BBC NEWS | The Reporters

The Bin Laden Question

Gavin Hewitt
26 Oct 08, 03:19 AM GMT

It seemed curious that one of Barack Obama's first campaign stops after returning from visiting his grandmother In Hawaii was the desert fantasy of Las Vegas. With its fountains and Venetian replicas it is disconnected from reality. Its purpose is to escape into a world of games, tables and machines.

(It turns out that it is fertile territory for the Democratic candidate. Some big hotel projects have been mothballed. And many of the casino workers have not seen their wages rise in real terms in years.)

Whilst here a question re-emerged that has been asked before. It, too, is part game yet an important truth lies behind it. Several times on the campaign trail the breeze has been shot with this question "if Osama Bin Laden had a vote, which candidate would he cast it for?"

Before revealing the conventional wisdom on this I want to wind back four years. I was at a rally in West Palm Beach at a John Kerry campaign event when my office called. Osama Bin Laden, a few days before polling, had issued a tape. It was clearly intended to influence the American election.

I walked across to see Mike McCurry who was a Kerry campaign adviser and a former Press Secretary to Bill Clinton. He knew nothing of the Bin Laden tape but immediately recognised its importance. As soon as John Kerry left the stage he sat in his black SUV and worked out a response. By the time he arrived at West Palm Beach airport he had his statement. He would not allow Osama Bin Laden to have any impact on the election. He dead-batted the whole issue.

But as we enter the final days of this campaign the question is being asked again. What if a new tape emerges threatening fresh attacks? Might this not play in John McCain's favour? Would it not underline that Barack Obama is untested? Would it not make the McCain point that we live in dangerous times?

It brings us back to the hypothetical question. "If Osama Bin Laden had the vote, how would he use it?" Some people answer that he would surely vote for Obama because he believes in "soft power" before military force. But usually the conversation evolves along these lines. Osama Bin Laden would fear Barack Obama more because he will present
a different face to the world. With his diverse background he will be a new American. Barack Obama will be a poor recruiter for al-Qaeda. It's the Colin Powell point that "Obama would be a transformational president...it would electrify the world"

So might Osama Bin Laden then try to strengthen John McCain's hand? It's a thought but only from an idle campaign moment in a gaming city.

Comments

1. At 04:10am on 26 Oct 2008, clueduprock wrote:
I think the correct prediction has already been made, which is your last point, that it will strengthen McCain's standing.

This is because a) it is true McCain and war-mongering Republicans (Iran anyone?) are better recruiters for al-Qaeda, but b) most Americans don't realise this and a bin Laden tape would indeed make them think, incorrectly, McCain and the Republicans are a better choice for defending America and "democracy".

That said, I say "most Americans", but across the BBC's coverage it appears that many Americans have started waking up to this and realise Bush's aggressive and unilateral attitude has made it weaker around the world. Hopefully enough will acknowledge that a hopeful, positive and co-operative United States will be a far better defence in America, Iraq and around the world.

Complain about this comment
2. At 11:49am on 26 Oct 2008, dhimmi wrote:
Anyone with a clue realises that the "do nothing" Clinton years led Osama to form the opinion that the USA was a paper tiger.

So it will be if Obama is elected.

Not that it will stop the required to be impartial BBC from breaking its charter and openly cheering Obama on.

Complain about this comment
3. At 12:03pm on 26 Oct 2008, PACSYIP wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
4. At 12:16pm on 26 Oct 2008, Stephen Derry wrote:
I didn't think Bin Laden believed in democracy!

Complain about this comment
5. At 12:26pm on 26 Oct 2008, Devonportdave wrote:
America desperately needs a leader who can see past dropping bombs on people as a way of exerting American influence in the world.

Complain about this comment
6. At 12:37pm on 26 Oct 2008, threshold7 wrote:
On the one hand, conventional wisdom would suggest that from the bin Laden perspective, the war is the raison d'être. Bin Laden doesn't want to win the war; he wants the war to continue. Clearly, radical Islam would rather have radical Christianity in charge in Washington, because this presents a better path to martyrdom and righteousness.

On the other hand, this is a load of superstitious rubbish. There is a real issue firing al Qaeda, and it ain't Iraq and it ain't Afghanistan. In the "do-nothing" Clinton years (to quote another comment here), America was in fact far from "doing nothing": America had its base at Dhahran. It was in bed with the Saudi regime for the sake of oil, as it still is. That is the issue upon which the war really rests. It has little to do with Afghanistan and little to do with Iraq, except in the sense that those are lands claimed by those who want to see a caliphate unite all the Islamic lands of the Middle East into a Greater Arabia. Al Qaeda is an Arabian nationalist organisation. It does have rational (albeit somewhat extreme) goals, once the smoke and mirrors of the "Death to America" rhetoric is seen through.

McCain will look at all this and sing some song about bombing a country whose name he can't pronounce. Obama will look at it, listen, think and seek alternatives.

The Bin Laden question might well occupy the minds of some American voters, but if it does, they'll get the wrong answer. I hope enough Americans have the courage to vote on the basis of good solid American common sense, not to scare away the bogeyman.

