On al Qaeda Supporting McCain

Back in April, the seeds of the smear campaign against Senator Obama were being planted. What now has become "palling around with terrorists" began in April, when John McCain and his campaign started dropping the talking points that Barack Obama was the choice of Hamas, as if Obama had sought that statement of support.

In response to reporters' questions as to whether McCain stood by a fundraising letter which made the point, McCain said, "All I can tell you... is that I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare....If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly."

Right wing blogs went nuts. RightWingNews blared the headline, "Hamas Endorses Obama? Can Hizbollah And Al-Qaeda Be Far Behind?"

Well, yes, al Qaeda wasn't far behind. Today, they expressed a preference for Senator McCain. To revise what Senator McCain said above, "If Senator McCain is favored by al Qaeda, I think people can make judgments accordingly..."

In a message on an al Qaeda website, terrorists wrote of continuing the war in Iraq, "This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."

There's no question that continuing the war in Iraq would prolong the strain that our military is facing, trying to fight a two-front war, and that continuing in Iraq saps resources in the fight against al Qaeda, where they are based - the border region of Pakistan/Afghanistan. Al Qaeda would be much worse off if the U.S. shifted priority from Iraq to going on the offense in Afghanistan, as Senator Obama has proposed.

But there's something else at play, here. The war in Iraq, as well as saber rattling against Iran by McCain and those who surround him, like Joe Lieberman, are an excellent recruiting tool for al Qaeda. That's not a new notion. The International Institute for Strategic Studies reported back in 2004 that the war in Iraq was pretty helpful to al Qaeda's efforts to gain new recruits, as it sought to rebuild its strength after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

Of course, this "endorsement" shouldn't itself influence voters, as Hamas' statement on Obama shouldn't. The American people shouldn't base their votes on the basis of what maniacs say.

But it once again underscores the question of who would be stronger in the fight against al Qaeda, which candidate is proposing a stronger plan to go after those who attacked us on 9/11, and which is for continuing the policy that has allowed al Qaeda to gain recruits and regain strength.

Crossposted at vetvoice.com

Follow Jon Soltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonsoltz

Comments

[slowtono]

So... your saying Obama is an incompetent leader of the military, who will like Bill just pull out because? Actually it;s probably what will happen and as such in a year or two as the middle east explodes in crossfire the world will turn to Obama and he'll shrug and say what? Oh... I fired all those military guys. They didn't serve any purpose. The UN and IMF is on their own. The Mother of all wars!

[dearone]

Call this group by any name that you want, but didn't they predict a few years ago that they would damage our country financially? That was their prediction and claim as to how they would destroy our country and it has come true.

Our financial system is in ruins. Our country is bankrupt but no one wants to admit it yet because they're still trying to fool us (wallstreet-gate). We have borrowed money from foreign countries, and created unbalance all over the world with our fiscal irresponsibility, greed and war mongling.

Doesn't anyone with intelligence care to ask if our country is in such financial chaos then where are we are getting the money to pay for this endless war?

Until we bring jobs back to the USA and create a real money flow system into our economy again, the financial prediction and punishment from this group will ring true until someone has enough sense to stop, smell the burnt coffee, reread those forged documents that lead us into a fraudulent war, stop occupying Iraq, get the heck out of there and go find the real Ben Laden where he really is, then we are the true loosers with too much pride (costing billions of dollars per month) to admit that the real (secret) mission of kill Saddam Hussein has been accomplished a long time ago.

If our leaders would lead by intelligence instead of blind and selfish pride, we can indeed win the war against Al Qaeda.

[Cymbeline]

Exactly. There is no question the occupation of Iraq is counterproductive, that it is aiding our enemies and weakening us. If Osama bin Laden himself were directing U.S. policy, he could not do more to harm America than Bush is. How can loyal, patriotic American with the slightest concern for our troops continue to support the policy that is playing perfectly into our enemy's hands? Yet, this horrible fact that American troops are losing life and limb to strengthen the terrorists can never be spoken. Since recognizing the truth is too painful, we apparently must continue the self-destructive, pro-terrorist occupation. How tragic!

[MrHueyD]

ROTF LOL! Now I’ve heard it all.

[LizM]

Aside from which maniacal group is endorsing who, conventional wisdom seems to view any action by or statement from one of these groups as being aimed at increasing support for the Republicans, generally speaking, and for the McCain/Palin ticket, in particular. I'm supposing that this brand of wisdom is based on the fundamentally flawed premise that Senator McCain is the candidate with the impeccable and unimpeachable foreign policy and national security credentials and the sound judgement that makes him most capable of dealing with these events, as far as voters are concerned. And, indeed, Senator McCain continues to enjoy a hefty lead in the polls over Senator Obama when it comes to issues of national security, the so-called 'war on terror', and who would be the most capable Commander-in-chief.

