Opinion
Osama threat ineffective
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Jamie Shookman:
- State must protect even worst felons (November 29, 2004)
- Osama threat ineffective (November 5, 2004)
- Limiting abortions to rape not realistic (October 22, 2004)
- Citizens set bad example (October 5, 2004)
- Sport weekends underrated (September 20, 2004)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Last Friday marked what could have been an extremely important day in the 2004 presidential race. Just four days before the election, Al-Jazeera aired footage of Osama bin Laden alive, healthy and boldly denouncing the United States and its policies. Revealed just days before months of campaigning were finally set to conclude at the polls, the tape seemed to have the potential to turn a deadlocked race into one favoring the candidate most likely to change current American foreign policy: John Kerry. It was a final reminder that al Qaeda has yet to be dismantled and despite all the financial and military resources the United States and the rest of the world has spent trying to eradicate the organization, the network and its top leader are still intact. Such a message certainly had some effect on the American voting constituency, right?
Actually, no. A CBS poll taken between Thursday and Sunday showed that Bush had a 1-percentage-point lead over Kerry and that the tape had no effect on the polls. Furthermore, the incident received little coverage on news networks and was instead overshadowed by other election headlines. On the day of the election, the story failed to make the headlines on CNN’s website, and even after clicking on the “World” news link, one had to scroll to the bottom of the screen, find the section on Middle East world politics and click on the third article listed. The story received no sensationalized coverage, no reactionary red banners running across news networks’ screens and no over-hyped responses from political analysts predicting a pending terrorist attack.
Instead, a threat to “bleed America to the point of bankruptcy” passed under the spotlight of the media with little more than a bat of the eye from its readers and viewers. Consequently, the tape didn’t achieve its apparently intended purpose: it didn’t intimidate, it didn’t spread fear and, in general, it didn’t make Americans feel less secure than before its release. In fact, from an atmosphere in which many federal authorities believed al Qaeda could be planning a major pre-election terrorist attack, the tape seemed like somewhat of a relief.
Certainly the media didn’t make a conscious effort to downplay the tapes. The lack of attention was due primarily to the salience of news surrounding the election and a consequent lack of time to focus on something not directly related to its outcome. Yet, perhaps a lesson can be learned. The events surrounding Spain’s election this last March are still fresh in everyone’s mind: the governing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar led in the polls until just days before the election, when terrorists claimed responsibility for a horrifying train bombing in Madrid. His Socialist opposition, promising to withdraw troops from Iraq by June 30, 2004, defeated Aznar, a supporter of Bush’s policy in Iraq. The correlation may not have been true for every Spanish voter, but the fact remains that the election appeared to favor the Spanish Conservative Party, a highly publicized bombing occurred and voting consequently took an unexpected turn.
To many analysts, the Spanish elections sent a message that terrorists are capable of manipulating an election and controlling the behavior of people distanced from their actual attacks. While Osama bin Laden’s tape was not nearly as devastating as a bombing and therefore less likely to draw media coverage by its very nature, it still intended to create a sense of apprehension in its recipients, the people of the United States. Just as the bombing preceded a swinging of the Spanish election in favor of the candidate likely to reduce Western influence in the Arab world, a tape threatening the United States to leave the Muslim world or suffer bankruptcy was also intended to intimidate voters.
While Osama Bin Laden released his first tape in nearly three years, it received minimal media coverage, and most Americans knew little of its content or even existence leading into the election. With little exposure and a simple lack of interest from news anchors and consequently individual citizens, the words of the al Qaeda leader failed to resonate. The threat the tape articulated could have received more media attention and therefore played a larger factor in the 2004 election, yet unlike the Spanish elections, the presidential race continued on the same projected path it had been following for months. Terrorism cannot exist without the media, and the inability of bin Laden’s tapes to affect the presidential race allowed the American people to unknowingly send a message back to the terrorists: The spread and effectiveness of terrorism in the United States today depends in large part on the attention of the American media, but unlike Spain, we won’t let the threats of a extreme terrorist bully us into a change in our vote on Election Day.
Jamie Shookman (jlshookman@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in English and political science.
10 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Fans of Waits will not be disappointed
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
SPRING SUBLET: 1 bedroom in 2 bedroom at the Aberdeen. Rent negotiable. Email arkramer@wisc.edu
GENTLE WOMEN...THROUGH the lens of Douglas J. Nesbit, newly released book now available for holiday gifts! www.gentlewomen.us
You couldn't be more wrong. The tape had exactly the effect bin Laden hoped for. It scared Americans into voting for Bush. Bin Laden benefits from Bush's policies, which serve to make America hated all over the world. In essence, Bush's reelection is the single greatest recruiting opportunity al Qaeda will ever have.
As for the threat to bleed American into bankruptcy, mission accomplished. Bush's tax cuts have already turned a record surplus into a record deficit. With the surplus from Social Security expected to turn into a deficit by 2008 and the ballooning overall deficit that is certain to explode in the next four years, it's a safe bet that the United States will be completely bankrupt by 2010.
Yeah, but we'll still win more gold medals at the 2008 Olympics than any other country.
2012 Olympics as well.
Actually, if you watched the tape, or even took a whole minute to read the major transcript parts, you would have noticed that the election of Bush or Kerry would "not matter" to Bin Laden as they both sought to continue the Iraq war which has helped Bin Laden's cause. However, in typical neo-con fashion you ignored the facts to proudly proclaim a noted terrorist supports a liberal progressive candidate. From everyone who will be screwed over in the next four years because of the neo-cons's manipulation of facts, such as this article, we salute you Jamie.
The United States bankrupt by 2010? Not likely. I suggest that you take a class at Grainger and discover a little thing known as the risk-free rate. Why are T-Bonds considered risk free? Because in the history of United States currency as it exists today, we have never defaulted on a bond. Ever. The United States is a good investment, domestic and foreign investors know this. And that's why they will continue to fund the government. Wrap your liberal-arts educated mind around that one.
"Why are T-Bonds considered risk free? Because in the history of United States currency as it exists today, we have never defaulted on a bond."
There's a first time for everything. In the past, most of the federal debt was owed to American institutions. During the Bush administration, the proportion of debt owed to foreign institutions rose dramatically. With Social Security about to explode as the American work force contracts due to the retirement of the Baby Boomers, we are likely to run out of money. So rather than advising the "liberal-arts educated mind" to take classes at Grainger, maybe you should check statistics on debt before shooting your mouth off.
every time a bin laden tape has been released, bush's approval has gone up. if it did anything, it helped bush.
"Why are T-Bonds considered risk free? Because in the history of United States currency as it exists today, we have never defaulted on a bond."
You know what corporations, run by Bush cronies, were considered extremely safe investments before declaring bankruptcy? Enron and Worldcom.
Kerry had to do a poll to decide what to say about the Bin Laden vidio. Bush had something to say based on his principles - not polls.
If Bin Laden could have attacked the US, he would have. Instead, all he could do was send a tape.
1. All sound financial advisors recommend U.S. bonds as part of a well-diversified portfolio. As Baby Boomers grow older their risk/reward tendencies will lean towards more secure investments. And if you've ever been to a golf tournament, one look at the gallery proves that there's plenty of Baby Boomers out there with capital to toss into the market.
2. Comparing corporations like Enron and Worldcom to the U.S. government is like comparing the Brewers to the Yankees.