by Teh Nutroots | According to The Washington Post, al-Qaeda is watching the economic crisis with joy and congratulating itself on a job well done.
[I]ts leaders hailing the financial crisis as a vindication of its strategy of crippling America's economy through endless, costly foreign wars against Islamist insurgents.
But that ain't all. As the UK's Telegraph (a conservative newspaper) dryly puts it, they gave McCain "an endorsement that will not be welcomed by Mr McCain's flagging campaign."
According to The Washington Post, McCain can count on the full support of at least some members of AQ:
"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush. (WaPo)
The Telegraph notes:
The message is credited to a frequent and apparently respected contributor named Muhammad Haafid. However, Haafid is not believed to have a direct affiliation with al-Qaeda plans or knowledge of its operations.
I think a lot of people saw that one coming, yeah? Yeah. At Obsidian Wings, Eric Martin says: "On the heels of my post yesterday pointing out that both Russia and al-Qaeda have an interest in seeing America continue with Bush administration foreign policy in Iraq and elsewhere, we get this confirmation." Martin argues:
The CIA concluded that bin Laden attempted to swing the election for Bush in 2004 with the release of a videotape in the last weeks of the campaign. Despite McCain camp claims that Obama is soft on terrorists, and an appeaser who thinks that all terrorists need is "a good talking to," bin Laden and al-Qaeda fear an Obama administration more than a McCain administration. As Matt Duss observed:
Bush’s war on terror has been a propaganda, recruiting, and training bonanza for Al Qaeda.
Given that the only difference between McCain’s and Bush’s approach to the war on terror is that McCain promises more of it and harder, it’s not really difficult to guess which of the candidates a new Al Qaeda intervention would be intended to help.
And Steve Benen reminds us:
A couple of weeks ago, Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism coordinator for the National Security Council, explained that al Qaeda would probably prefer a John McCain victory this year, in part because the terrorist network wouldn't want a U.S. president who enjoys popularity on the world stage.
As it turns out, al Qaeda may have more than one reason to root for McCain.
Well, at least according to this one poster at their site, who might be misunderestimating our intelligence:
"It will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda," said the posting, attributed to Muhammad Haafid, a longtime contributor to the password-protected site. "Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America.".(WaPo)
WaPo did include the following reaction from "some terrorism experts":
Some terrorism experts said the support for McCain could be mere bluster by a group that may have more to fear from a McCain presidency. In any event, the comments summarized what has emerged as a consensus view on extremist sites, said Adam Raisman, a senior analyst for the Site Intelligence Group, which monitors Islamist Web pages. Site provided translations of the comments to The Washington Post.
"The idea in the jihadist forums is that McCain would be a faithful 'son of Bush' -- someone they see as a jingoist and a war hawk," Raisman said. "They think that, to succeed in a war of attrition, they need a leader in Washington like McCain."(WaPo)
At VetVoice, Brandon Friedman comments wryly: "This is the height of hilarity, since McCain's own website gleefully highlights Obama's endorsement by Hamas."
Frankly, Tim F.---who lists right wing reactions to Hamas' recent "endorsement" of Obama---speaks for me:
The idea that we should care what some hate-filled fringe groups have to say about our election is obviously ridiculous. The only reason I would give a crap what these people think is if, as with the right over Hamas, there is some short-term tactical benefit from ginning up an outrage party. If rightwingers find themselves sitting on a smoking petard it ain’t nobody’s fault but theirs. (emphasis added)
[He also notes: " Hamas revoked the “endorsement” after Obama reiterated his support for Israel." (Balloon Juice)]
So how did the McCain campaign react? Here's McCain's adviser's initial response:
"Whatever musings and bravado on radical websites the Washington Post chooses to quote, the fact remains that only John McCain has the experience, judgment and fortitude to lead a country at war," he said. The Obama campaign declined to comment on the Web postings.(WaPo)
At which point Benen predicted---correctly of course---the reaction of the GOP:
I suspect the conservative response will be that this message is an elaborate attempt at reverse psychology -- al Qaeda says it would prefer McCain because it really doesn't want McCain.... Nevertheless, if this same site had expressed support for Obama, I suspect we'd hear about little else for the next two weeks
As it is, McCain's guys are spinning as fast as they can. Today, they had a conference call with a lot of reporters that is now being widely discussed. Watch 'em spin!
"If we're gonna talk about who has got support from terrorist groups in this election, I'm gonna read some quotes," Scheunemann said. "I'm not going to characterize them. I will let others judge whether they amount to expressions of support or opposition."