...continued...

[LizM]

...continued...

But, contrary to popular belief, Obama/BIDEN are the masters of the universe when it comes to national security and being capable of implementing a smart foreign policy that would work toward the demise of al Qaeda. If they know what's good for them, and for the American people and the rest of us out in the world, they will not only put foreign policy and national security front and center during the rest of this campaign and OWN this territory but they will effectively communicate how interrelated and interdependent these issues are with respect to the current economic crisis and to the rest of domestic policy. In other words, unless the civil war in Iraq is brought to a responsible end and unless US policy in Afghanista­n/Pakistan (not to mention Saudi Arabia) undergoes a radical change in course and perspective (a "radical redux" as FredUSMC says!), then forget about advancing any significant domestic agenda!

Bottom line...there should be no doubt - to anyone who has been paying attention - that al Qaeda's worst nightmare is Obama/BIDEN.

[Berettasskeeter]

Very humorous, indeed! The idea that Obama may be the master of foreign policy is amazing. The man has travelled, what? Once, twice, thrice, in any official capacity? What are his votes in the Senate? What foreign policy has he initiated? The man is a lawyer, for goodness sake. He knows his Socialist aims and will be able to talk to a decreasingly Socialist Europe and to an increasingly Communist Russia.
McCain's for me!
Semper fi

[LizM]

Did I say Obama was the master of foreign policy!!!? PLEASE! Did I not emphasize BIDEN? Why on earth do you think Obama chose Biden for VP? Do you think that a VP Biden is going to be the run of the mill kind of VP? If you do, then you're about to get an education.

Don't make ME laugh.

I will never understand how a military guy can say that McCain is his man - not now, not during these times. You've got some explaining to do!

[idest]

He co-sponsored a bill with Dick Lugar to strengthen security on loose nuclear materials. What "socialist aims" do you mean? Please be specific. If giving middle class America a tax break at the expense of the richest 5% of the population is socialism to you, fine. To me its sane tax policy designed for long-term economic growth.

[SeattleBoomer]

I looked at both guys real hard as I was not real familiar with either one. I was comfortable with McCain until Rolling Stone's: Make-Believe Maverick. That was shocking to read; Sen. McCain is part of the problem NOT the solution. Then the selection of Gov. Palin.
Now I am very much for Obama after going over the issues that concern my family.
McCain brings no intelligent ideas to the table, no keen insight, no fresh ideas, no positive message of getting through this tough agenda ahead for the next President.
Your comments about Obama show you’re a GOP guy right or wrong.
Obama brings hope for the return of diplomacy to US foreign policy. The understanding of so many issues that McCain does not.
In the end I am going with the smartest guys in the room; OBAMA / Biden

[MrHueyD]

You’re not alone Berettasskeeter.

Not suprising that those who literally put their life on the line favor McCain 3-to-1, see http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/10/military_poll_100508w/ and you’ll see how those who have been there and done that will vote.

While perhaps not as eloquent, the average private has more international relations experience than Senator Obama.

Check-6!

[Berettasskeeter]

Jon, I see why you left the Army: intellectual dishonesty. It speaks to your integrity! The two items do not compare favorably. Islam, and therefore the Muslim world, will never stop its drive to conquer the world. So, I'd rather have a President that is ready, and has the intestinal fortitude, to fight that drive, than one that is looked on as weak and who may cut Israel loose in order to placate the Muslim world. Its a no-brainer. McCain is the only one of the two that they fear. Therefore I'll take him all over the weak-sister Obama!
Semper fi

[Car84]

Even Joe Biden has said Obama will be challenged right away. (Gosh, they gotta hide this Biden guy. He's an embarrassment, and has never been right on foreign policy matters!)

There is no reason to challenge John McCain, unless you're looking for a fight. That may sound like bravado. But this is not (and never will be) a pretty, happy, peaceful, loving world brimming with leaders who respond to reasoning and negotiation. We can't afford live in a utopian dream world when the rabid dreams of our enemies want us all DEAD!

We have, and are entitled to (as we so strongly express the rights of other nations to have) a set of national interests. That's nothing to be ashamed of or defensive about. Even if it involves the free flow of oil at fair market prices (something that will be relevant for several years or even decades - until we devise a whole new paradigm of energy policy, and the technology is given to China, which hasn't invented anything since paper or gunpowder), we need to protect that which drives our economy.

