The Real 'October Surprise'

[AnIndependentTexan]

what does it say someone posted this on another forum and I can not see it. Is it good or bad?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17263-2004Nov1.html

[Democat]

1. Here is part of the article

Bin Laden's campaign video was quickly dubbed the "October Surprise," but the real surprise is something different: It is that, despite warnings by U.S. intelligence that al Qaeda was planning a pre-election attack, it hasn't happened. Indeed, there hasn't been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001, and the intriguing question is: Why not?

Perhaps someone in the bowels of the CIA knows the answer to this riddle, but I suspect they're mostly just guessing, like the rest of us. And for all the sparring between George Bush and John Kerry during the campaign over who could do a better job of fighting bin Laden, I doubt either of them could explain the al Qaeda puzzle.

Bergen believes that the bin Laden of the latest video was attempting, in his own bizarre way, to join the presidential debates. It's the first time Bergen has seen him photographed without a gun at his side, for example. And in the full text of his comments, released by al-Jazeera on Monday, bin Laden talks about some unlikely themes, ranging from election fraud in Florida to Halliburton's contracts to the size of the U.S. budget deficit. He says his strategy is "bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy" by luring it into a costly war in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17263-2004Nov1.html

The writer says "bin Laden's ambitions may increasingly be political".

[AnIndependentTexan]

2. that is bad for Bush isn't it ?

[Democat]

3. Maybe or maybe not

They say that one reason Bin Laden might not have attacked is because he could have been crippled by the "war on terror".

If Bin Laden isn't killing people it's good for all of us, but as far as which candidate his lack of attacks helps, the article doesn't really seem to speculate.