Billmon makes an argument that bin ladin was key to w’s election success:
Considering the narrowness of Bush’s margin in the electoral college — a 60,000 vote swing in Ohio, and we’re talking about President Kerry’s failed Iraq War policies right now — it doesn’t seem unreasonable to argue that Osama bin Ladin did more to perpetuate Shrub’s reign of error than Karl Rove and the RNC propaganda machine from hell put together. And he didn’t even demand a cut of the Bush-Cheney ad budget in return.
Now that’s a consultant worth keeping around.
He seems to understate the case.
First, bin ladin and others received US support at least as far back as the Afghan – Russian conflict. Second, without 9/11 w would likely have been outed after one term as the most ineffectual, least popular president ever. Third, and a bit on the ragged edge: bin ladin is still loose; is there any good reason not to think this is intentional or that perhaps he is still getting plenty of funding from the ad budget. If not directly, more subtley via laundering through Saudia Arabia and others via high oil prices?