Semper Fi, my brother!

[Berettasskeeter]

You're right! We ARE entitled to our own national interests. And they don't have to involve making the rest of the world love us! America has fueled the economy of most of the world since WWI. We have provided free food, free medical care, free defense from aggression, wherever it was feasible or wanted. America is not perfect, just more perfect than any other nation!
Semper fi, brother!

[dynagirl7371]

It appears that any citizen of this country who's not in a coma would realize that EITHER of our next presidental possibilities will be challanged from the first day. Everything is a mess; that won't change because McCain or Obama walk through the doors of the White House. And if anyone thinks that al Qaeda is truly afraid of John McCain, they need to have their heads examined. Fear of anyone will only motivate al Qaeda to hit harder with more vigor.

I don't think we can reason with al Qaeda; I think we must outsmart them with the help of the rest of the world. We need someone who will keep his cool, not fly off the handle and push the button from the first day. We need a diplomat.

[deepfreezevideo]

"until we devise a whole new paradigm of energy policy, and the technology is given to China, which hasn't invented anything since paper or gunpowder), we need to protect that which drives our economy."

Car84, we've had a half century to devise a new paradigm.
Where shall we start? Oh, here's Admiral Hyman Rickover in a 1957
speech, telling us we'd better not get too dependent on fossil fuels:
http://energybulletin.net/node/23151

Fast forward to the ONE thing Carter did right, WARN US that continued and increasing dependence on foreign oil would mean a future energy war and economic crisis.
No one listened then either.

For FIFTY YEARS experts have told us that SOLE dependence on oil, and particularly FOREIGN OIL, was a deadly addiction. To a person with a hammer, everything looks like a nail hence your determination to justify war as a solution to every American problem.

[desertbloom]

Obama has been described as a velvet glove over a hand of steel.

A veteran of the Irag War came to my door the other day on behalf of Obama. He had taken the time to look up McCain's actual voting record and rating among veteran's groups, and had discovered that Obama was ranked higher by most of them and that McCain had opposed the GI Bill.

Semper fi

[idest]

When was the last time a Muslim country invaded a Christian country? I think you'd have to go back to the Ottoman Empire. When was the last time a Christian country invaded a Muslim country? Oh, that's right, just 5 short years ago. Who's trying to conquer the world again?

[Berettasskeeter]

Muslim countries have not invaded, with national forces, you are right. They are merely expanding through coercive use of Islam, then they move quickly to squeeze out any and all Christian influences. Examples? Nigeria, Sudan, Chad, the former Yugoslavia. More examples? Sharia law is now accepted in Britain, you cannot question Muslim motives or Islam in most of the northern European countries without running afoul of the Law. This includes Canada also. Muslims are fighting to squeeze Christians out of large swaths of Thailand, moving from Malaysia and Indonesia. More and more Hindus are under attack in India. Do you still need more?
You might remember that we are not an empire building country. Our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan are not, and never were, to be permanent. Plus, we were not fighting Islam, but rather the forces of tyranny. Islam IS fighting the rest of the world. Not sure? Read and listen to their own words!
Semper fi

[RStolorow]

There is a deeper reason motivating al Qaeda's preference for McCain. An unholy alliance always exists between terrorists and right-wing hawks: each perpetually fuels the power base of the other. Each exposes people to recurring threats of traumatization, in turn reinforcing the grip of what I call "resurrective ideology" (See my recent blog posts, "Resurrective Ideology in an Age of Trauma" and "Portkeys to 9/11"). It is the dialectic of traumatic shattering and ideological resurrection that fuels the lamentable, endlessly recurring cycle of atrocity and counter-atrocity that has been so characteristic of human history.

[Berettasskeeter]

What claptrap! It all boils down to who will triumph, the forces of freedom or the forces of tyranny. We, with all our problems, are the forces of freedom. Islam represents the forces of tyranny!
Sounds real deep, though!
Semper fi

[Car84]

RStolorow wants to take the "fuel" away from those who oppose terrorists. Yeah, like that will ever be a recipe for saving innocent American lives!

I have news for those who want to spout professorial prose about what we need to do in today's world: There are people who want to kill YOU just because you're an American. That pre-dates George Bush. And fighting terrorists doesn't pre-date George Bush.

Say what you want about George Bush. But at least concede that we haven't been attacked on our soil for over 7 years now. Oh - and could have been much worse, could have been Kerry.

