killing those who conducted behind that raid. We always knew it was Osama bin Laden." Mykleby followed up: "What do you think impact of this videotape might have on our election?" "I don't think any," Kerry answered. "I think Americans understand we are living in a dangerous age." So far, so good. But Kerry finally couldn't resist politicizing the tape: "I am prepared to wage a more effective war on terror than George Bush," he added. Kerry's comment was unfortunate, and mild compared to those made later in the day by his senior foreign policy adviser, Richard Holbrooke. In an appearance on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Holbrooke, who has rejected the notion that we are in a "war on terror," said this: "The U.S. is determined to defeat al Qaeda and its allies and the war against their use of terrorist tactics." Holbrooke then went on the attack. "The tape shows that he's still around. We should have captured him and we haven't. And the other thing it shows, illustrates a key point which is that Senator Kerry in his relentless pursuit of terrorism is going to be very aggressive. The tape doesn't show that but Senator Kerry's comments continually--his experience shows that Osama bin Laden will draw no comfort from a Kerry presidency." When Blitzer pointed out that President Bush scores better in all of the recent polling questions on who would handle the war on terror, Holbrooke offered a brief word of praise, and then resumed his attack. "I think that to the extent that that polling data is correct, it stems from President Bush's very effective activities right after 9/11. But the point here about what we've just seen [the bin Laden tape] is that Senator Kerry has said repeatedly that we should've closed the door on bin Laden in the Tora Bora mountains on the Afghan/Pakistan border in December '01 and January 2002. And had we done so--had we not subcontracted the war against al Qaeda to the warlords in the area, many of whom had been in cahoots with bin Laden until a few weeks earlier, we might have captured him. Now, he is able to send out this vicious threat through al Jazeera and everyone else in the world." Blitzer: "Are you concerned though that when Americans see this videotape--it'll be all over the news media as you can imagine, not only today but in the days to come--they will be reminded of what happened on 9/11 and they'll say, 'You know what, I'd better vote for Bush because he's tougher in dealing with al Qaeda than Kerry.'" Said Holbrooke: "I don't think so. I think it also raises a much deeper question: How can this grotesque mass murderer be out there on worldwide television more than three years after 9/11?" Holbrooke punctuated the next sentence with exasperated pauses between his words. "Why--haven't--we--captured--him--if the Bush administration was going to be so effective in the war on terror? President Bush said in the debates that he's rolled up 75 percent of al Qaeda. Well, it sure doesn't sound like it now." When Blitzer pointed out that Bush claimed to have captured or killed 75 percent of "al Qaeda leadership," Holbrooke scoffed. "He did not say 'leadership' at all. And how does he know? And as Secretary Rumsfeld himself said in that leaked memo, 'Aren't we creating more terrorists than we're killing?'" Here, by way of contrast, was President Bush's reaction: "Let me make this very clear," Bush said in Toledo, Ohio. "Americans will not be intimidated or influenced by an enemy of our country. I'm sure Senator Kerry agrees with this." Is there any development in the war on terror, however grave, that the Kerry campaign won't try to exploit for partisan advantage? William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard. © Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

To: Sully- who wrote (5966)	10/30/2004 2:32:50 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The Democrats Finally Find Someone Who Buys Their Spin A partial translation of "Osama bin Laden's" video is here. washingtonpost.com I said on Kudlow and Cramer this afternoon that reports of bin Laden's speech made it sound as if he had absorbed the Democrats' talking points quite well. Reading the speech, or excerpts thereof, reinforces that thought: <<< I am surprised by you. Despite entering the fourth year after September 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you, and therefore the reasons are still there for a repeat of what happened. >>> Bush is hiding the truth: a central theme of the Democrats in general, and Michael Moore, their intellectual leader, in particular. <<< God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers. <<< No comment. <<< He [Bush] adopted despotism and the crushing of freedoms from Arab rulers and called it the Patriot Act under the guise of combating terrorism. . . . >>> It's Ashcroft's fault. Where do you suppose he got that? >>> It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American forces would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him because he thought listening to a child discussing her goat and its ramming was more important than the planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers. This