T Nation

Dick Morris Speaks



"June 5, 2004 – OSAMA bin Laden could have made a good living as a political consultant if he did not choose to kill babies in stead. The al Qaeda/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 Qaeda 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 Qaeda/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 Qaeda 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."

Remember that Dick Morris was a close personal friend of Bill Clinton.

I wanted my friends: Elkhntr1, Lumpy, kuri, danh, to consider that a vote for Kerry is a win for the terrorists. The proactive stance of George W. Bush has led to the great majority of Al Qaeda leaders being killed or captured. If we retreat to the John Kerry reactionary response, we risk giving them time to regroup and hit us on our home turf. Forget it. I’m sticking with W.


p.s. Geroge H.W. Bush doesn’t particulary care for Dick Morris. But, he told me that it is important for Democrats to state the obvious. Therefore, he paid for Dick Morris’ article.


Even if you vote for Bush becuase the terrorists want him out, you still have the terrorists casting your vote for you. How stupid is that?

Let everyone find their own reasons for voting whichever way they want and continue to live in what is known as a democracy instead.

Keep trying Pinocchio!

vroom - why do you even give a shit what we do down here in the promised land?

I think you just like to piss off the conservatives. And to that end - good job.

To be “for” someone that blood thirsty terrorists are “against” is to take a stand against terrorism!

Zeb, I know, but what if all of a sudden it was apparent that the terrorists were really afraid that Kerry would win office?

Forget the bullshit politics of the forum for the last several weeks. Just imagine, would you vote for Kerry if the terrorists were (supposedly) hoping Bush would win?

So, some external group really should control your vote by declaring which candidates they are “against” as opposed to “for”? These external parties should not be given a silent voice in your elections, much less a direct voice.


If the intention of the “external group” were to manipulate my vote, then I would perhaps evaluate it differently. However, that is not the case with this situation.

The terrorists do not want Bush reelected because he has made their lives quite difficult by cutting back their numbers and also their cash. This President is doing the right thing by all freedom loving Americans. Some of us realize it and some of us don’t. However, all of the terrorists realize it!

Woohoo, a reasoned response!

I’m guessing they, the terrorists, won’t like it no matter who is elected, but I can imagine they might prefer (from their point of view) the evil they don’t know as opposed to the one that they do.


We do appreciate the Canadian help with the war on terror. I hope Bush’s second term is just as successful in killing, capturing, and otherwise interfering with global terrorism. The world coalition’s results have been remarkable. Don’t worry, we won’t be switching leaders. The “police action” approach that is espoused by John Kerry will not be supported. I’m shocked that he even says this after 9/11.



Please take a peek at the number of terrorists killed and captured on GWB’s watch. It is an impressive list. If we had access to all secret documents, I imagine the list of successes would be trully enormous. We don’t hear about many terrorist attacks that have been foiled.

Now contrast John Kerry. Eight bills with his sponsorship in 30 years. Exactly zero having to do with National Defense. Voting against a myriad of armoured systems and equipment. Cuts in National Defense supported by him. Downsizing of the military, on and on.

Now, you tell me, if you were a terrorist, who would you prefer?


Get over yourself Pinocchio…

vroom…STFU…your opinion is null and void…

It was a good article Jeff

Pinocchio turned out to be a real boy, with no strings after all :wink:

LOL! Pinocchio will be real when he is able to think for himself.

Using a voting record in the manner above is dubious at best. This voting claim has been shown to be deceitful many times. This is where the Pinnochio reference is coming from – not the article.

Ptrdr, I don’t know if you read the thread, but I did have a reasonable concern. In fact, I still do.

Who has gone out to ascertain that terrorists really do want Bush to lose? Is this one of the questions asked at Abu Ghraib or something? I still think it is scary way to plan election votes – based on the supposed wishes of terrorists.

However, unlike your foaming self, Zeb makes a very good point!

All right vroom, prove it. What other bills has John Kerry sponsored?


“Using a voting record in the manner above is dubious at best. This voting claim has been shown to be deceitful many times.”

