Michael Kinsley ponders this question in an
op-ep piece in today's WaPo
The difference between Osama bin Laden's endorsement and John McCain's (well, one of many differences) is that McCain's presumably has a positive effect and bin Laden's has a negative one. If bin Laden wants to help his candidate, he must hide, or even disguise, his preference. This makes any argument or evidence about that preference inherently self-defeating. If he is honorary chairman of the annual "Kabul Salutes W" dinner and gala, does that mean he supports Bush or does it mean he wants people to think he supports Bush, which then must mean that he does not support Bush?
His piece (more excerpts below) skewers the inanity of the BushCo effort to play the Osama's Candidate card against Kerry. And it underscores just how despicable their campaign is. No one can read Osama's mind, and no one could even guess how well alQaeda could gauge what effect a pre-election terror attack might have on the electorate.
Those problems didn't deter Peter Brown, some hack columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, from dumping his predictions on the public yesterday:
Suggesting that al-Qaeda might prefer Kerry in the Oval Office will certainly enrage some, but rational analysis supports that view.
...
But the evidence makes it difficult to see how an attack would be more likely to help Kerry than hurt him.
Read on -->
According to Brown, because alQaeda wants Kerry elected they will attack America before the election to achieve the same result "they" did in Spain. But, in his view, because alQaeda is too stupid to understand America, their plan will backfire and Americans will elect Bush.
Although presumably the terrorists think that they were able to influence the Spanish election in a satisfactory manner, a key question is whether they believe the American people would react similarly.
...
Unknown is whether the terrorists understand the American people well enough to make a correct decision that incorporates the prevailing wisdom on the subject.
And just what is that "prevailing wisdom," Peter?
Much has been written about the fundamental differences between the American and European mentalities.
You arrogant, jingoistic prick. If so much has been written about these "fundamental differences, don't you think alQaeda might know about them? So, what is this difference in "mentalities"?
If the terrorists attacked in this country before Election Day, the public reactions following 9-11 and Pearl Harbor suggest the president would benefit politically from an energized united front against a common enemy.
There are many, myself included, who think that this dynamic would lead to a much different U.S. public reaction to a pre-election attack than occurred in Spain.
Jesus, Peter, you just blew it. Don't you think alQaeda reads the Orlano Sentinel? Or do you assume that since our Clueless Leader doesn't read newspapers, Osama doesn't either?
If word of your brilliant analysis gets out to alQaeda, you've tipped them off. They'll know that if they attack us, Bush will win. Idiot!! So now they won't attack us, and you, Peter, have just handed the election to Kerry. Unless, of course, alQaeda thinks that if they don't attack people will think they are holding back so that Kerry gets elected. In that case they will probably ....
What a conundrum. Maybe Kinsley can help.
Michael recognizes that Osama would have to weigh a number of issues before deciding who to support.
Where does Osama bin Laden stand on gay marriage? What are his views on privatization of Social Security and stem cell research? Is he concerned about judges who place their personal opinions ahead of the Constitution? Or does he care more about corporations that outsource good American jobs to foreign countries?
Kinsley thinks Osama might be grateful that Bush became focused on Iraq rather than continuing to chase him.
If there is one thing we know about bin Laden before the start of the Iraq war, it is that he wasn't in Iraq. With the invasion of Iraq, bin Laden got all the benefits of being America's public enemy No. 1 but none of the disadvantages. He got an explosion of anti-Americanism around the world, potential recruits lined up out the cave door and around the block for future suicide missions, swell new opportunities for terrorism in the chaos of Iraq itself, and the forced retirement of Saddam Hussein, whom he never cared for. He got a thousand Americans dead and hundreds of billions of capitalist dollars gone -- results that would make any terrorist episode a huge success -- without his having to lift a finger. And meanwhile, every bomb dropped on Iraq was a bomb not dropped on him. What's not to like?
But ultimately, Kinsley thinks, Osama would base his decision on who he thinks might be most likely to kill him.
True, bin Laden probably does hold it against Bush that, when not distracted by Iraq, the president has been trying to kill him. That kind of thing can't help but cloud a fellow's judgment. It is all very well for civics textbooks to tell us that, when voting, we should put selfish interests aside and think of the greater good. But it may well be difficult to concentrate on those frightening Congressional Budget Office projections of the structural deficit in 10 years when there is an even more frightening din of bombs exploding and a direct hit on a cave three caves down and one to the right.
But bin Laden cannot help noticing that so far Bush has failed to kill him. And he has no reason to suppose that a President Kerry would enjoy announcing his death or capture to the world any less than Bush would. So for bin Laden -- just as for many voters in this election -- the choice comes down to the lesser of two evils.
I guess all we're left with is the conclusion Kinsley comes to about Richard Armitage's professed ability to read the minds of the "terrorists" in Iraq
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said recently that terrorists in Iraq "are trying to influence the election against President Bush." In saying so, Armitage is trying to influence the election in favor of President Bush. But he has no evidence other than these actions. And if their very actions send a clear message that they are trying to defeat President Bush, then the effect of those actions will be to help President Bush. So even if Armitage is right, he's wrong.
If anyone in the whole stinking BushCo campaign had a shred of honesty or decency, they would see the truth of what Kinsley is saying and would stop their scurrilous Osama's Candidate campaigning.