gave us three times the time needed to carry out the operations, thanks be to God. . . . >>> This is, of course, pure Michael Moore. Obviously bin Laden has seen Fahrenheit 9/11, or at least heard about it from other terrorists who have seen it. Just as obviously, they approve of Moore's movie. Do you suppose there are any Democrats honest enough to be embarrassed that Osama bin Laden has enthusiastically adopted their campaign themes? UPDATE: In one respect, bin Laden failed to follow John Kerry's talking points. Bin Laden knows he is in a war; he said: "O American people, I am speaking to tell you about the ideal way to avoid another Manhattan, about war and its causes and results." That's "war," w-a-r. John Kerry, however, can't quite bring himself to acknowledge the war that the terrorists have so unequivocally declared. In his statement today he said: "...we are all united in hunting down and capturing or killing those who conducted that raid and we always knew that that was Osama bin Laden." Those raids can be such a nuisance. Thanks to reader Brick Smith for pointing out Kerry's "raid." Posted by Hindrock powerlineblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5966)	10/30/2004 3:10:56 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Kerry Flip-Flops Within The Same Speech On OBL Captain Ed CNN reports that John Kerry waited all of about 15 nanoseconds to use the new Osama bin Laden videotape to boost his political fortunes, even after he claimed that all Americans were united in their determination to defeat terrorism: <<< Reacting to a new videotape of Osama bin Laden tossed into the closing days of a hard-fought presidential campaign, Sen. John Kerry renewed his claim that President Bush allowed the terrorist mastermind to escape in fall 2001. In a satellite interview with Milwaukee TV station WISN, Kerry said, "I regret that when George Bush had the opportunity in Afghanistan at Tora Bora, he didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden." "He outsourced the job to Afghan warlords. I would never have done that. I think it was an enormous mistake, and we're paying the price for that today," he said. >>> This came after he tried to strike the right note in the same interview, a tone of national unity in the face of a fresh threat from a foreign power: <<< Kerry also gave a message of national unity during his interview with WISN. "All of us in the country are completely united -- Democrat, Republican, there's no such thing. There's just Americans," he said. >>> I'm not suggesting that John Kerry shelve his campaign in the face of the OBL videotape. Doing so only gives the Islamofascist mass murderer a political victory. However, Kerry should have stuck to the facts instead of promoting what is, at best, mere speculation about bin Laden's whereabouts in December 2001. He also should quit promoting that intellectually lazy "outsourcing" line that has been proven false and misleading. The statement is also wildly hypocritical considering that his major policy stance in Iraq is to attempt to "outsource" the democratization of the newly liberated Iraqis to the UN, guided by the famous democracies of Syria and China, and the paragons of virtue that are France and Russia. In engaging in rank demagoguery and using OBL's threats as an explicit inspiration, he makes bin Laden a legitimate voice in the election -- exactly what OBL intended. His empty assertions that he would have poured men and materials into Tora Bora based on hazy intelligence on one man's whereabouts, and into an area in which the US military had lukewarm expertise, instead of our partners whose intimate knowledge of the terrain and quite frankly were expendable while we kept our options open, shows the shallowness of his understanding of military strategy -- as well as the falsity of his oft-stated emphasis on building alliances. George Bush called him to task for his outburst tonight: <<< Speaking at a rally in Columbus, Ohio, hours later, Bush blasted Kerry's comments. "Unfortunately, my opponent tonight continued to say things he knows are not true, accusing our military of passing up a chance to get Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora," Bush said. "It is the worst kind of Monday morning quarterbacking. It is especially shameful in the light of a new tape from America's enemy." >>> Earlier this week, Bush accused Kerry of making a "wild claim" that amounted to "unjustified criticism of our military commanders in the field." Bush needs to keep up the pressure on Kerry for his reliance on the appearance of America's enemies to make his case for the presidency. We knew where Hitler was in 1944, too, and Hirohito as well. Did Wendell Wilkie hold press conferences blaming Roosevelt for their continued existence in order to convince voters of his qualifications as commander in chief? No. Wilkie had what Kerry does not -- a love of country that outstripped his personal ambitions, and the class to understand that Hitler and Hirohito were the enemy, while Roosevelt was merely Wilkie's opponent. It's a lesson that the Left in this