Scheunemann proceeded to read a recent quote from a Hamas adviser, in which he said that Palestinians would do better under an Obama administration's foreign policy. He then chastised the WaPo for not reporting that quote.
"The Washington Post did not find the time to write a story about that," Scheunemann said. "Not a single story." (TPM)
To which the natural reply would be: "I will let others judge whether this amounts to expressions of support or opposition." Wouldn't it?
But...wait, what? Scheuneman said that by praising McCain, AQ meant to hurt him because, I guess, they're so afraid of him? So then a reporter asked, wouldn't the same be true of Hamas praising Obama? Um...um....um....
Eric Martin again:
As for the contention that al-Qaeda is trying reverse psychology (attempting to damage McCain by stating a preference for him), that is a difficult claim to defend while simultaneously pointing to the statements of support for Barack Obama coming from other suspect groups.
Based on the conference call, Max Bergmann at Democracy Arsenal comments that McCain's guys talked mainly about Iraq, barely mentioning the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan: "Do[es] the McCain campaign not know that the Al Qaeda's safe haven is along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border? And that is exactly the point. Al Qaeda members are endorsing McCain because he will continue Bush's myopic focus on Iraq."
Robert Dreyfus at The Nation looks at this in a slightly different way:
It's actually Obama, not McCain, who is pressing an escalation of the war in Afghanistan and promising to attack Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan, as foolhardy and stupid as that might be.
Anyway, Yglesias sums up the McCain campaign's argument:
They seem to have taken a two pronged approach:
- Other “bad guy” types have said nice things about Obama.
- Al-Qaeda saying they’re hoping for a McCain win is obviously a bankshot effort to help McCain
Of course these arguments contradict each other.
And Spencer Ackerman opines that McCain campaign is privately very "freaked out" by this show of support from the evildoers.
Todd Beeton points out:
It was common in 2004 for Republicans to imply...or even state outright, that John Kerry was Al Qaeda's preferred candidate. For example, when asked if he felt that Al Qaeda would "operate with more comfort" if John Kerry were elected, Dennis Hastert said Yes.
Even oh so honorable John McCain has made reference this year to the idea that if you listen to its leaders, Al Qaeda clearly wants Barack Obama to win.
Ain't it the truth. The GTL asks, who's pallin' now? Okay, that's not nice. But it is funny.
Benen nails it yet again:
[W]hat seems clear is that Republicans are stuck in a trap of their own making. Bush, Cheney, McCain, and other leading Republicans have argued for years that we must take the terrorists' words seriously and accepted at face value. Today, they're arguing the polar opposite.
The truth is, it's foolish to try to vote with terrorists' motivations in mind. But therein lies the point -- Republicans have said we must vote with terrorists' motivations in mind. And as of this morning, that's no longer a maxim they find helpful.
Michael Chertoff administered what I'd call a reality check for both sides: "Reflecting recent comments made by Joe Biden, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said “terrorists may see the change to a new U.S. president over the next six months as a prime chance to attack, no matter who wins the White House.”" (Think Progress) As much as most of us rolled our eyes at Biden yesterday, I think everyone realizes that this is a possibility. As Chertoff said, "no matter who wins."
And RJ Eskow has some advice for Obama which I hope he will take:
Obama's been running a pretty brilliant campaign, and presumably he has a contingency plan. But it would be wise to start addressing the terror issue immediately, by laying out the many ways GOP policies have left us vulnerable to another attack. (Al Qaeda's stronger than ever, and we haven't executed on our own plans to reduce the WMD threat.)....
Bin Laden may well be free today because of Republican mistakes at Tora Bora (Kerry was also correct, as most experts now agree, when he says we "outsourced" that task). John McCain, despite his undeserved reputation for national security expertise, has endorsed the failed policies that continue to put Americans at risk. It would be ironic, but certainly not unprecedented, if another Republican rode to victory on the fruits of his own failures. (HuffPost)
See discussion at Memeorandum.
RECENT BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS
Iraq: Members of the Anbar Awakening Worry About Their Future
Olbermann: Special Comment on "Ugly Bleatings" of this Campaign
It's funny how al Qaeda views McCain the same way that they do Bush. McCain is not a cowboy with daddy issues, but a lunatic with rage control problems. McCain would be their dream president, offering one propaganda opportunity after another as he bullies his way around the globe.
Posted by: SplendidMarbles | October 22, 2008 at 09:39 PM