Their translation of "state" is highly dubious, to say the least.

Karol, I know you've made it your job to post stuff like this, so I'm not criticizing you, but damn(!) that argument is week.

It goes:

1) bin Laden said some bad things about Bush.
2) bin Laden said that "states" that 'do not toy with Arab security guarantee their security'.

Then, in a flourish that only the NY Post can pull off it assumes:

3) A Bush vote is a vote to toy with Arab security, a Kerry vote is a vote not to toy with Arab security.

And then deduces:

4) bin Laden said that states that vote for Kerry won't be attacked.

My mind is seriously reeling here!

you're a doofus.

Well, this tape is pretty obvious. It is timed for release immediately before our election. Who do you think, honestly, Osama bin Laden would rather have win the presidency of the United States? The guy who said Iraq was a big mistake? They guy who said the wall Israel is building is a "threat to peace"? Or Bush. In fact, to even argue that bin Laden somehow doesn't care who wins is preposterous. The two men running are as different as night and day. They will not approach the terror war similarly in the slightest.

I disagree.

Dorian,

Here's an example of "not similarly in the slightest":

Canidate A has pledged to aggressively go after al-Qaeda, other anti-American terrorists, and states that refuse to police those inside their borders.

Candidate B has pledged to stop supporting Israel, buy all oil from Venezuela, tariff multi-nationals that operate in the Middle East, and pull all troops out of the region.

However, both of our current viable candidates match the profile of candidate A. The biggest difference is regards each candidate's judgment of the relationship between Iraq and terrorists who threaten America. Given that al-Qaeda benefited from the occupation of Iraq, I don't think that bin Laden really cares about that difference. Might some other terrorists care? I guess. But bin Laden and al-Qaeda only represent some of those terrorists, and they most certainly don't. So please explain to me how the candidate's positions differ in some significant and relative way (regarding al-Qaeda, not just "terrorists").

Andrew, if you believe that both candidates match "profile A" then you simply have not examined the 30-year record of John Kerry. He has not ever--not once--supported military action against ANY regime, with the conspicuous exception of the recent war in Iraq, which he now calls a "mistake." He voted against the first Gulf War. If you honestly believe that a man unconvinced by blatant invasion of one of our allies that we should resort to military action is somehow going to authorize military action based on "intelligence" in this war on terror, then you simply have not examined his record. He has a dangerous, wreckless, history of appeasement. He opposed a strike on Libya when Libya was caught, red-handed, planning terror attacks on U.S. troops. There is no evidence he will take an aggressive posture on terrorism, and to think otherwise is contrary to all that we know about him. And it's wishful thinking.

Dorian, you have captured the difference in a nutshell. John Kerry's record is "wreckless", whereas Bush's record (and not just as President) is chock full of wrecks.

Well, anybody can make a personal attack. Did you want to throw in a "your mama" joke for good measure, or would that about cover it?

Dorian ,

save your breath, bush is going to win, there is not reason to fight.

Point taken.

Hehe silly americans that still don't understand anything outside of your borders. :P Spain did not vote for the socialist goverment because they were attacked, but because the party popular lied about it. It seems that goverments lying is not good for reelection. And for that reason I predict a big win for Kerry. He will definately win the popular vote and the electoral with over 300.

Even if Kerry does win, how much of it will really be atrributable to OBL? The polls here are closer than those in Spain were prior to the attacks. We're a country split fairly evenly (+/- a few percent) down the middle. Can you see someone who planned to vote to Bush switch to Kerry now? I think the people here are better than that. I suspect (or hope really) - without any data to review at this point - that the likely effect is going to be that more people (on both sides) vote who might not have otherwise voted. Regardless of who wins, that's a good thing...

Now it is official.

Looking at the people around the world who have endorsed Kerry, Kerry has sewed up the voting block that:

Rapes girls
Blows up mothers and their babies
Disfigures babies
Tortures men
Sodomizes boys
Speaks French

Jake, have you seen any of the photos of what US troops were doing at Abu Ghraib? Kerry certainly doesn't have lock on torturers, rapists or idiots.

Mike D,

I don't know who told you about rape at Abu Ghraib, but even if it is true, your dramatic argument is rather cheap. You compare one instance of abuse with systematic abuse of thousands, or in case of comrade Kim, millions of people. So please, save your drama for the Village Voice, and if you can't get a clue, at least get some perspective.

>>Canidate A has pledged to aggressively go after al-Qaeda, other anti-American terrorists, and states that refuse to police those inside their borders.

Let's break this up further.

Canidate A1 is a Canidate A who will follow through on his pledge.

Canidate A2 is a Canidate A who says he will because it'll get him a lot of votes, but since it sorta disagrees with his ideology, he'll keep pretending to be doing something while he's not and ignoring the real problem.

*HINT: Clinton was an A2.

Andrew-
"tariff multi-nationals that operate in the Middle East,

One doesn't impose tariffs on corporations, one imposes tariffs on imports.

That Economics degree you pulled out of the CrackerJack box?

It's not real.

PS: The Economics degree that was wrapped around the Bazooka Joe bubble gum?

It may make you feel better about yourself, but it's not real either.

Oschisms,

Huh? Thanks for catching me on a completely irrelevant mistake. I meant tax, but the whole thing is a fricking counterfactual, so it really doesn't matter. But thanks.

And Jordan,

You may be right, although I and many others disagree. But the real question is whether bin Laden thinks the way you do. Do you think he read Unfit for Command? Do you think he sits around on blogs all day? Do you think he spends his time watching Fox News? Or do you think he tries to, you know, get the gist of what the candidates are promising their electorate and just run with that? I doubt he's really worried about subjective character differences that nobody can be sure Kerry will bring into a presidency...

" I doubt he's really worried about subjective character differences that nobody can be sure Kerry will bring into a presidency..."

Andrew,

i would like to point out my beliefs about obl. he is smart and sophisticated as hell. He attacked the world trade centers when he did, becuase hew knew we were coming into a reccession, and he wanted to plunge us further into one.

Does OBL blog all day? No, but he sure as hell watches f 911, listens to kerry's speeches, and studies the markets closely enough to decide when an attack on america would do the most damage.

"i would like to point out my beliefs about obl. he is smart and sophisticated as hell. He attacked the world trade centers when he did, becuase hew knew we were coming into a reccession, and he wanted to plunge us further into one."

OBL attacked the WTC (and the Pentagon, by the way) when he did because Bill Clinton lacked the fortitude to attack OLB when the perfect opportunity presented itself in 1998.

John Kerry is more of the same.

Abu Grahib was NOT a one off instance. It was systematic abuse of prisoners condoned and encouraged by Donald Rumsfeld.

JESUS you guys love to beat the "Liberals have their heads in the sand about terrorism" drum.

You lot when it comes to American atrocities like Abu Grahib and Guantanamo and Republican electoral fraud bury your heads, arms, legs and other bodily orifices in the sand, block your ears and shout "la la la We're not listening"