Complain about this comment
7. At 12:42pm on 26 Oct 2008, RomeStu wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
8. At 12:53pm on 26 Oct 2008, Makeze wrote:
Osama Bin Laden thrives on an agressive America. The hardline-policy of the Bush Administration has given the entire jihadist movement the current momentum. With every stray missile, every false aprehension made by the US army, hundreds of "freedom fighters" flock to the terrorist training camps. On the other hand, issues such as Guantanamo Bay and the invasion of Iraq, have weakened the US considerably on the world political stage.
I would say, that OBL would prefer the candidate who is most likely to keep the things as they are.

Complain about this comment
9. At 12:58pm on 26 Oct 2008, Reiner_Torheit wrote:
Bin Laden? Who's that then?

I don't hear the Bush blowhards mention him any longer.

Complain about this comment
10. At 1:01pm on 26 Oct 2008, stalisman wrote:
With great respect, I am amazes that you have managed to sail your expense account so widely across the continents.

I recocognise that this is a blog and hence unbound by sensible rules of debate, after all it is your place.

I do however find your Osama line not worthy of a C in Kindergartten.

it is a failing of media these days that young upstarts seek to create controversy and then sit back and see the fall out.

Simply put, your blog is as valuable as the laddish female DJ's who embaress people off the air waves.

:-)

Complain about this comment
11. At 1:03pm on 26 Oct 2008, aprhys wrote:
A new Bin Laden tape could potentially be the knock-out blow that Obama needs to win this election by a landslide. Since before 2001 Bin Laden has been the West's Most Wanted. The level of sympathy and goodwill that America recieved after 9/11 was squandered on a pet Bush project that distracted from what should have been the sole goal of capturing or "decapitating" Bin Laden and Al Queida.

All Obama needs to do is point out that the video demonstrates the failure of the Republican's global security policy - being taunted by a Bin Laden that is still there sticking two fingers to America, being bogged down in a country that once was just as hostile to Al Queida but is now a recruiting point for it, and destroying the credibility of the US's image in many parts of the world.

A Bin Laden tape would cut through to the bone. Obama says to McCain and the Republicans the day before the election - You had Bush's confidence John! You knew where he was John, You had the world behind you John! Why were you distracted by Iraq John? Why is he still sending videos John? Why are we in this mess John?

Complain about this comment
12. At 1:35pm on 26 Oct 2008, OnlyHereForTheFood wrote:
You have to look at Bin Laden's goal - Armageddon, end times, judgement day. Which candidate is more likely to bring this?

The "next stage" of the Islamic/western global conflict looks like its heading to Iran, and McCain seems rather more eager to use military force against Iran (either directly or via Israel). Doing so would massively increase Bin Laden's cause and further stretch American influence - probably to breaking point.

Obama is no softy (he's just against "dumb" wars, not all wars). His major foreign announcement so far is that he'll go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden even if the Pakistani government don't approve. I'm sure there will be wars under an Obama administration (America is always at war) - but one hopes they'll be short, quick wars with straightforward exit plans.

So I think, Osama will probably vote for Bob Barr ;)

Complain about this comment
13. At 1:42pm on 26 Oct 2008, shamanjake wrote:
But it's Obama who has vowed to use much greater force in Afghanistan, to attack Pakistan if it obstructs the search for bin Laden, to expand anti-terror operations into 100 countries, and who has been the most belligerent in response to Iran. All this seems to fall on deaf liberal ears.

In comparison, McCain has actually been rather less hawkish.

Complain about this comment
14. At 1:48pm on 26 Oct 2008, OldSouth wrote:
We face the very real and I believe dangerous prospect of Osama and his minions operating out of his cave, and Obama and his posse operating from the White House.

The perfect storm, where pure evil meets myopic inexperience, schooled for over forty years by leftist cant. And no one, not in Congress, or the press, able to raise a word of protest. After all, Himself cannot be questioned.

This will make FDR's hand-over of half of Europe to the gentle mercies of Stalin look positively benign.

Think before you vote!

Complain about this comment
15. At 1:53pm on 26 Oct 2008, ptrkoz wrote:
There was an Associated Press report on 22 October saying the SITE Intelligence Group had gotten onto a password protected Al Qaida associated website called Al Hesbah, and found a message saying they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the United States as a way to usher in a John McCain presidency. They said they think McCain is "impetuous" and would continue Bush's policies until America is "exhausted."
(I read this story on Haaretz but it is credited to the AP.)

Complain about this comment
16. At 2:12pm on 26 Oct 2008, stephen wrote:
thinking again about the political astuteness of Mr bin Laden (remember Spain?) I had flashbacks to September 2001 when I wondered if the twin towers would have fallen if Mr Bush had not become president. (Thank heavens that is something we will never know). Could it be that Mr bin Laden foresaw not only that Mr Bush would be drawn into war but that he would also be tempted back to finish off where his own father had failed in Iraq? Perhaps this was a primary objective. Do we know what Mr bin Laden's feelings were about the Iraqi regime?
Much as I regret to have to say this, I think it dangerous to underestimate Mr bin Laden's ability to manipulate political situations to suit his own purposes. Let us hope to God that any such intervention is indeed limited to a video.

Complain about this comment
17. At 2:15pm on 26 Oct 2008, AndrewNK wrote:
Difficult to know whether Bin Laden wants the US to go home, or whether he wants them to keep fighting (and therefore draining their finances).