country still hasn't learned, and hopefully American voters will teach them that lesson on Tuesday. UPDATE: Read this post by Jeff Jarvis, a thinking liberal and a patriot even though we often disagree. He catches the Left in full meltdown: <<< BILL MAHER UPDATE: Maher tonight says the tape won't affect the election. "Americans know: Osama bin Laden does not pick our President. The Supreme Court does." Maher says some of the stuff in the bin Laden tape "I swear to God could have come out of the Democratic National Committee or a Kerry speech." Maher starts to read; Gen Wes Clark interrupts -- sensibly -- and doesn't want to seem by silence to be agreeing with that. Maher reads some of bin Laden's statements and the audience -- amazingly -- applauds! Maher: "Sometimes you can agree with an evil person. I mean, Hitler was a vegetarian." What the F has become of us? A studio audience is applauding a mass murderer? It gets worse. Gen. Wes says: "If George Bush had done his job before 9/11 we never would have had the strikes of 9/11." Man, I'm glad I never supported him. It ain't that simple, General. Maher: "I don't know why the Republicans get a mulligan on 9/11. The Democrats wouldn't have." Oh, crap. >>> I stopped watching Bill Maher when he called American military pilots cowards for bombing Yugoslavia and said that the 9/11 terrorists were courageous by comparison. It's good to know that my choice is as valid now as it is then. As for General Clark, keep in mind that the mastermind of that same Yugoslavian campaign has been stumping hard for Kerry and likely would have a significant appointment in a Kerry administration. Is this the kind of man we want as a Secretary of Defense? captainsquartersblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5966)	10/30/2004 10:02:31 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

A 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11' FAN BY JOHN PODHORETZ October 30, 2004 -- CONGRATULATIONS, Michael Moore — America's worst enemy and one of the world's most evil men is a big fan of yours. The most startling moment on the Osama bin Laden videotape shown yesterday was his description of the morning of 9/11, which is certainly derived — albeit in garbled form — from a viewing of Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." "It never occurred to us that he, the commander in chief of the country, would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone, because he thought listening to a child discussing her goats was more important," bin Laden said. Just think. If the reprehensible Moore wins an Oscar for his disgusting piece of propaganda, Hollywood will be seconding the favorable opinion of Osama bin Laden. I want to caution my friends on the Right about claiming that the Osama tape somehow is an endorsement of John Kerry. No doubt bin Laden would like to claim credit for changing the American president. Thankfully, the American people know better than to believe bin Laden will somehow go easier on us if John Kerry wins on Tuesday. They know this monster attacked America when Bill Clinton was president and that he and his minions will continue to plot the mass murder of Americans no matter who is in the White House. But something does jump out at you when you consider the message bin Laden was delivering to the United States. It was remarkably defensive, with bin Laden offering some kind of bizarre truce to the American people: "To the U.S. people," he said, "my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster." How thoughtful of him. He told us that neither Bush nor Kerry could protect America: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda," he said. "Your security is in your own hands." In other words, if the American people would somehow agree to consider the security needs of bin Laden and his followers (whether that means just al Qaeda or the entire Arab and Muslim world isn't clear), we'd be safe. "Do not play with our security, and spontaneously you will secure yourself," he said. This is, I think, a profound rhetorical change from the man who vowed in 2002 that "the United States will not survive, will not feel any safety or any security." Usually, bin Laden and his people tend to use the most purple and terrifying language about the damage they're going to do to the United States, as we saw earlier in the week when the American al Qaeda follower "Azzam" said on his videotape that "the streets of America will run red with blood." Now bin Laden is talking truce. What's changed, perhaps, is the ferocity of the American response to 9/11. Since then, Osama has been on the run, his Afghanistan safe haven destroyed, his movement under relentless financial and military assault. By offering America a deal, no matter how twisted and pointless the deal might be, the quality that he might be showing us isn't strength, but weakness. Maybe he's feeling the weariness suggested in the videotaped statement last month by his No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri: "Oh young men of Islam," he said, "if we are killed or captured, you should carry on the fight." Maybe they're buckling.

