Posted on 06/24/2004 8:28:46 AM PDT by SJackson
Osama bin Laden could have made a good living as a political consultant if he did not choose to kill babies instead. The al- Qaida/Ba'ath Party strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan is, at core, a political one. They seek not just to pull Iraq into chaos, but to defeat President Bush as well.
Every bomb, terror attack, suicide raid or urban guerilla offensive is aimed squarely at ending Bush's political career. Ironically, the real test of American resolve will not be our willingness to stay in Iraq, but our desire to keep Bush in office.
The history of terrorists messing around with the political systems of their victim countries is a long one. The Viet Cong/North Vietnamese Tet Offensive in January 1968 set in motion a chain of events that led to Sen. Eugene McCarthy's excellent showing in that year's New Hampshire primary, Robert F. Kennedy's entry into the presidential race and, finally, Lyndon Johnson's withdrawal from the contest.
In 1994, when Yasser Arafat wanted to defeat the moderate Labor Party in Israel so he could posture himself in opposition to the hard-liners, he resorted to terror attacks in Israel right before the election. The carnage so shocked Israeli voters that they turned against the frontrunner -- Labor candidate Shimon Peres -- and elected Likud hard-liner Benjamin Netenyahu instead.
In March of this year, al-Qaida turned the Spanish election on its head with its railroad bombing and defeated the favored candidate from the party of pro-Iraq war President Jose Maria Aznar and elected an anti-war socialist instead.
But to fathom the al-Qaida/Ba'ath strategy, we need to remember how the Iranian militants manipulated the hostage crisis in 1979 and 1980 to defeat their bete noire, President Jimmy Carter. By dangling and then retracting the hope of releasing their hostages, they made Carter look weak and overmatched. Once Reagan won, they quietly let the hostages go. As he was sworn in, they were flying home and Carter was frantically handling the wire transfers of funds to pay their ransom.
Al-Qaida and the Ba'ath Party want to defeat Bush to avenge his tough stance against them after the 9-11 attacks. They know that John Kerry would usher back the Clinton days of timid U.S. reaction and that the Democrat's likely repeal of vital sections of the Patriot Act would open the door for their terror strikes in America.
The thugs want Bush out and are determined to ratchet up the cost of the Iraq War to bring about his ouster. That's why they will target any American they can. By having the troops continue their current activist role in Iraq, Bush is sticking to his policies at the risk of committing political suicide.
Turning sovereignty over to Iraq won't stop the terror attacks. They will decline only after Bush is either re-elected or defeated. It is the elections in the United States, not those in Iraq, that the enemy most seeks to influence.
Bush's surrogates should bring to America the message that the terrorists would be overjoyed to see the end of his presidency.
During the Cold War, American politicians regularly used to campaign as the candidate the Russians wanted to lose. Bush's people should begin to speak of the message a Kerry election and a Bush defeat would send to the terrorists. The Spanish example is worth citing.
It is obvious that Osama and his allies all want Bush out. It might profit Bush's supporters (though not the president himself) to point out this obvious fact to the American people.
Dick Morris, former adviser to President Clinton, writes a weekly column for the New York Post and is a Fox News Channel commentator. His e-mail address is dmredding@aol.com.
Is the Pope Catholic?
Do Clintons lie?
Was Stalin a communist?
Was Hitler anti-semitic?
... etcetera ...
I thought there had to be a preposition in there, but apparently not. The rule is, if you're talking about "him," it's "whom." If you're talking about "he" it's "who." So, the terrorists would vote for "him," not "he," so it's "whom." Ow!
I did find this small consolation:
When in doubt, use who. Why? Because whom only sounds natural when preceded by a preposition - e.g., Give the job to whomever you choose. That is why the literary stars, who work for effect rather than for grammatical points, often commit grammatical errors.I couldn't be accurately described as a "literary star," but it's nice to share my shortcomings with them.
As for the dangling preposition, I ain't even going there.
I have several word documents with various names and pics. Easy to find them that way. Got one for F'ing, the c'toons, etc.
The first uses a preposition to end a sentence with- not good. "For whom" is still the correct form but the form of the whole sentence is wrong which makes the "whom" awkward. These things need to be proofed by someone who is old enough to have been taught grammar in school.
Thanks for the ping!
When I designed this bumper sticker, I was not sure what was correct.
I queried my wife and my father-in-law, who lives with us. Three master's degrees and we couldn't agree either!
My wife suggested typing the phrase in MS Word and trying the grammar correction thingie. That didnt't resolve the question.
I then did a net search for grammar checking sites. I found a couple and ran the phrase. I don't remember the sites that I found via Google but they sort of "approved" the final phrase; albeit, with caveats IIRC!
If Frenchkerry is elected I expect he will dismantle internal security like the Patriot Act and lighten up in Iraq. At home the saracens will have more space to work and there will be another 911 type event. The ketchup president will not react to that militarily nor will any effective security measures by put in place domestically. It will happen again and maybe a third time before a French administration will react. It will react badly and will suffer outright military defeats. Then I expect desperation measures up to and quite possibly including Nukes. We will still ultimately win this war but it will be ultimately much messier here at home and in the rest of the world with a Democrat, especially this Democrat, at the helm.
Actually, for whom is the most correct.
RIGHT ON!
Ping me when the BC04 campaign has the balls to say that Al Qaeda wants Bush to lose and we shouldn't let the terrorists win with a Bush loss.
Agreed, whom does sound rather awkward when not preceded by a preposition. It looks like its become quite acceptable to use either one in some cases. When it comes to striving to avoid the dangling preposition, Id use the more natural option (I dont consider myself an expert at all though).
Sir, that is a rule up with which I shall not put.
/Churchill
When Clinton pulled down his pants
he made the Islamic people see America
as a disgusting perverted nation.
Clinton whipped it out
and now America takes the whipping.
Never Forget
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.