I suspect the latter. Without the US in the Middle East, Bin Laden quickly becomes redundant, a nobody. And with the vast majority of these types of people, ego comes first, and the stated cause for the common good a distant second.

So I think he would say he is voting for Obama (to drive US voters to vote for McCain), but he would actually vote for McCain to keep the US in wars.

Complain about this comment
18. At 2:15pm on 26 Oct 2008, extremesense wrote:
#2, dhimmi, are you referring to Clinton's 'do nothing' years in the sense of his passive foreign policy?

If so, I'm afraid that you're misinformed, ignorant or both.... Clinton launched more unilateral attacks on sovereign states than any other US President since WWII.

The paper tiger you refer to had very real teeth.

Complain about this comment
19. At 2:38pm on 26 Oct 2008, Dodgy-Geezer wrote:
Umm.. As I recall, it was well understood before the Iraq war that using major military force against terrorists results in them expanding their influence. In fact, this has been documented in standard texts since the 1960s.

So your discussions about whether to operate a sane anti-terrorist policy now are welcome, but about a decade too late.

The question which occupies my mind is why, knowing that an attack on Iraq would create this appallingly unsafe and opressive world, did the security services and advisors of western governments support it as they did? Could it be that, after the end of the cold war, they saw a possible future with no work?

Complain about this comment
20. At 2:49pm on 26 Oct 2008, extremesense wrote:
The Osama bin Laden question?

His ultimate goal is for an Islamic Caliphate across the Islamic world.

Unforunately for him, he's part of a very small minority so as has been suggested, it suits him in the short term for the US to be aggressive in order to recruit devotees to his cause.

As McCain has made it clear that he would like to act as a recruiting sergeant, I'm sure bin Laden would prefer McCain to win the Presidential race.

#12, OnlyHereForTheFood, I have a very strong feeling that you're incorrect in assuming that bin Laden's goal is Armageddon. There are, however, a significant minority of Christians whose aim it is to achieve this. Sarah Palin may even be able to enlighten us.

Complain about this comment
21. At 2:58pm on 26 Oct 2008, splendidfruitbat wrote:
Oh? I thought that there was a possibility that OBL was dead, as was claimed by Benazir Bhutto in her interview with David Frost after a major assassination attempt on her. Interesting to see that it seems to be in nobody's interest to investigate as to whether that rather strange claimhad any validity. Voting would then obviously be a bit tricky. To see the interview, go to http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ

Complain about this comment
22. At 3:08pm on 26 Oct 2008, pontrilas42 wrote:
In the final pages of Tim Weiner's book on the CIA, "Legacy of Ashes," the reader will find the CIA counter-terrorism experts' answer to this question. During their years of studious examination of Usama bin Ladin's popularity, they found that it tracked George Bush's. For them, the 2004 "October Surprise" was no surprise. Gavin Hewitt's speculation is on the mark.

Complain about this comment
23. At 3:09pm on 26 Oct 2008, joenamibia wrote:
It wouldn't be at all surprising if Bin Laden spoke and yes it might help McCain and that would be the intent. To understand why one should ask who is the real Bin Laden and would he please stand up. Have a look at a documentary called Zeitgeist available for download through www.google.com. Not saying one needs to believe the whole argument but there certainly are questions raised which cannot be answered or dismissed.

Complain about this comment
24. At 3:27pm on 26 Oct 2008, manutd7411 wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26kristof.html?hp

In my opinion, though, it would take more than a video to swing this election; at this point I think that only an attack would do so. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Complain about this comment
25. At 3:32pm on 26 Oct 2008, tastyalex wrote:
Bin Laden is a CIA asset that will pop up whenever the Americans need to inject some fear into the equation.

Complain about this comment
26. At 3:33pm on 26 Oct 2008, get-real wrote:
Unless someone can produce irrefutable proof that OBL is still alive, the whole question of what he 'wants' is spurious. All we have had are a series of dodgy videos and statements, all timed to influence American Public (and unquestioning World Media) opinion in favour of the Neo-con agenda.

Nor, amazingly, has hard evidence has ever been produced to prove that OBL was involved in any way in the 9/11 attacks. Everyone has just accepted it as fact, despite that the source for this information is that entirely discredited authority, the Bush Administration.

If you think you have proof that he was involved you should inform the FBI at once. Their website's OBL page lists many crimes he is wanted for but 9/11 is not among them. Why? Because, as they freely admit, "there is no hard evidence to connect bin Laden with 9/11".
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Yet his presence in Afghanistan, and the Taliban's refusal to hand him over, was the single stated raison d'etre for our invasion and occupation of that country.

It is all based on a myth. I wish BBC correspondents would investigate this rather than continuing to promulgate this fantasy of the Great bin Laden Boogeyman.

Complain about this comment
27. At 4:16pm on 26 Oct 2008, Something Something wrote:
Remember what McCain said in one of the debates? He knows how to get Bin Laden. But if you don't for him, he's not telling!

Complain about this comment
28. At 4:43pm on 26 Oct 2008, That_Nonsence_Talker wrote:
bin Laden possibly tipped the last US election to G W Bush, with his stupid video.

Your article is fundamentally flawed because it implies bin Laden has a level of intelligence or strategic insight, far far beyond what he has demonstrated to date.