To: Sully- who wrote (5966)	10/30/2004 11:58:16 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The Osama Litmus Test By DAVID BROOKS The nuisance is back! Remember when John Kerry told Matt Bai of The Times Magazine that he wanted to reduce the terrorists to a nuisance? Kerry vowed to mitigate the problem of terrorism until it became another regrettable and tolerable fact of life, like gambling, organized crime and prostitution. That was the interview in which he said Sept. 11 "didn't change me much at all." He said it confirmed in him a sense of urgency, "of doing the things we thought we needed to be doing." Well, the Osama bin Laden we saw last night was not a problem that needs to be mitigated. He was not the leader of a movement that can be reduced to a nuisance. What we saw last night was revolting. I suspect that more than anything else, he reminded everyone of the moral indignation we all felt on and after Sept. 11. Here was this monster who killed 3,000 of our fellows showing up on our TV screens, trying to insert himself into our election, trying to lecture us on who is lying and who is telling the truth. Here was this villain traipsing through his own propaganda spiel with copycat Michael Moore rhetoric about George Bush in the schoolroom, and Jeb Bush and the 2000 Florida election. Here was this deranged killer spreading absurd theories about the American monarchy and threatening to murder more of us unless we do what he says. One felt all the old emotions. Who does he think he is, and who does he think we are? One of the crucial issues of this election is, Which candidate fundamentally gets the evil represented by this man? Which of these two guys understands it deep in his gut - not just in his brain or in his policy statements, but who feels it so deep in his soul that it consumes him? It's quite clear from the polls that most Americans fundamentally think Bush does get this. Last March, Americans preferred Bush over Kerry in fighting terrorism by 60 percent to 33 percent, according to the Gallup Poll. Now, after a furious campaign and months of criticism, that number is unchanged. Bush is untouched on this issue. Bush's response yesterday to the video was exactly right. He said we would not be intimidated. He tried to take the video out of the realm of crass politics by mentioning Kerry by name and assuring the country that he was sure Kerry agreed with him. Kerry did say that we are all united in the fight against bin Laden, but he just couldn't help himself. His first instinct was to get political. On Milwaukee television, he used the video as an occasion to attack the president: "He didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down Osama bin Laden. He outsourced the job." Kerry continued with a little riff from his stump speech, "I am absolutely confident I have the ability to make America safer." Even in this shocking moment, this echo of Sept. 11, Kerry saw his political opportunities and he took 'em. There's such a thing as being so nakedly ambitious that you offend the people you hope to impress. But politics has shaped Kerry's approach to this whole issue. Back in December 2001, when bin Laden was apparently hiding in Tora Bora, Kerry supported the strategy of using Afghans to hunt him down. He told Larry King that our strategy "is having its impact, and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively, and we should continue to do it that way." But then the political wind shifted, and Kerry recalculated. Now Kerry calls the strategy he supported "outsourcing." When we rely on allies everywhere else around the world, that's multilateral cooperation, but when Bush does it in Afghanistan, it's "outsourcing." In Iraq, Kerry supports using local troops to chase insurgents, but in Afghanistan he is in post hoc opposition. This is why Kerry is not cleaning Bush's clock in this election. Many people are not sure that he gets the fundamental moral confrontation. Many people are not sure he feels it, or feels anything. Since he joined the Senate, what cause has he taken a political risk for? Has he devoted himself selflessly and passionately to any movement larger than himself? We are revealed by what we hate. When it comes to Osama bin Laden, Kerry hasn't revealed whatever it is that lies inside.