[Car84]

Al Qaeda doesn't prefer McCain. The "supporting" article doesn't go that far. It just says supproters of Al Qaeda might like to see a terrorist attack (I imagine because that's what they like anyway under any circumstances).

Take away the premise and the article offers nothing.

[Car84]

Ah yes, the artricle references a previous article on the 2004 IISS report. What were we told back in 2004? For one thing, we chased Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan. So there was no need to keep fighting there.

Many of them went to Iraq, where one George Bush did what everyone seemed to fault the elder George Bush for not doing - getting rid of a dangerous despot. (You know the guy - had WMD programs, used them on his own people. That's the guy.)

Many of the terrorists flocked to Iraq, which for me is better than having them show up in Topeka. (Fewer Apache helicopters here. And more due process rights.) John McCain openly (and correctly) argued at that time we should have more troops in Iraq. After all, if more terrorists had to be killed, and we needed more soldiers to kill them. It's simple math. I think Obama voted Present back then.

Eventually (after the article was written), Iraq had elections, we acquainted countless terrorists with an empty and unfulfilling death, we finally sent more troops in to stabilize regions and villages, and Iraq is doing quite well for a fledgling democracy. And as far as I'm concerned, we pull out of Iraq the day after we pull out of Germany and Japan. (What's the rush?)

[idest]

Oh my lord you are ignorant.

You think Al Qaeda went to Iraq in 2004? Do you really believe that? When every single legitimate source knows for a certainty that Al Qaeda has regrouped in the tribal territories of Pakistan? Do you just not read anything?

We also acquainted countless "terrorists" with hard American currency and guns to get them to stop blowing us up. Hey, guess what, bribes work. But you fail to mention that and somehow believe that "the surge"'s purpose was to fight the emergence of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda in Iraq, which nobody, not even the dumbest neoconservative pundit, believes at this point. So I just gotta ask, can you name one newspaper or magazine you read on a regular basis? Or is it just "all of them"?

[Berettasskeeter]

No, the Taliban has regrouped in Pakistan. Al Qaeda is an umbrella organization with numerous affiliated groups around the world, in the Philippines, Brazil/Par­aguay/Arge­ntina, Sudan/Ethiopa, Thailand, etc. You need to cure your ignorance!
Semper fi

[PBMom]

Or God forbid, they use it as reverse psychology. I could see it being used as "Al-Qaeda fears McCain, therefore McCain is the one who should be elected." People bought into that when they practically endorsed Bush. Fear drove people to vote instead of their intelligence. Or I see the spin the other way, "Al Qaeda wants Obama to be president because he's a friend of terrorists." Instead of making choices based on facts, people are supporting candidates based on fear, based on lies, and based on the worst parts of what America is all about.

[lwfky]

But they aren't expressing fear, they are expressing delight. Bin Laden has stated in the past that the bombings and killings were just the start of his plan. He then thought that we in America would BANKRUPT ourselves by spending billions of dollars to try to "win" a battle against terrorism using conventional methods of war. Does this scenario seem familiar?

[MajorKong]

I don't really care what Al Qaeda has to say, but imagine what the Republicans would do with this if it was the other way around?

[BlueZoo]

I believe it's very dangerous to go down this road. We don't need to be comparing candidates by which terrorist group wants them for President. We play directly into the hands of those who hate us by this sort of thing and if you base your vote on this sort of fear-mongering, you aren't capable of thinking for yourself. Letting terrorists define this election is a very base view in my opinion.

[jonguu]

It is no more dangerous than letting Republicans define the issues.

[blindhog]

I'd be careful assigning any validity to this recent turn of events.

Who knows who is behind these stories? They could be valid, they might not be.

I do know that during the last election, Al Qaeda supposedly endorsed the election of George Bush--look where that got us. If it is a valid positon of Al Qaeda--that they are supporting John McCain's election--and McCain wins, we are all in trouble based on their past endorsement.

[Berynice]

I have to agree about being careful about the validity of this. It sounds very Rovian to me. These are all so twisted, who knows who is really behind this all.

[TheAntiSheep]

"The American people shouldn't base their votes on the basis of what maniacs say."

So can everyone who still does PLEASE stop listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Buchanan and all those other nut-jobs already? Not to mention Sarah Palin and increasingly, John McCain himself?

[CeeCee]

Excellent, well-thought-out post.

It also reminds me of the oft-repeated McCainism: I know where Bin Ladin is, I know how to get him."
Enough said.

[desertbloom]

They're calling McCain's bluff.