Complain about this comment
29. At 4:50pm on 26 Oct 2008, Stephen Derry wrote:
Has anyone seen a copy of Bin Laden's birth certificate? How do we know he wasn't born in the USA (or Panama), and that his real name isn't Osama Bin McCain?

The McCain campaign have consistently refused to deny this rumour I just made up, which shows they must have something to hide. We need to know the truth!

Complain about this comment
30. At 4:55pm on 26 Oct 2008, johgilberttyler wrote:
Post 9/11, Osama bin Laden stated [allegedly] his raison d"etre was the Palestine question and US troops in Saudi. The former has not been meaningfully addressed since then. The Palestinians who fled im 1948 have no right of return to their own land, yet anyone who is Jewish can make a new life in Israel. This unfairness is maintained by the Zionists who say Arab returners would dilute the Jewish State. This is akin to ethnic cleansing, which ironically is how Israel came to exist in 1948. The Zionists are running an apartheid state, as detailed by Jimmy Carter recently He is right, yet is pilloried for not having had a war whilst he was president! The Saudis run a Taleban-like regime with US support. Let's hope Obama will attempt to sort some of this out.

Complain about this comment
31. At 5:28pm on 26 Oct 2008, Matt wrote:
if McCain knows how to find Osama, the question is why he hasn't done so. it would be a big boost for his credentials as a candidate. his statement carries a seriously high 'political hokum' rating.

if some statement from Bin Laden should emerge, the real question would be who fabricated it and why. he died a relatively natural death several years ago in Afghanistan from a combination of a 'heavy travel schedule' and a question of portability of dialysis equipment and was buried, as is tradition, in an unmarked grave. it has been useful to the Republican administration and others to 'keep him alive'.

should such a presentation emerge, it would be as useful to Obama to further strengthen his position, pointing to it as another failure of the Republican administration as it would be to McCain as a reminder of the dangers of the world. likely a '0' net gain for either candidate.

there are other, even stranger twists and turns to come yet.

:-)
matt.

Complain about this comment
32. At 5:39pm on 26 Oct 2008, ChristaB wrote:
I like that you didn't already insert a theory into how Obama would react. I don't like to form an opinion based on what hasn't even happened yet.
Good questions!
I blogged about this myself too:
http://theodalisque.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/let-bin-laden-cast-a-vote/

at

theodalisque.wordpress.com

Complain about this comment
33. At 5:58pm on 26 Oct 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:
5. At 1:26pm on 26 Oct 2008, Devonportdave wrote:

America desperately needs a leader who can see past dropping bombs on people as a way of exerting American influence in the world.

Perhaps an Arab leader who felt the same wouldn't hurt? The Taliban shoot British aid workers in Afghanistan but where are the islamic charities?

The Saudis and Kuwaitis import hundreds of thousands of workers from South East Asia each year while clever hard working Palestinians are trapped in refugee camps. Both countries will send money to fund terror groups but they won't spend a single dollar improving the lives of fellow muslims.

Before making cheap cracks at the US you should maybe look at how the rest of the world 'influences' its neighbours.

Complain about this comment
34. At 5:59pm on 26 Oct 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:
"if McCain knows how to find Osama, the question is why he hasn't done so"

Because he's a senator who qualified for a bus pass 12 years ago, not the US army?

Complain about this comment
35. At 6:00pm on 26 Oct 2008, Leviticus wrote:
Does anyone seriously think that Militant Islam will be moved fron it's intent on world domination by a nice touchy feely, soft, nice to everybody US President. Most Americans along with all of the UK liberals just have no comprehension about Islam.

Complain about this comment
36. At 6:25pm on 26 Oct 2008, Black_And_Proud wrote:
I'm not sure that Bin Laden much cares who wins (if he's still alive...). The fact is that there is a constituency of people who want to kill Americans where possible, otherwise anyone else they can find will do. They will continue to kill americans and others as they're too stupid and ignorant to hold power through any means other than violence. The face of the president will not make any diffence to this.

I don't think that Osama being a black president will have much effect on people's perceptions in the middle east and elsewhere. He's american and therefore the enemy. You could probably argue that they will see him as an apostate and therefore even lower than McCain.

The only people that are likely to think that his ethnic origin will make any difference are left-wing (not liberal) Europeans and Americans who have a "hello clouds, hello sky" view of the world. Elsewhere he will still be seen as the figurehead of an aggressive American foreign policy.

Complain about this comment
37. At 6:55pm on 26 Oct 2008, MariaTee wrote:
My understanding is that Bin Laden was reacting to the presence of infidels (i.e. Americans) in Arab lands, especially in Saudi Arabia.
McCain and Palin's energy policy, which is to give the US energy independence by developing resources at home (drilling for new petroleum fields in Alaska, developing alternative sources such sun and wind, etc.), would do much to get Americans out of the Middle East.
I have not figured out what Obama's policy is yet.

Complain about this comment
38. At 7:06pm on 26 Oct 2008, extremesense wrote:
#33, Peter_Sym, you ask where the 'Islamic' charities are. Firstly, one of the pillars of Islam is roughly translated 'charity' so believers give to the poor.