To: Sully- who wrote (5966)	10/31/2004 3:02:02 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

TRUTH LAID BEAR - Osama's Outtakes October 31, 2004 06:58 AM Apparently, there is more interesting stuff on the Osama tape that wasn't shown on al-Jazeera: nypost.com Officials said that in the 18-minute long tape — of which only six minutes were aired on the al-Jazeera Arab television network in the Middle East on Friday — bin Laden bemoans the recent democratic elections in Afghanistan and the lack of violence involved with it. On the tape, bin Laden also says his terror organization has been hurt by the U.S. military's unrelenting manhunt for him and his cohorts on the Afghan-Pakistani border. Can't imagine why al-Jazeera didn't decide to run those segments...

To: Sully- who wrote (5966)	11/1/2004 1:14:20 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Bin Laden Threatens US States Not to Vote for Bush LGF MEMRI’s translation and analysis of the Osama bin Laden videotape, verified by a radical Islamist web site, reveals that the video was calling for the defeat of George W. Bush and offering a pact of protection (dhimmitude) to US states that don’t vote for Bush: Osama Bin Laden Tape Threatens U.S. States Not to Vote for Bush. memri.org The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera(1) 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”)(2) 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.” The Islamist website Al-Qal’a explained what this sentence meant: “This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, ‘Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,’ it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy. By this characterization, Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people itself between enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and those who fight for us, so that he doesn’t treat all American people as if they’re the same. This letter will have great implications inside the American society, part of which are connected to the American elections, and part of which are connected to what will come after the elections.”(3) 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.(4) This peace offer is a theme that follows up on his April speech directed to Europe, in which he offered a truce.(5) The Islamist website Al-Islah explains: “Some people ask ‘what’s new in this tape?’ [The answer is that] this tape is the second of its kind, after the previous tape of the Sheikh [Osama bin Laden], in which he offered a truce to the Europeans a few months ago, and it is a completion of this move, and it brings together the complementary elements of politics and religion, political savvy and force, the sword and justice. The Sheikh reminds the West in this tape of the great Islamic civilization and pure Islamic religion, and of Islamic justice...” MEMRI TV has a much higher resolution MPEG video capture of the Al Jazeera edited video, and their own translation. by Charles littlegreenfootballs.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5966)	11/1/2004 1:07:20 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Osama Casts His Vote OP-ED COLUMNIST By WILLIAM SAFIRE Washington The big news in Osama bin Laden's message to American voters was not his intercession in our election; that clumsy ploy was not as successful as his pre-election panicking of Spain's voters. Nor was the news his delight in the "pet goat" sequence in Michael Moore's Bush-bashing film, and his admonition that "Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you," echoing the central Kerry theme. Nor was it the frustrating fact that our Global Enemy No. 1 is alive and well and still at large. The unremarked news is that this mass murderer evidently seeks a kind of truce. Although some coverage of his pre-election message noted an unexpected "conciliatory tone," we have not fixed on the reason for this change in his attitude. "Each state that does not harm our security will remain safe," bin Laden promised, which was "why we did not attack Sweden, for example." His unmistakable import: if the U.S. were to stop our war on Qaeda terror, which has killed or captured an estimated 75 percent of his closest collaborators, that would be what he called "the ideal way to avoid another Manhattan ..." Stop warring on terror and you will "remain safe." Generals do not call for a truce when they're winning. Only warriors thrust on the defensive become conciliatory, hoping that negotiations will give them time to regroup and resupply. Bin Laden's vain hope seems to be that the defeat of Bush will give him time to buy or steal a horrific weapon as an "equalizer." Bin Laden was the second outsider to try to influence our election in an "October surprise." I suspect the first was Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief U.N. arms inspector, said to be miffed