GOP is Counting on Fear in a Bid to Win The Elections

In a last effort to keep the majority, the Republican Party will from this Sunday on start airing a commerciel on national cable networks featuring bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahri. The ad includes bin Laden's Dec. 26, 2001 vow that "what is yet to come will be even greater". Also al-Zawahri's claim to have obtained "some suitcase bombs," followed by a nuclear explosion will be part of the commercial, clearly designed to scare voters. For the last month president Bush has made the war against terrorism a recurrent topic in public appearances. But somehow his message has partly been drowning in the e-mail sex scandal involving former Republican Rep. Mark Foley as well as in the increasing fatalities in Iraq.
"Americans need to ask themselves if they can trust the GOP leadership... People are looking for leadership, not fear-mongering", DNC Press Secretary Stacie Paxton said commenting the ad.




This seems like another dirty trick, trying to scare the hell out of the American people, but it is just the GOP way during moments of feeling cornered. The ad closes with the words: "These are the stakes. Vote Nov. 7". Emotional blackmailing, is the closest I can get to describe this threat as it's intended to be.

Whether or not it will work remains to be seen, but desperation must run high within the GOP, when commercials like this hit the airwaves. A desperation they just cannot hide is there, astonishingly obvious. Like it shows in the following statement from Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard. In an article titled "How Bad Will It Be?" he writes:

"Of course there's little time left for a major event to occur" sic!! Ecactly what kind of "major event" is he hoping for? "The North Korean bomb test wasn't big enough to change the course of the campaign", he continues.

The above is from the related newslink, William River Pitt's "A Major Event" on truthout.org.

He closes his eminent written piece like this:


A major event to me would be withdrawal of troops from Iraq. But if any other "major event" suddenly should happen before November 7, whom would you suspect?


Related News Links:
www.truthout.org

[edit on 21/10/06 by khunmoon]

Yes of course, I know it would be Al-Queda, whom else would help out Bush?
For the sake of their jihad, it's vital for them to have GOP in power. As obvious as day follows night, there wouldn't be any struggle if Democrates should come into power and redraw from Iraq. Would be a disaster to Al-Queda.

Concerning the midway elections, one can argue they are brothers-in-arms. Both want GOP to win.

Look this link, explaining the argue.

“If we were to follow the Democrats’ prescriptions and withdraw from Iraq, we would be fulfilling Osama bin Laden’s highest aspirations,” Bush said at an Oct. 19 campaign speech in La Plume, Pennsylvania. “We should at least be able to agree that the path to victory is not to do precisely what the terrorists want.”

But these appeals from the RNC and Bush ignore U.S. intelligence information indicating that what al-Qaeda really wants is for the United States to remain bogged down in Iraq so the terrorist band can use the American occupation to recruit and train a new generation of jihadists, who can then be deployed against targets outside Iraq.

In effect, Bush and bin Laden share a common goal in Iraq. They both want U.S. forces to “stay the course.”

Let's hope they don't have to resort to anything drastic, any "major event" like Fred Barnes seems to be hoping for, another terrorist attack or the like. A simple video can do it, like if have done it before.

On Oct. 29, 2004, with Bush in a tough fight for a second term, bin Laden took the extraordinary personal risk to break nearly a year of silence and release a videotape that superficially denounced Bush but was interpreted by CIA analysts as a backdoor way to help Bush win.

“Bin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President,” said deputy CIA director John McLaughlin in opening a meeting to review secret “strategic analysis” after the videotape had dominated the day’s news, according to Ron Suskind’s The One Percent Doctrine, which draws heavily from CIA insiders.

Suskind wrote that CIA analysts had spent years “parsing each expressed word of the al-Qaeda leader and his deputy, Zawahiri. What they’d learned over nearly a decade is that bin Laden speaks only for strategic reasons. … Today’s conclusion: bin Laden’s message was clearly designed to assist the President’s reelection.”

There are undenial prove that the administration are acting against their own intelligence and the interests of the American people, to stop the war in Iraq. As the "Zawahiri letter" mentioned also mentioned in this link clearly states.

For further discussions on that subject, see Oval Office Scams Vol 2: Ignoring intelligence, promoting the Caliphate


[edit on 22/10/06 by khunmoon]

The fact is, if we withdrew from Iraq, it would be a most glorious victory for al Qaeda. Besides the pscychological victory, it would give them a base with a huge amount of oil reserves to finance their terrorism around the world. This is more valuable than having a real-life training battleground, where your recruits have to be constantly replenished because they are being killed by coalition forces.

Pitt's statements also need some correction:

A typical military division has between 10,000 and 20,000 soldiers, which means the casualties suffered by our troops in Iraq to date amount to between two and four full divisions that have been damaged or ultimately erased. The Army and Marine Corps have thirteen active divisions, so at the worst end of the measurement, the Iraq occupation has sapped a full third of the fighting strength of the US military.

He fails to mention the obvious facts that in a war such as this, ground forces always suffer the highest losses. More importantly, he totally ignores the military advantage that our Air Force and Navy afford to us.

No, a policy of cut-and-run would be disastrous, for certain. And the good thing is, that will never happen while Bush is president.

Original posted by jsobecky
The fact is, if we withdrew from Iraq, it would be a most glorious victory for al Qaeda.

That's what Bush believes, but not what the intelligence says, and some brighter people within the administration now start to believe.

May I draw your attention to Robert Perry's Bush and His Dangerous Delusions

Without the U.S. military presence to serve as a rallying cry and a unifying force, the al-Qaeda contingent faced disintegration from desertions and attacks from Iraqi insurgents who resented the wanton bloodshed committed by Zarqawi’s non-Iraqi terrorists.

The “Zawahiri letter,” which was dated July 9, 2005, said a rapid American military withdrawal could have caused the foreign jihadists, who had flocked to Iraq to battle the Americans, to simply give up the fight and go home.

“The mujahaddin must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal,” said the “Zawahiri letter,” according to a text released by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence.

Also let me draw your attention to today's news. A top story on BBC reads:
A senior US state department official has said that the US has shown "arrogance and stupidity" in Iraq.

Alberto Fernandez told al-Jazeera TV the US was now willing to talk to any insurgent group apart from al-Qaeda in Iraq, to reduce sectarian bloodshed.

His remarks came after President George W Bush discussed changing tactics with top military commanders.

A report that officials are drawing up a timetable for Iraq's government to improve security has been denied.

Last but not least, please take a look on these two threads.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

[edit on 22/10/06 by khunmoon]