Furthermore, evidence shows that those working for 'Islamic' charities are at risk of being arrested, tortured and illegally rendered to secret destinations, oh, and of course, Guantanamo Bay. Yes, by the Americans.

If you bothered to research what you write, you would discover that the Americans have been responsible for overthrowing more sovereign governments since WWII than the rest of the World put together - well over fifty and many of them democratically elected.

I think you'll also find that the Israeli government make it almost impossible for any country to utilise Palestinian labour.

I could go on.....

Complain about this comment
39. At 7:12pm on 26 Oct 2008, melbro2 wrote:
I remember reading that it was thought George Bush would be a war-monger. It proved correct. But there was a fact buried in the script saying that President Clinton had covertly had US forces involved in as many operations as the Bush administration in its first months, only Bush was open about them. A return to Democrat rule will just hark back to the covert days, a 'great change'...... or not as the case may be.

Complain about this comment
40. At 7:53pm on 26 Oct 2008, bigsammyb wrote:
I don't think such a question exists, if anybody asking it knew what Osama Bin Laden Stands for.

He stands for shariah law, so in Osamas world there is no such thing as democrasy, politics or debate.

His 'law' is clearly written down so he considers anyone involved in politics (which includes voters) to be commiting blasphemy. Hence the terrorism.

So if he had a vote? He would decline it.

Complain about this comment
41. At 9:30pm on 26 Oct 2008, rjaggar wrote:
Do you seriously believe that bin Laden is still alive?

Why is it that all videos are in Arabic, no-one has a clue what is being said and we have to take the word of the media for it?

Do you not think that you are creating a 21st century Lord Lucan?

And why do you think that the BBC wasting license payers' money on this is good use of public funds?

Can I suggest that either you or John Humphreys get taken to see bin Laden face to face with video evidence of it happening, before the BBC ever runs another story on bin Laden again?

And can I suggest that the Director General of the BBC issue a statement to the the Prime Minister, the Foreign Office and the American Ambassador not to provide any more briefings about bin Laden in the absence of face-to-face briefings of respected and reputable journalists ready to lose their career if what they put out turns out to be lies?

Complain about this comment
42. At 11:33pm on 26 Oct 2008, daveddy wrote:
That is a cheap trick, unworthy of you. You suggest the possibility of, and thus invite, an incident such as an assasination or a terroist attack. The fear of such an incident is understood by all. Just say nothing which might, which just might, incite it.

Complain about this comment
43. At 00:36am on 27 Oct 2008, Roland George wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
44. At 00:36am on 27 Oct 2008, zeugmobile wrote:
Osama bin Laden apparently secured the outcome he wanted in 2004. Can there be any doubt that he wants McCain to win this time round?

Complain about this comment
45. At 00:47am on 27 Oct 2008, frostybodger wrote:
The bbc just want to see a mixed race guy who they insist on labeling black take the white house. It reminds me of their same fascination with tiger woods and lewis hamilton. the bbc want to push them down our throats as great "black" role models.

Complain about this comment
46. At 03:35am on 27 Oct 2008, schalken66 wrote:
To the writer who said FDR handed over half of Europe to Stalin- FDR did not have to HANDOVER anything to anyone, Stalin and his Soviet army defeated Germany from the East single-handedly! They also dealt the heaviest blows to the German army at Kursk and Stalingrad- they earned the spoils of war, nothing was handed to them- and they also paid heaviest of all the allies in terms of casualties of war

Complain about this comment
47. At 04:01am on 27 Oct 2008, poshmong wrote:
With all of America's military technology which can pinpoint exact locations anywhere in the world, it is surprising that it hasn't been able to locate Bin Laden for all these years since 2001. Perhaps Mr Bush and friends do not want to locate Bin Laden so they can continue their war on terrorism and enact legislation to limit freedoms in America; ie the Patriot Act.

Complain about this comment
48. At 04:47am on 27 Oct 2008, US-urbanite wrote:
In Bush-Mission-Accomplished's last weeks, Bin Laden is being hounded hard by drones and thus may have trouble staging his speech.

Complain about this comment
49. At 05:41am on 27 Oct 2008, Northumbrian wrote:
#30

"The Saudis run a Taleban-like regime with US support. Let's hope Obama will attempt to sort some of this out."

Exactly how do you think Obama will "sort out" the Saudi regime? Invade Saudi Arabia? Surely even Dick Cheney wouldn't be that stupid.

Complain about this comment
50. At 05:44am on 27 Oct 2008, Tariqabideen wrote:
Osama Bin Laden probably likes being pursued. That desire of him is known to Obama, who promises to devastate the land where Osama is found to dwell (not hide).
Had Obama taken a softer stand on pursuing Osama, a video from the fugitive would have been couriered by now to the popular Arabic TV for broadcasting to the intended audience - the Americans.
With Obama's assurance and McCain's war songs (Bomb Bomb...), the military-industrial complex has assured revenue for the next four years, regardless of who the Americans prop up as their leader on 4th November.

Complain about this comment
51. At 05:57am on 27 Oct 2008, Tariqabideen wrote:
Devonportdave wrote in #33:

...The Taliban shoot British aid workers in Afghanistan but where are the islamic charities?..

The table has turned now!
In the 80's, if you recall, these guys were shooting the Russians while the Islamic charities were doing what Christian charities are doing now.