It is hard to call cold, hard facts dubious or deceitful. It is a quantitative measure of his lack of productivity, ingenuity, and ability to work with others.

If a man says he is absolutely dedicated to providing for the welfare of our soldiers, then votes against updating/maintaining weapon systems and body armour, you have to question his committment to what he says. If he votes to authorize war, then votes for/against paying for the reconstruction, you have to question his committment to the ideals for which he currently claims to believe in.

Actually, you can gain a great deal of information from a legislator’s voting record. It’s like running a background check on a new employee. The patterns are completely obvious. This guy is unsteady and quite possibly, worse.

If a person has a shred of objectivity, they would not vote for Kerry. What’s to vote for?

I am aware that the Roy Battys, Lumpy’s, and Right Side Ups of the world are allowing their bitterness to obscure their judgement. If you look very closely at John Kerry, you can see trends that are terrifying. Especially, in a post-9/11 world.


P.S. George H.W. Bush said he won’t pay for this post. He feels that Kerry’s record is quite translucent and unimpressive. Therefore, a reasonable person would steer clear of him. GHWB feels that I’m stating the obvious. That means no check for me.

V O T I N G… sigh

Jeff, you know very well Cheney voted similarly to Kerry in many of the cases used to generate the numbers. It is silly because politicians rarely get to vote on a single issue.

Late additions and other material are added to bills all the time. It is a distortion of the facts to characterize the votes on a specific issue, whether the candidate is right or left, as is being done against Kerry.

Also, after 9/11 I’m sure most politicians had changes of opinion concerning the military and what it requires. If you are looking at pre-9/11 opinions and comparing them to Bush post-9/11 you are being unreasonable.

I’m sure there are real issues to attack, find them and attack them. I don’t have any particular love for Kerry either, but I do like arguments based on truth, reason and visibility. Quoting or repeating negative TV ads doesn’t cut it – they are used to sway those who don’t look too closely.

P.S. Jeff, I responded with actual suggestions in another thread, based on your request. Any comments?


I was discussing John Kerry. I know you aren’t too familiar with the U.S. (or you wouldn’t write some of the things that you do) but, our country has a long pattern of voting for a President when voting for President. I didn’t vote for Dan Quayle when I voted for George H.W. Bush. I didn’t vote for Jack Kemp when I voted for Dole. Yes, we need to make sure that the Vice President can step in in an emergency.

Kerry is the issue. I’m not going to repeat what is essentially unarguable. Your position is like saying that a man who has been charged with three identical felonies on three different dates, needs those individual crimes looked at individually to gain a perspective on the person’s character. Rubbish. Kerry’s record (or lack) is there for all to see. Are you saying that an American Serviceman/woman should feel comforted in his voting record? What would any reasonable person think?

Just in case you missed it, the President has to submit budgets and work with Congress to get legislation passed. EIGHT BILLS IN THIRTY YEARS!!! That is legislative failure. What should the average American voter call that? Extenuating circumstances? No, we are into results. We don’t reward the whiner or complainer. No one cares to hear the extenuating circumstances. This is how many of us think: If a bill is laden with pork, resubmit a better bill. Period. John Kerry OBVIOUSLY didn’t do that.


P.S. If you are an actual American voter (aka…not vroom) please note the facts in my argument.

Jeff, are you an ass on purpose? Do you honestly think I was discussing voting for Cheney? You have no idea how much I might understand the workings of the American system. I’m not claiming I am an expert, but lay off the baseless diversions already.

Voting records are easy to manipulate via analysis. That is what I am saying. It has been done against republican and democrat both. Believe me or don’t. If you stop assuming I’m a Kerry supporter you might be able to see what I am saying.

If you feel that Kerry should have been responsible for tabling more bills, that is your perogative. Do you know the average number of bills tabled by general members both democrat and republican? You might be right, but numbers such as this, if supportive, would back up your claim and give it more weight.

Why do you even respond to jeffr? He has the maturity and reasoning level of an 18 yr. old Al Qaeda recruit! Same kind of robot, same kind of soft mind!