There is a school of thought, which says that Osama Bin Laden is monitoring the American election in order to determine whether the American people will repudiate Bush by voting him out of office. The school of thought says that if Americans elect Bush in 2004, Bin Laden will have reaffirmed that Americans stand for preemptive war, war against the Muslim world, unyielding support for Zionism and against justice in Palestinians, etc. The school of thought says that Osama Bin Laden has been withholding further attacks on America in order to determine whether the American people will finally reject these precepts. And this school of thought says that if Americans elect Bush, then Osama will see that Americans are irrevocably committed to warring against everything Bin Laden stands for and a new wave of attacks will begin.
This school of thought treats Osama Bin Laden as an imbecile, and Bin Laden is not an imbecile. Bin Laden can easily see what Bush’ competition for the office of the Presidency of the U.S. has said. Kerry also favors preemptive war. Kerry also sides with Zionist Israel and its Apartheid Wall and genocide and land theft from Palestinians. Kerry also intends to carry out the War of Conquest against Iraq and to carry it out till he declares "victory". By self-admission, Kerry’s foreign policies are virtually indistinguishable from those of Bush. So, why would Bin Laden favor Kerry over Bush?
There is no doubt that Bin Laden has tactical, if not strategic reasons for the timing of his actions against the U.S. and its interests. No one should assume that Bin Laden favors Kerry over Bush, because Kerry wants to kill "terrorists" and may be even more extreme than Bush. John Kerry has actually killed humans in wartime — something Bush never did. When Kerry talks about killing people, he is speaking from personal experience, and he is deadly serious. Kerry wants to kill Bin Laden, and that is something we cannot say for certainty is true of George W. Bush, whose family connections with the Bin Laden family may create some interesting dynamics resulting in failure to kill Osama Bin Laden.
After the 2004 election, no matter who wins, the American policy will not repudiate the current one, and will not reflect in any way, shape or form the demands made by Osama Bin Laden as requirements needed for him to stop his retaliations against America.
The anonymous CIA agent who authored the recent book "Imperial Hubris" has said that terrorists do not hate America for what America stands for (ex. freedom, democracy, etc.). Terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden, hate America for what we have done, as he explained again this week. Both presidential candidates promise more of the same, and thus we can expect more of the same from Bin Laden.
A vote for Bush is a vote for war and for terrorism. A vote for Kerry is also a vote for war and for terrorism. A peaceful protester in Marin County, CA, yesterday had a sign that said War ON Terrorism should really mean War IS Terrorism. Terrorism is not thwarted by war — it is exacerbated by it.
The cycle of war/terrorism/war/terrorism/war is well underway and promises to oscillate endlessly for the next few years no matter whether Bush or Kerry is elected next week. Americans, by voting against Ralph Nader, and for Bush/Kerry on the Skull and Bones ticket, are voting for more war and more terrorism, which sadly will ultimately include more pain, suffering, and death for Americans, both abroad and probably at home. After all, Osama Bin Laden IS watching — of that we can be certain.
As the old peace song asks, "When will they ever learn?"