Complain about this comment
52. At 05:57am on 27 Oct 2008, Northumbrian wrote:
#46

"To the writer who said FDR handed over half of Europe to Stalin- FDR did not have to HAND OVER anything to anyone, Stalin and his Soviet army defeated Germany from the East single-handedly!"

No one who has seen/read anything about the Eastern front denies the huge effort and massive losses of the Soviet forces. They might, however, have lost, had German forces not also been under pressure from the allies on other fronts. Of course, the reseverse applies - I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that any one power won the war "single-handed".

However, at the Yalta conference in February 1945, FDR did, essentially, agree that the Soviet Union should have a sphere of influence which included most of Eastern Europe. It could be said that he was only recognising the reality on the ground, but it WAS a formal recognition by the US of Soviet domination of, for example, Poland, and that recognition appeared to matter to Stalin.

Complain about this comment
53. At 06:00am on 27 Oct 2008, babarzm wrote:
This is a hypothetical question based on another hypothesis that OBL is still alive. I am aware of two former Pakistani head of states, Musharraf and Late Ms. Bhutto, who in separate interviews to American journalist has mentioned that OBL is dead. Ms. Bhutto went as far as naming Omer Sheikh Muhammad as killer of OBL.

We are chasing a ghost?

Complain about this comment
54. At 06:07am on 27 Oct 2008, Britnomad wrote:
Contributors to this blog write as if dislike of American foreign policy began as a reaction to what the US did following 9/11 but for at least 20 years people in the Middle East have resented the American assumption that they can go anywhere and do anything in any Middle Eastern country without any consequences. The twin towers bombing was a natural consequence of this resentment - I don't say it was the right thing to do but it should have been foreseen. American foreign policy is dominated by the need to keep their arms industry profitable and they go from one agressive action to another in furtherance of this cause. There are many closet sympathisers of Bin Laden throughout the Arab world - ordinary people who are pleased to see the Americans get their comeuppance. The arms industry pumps funds into the coffers of politicians so that policies remain the same and however hard a President tries, Congress will never support a more diplomatic solution to any problem. Nobody knows who is funding the campaigns for McCain or Obama and what the backers expect in return. Any President begins his term in office with his hands tied in this respect. Until the amount of money spent on elections is regulated, there will never be a peaceful American foreign policy. Whatever Al Quaeda does or doesn't do before the election, it will be used to manipulate the people into supporting further aggression which will only lead to more resentment and more acts of terrorism.

Complain about this comment
55. At 06:40am on 27 Oct 2008, Winston1984 wrote:
The real powers in America want to run the world, plain and simple.

As for Bin Laden, do a little research into the tapes and video's that have been released. Forgeries and mis-translations, but for some reason, they always seem to give a little boost to real aggressors.

Comment 54: Interesting that you refer to the "twin tower bombing" in your post.

Complain about this comment
56. At 06:44am on 27 Oct 2008, Jim Hewitt wrote:
We know how American policy will shift if Obama wins.

Democrats will stop killing terrorists and murderers, and get back to killing babies and old people.

Complain about this comment
57. At 07:08am on 27 Oct 2008, acenavigator wrote:
By any chance, if Osama is killed, the possibility of McCain, winning this election, can turn brighter. A dead Osama too, can change the course of this election, not only a scheming, alive and kicking, Osama sitting somewhere on the mountains at Pakistan's western frontier.

Complain about this comment
58. At 07:29am on 27 Oct 2008, Ian Lowe wrote:
Just a response to 'Not that it will stop the required to be impartial BBC from breaking its charter and openly cheering Obama on.'

I think you will find that the BBC's charter calls for it to be impartial and neutral in UK political matters only. It is perfectly acceptable for the BBC to comment on a foreign election, especially when polls like www.iftheworldcouldvote.com suggest that the UK population is overwhelmingly in favour of an Obama win.

Complain about this comment
59. At 07:51am on 27 Oct 2008, uptoeleven wrote:
Which way would Osama Bin Laden vote?

He would vote republican. He would vote republican to ensure that the "war on terror" continues so his movement could continue to gather strength against the West.

What would he do about this? Release a video supporting Obama, in the knowledge that anyone who sees it who is wavering will vote for McCain. It worked 4 years ago it will work again this time if he does it, if he's still alive.

It's a sad fact that Osama Bin Laden is more than capable of manipulating the media. It is even sadder that so many Americans watch television and read papers without a critical eye. Gullibility and naivety are weaknesses that Bin Laden and his movement have exploited again and again over recent years.

And it's an even sadder fact that the fate of a great nation and indeed the world to an extent lies with one lunatic leader of a fringe militant terrorist group in a cave on the other side of the world and whether or not he makes a video.

Complain about this comment
60. At 08:03am on 27 Oct 2008, MartonR wrote:
I have to repeat my comment from some days ago..... the best thing that could happen for Bin Laden is a McCain win, it would wrap up 9/11 rather neatly, I hate to say. There is no way an enemy could invade the USA, but using the nation's timorousness to get two incompetents of the McCain and Palin stamp elected after 8 years of complete incompetence by Bush.... that would do the job, esp. in these times.

