In recent days, the Republican campaign has descended
still further into unrestrained fear-mongering. Not only would John Kerry's
election put America in greater peril from terrorism,
cry the party's spokesmen and their media enablers, but terrorists themselves
are
actually hoping that Kerry will defeat George
W. Bush.
Such raw demagoguery is scarcely surprising in
an election season as soiled as this one -- and even less so emanating
from the mouth
of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the serial slanderer
who insinuated last month that Democratic funder George Soros made his
fortune from narcotics trafficking.
At an Illinois fundraiser on Sept. 18, Hastert
said, "I think that the terrorists, the al-Qaida, would like to influence
this election.
They would like to influence this election just
like they influenced the election in Spain, but the American people aren't
going to
let that happen." The terrorists, said Hastert,
would operate with "more comfort" if Kerry wins.
Expecting intelligence and decency from the Speaker
may be pointless by now. But what about other more reputable figures who
echoed his slur against the Democratic nominee?
The very next day, CNN political analyst and American Enterprise Institute
fellow
William Schneider endorsed Hastert's remarks
about terrorists:
"Well, I can guarantee you, they don't like George
Bush. Do they think there's a difference? I think Osama bin Laden, the
al-Qaida
network, who I am certain follow American politics
-- look at the messages coming out on their tapes -- they seem to follow
politics
very closely. They would very much like to defeat
President Bush. But the question is: Can they pull off the same trick that
they pulled
off in Spain? What Dennis Hastert said is, 'They'd
better not try that. It won't work here.' And my guess is, he's right about
that."
Schneider didn't divulge how he knows that al-Qaida
wants to defeat Bush. His expertise lies in the field of public opinion,
not terrorist tactics,
and he cited no poll that measured the preferences
of Osama bin Laden's followers. To put it bluntly, the CNN analyst was
talking out of his ass.
There is no evidence of any kind that indicates
al-Qaida's preference in the presidential election (aside from a message
posted last March
by a dubious Egyptian terror cell suggesting
that they would rather see Bush win). Let's assume for a moment, however,
that our Islamist
enemies care who prevails in November. What might
sway their preference for one candidate or another?
Competent surveys of international opinion --
which might be of professional interest to Bill Schneider -- indicate an
important reason why
the crafty bin Laden might conceivably prefer
Bush over Kerry. According to an EOS Gallup poll of Europeans and Americans
released
on Sept. 9 by the German Marshall Fund, support
for U.S. foreign policy among our traditional allies has declined by 20
percent since
2002 -- with more than 76 percent of Europeans
now expressing disapproval of the president.
The Europeans, whose assistance we rely upon in
Afghanistan, and whose help we continue to need both there and in Iraq,
believe that the
invasion and occupation have "increased the threat
of terrorism" around the world. (Incidentally, the same poll shows that
49 percent of
Americans agree with that dismal assessment,
while only 20 percent believe that the Iraq war has diminished the terrorist
threat.)
It isn't that the Europeans don't worry about
terrorism, since 71 percent of them said that international terror is an
"important or extremely
important" problem. It's just that they have
lost confidence in the world's sole superpower to lead the war against
the terrorists.
Thanks to Bush, the nations that united behind America after 9/11 are now divided and dispirited. Why would bin Laden want that to change?
The German Marshall Fund survey echoed similar
findings earlier this year by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, which tested
opinion across
Europe as well as in four major, predominantly
Muslim nations. In those countries -- Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco and Turkey
-- Bush policies
have stimulated grave doubt about the purposes
of the war on terrorism, which they regard as "an effort to control Mideast
oil and to dominate the world."
The same poll showed that large percentages view
Osama bin Laden favorably in Pakistan (65 percent), Jordan (55 percent)
and Morocco
(45 percent). Although bin Laden himself is unpopular
in Turkey, where al-Qaida's allies have committed murderous attacks, nearly
a third
of the Turkish population feels that "suicide
attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable."
As for Europeans surveyed
by Pew, they too believe that the war on terrorism
was damaged by the Iraq invasion -- and want their governments to pursue
policies more
independent of Washington.
So Bush has improved bin Laden's standing in the
Muslim world and damaged America's standing from East to West. Why would
bin Laden want that to change?
No doubt Bush would argue, as he has done repeatedly,
that American action has led to the death or apprehension of hundreds of
al-Qaida
militants, including some of the organization's
top leaders. He deserves credit for those efforts, even though his decision
to invade Iraq diverted
U.S. intelligence and military resources from
the war against al-Qaida.
But in the view of real experts on terrorism,
the bottom line of the Bush policies is less impressive than the president
claims. A year ago,
the respected International Institute of Strategic
Studies in London released a paper warning that al-Qaida's ranks had grown
in the aftermath
of the Iraq invasion. American claims that the
terrorists were "on the run" showed unwarranted overconfidence -- and the
IISS presciently
predicted that postwar chaos and failure would
help bin Laden recruit more young Muslims to his cause.
Michael Scheuer, the CIA analyst and terrorism
expert formerly known as Anonymous, agrees with the IISS findings and goes
further.
He has suggested that al-Qaida is likely so pleased
with Bush that its agents might try to help his campaign. In an interview
last summer,
Scheuer told the Guardian that the White House
and Department of Homeland Security alerts about a possible pre-election
strike by the
terrorists are credible but wrong about the purpose.
The aim would be not to depose the Bush administration
but to "mount an attack that would rally the country around the president"
and
"keep the Republicans in power." As he put it,
"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the
one they have now."
Like Schneider and Hastert, of course, Scheuer
doesn't really know what al-Qaida wants. The terrorists are sure to continue
their jihad
against the United States and the West regardless
of which party wins power -- but any realistic assessment of the "war on
terrorism" is
hardly flattering to those in power today.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer
Joe Conason writes a twice weekly column for
Salon. He also writes a weekly column for the New York Observer.
His new book, "Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda
Machine and How It Distorts the Truth," is now available.