Al-Qaida cries foul over pro-Obama media bias
by Dracomicron, Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 10:53:01 AM EST
Though hardcore Al-Qaida supporters have predictably dismissed any criticism of Dr. al-Zawahiri and are fiercely backing his choice of words, there is a rather ironic (if not entirely unfamiliar) twist to this issue. After observing international press reporting on the incident, these same supporters are now bitterly attacking the media for its "unfair" pro-Obama bias and for deliberately "confusing" the meaning of al-Zawahiri's message.
Confusing the meaning of his message? The dude called Barack Obama a "house slave." Even if he didn't know the context of the term in American history, saying that about a guy who took on (and beat) not only the ruling establishment of the country, but also his own party's elite, is madness.
Then again, this is al-Qaida we're talking about.
The mystifying thing to me is that this is being reported as if it were, say, Rudy Giulliani or Mitt Romney complaining about media bias.
Looking at his past communications, he's pretty clearly a propagandist with little concern for the truth: in 2006 he criticized Bush's stated intention to draw down forces, and in 2007 he criticized Bush's troop surge, as an example. Which is it, Ayman?
Of course, he also criticized the bill Obama supported to set dates for troop withrdawls:
This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap.
The bill that Bush, of course, vetoed.
Did al-Zawahiri really expect that he could make this statement and not get laughed at? Yes. Yes, he did. George Bush was the greatest gift that al-Qaida ever got, because he did embody the cowboy extreme of American foreign policy, and al-Qaida's messages could always have that essential ring of truth to them: Bush is an oil baron who only cares about the corporate elite, Bush is a fancy East Coast lad playing at being a cowboy, Bush is a warmonger, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
At the end of the day, al-Qaida and George W. Bush agreed on a fundamental issue: The United States should be always locked in a war against al-Qaida. This serves Bush's purpose by allowing him to implement executive authority on a level unseen outside the Civil War, and it serves al-Qaida's purpose by allowing them to demonstrate how they are the underdog defending Islamic lands from the yankee infidel: the best recruitment tool imaginable.
If you take away the tool (and by "tool," I mean George W. Bush), then suddenly al-Qaida is exposed for what they are: petulant religious extremists whose antiquated notions of religion and revolution were generally outdated by the end of the Cold War.
It's no wonder then, that al-Zawahiri and his allies find themselves left borrowing the tactics of Barack Obama's Republican political enemies (and Pastor James David Manning): race-bait where possible and claim unfair media bias.
Now, I'm not going to lump Republicans in with al-Qaida: Newt Gingrich might be a sleazebag, but he doesn't condone suicide bombing public markets. It's just that both groups are starting to run into the same public relations disaster: When you use fear and division as the basis for your popularity and success, when people stop being afraid or divided, your popularity and success will wane.
And let's face it, people:
Reality has an Obama bias.