The one lesson McCain has learned well is to keep the level of bugaboo-fear up, even if it involves playing fast and easy with the truth. "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Words by HL Mencken from another era, but they ring true today.

As for Bin Laden.... well, I suspect the Bush administration is trying hard to "kill" him before Nocvember 4th, which would explain why the USA has intensified its bombings in the Waziristan area, bombing Pakistan several times in the process and vastly damaging our tenuous ties to that country.
I see two possible scenarios: the first is OBL coming out with one of those great tapes full of nonsense that appears stolen from 1940s radio shows. The second scenario: some unsubstantiated reports of the death of OBL will begin around Thursday of this week, filtered through Fox News and some of the extreme-rightwing blogs, only to disappear around November 5th.

Complain about this comment
61. At 08:55am on 27 Oct 2008, Xie_Ming wrote:
One may also think that these American-initiated cross-border attacks are part of
desperate attempts to rally the War Party.

Complain about this comment
62. At 09:03am on 27 Oct 2008, Katos2 wrote:
OBL is a desperado running for his life. There is his first priority.

An old and tired posse has been after him for many years now and he has learned to dodge them quite well. A new crew with unknown tactics, fresh men and horses is definitely a high risk that must be avoided, if possible at all.

That is why he wanted (and achieved) a Bush re-election, and for the same reason he would prefer McCain. It is another matter that a messsage from him is not likely to have much impact now. His latest tape some months ago was all but ignored by the media.

Yet another aspect is that OBL goal is not (and has never been) to conquer America. That would be foolish. He wants to be king of Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East. That is (very) marginally possible if he plays his game right. Attacking America and Europe are just diversion tactics on the scene, designed to soften the main target.

Complain about this comment
63. At 09:32am on 27 Oct 2008, senyahnoj wrote:
All the Republicans need to do is to fabricate another Bin Laden tape. Just like they probably did last time :)

Complain about this comment
64. At 09:46am on 27 Oct 2008, olafpalme wrote:
`My friends. [McCain] knows how to get him'
Has known for the last 8 years he suggests.
But I guess `country' has to wait for McCain first.

Thats all the Obama campaign has to say if Bin Laden releases a tape.

Complain about this comment
65. At 09:53am on 27 Oct 2008, The Midland 20 wrote:
After 9/11 most of the world supported the USA and would have done anything to help it and it's people.

The Republicans have since alienated most of the world.

Being left alone without friends is not the way to win a war on terror.

Complain about this comment
66. At 10:28am on 27 Oct 2008, gowergold wrote:
It was suspicious that a new Bin Laden tape appeared in 2004 at election time apparently helping the Republican cause and it would be just as suspicious if one turned up now to do the same job. The cult of Bin Laden nowadays seems to be taking on a very similar role to that of Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984. He was almost certainly dead in the book but used mercilessly for propaganda purposes. The similarities are uncanny.

Complain about this comment
67. At 10:33am on 27 Oct 2008, lincstwinks wrote:
Bin Laden used to do videos but I cannot remember seeing one for quite a while but I do recall audio only messages. Does anyone think that he could actually be dead ?

Complain about this comment
68. At 10:36am on 27 Oct 2008, goldCaesar wrote:
Al Qaida thrives on confrontation & aggression, Bush is the perfect president from their perspective.

They would naturally support the candidate who will continue his policies, which from the rhetoric of the candidated so far, would be McCain.

....and should Palin become president at some point I imagine the jihadist world would declare a month of celebration

Complain about this comment
69. At 10:39am on 27 Oct 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:
#38 if one of the pillars of Islam is charity then there are very few good muslims in Saudi. They seem happy to fund Hezbollah but not so happy to fund clean wells in Lebanese refugee camps. There were plenty of Palestinians in Kuwait pre-91' and the idea that Israel stops Palestinians moving from Lebanese refugee camps to Saudi or Dubai is laughable... Israel wants the Palestinians as far from Palestine as they can go.

Equally your cheap crack about 'muslim charity workers ending up in Guantanimo' is nonsense. Guatanimo has only existed since 2001 and has 500 inmates, of which 1/4 are Chinese, Where were the muslim charities in Afghanistan pre-9/11? Ever heard of an Islamic peace-corp? Bin Ladin is happy to capitalise on muslim poverty because people with nothing have nothing to lose, however the ruling classes in the middle east are some of the most obscenely rich people on earth. Bin ladin himself is a billionaire.

The Islamic world needs to stop preaching 'Islamic solidarity' as a war cry and start a little wealth distribution. THAT is how terrorism will be ended.

Complain about this comment
70. At 10:43am on 27 Oct 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:
#67 I think the chances of Bin Ladin actually being in a cave in Pakistan are about as likely as me winning the Euro millions. It could happen but.....

50:50 he's dead or in Saudi.

If he's dead he could have been buried under a billion tons of rock in Tora Bora and no-one would know for certain. It suits the US to have him alive as a bogey-man and it would be a terrible blow to Al Q to admit that the 'Great Satan' got the boss.

Personally I think he's back home. The US is so dependant on Saudi oil & arms deals that they couldn't decently attack Saudi to get him back. Mecca is off limits to non-muslims and any attack there would trigger global jihad. It would also explain why no one has turned him in for the 20 million reward (unlike many other Al Q leaders)... its pocket change for many upper class Saudis. You may note that the bomb attacks in Saudi stopped a few years ago and that Al Q have stopped calling for the overthrow of the house of Saud too.

