A friend who insists that Henry Kissinger is planning to vote for John Kerry (he won't reveal sources but claims they're reliable) has emailed me a link to something even more interesting -- John Dean's claim that Osama Bin Laden favors the Bush/Cheney ticket:

Without Doubt Osama Would Like Bush and Cheney Reelected

Can there be any doubt about who Osama would like to see in the White House?

I think not. Let me explain.

In my book, Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, I included a detailed examination of the Bush-Cheney record on terrorism from 9/11 to February 2004 (when the book went to press). I noted much tough talk, and over-reaction by Bush and Cheney. I also concluded that such tactics will only entice and encourage terrorists "to up the ante toward a worse-case scenario."

Today, that reality is only clearer, as I have continued to examine the goals of the terrorists. As prolific writer Joseph Coates explains, terrorists have clear goals: they "seek to prove that governments cannot protect their people." By committing terrorist acts, they hope to provoke an extreme response, "the more extreme the better" - for such a response aids them in recruitment, and arouses hostility toward the responder.

In his recent essay, law professor Oren Gross described a similar dynamic: he believes that by forcing excessive response, terrorists seek to destroy the fabric of democracy, discredit the government, alienate citizens, and undermine the moral basis of the government's actions.

What better way to convince other Islamic fundamentalists that the West shouldn't be in the Middle East, than for a Western country - in an extreme response only tenuously connected, if at all, to a terrorist attack - to wage a preemptive bloody war in the Middle East? Even better, that this war would be justified by the need to prevent the use of dangerous weapons that turn out not to exist.

Bush and Cheney have to be Osama's dream team for November. They have all but promised even more extreme responses in the future, which surely must please Osama.

Dean is the last person I would believe about anything, much less matters beyond his knowledge and expertise. His assertion that Osama wants Bush elected is typical fare.

And, as also typifies Dean, his assertion is unoriginal. Back in June an anonymous CIA source made much the same argument, saying that al Qaida wanted Bush relected so badly that they'd commit a major act of terrorism to unite the country behind him. It doesn't make sense now, just as it didn't sense in June:

This ties in quite well with the well-worn canard that Bush supports al Qaida, of course. It sounds as if someone wants to pre-empt any damage that a terrorist attack might cause the Kerry campaign.

But if the theory is right, then that must also mean that if al Qaida fails to launch a pre-election attack, that they pulled their punches to help Kerry.

By making the voters think what? That everything is OK now, so there's no need to keep a hawk in the White House? Then what? That there'd be no more attacks -- in order to keep Kerry in?

Somehow, it's not making a whole lot of sense to me.

Assume for the sake of argument that Osama bin Laden really and truly wants Bush to win. How might Osama assist? By means of the terrorist attack others have predicted? The problem with that argument is that in Spain, the al Qaida attack intimidated voters to reject the incumbent government. Americans are not as easily intimidated, though, and bin Laden knows this. Thus, it could be argued that refraining from terrorism right now would be the best way to defeat Bush! (This assumes, of course, that al Qaida has decided to implement a new strategy of refraining from terrorism!)

Such arguments will continue to go in crazy what-if circles, and encourage new speculation. (If the major terrorist attack is too difficult to pull off now, then why couldn't Osama simply endorse Kerry as reverse psychology?)

Implicit in the central premise that the terrorists seek to provoke the United States into overreaction is the idea that we should do nothing which might be seen as a provocation, lest that help the terrorists' cause.

That makes about as much sense as not provoking Hitler, lest his complaints about provocations be validated. "Not provoking" Hitler didn't work. Nor did not provoking bin Laden. We had plenty of time to try defeating the enemy by not-provoking him. Since 9/11, it's been too late. Anything and everything we do is seen as a provocation.

Could it be that John Dean doesn't believe in winning wars?