at the Bush administration's refusal to support his bid for an unprecedented third term. He has long known about the presence of "nuclear trigger" explosives (evidence of Saddam's nuclear ambitions?) in one of Iraq's thousands of ammo dumps. But, The Wall Street Journal reports that with exquisite political timing, on Oct. 1 ElBaradei sent a "reminder" to a Baathist science minister renewing the U.N. interest in these particular explosives. That produced a dutiful letter from the Iraqi bureaucrat to the U.N. nine days later that was promptly leaked to CBS News, which apparently turned to the more credible New York Times to do most of the reporting. CBS originally admitted intending to break its surprise accusations about our troops' failure to secure the ammo on "60 Minutes" on Oct. 31, last night, only 36 hours before polls opened. Journalists call that hyping device a "keeper" - holding a story for the moment when it causes the most damage - which the victim cannot refute until after Election Day, by which time it's too late. (Now CBS claims that the network would never have done such a nefarious thing. Maybe, maybe not; that plan should be part of the investigation by CBS's panel looking into forged National Guard documents.) The Times, to its ethical credit, refused to go along with CBS's planned last-minute ambush and instead front-paged its article one week ago. (Besides, competition was surfacing on the Internet.) That time enabled other network news organizations to cast doubt on the story. In addition, making our forces in the field look bad did not sit well, and the Pentagon was able to show that the 400 tons possibly missed by our advancing troops was one one-thousandth of the 400,000 tons found, secured or destroyed by the coalition. What effect will these two manipulations by outsiders have on America's election decision tomorrow? Until it was partly discredited, the product of ElBaradei's shrewd "reminder" damaged Bush by putting him on the defensive, giving Democrats a final-week boost. If Kerry wins, the Egyptian should be chief U.N. inspector for life. But then came the Qaeda tape, followed by Bush's cool, nonpolitical response, and then by Kerry's blunder in trying to capitalize on it. Bin Laden's latest misreading of American public opinion plays to Bush's antiterrorist strength. For now, bin Laden's unwelcome intercession is taken to be anti-Bush overkill. Coming from the fugitive terrorist, it will help ensure the president's re-election. Later, we will understand bin Laden's phony attempt at conciliation to be his first sign of weakness. E-mail: safire@nytimes.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5966)	11/4/2004 10:44:25 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Sounds like Osama is going to promise to "get us" for electing Bush. "Tracking Terrorism.com" Al-Jazeera's New Osama Bin Laden Video - UPDATE 2 Source: TT Exclusive \| 7:30:38 AM EST trackingterrorism.com We will attempt to update our readers on the status of the new Bin Laden tape. As we have said earlier, we have confirmed the actual existence of this new Osama Bin Laden video. Al-Jazeera is currently still on an embargo for a few more hours and cannot air any portion of this video tape. They have been put on embargo by the US Government wishing to investigate the video tape before its release. Al-Jazeera Television's embargo is similar to what we saw last week with the original Osama Bin Laden video. After US Government review, Al-Jazeera chose only to air 5 minutes of the entire 18 minute video. Al-Jazeera will be presented again with the option of airing any portion of this new video tape. In the past, Al-Jazeera Television has never sat on any message from Osama Bin Laden for more than 24 hours. Currently, the airing of this video tape is in the hands of Al-Jazeera. While it is very likely that they may air the tape immediately following the embargo, it is also likely that they'll sit on it for another day or two. We have again attempted to speak with Al-Jazeera regarding the video tape, but however they appear to be on a gag order and cannot release any additional information about the tape's existence. We can assure you that it does exist and soon we will all being seeing it on national TV. The tape is said to be currently leaked online on a few remote and highly secret Al-Qaeda Websites. Militants are already praising its release, making comments such as "Soon the American People will see the edited version". We hope that by making the tape's existence known publicly prior to the national media, that we do indeed see the entire tape as it could be crucial to the future of the United States. We do not believe in suppression by the US Government in something as significant as an OBL tape. As we get more information that we can share, we will immediately inform our readers. Developing...