Complain about this comment
71. At 10:45am on 27 Oct 2008, delminister wrote:
it is well documented that the current president of the usa has ties to Osama Bin Laden and therefore his capture was never going to happen.
may be the policy will change under new leadership and the us forces will be allowed to capture him once and for all.
even so the american voters are easily swayed and all it will take for bushes pupet to become president is another threat from terrorists.
forgetting the ecconomy and the serious downturn in banking , finance and housing markets will only cause the american people more suffering and depression.
i can understand there need to apear strong and there forces need to be allowed to do there jobs becouse its the same with any young nation to show the older nations its bigger and better than they are or were.
sabre ratteling aside to ignore internal problems will only create more of the same history shows and history will be repeated unless the lessons are learned.

Complain about this comment
72. At 11:16am on 27 Oct 2008, no1ASB wrote:
The world has become too small to think just in the confinement of the geopolitical boundaries. Whatever the game behind 9/11 and the al-Qaeda, allowing all the gains of the American imperialism from this game, one fact stands out- undisputed, I believe-: the world has become a more bearable planet without Sadam, at least for the Iraqis, Kwaitis, Iranians- I believe just for everybody, thanks to the US.

Complain about this comment
73. At 3:00pm on 27 Oct 2008, arviews wrote:
The current economic situation has made all foreign policy issues less important for American voters. The effect of any new tape would be not so much than compared to four years ago, but would certainly improve the chances of John McCain.

Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda will be still recruiting with their Islamic fundamentalist views irrespective of whoever becomes the president.

Complain about this comment
74. At 4:03pm on 27 Oct 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:
"it is well documented that the current president of the usa has ties to Osama Bin Laden and therefore his capture was never going to happen."

An interesting claim.... Bush's ties to OSAMA Bin Ladin are pretty weak. The Bush family and the Bin Ladin's dealings are well documented and no state secret but Bin Ladin Senior was a generous man with his 'affections' and Osama is one of about 70 siblings. HE made his love for Bush clear on 9/11.

You're presuming that catching the black sheep of the Bin Ladin family would upset them. I'm not so sure.... business would be a lot smoother without brother Osama blowing things up and catching him would do Bush's popularity and therefore McCains chance of keeping the status quo in the US a power of good.

Complain about this comment
75. At 5:14pm on 27 Oct 2008, seeamanaboutadog wrote:
This one is pretty easy to decide...
If Bin Laden or Zahawi post a video or message just before the election it is obvious that they are backing McCain whatever the content because McCain is losing the election..its all unravelling for him. If they wanted Obama to win they will remain quiet...however if we hear nothing it does not follow that they want obama to win.
The point is, we hear from the jihadists they are pointedly backing McCain..he will be their recruitment tool as Bush has been their greatest asset.

Complain about this comment
76. At 6:18pm on 27 Oct 2008, bigsammyb wrote:
Ian Lowe #58

Who are you to presume what the british people want?

And the BBC is supposed to be impartial over ALL matters whether they be local or international.

What surprises me is you don't even attempt to convey the BBC as anything other than bias.

This sickens me, how do i know what else the BBC uses its partisan nature for?

As far as i am concerned the BBc's behaviour with the U.S election has done its credability untold damage.

Complain about this comment
77. At 7:34pm on 27 Oct 2008, SpeleoKarst wrote:
Another scenario:

In the next few days, Bush will triumphally announce "We got him!"

Strangely, Osama Bin Laden's exhibited body will show signs of deep frost damage....

Complain about this comment
78. At 3:34pm on 28 Oct 2008, Leviticus wrote:
bigsammyb #76

I am afraid that the BBC has long been in the hands of the PC left wing whether it's in the pro Obama reporting of the US Pres election or in it's pro-Palestinian anti-Israel ME reporting ( and the word terrorist must not be used - Hamas being a 'democratically elected government )or it's liberal nuanced coverage of social issues such as abortion and the gay agenda issues.

The disgrace of course is that it is a Public Service Broadcaster, funded by taxpayers money which it proceeds to waste with increasing profligaracy on a variety of indulgences dear to the heart of left wingers and liberals; and lots of nice little junkets around the world for an army of reporters. Naturally not a 'Bill O'Reilly' in sight.

In the world's eyes it still retains that aura of the balance and impartiality and accuracy associated with a past and lost era of reporting. The only difference between it and the obvious liberal bias of the American media is subtlety.

According to Andtrew Marr, it's one time Political Editor and by no means a rabid right winger, the BBC is also disproprtionately overpopulated by ethnic minorities and gays. So together with the PC liberal 'chattering classes' it's not to difficult to understand.

So like many of your American counterparts you are beginning to catch on.

Complain about this comment
79. At 10:54pm on 28 Oct 2008, anarue wrote:
calling obama an undercover muslim because of where he grew up is like suggesting McCain is secretly a communist because he was held prisoner and brainwashed in vietnam looking forward to the day when he would become president

Complain about this comment
80. At 10:33am on 29 Oct 2008, thoughtsabroad wrote:
Very good comments made by Tastyalex no.25 and seemanaboutadog no.75.

Complain about this comment