To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
– Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
George W. Bush was shocked, shocked, that John Kerry raised political questions in response to Osama bin Laden’s cameo election appearance on Al Jazeera television. Yet Bush surrounded himself at a campaign stop in Manchester, N.H. with victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and repeated his mantra that the nation was forever changed by September 11th. Is Bush correct when he makes those statements? Will historians some day look back on September 11, 2001, as a pivot point in U.S., or even world history? Or is Bush the politician using that dark day to maneuver himself into a second term in the White House?
Whether we like to admit it or not, the havoc that Bin Laden wrought on 9/11 has been squarely at the center of the national discourse for the past three years, and indeed, of this election campaign. Americans remain frightened of another attack, even though Bin Laden lives in a cave half way around the world. The level of fear in this country seems disproportional to the threat. Bin Laden has no air force and no navy. He controls a relatively small, ragtag army. Yet, he and his handful of suicide bombers have so terrified the country with the most powerful military in the history of the world, that fear of him seems to dominate our political landscape.
So, is George W. Bush truly focused on protecting the U.S. from Bin Laden? A few days after the 9/11 attacks, Bush assured us he would hunt down Bin Laden and get him “dead or alive.” But a short five months later, Bush had become preoccupied with invading Iraq, a country that had never attacked the United States, and posed no threat to us.
Bush no longer had Bin Laden in his sights. In March 2002, Bush said: “So I don’t know where he is … Nor – you know, I just don’t spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I… I truly am not that concerned about him.” Lacking any hard evidence that Saddam Hussein played a role in the 9/11 attacks, Bush nevertheless insisted the war on terrorism was centered in Iraq. Out of sight, out of mind.
Much to Bush’s chagrin, Bin Laden re-took the world stage four days before the U.S. election. The Bush administration spent half a day trying to convince Al Jazeera and the Qatar government to keep the videotape of Bin Laden off the air.
Sitting there demurely, the white-robed terrorist calmly discussed our election on television sets from Maine to California. His very presence emphasized Bush’s failure to keep his pledge to take Bin Laden dead or alive. Bin Laden seemed intent on humiliating Bush. He said that, by continuing to sit in a classroom as a girl read about a goat when the twin towers were hit, Bush left 50,000 of his people in the towers “to face those events by themselves when they were in the most urgent need of their leader.”
Bin Laden also seemed intent on discrediting Bush. He said Bush is distorting and misleading the American people, obscuring the reasons underlying the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden cited “Bush’s claims that we hate freedom.” If that’s true, Bin Laden asked, why didn’t we hit Sweden?
Bin Laden stated the motives for his evil deeds: U.S. support for Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, and Israel’s 1982 attack on Lebanon. He bemoaned the killing of Iraqi children, and accused Bush of removing Saddam Hussein from power for the purpose of stealing Iraq’s oil. Bin Laden drew an analogy between Bush’s regime and the corrupt Arab regimes, recalling the first President Bush’s cozy relationship with the Saudi royal family. Bin Laden argued that the Patriot Act has brought tyranny and suppression of freedom to the United States.
Finally, Bin Laden said our security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. “Your security is in your own hands,” he said. “Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.” Bin Laden told us how to avoid another attack: Lay off my people. Not mindful of the wise old adage, “know thy enemy,” however, Bush responded by saying we “will not be intimidated or influenced by an enemy of our country.”
Appealing to the American people instead of the U.S. government, Bin Laden challenged Americans to challenge the policies that oppress people in the Muslim world. The Spaniards accepted a similar challenge, when, days after suspected Al Qaeda followers blew up commuter trains in Madrid, the people in Spain went to the polls and unseated the leaders who had both taken their troops into Iraq, and lied about who was responsible for the railroad attacks. The newly elected government pulled the Spanish soldiers out of Iraq shortly thereafter.
Why does Bin Laden seem intent on humiliating Bush? At the heart of Bin Laden’s grievances is revulsion at the humiliation of Arabs and Muslims. Bin Laden has undoubtedly seen the photograph of the elderly Iraqi woman, leashed and made to crawl on the floor like a dog. He has likely seen, as well, the picture of a mound of naked Iraqis being mocked by U.S. soldiers. And he probably is aware of Staff Sgt. Ivan “Chip” Frederick’s response when asked last week why he abused an Iraqi man: “just to humiliate him.”
Bush and Bin Laden have mutually empowered each other since 9/11. By attacking the United States on Bush’s watch, Bin Laden handed Bush the perpetual weapon of fear-mongering to hold over the heads of the American people. And by invading Iraq, Bush all but invited Al Qaeda to enter Iraq and wage jihad against the U.S. invaders. For this, George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden will be inextricably linked in the history books.
Whoever wins the election on November 2, we have our work cut out for us.
