purported al qaeda leader wants bush to win

[zimv20]

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040317/wl_nm/security_spain_truce_dc)

fwiw...


A group claiming to have links with al Qaeda said on Wednesday it was calling a truce in its Spanish operations to see if the new Madrid government would withdraw its troops from Iraq


The statement said it supported President Bush (news - web sites) in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."

"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

[pseudobrit]

That's funny, because the way Limbaugh and Co. are playing it (which is the way the GOP machine will be surely spinning it if it works for the drug addict's audience) is that a vote for Kerry is a vote for al Qaeda.

I guess straight from the horse's mouth that it's the other way around.

[DavisBAnimal]

With all this talk of "giving in to al Qaeda", I feel like some people are so hopped up on "winning" this war (ie killing lots of terrorists), they forget that the pirmary objective is to put a stop to terrorist attacks. And what is the most logical step towards curbing the tide of terrorism? How about putting a stop to heavy-handed, hawkish military aggression in the middle east. This made the most sense to me before Iraq, and with these new turn of events, seems to be coming true. This should be course number one in the Western strategy to ending terroism (increased funding for intelligence and local law enforcement coming right after).

I don't care if pulling out of Iraq, etc., is one of Qaeda's demands, this is an ideological war and should be fought ideologically. And any man willing to end his life to kill hundreds-thousands of civilians is indeed insane, monstrous, horrible and crazy, but this anti-american sentiment that's sweeping the mid-east and other parts of the world isn't some sort of rash plague of temporary destructive insanity - it has it's roots somewhere, and can be reasoned out. I don't buy the "Freedom-Haters" argument - these monsters are over here blowing crap up because we were over there, putting our military all over their lands, getting our economies all up in their business, primarily for their oil. Does that mean it's our fault? Hell no - but we should at least admit the role our policy played in inspiring this wave of terrorism, then be able to see that an end to these policies will equal an end to this brutishness, and eventually an end to terrorism. You can't fight terrosim by comitting acts that inspire terrorists - for every one you kill, you'll create 10 more.

If "giving in" to al Qaeda and ending the foreign policy that inspired their movement in the first place is a loss, then I'll take the loss, so long as it grants me more saftey and puts a stop to these attacks. We should take the lessons in that letter and in Spain as primary evidence that this is the way to go.

Davis

[Sayhey]

It fits the logic of loonies on both the right and left, who want to "sharpen the contradictions" so people will see the light and adopt their "righteous" position.