Bush policy is reason bin Laden didn't attack

By Ilana Freedman / Local Columnist

Friday, November 5, 2004

For many months, the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, and counter-terrorism specialists (including myself) have been warning that the possibility of a major terrorist attack designed to disrupt our elections was extremely high.

Intelligence from many sources, some more credible than others, suggested that al Qaeda was planning to carry out a large attack before November 2.

Over several months, we saw videotaped messages -- from bin Laden and from his second in command Alman Zawahiri, threatening a massive attack against our nation. We lived through a heightened alert level during the summer political conventions, and heard frequent comparisons between Madrid and our own elections. We received periodic travel warnings and an alarming report about targeted companies in News York, New Jersey, and Washington, DC.

We were right to be concerned -- but we were also dead wrong -- because it didn't happen. There was no attack. On November 2, the American people went to the polls in record numbers, making a powerful statement to the world. The election took place without incident and Americans elected a president.

So what happened? And what does it mean?

On October 29, a tape of Osama bin Laden was aired on al-Jazeera. This tape showed bin Laden telling the American people, "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaida. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe."

It was a blatant attempt to influence the outcome of our elections by instructing the American people on how he expected us to vote. He pushed all the buttons that were calculated to renew old angers. He accused George Bush, Sr. of importing "expertise in election fraud... to Florida." He accused George W. Bush of abandoning "50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone at a time when they needed him most."

The video was, in reality, an announcement that there would be no attack before the election. Bin Laden framed it as a lesson to us, the American people, on how to avoid "another Manhattan." He compared his "freedom" to our life under "tyranny," and said the destruction of the World Trade Center was the result of his "powerful impulse to reject injustice," an injustice which he blamed on "Bush Sr." and his son, George W. Bush.

What was intended to be a powerful message to the American voters was instead a pathetic attempt of a man who had failed to put together his plan in time. Even as he railed against the President's "distortion" and "deception," he unwittingly revealed that his terrorist organization has been badly hurt by America's unrelenting war against it.

He was right to blame George W. Bush for his failure, because it was the President's strong policy of fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq, that disrupted al Qaeda's critical infrastructure, sending their members scurrying around the Middle East and Asia, decimating their ranks, and keeping them on the run. It made creating and implementing a complex plan for a major terrorist attack before the election impossible, and bin Laden was forced to use words instead of bombs. It saved us from a pre-election attack.

This is not to say that the threat is gone. The danger still exists. Those who wish to harm us are infinitely patient and they believe fervently that they can conquer us and create an Islamic society where a democratic America now exists. Their intense believe in this possibility is the reason we cannot afford to dismiss them lightly.

Now the election is behind us. We survived it and, in the true spirit of America, the decision is final. The miracle of our democratic republic has once again been validated.

Senator John Kerry, who lost his bid for the Presidency, described that miracle most eloquently. "In an American election," he said, "there are no losers. Because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning, we all wake up as Americans. And that -- that is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on earth."

It is my greatest hope that Kerry's gracious concession speech will indeed begin a healing process that will bridge the divide created by the events in 2000 election. We need to start the long and difficult process of binding the searing wounds that have infected our society over the last four years.

Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." It is not only to our benefit to heal our wounds and move on, but it is absolutely essential to our survival as a free country and a leader in a deeply troubled and divided world.

When our enemies are ready to use our divisions against us, we must present a unified face to them that they cannot breach. We must heal our own wounds before we can hope to lead others in the healing of theirs.

(Ilana Freedman is a specialist in counter-terrorism and Managing Partner of Gerard Group International. She welcomes your comments at ilana@gerardgroup.com.)

return to top — print view

Home | Services | Methodologies | About Terrorism | GGi in the Press | About GGi | Our Values | The GGi Team | Links | Contact GGi