ambivalent imbroglio: Osama bin unforgotten

« Holding Pattern | Main | Kerry not Scary »

October 30, 2004

Osama bin unforgotten

Top of the news is the Osama video. His major point? We don't hate freedom, we want to be free:

“Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic candidate John) Kerry or Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands,” bin Laden said. “To the U.S. people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster,” he said. “I tell you: security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security.” “If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have dignified souls, like those of the 19 blessed ones,” he said, referring to the 19 hijackers. “We fought you because we are free .. and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours.”

Of course, he has a point, and neither candidate is really addressing his complaints; neither seems able to say anything other than “terrorism bad.” But regardless of the content of Bin Laden's message, I agree with Dave Winer about how the pundits are spinning this—the bias for Bush is incredible. But even NPR's Daniel Schorr took that spin (that the video helps Bush more than Kerry), and he's usually fairly critical on these things. Sorry, but the fact that Osama's still free to release videos whenever he wants only means Bush's much-vaunted “war on terror” has failed in major ways. Call that spin if you want, but that's how I see it. Elsewhere in the election-related grab bag: Bush's war has killed over 100,000 Iraqi civilians, a large majority of them the result of coalition airstrikes. Here's an enblogment for Kerry. The Electoral College Meta-Analysis provides yet another way to speculate about how the vote might go. [link via John's Ponderings] along with Electoral College Predictions (which has shifted decisively for Bush today) this seems a good way to sort through the polling madness. The Pentagon is saying maybe the military destroyed and/or moved some of the munitions that are missing from Al Qaqaa. Hmm. John Stewart made an excellent point the ohter night on The Daily Show when he ran a clip of Bush saying this about the Al Qaqaa munitions:

[A] political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not the person you want as the Commander-in-Chief.

All Stewart had to say is, “that's true.” Can you say Iraq, WMD, links to Al Qaeda, and more? I knew you could! In more good news for Bush, imaging experts confirm, the Bush Bulge was not bad tailoring. Jesse Ventura is campaigning for Kerry. He's not pulling any punches:

“To me, a president should not put his personal spiritual beliefs in front of science. If we had that type of attitude, we'd probably still have polio today, if we had beliefs that didn't allow scientific discovery. Now, people may say you're not very religious -- yes, I am. I believe God gave me a brain to use,” Ventura said. Ventura also criticized Bush for the growing federal deficit, saying Bush paid for tax cuts by racking up debt on the nation's credit card. And he had harsh words for the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq. Ventura says Bush has alienated the rest of the world, and the war has not made the U.S. safer. He says Bush invaded Iraq when he should have been focusing on Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. “I would have hunted down Osama Bin Laden 'til he was dead, before I would have ever entertained anything about Iraq. My parents taught me (to) finish the job at hand, finish the job you got in front of you, before you worry about the other job down the road,” he said. Ventura says leaders shouldn't ask troops to do something they didn't do themselves. He says Bush did not serve with honor when he was in the National Guard, and received preferential treatment.

Sounds like Ventura might like Internet Vets for Truth. So is anyone polling whether Americans think this election will be over next Wednesday? I'm predicting a decisive win for Kerry with 294 electoral votes. In my world he gets Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and all the other states he's basically wrapped up. What's your prediction?

Posted October 30, 2004 10:36 AM | election 2004

Comments

minus colorado, i think you've got it. i'd expect a recount in michigan, ohio, and ... florida.

Posted by: em at October 30, 2004 12:27 PM

I don't think he'll take Colorado, either. Recap of the polls at Slate shows Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio as close for Kerry but not neccessarily a done deal.

Meanwhile I'll be here in my lone red state (surrounded by blue--hopefully--on three sides). Despite the fact we have a Democractic governor (though maybe not for much longer *cough*mitchthesnitch*cough*), voting for a Democrat for president around here is like a cry in the wilderness.

Posted by: raquel at October 30, 2004 05:47 PM

Kerry, with 273. I don't think he gets FL, but he does take OH and PA, along with WI and MN (but not IA).

Posted by: Tung Yin at October 30, 2004 06:50 PM

Yippee. I can add you to the list of authors who has used the "100,000" figure without any critical analysis at all.

Posted by: A. Rickey at October 31, 2004 03:01 AM

For the benefit of your readers who won't click through to my analysis or read anything except your cite and the Guardian report:

The report doesn't suggest that the majority of Iraqi casualties were results of air strikes, despite what the Guardian says. Only 73 out of 142 (51%) of recorded deaths were due to violence at all. (Page 4 of the report, chart at top.) Of those, twelve were not attributable to the coalition at all. (Page 5.) And, of course, the study doesn't rule out that some of the deaths it counted weren't civilians (Page 7.) In the report itself, the 100,000 number never occurs near the word "civilian." Here you were purely mistaken to trust the Guardian, which got the report wrong.
Even if you had the report, the death toll cited is 98,000 with 95% confidence between... ahem... 8,000-198,000. What you might call a bit of a range. To put it bluntly, the study used a ludicrous methodology.
But don't just take my word for it. If you don't trust we right-wing folks, take a look at Mark Cooper and Matt Yglesias, not heretofore known as part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Posted by: A. Rickey at October 31, 2004 03:40 AM

Thanks, A. I read your critique of the Guardian report late last night and had planned to mention your criticism. Thanks for doing it for me.

As you note, according to Slate, the Lancet study is basically useless. However, we know that the U.S. war against Iraq has killed thousands of people. The Slate article refers to Iraq Body Count for an estimate, and concludes:

"The IBC estimates that between 14,181 and 16,312 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war�about half of them since the battlefield phase of the war ended last May. The group also notes that these figures are probably on the low side, since some deaths must have taken place outside the media's purview.

"So, let's call it 15,000 or�allowing for deaths that the press didn't report�20,000 or 25,000, maybe 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed in a pre-emptive war waged (according to the latest rationale) on their behalf. That's a number more solidly rooted in reality than the Hopkins figure�and, given that fact, no less shocking."

Agreed.

Posted by: ambimb at October 31, 2004 07:34 AM