Posted on 02/04/2004 1:38:29 PM PST by DTA
February 04, 2004
Who Would Osama Vote For Frank Salvato
As I was listening to the continued positioning of the Democratic presidential candidates a thought came to mind that was rather disturbing. No, I am not talking about the fact an ineffectual Governor could have hoodwinked the people who normally would vote Green. Nor am I talking about the fact there is a candidate within the Democrat's ranks that might as well change his last name to Kennedy. I was listening to reports regarding timetables for the elections in Iraq and a question came to mind. When all is said and done, who do the terrorists want to see win in November? Better yet, whom would they not want to see win? The answer was pretty clear.
In reality we are all hated and despised by most of the terrorist organizations around the world because to them we represent the Great Satan. There isn't a suicide bomber among them that wouldn't take great satisfaction in seeing just one more American man, woman, child dead. To be sure, they are a heinous bunch and they wouldn't discriminate between Republican, Democrat, Green or Independent. We are all Americans and we all deserve to be dead. That is their mindset.
Putting that pleasant thought aside for a moment and venturing off into the hypothetical (I expect the liberal readers to do much better than the conservative readers with this task), I was wondering who the average terrorist would be inclined to vote for given today's choices.
Some of the fanatically Mecca-minded would have to give serious thought to Howard Dean. After all, he is the one candidate that has been against the Iraqi war (which by decry and default is part of the War on Terror - always has been) since the beginning. He has been outspoken in his opposition to its funding and he wouldn't hesitate to get out of the Middle East all together, given the chance. From the terrorist vantage point Dean would be a great person to have in the White House. He would be unlikely to intervene in anything considered terrorist and would likely turn to the UN in the event another terrorist strike were to bring down every building in the US taller than the cave entrances of today's al Qaeda strongholds.
Then there would be the more cerebral terrorists who would lean towards John Kerry. While in the past they would have opposed him vigorously, the cerebral terrorist would undoubtedly realize that ever since Kerry stood with the likes of Jane Fonda he has become a non-threat. To the cerebral terrorist having a guy like Kerry in control of the most powerful military in the world could be an asset. They could claim they wouldn't dare do anything of a terrorist nature with Kerry "the war hero" in charge while denying their exploits just as the Taliban denied their involvement immediately after September 11th. They could proclaim the fear of having Kerry don his flight jacket to show them what "landing on a carrier" really means. They would giggle with fanatical glee as they set the stage for finishing the job at the Pentagon, right under Kerry's nose. This would be possible because Kerry would have finally gotten his legislation passed reducing the funding for our intelligence community even further than he had wanted in the 90's. After all, the Cold War is over, right?
It could be argued the terrorist vote would be a bit wary when it came to John Edwards. Their cautionary approach to the Edwards candidacy would be based in the fact that he is a lawyer. If there is one thing that can throw a wrench into a good old-fashioned jihad it's a good old-fashioned American lawsuit. These "nuisance lawsuits" would deplete funds earmarked for the purchase of non-existent uranium from nuclear capable African nations. One can only wonder what Johnny Cochran or Alan Dershowitz would charge al Qaeda for representation.
The terrorist voting block would hardly find the candidacies of Kucinich or Sharpton plausible. Let's face it, terrorists may be the scum of the earth but even they aren't so stupid as to believe either have a chance.
They grew to the terrifying stature they hold today under Clark's watch as NATO chief so he wouldn't be an obstacle in their quest to eradicate infidels around the world. They could get back to the business of oppressing people immediately should Clark be elected. They could even invite Clark to drink wine with them while they went about their oppressing. But even this is understood to be a pipedream devoid of cot.
The only Democratic candidate they would fear would be Joe Lieberman because he understands the dangers terrorist organizations pose to the well being of the free world and specifically the United States. I am sure they breathe a collective sigh of relief in praise of Allah that Lieberman hasn't a snowballs chance in the Iraqi desert of getting elected.
That leaves them to fear only George W. Bush. He's the one person the terrorists don't want to see win the election. He has already proven he will do what it takes to win the War on Terror. He has proven he will use every tool at his disposal and that he would rather err on the side of protecting the United States rather than allowing rogue leaders the opportunity to acquire the wherewithal to launch attacks on America and her interests worldwide. He has proven he would put his political well being in harms way to preserve, protect and defend the United States and her citizens while eradicating threats, both potential and mounting.
No, the terrorists would like it least if President Bush were to be re-elected. They view him as a threat to their well being and that is something we as citizens of the United States should favor. Terrorists would be in favor of "anybody but Bush" winning the election. That being said, it is curious why so many uninformed US voters are taking the same position as the terrorists. Could it be that we are living in an age where people could be so blind? We will have our answer in November. So will the terrorists.
Frank Salvato is a political media consultant, a freelance writer from the Midwest and the Managing Editor for www.TheRant.us . He is a contributing writer to The Washington Dispatch, OpinionEditorials.com and AmericanDaily.com. He has appeared as a guest panelist on The O'Reilly Factor and his pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com and occasionally featured in The Washington Times as well as other national publications. contact@therant.us
And I thought it was because we've been killing them. Silly me.
Trying to get a rise out of everyone, eh? OK, I'll go first.
Islam wants to destroy the West. Period. Every man woman and child. They want only Islam to exist. They want to personally kill you, me, your children (if any), your Mom, Dada, Grandpa Uncles and Aunts, the guy or gal you had coffee or a soda with today or yesterday, everyone in the mall or store you went to, the road you drive on, the houses on your block.
This is the Last Great Battle. Civilization versus Barbarism. Winner take all. For the next centuries.
They attacked -- we counter attacked. We cannot rest until every single Islamist that wants to kill us is entertaining 72 virgins. You are either with us or with the terrorists. There is no middle ground.
Choose wisely.
But they also hate us because we kill them like roaches under a boot heel.
Yes. Yes, it could.
That's the point -- the ease with which we sauntered in and eliminated what they thought of as an invincible force. They thought for sure their God (we know him as satan) would triumph. Instead we didn't even break a sweat.
We emasculated them.
That is what hurts and adds to the flames.
I was in the ME about 10 years ago--very, very patriarchal society. A man's macho is everything to him. To get your @ss severely kicked after taunting your enemy is devastating.
Thank you for that -- I admit I have been merely restating what I have read. Nice to see it is true from someone who was there (how did you put up with the intilerance there?)
I will smile every time I think about it. For that matter I am smiling now :)
Dont insult our intelligence. Osama could care less about prescriptions and our dirty laundry. He is hardly wild about the idea of being attacked in Afghanistan. I guess you easily forget we are continually routing terrorists in Afghanistan as we speak?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.