McCain Advisers Freaked Out by Al Qaeda Preference for McCain (updated)

[ProSense]

McCain Advisers Freaked Out by Al Qaeda Preference for McCain

By Spencer Ackerman 10/22/08 12:35 PM

I just got off a conference call held by the McCain campaign to deny that Al Qaeda, contrary to reports in the AP and the Washington Post, is rooting for their man. To describe the call as panicked would be an understatement.

Jim Woolsey, the former CIA director who publicly connected Iraq to the 9/11 attacks without any evidence in 2001, and senior foreign-policy adviser Randy Scheunemann spent more time whining about the Washington Post’s standards of fairness than on the logic of why Al Qaeda might prefer Sen. John McCain. “An amazing piece of journalism, and I use journalism in quotation marks,” Scheunemann said, going on to list barely approving quotes of Sen. Barack Obama from Hamas, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, which he said he wasn’t going “to characterize.” Woolsey, for his part, peered into the mind of what he called “one individual Islamist blogger from one terrorist Islamist blog” and determined that he was “clearly trying to damage John McCain” and “not speaking from his heart.”

What was absent from the call, oddly enough, was any discussion about why Al Qaeda might want McCain to win. And there the case is simple enough. Al Qaeda prefers an indefinite U.S. occupation of Iraq and a bellicose U.S. all across the Muslim world to radicalize Muslims to its terrorist cause and drain the U.S. of its financial wealth — what Osama bin Laden calls his “bleed to bankruptcy” strategy. Hence, the reason why, as the CIA eventually concluded, Bin Laden tried to help George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004 by releasing a late-October tape. McCain pledges basic continuity with Bush on the Iraq war. As Scheunemann put it, “John McCain will spend what it takes to win.”

Yet the idea of Al Qaeda preferring a U.S. strategy that strengthens it confounded the McCain camp. “It is ridiculous to believe that in its heart of hearts, Al Qaeda wants John McCain to be the president,” Woolsey said. “It’s ludicrous.” But the only thing that’s ludicrous is Woolsey’s expectation that the American public will keep falling for this sort of misdirection by the same blinkered analysts who blundered the U.S. into Iraq in the first place.

Update: More from Greg Sargent & Eric Kleefeld at TPM and Dave Weigel at Reason.

Poll: Obama Holds Edge On Taxes And Family Values; McCain's National Security Advantage Erodes

Poll: Obama Expands Lead, Makes Big Inroads On National Security

Those are two separate polls.

Updated:

MCCAIN CAMPAIGN RATTLED BY AL QAEDA ADMISSION....

Great points there.

[whistle]

1. Al Qaeda wants McCain/Palin, that's news! Did Bin Laden come out and say that on video?

[ProSense]

3. The McCain campaign reaction is like

the Dems finding gold. Panic, check! Whining, check! Unable to address the issue, check!

[Iwasthere]

5. They found txt messages stating this

Saw it this morning. I believe it was from Al Qaeda known sites

[David__77]

2. Of course it supports McCain.

A McCain presidency means a decline in US influence and prestige internationally.

[WCGreen]

6. It's not that at all...

AQ wants McCain because they know he would react in such away as to further diminish the US Economy and make us look even more ineffectual militarily since we can not stop them...

That's why they attacked with Bush in the White House and that is why they will attack with McCain in the White House...

[vaberella]

20. However the bi-product is what poster 2 had mentioned. You're both right. n/t

[FVZA_Colonel]

15. The same disastrous political, economic and military policies that allowed them to not only survive

after 9/11, but thrive, would certainly be continued under McCain. It does make perfect sense that they'd want him in charge.

[Ganja Ninja]

4. Regardless of what McCain would do as president ...

an Obama election, all by itself, would likely hurt al Qaeda recruiting especially outside of the middle east.

[zbdent]

7. and they get all high and mighty when, with no evidence, a Republican

says the "terrorists support Pelosi/fill-in-the-current-Dem" and the Dems accuse them of outrageous statements ... they scoff, and say we're being too sensitive "because it's telling the truth!"

But point out that Bush and those who want to not only continue them, but expand upon the errors, are used by the "terrorists" as recruiting aids, and all hell breaks loose! "You're un-American! Why do you hate the troops???"

[ProSense]

8. McCain cracks under pressure. n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

9. Their reaction is too funny.

They are now officially "pallin' around with terrorists" because the terrorists actually say so! :rofl:

[crossroads]

25. Clever!

[JBoy]

10. So if McCain gets rattled by an endorsement, how would he react if they attacked?

[pleah]

11. I think you hit the nail on the head! It really goes to the heart of the

issue!

[myrna minx]

12. Precisely. n/t

[Miss Chybil]

14. You make a very intriguing point.

I'm sure he would react in much the same way he reacted to the financial crisis. Over the top and scattered. Actually, that sounds like his entire campaign.

[central scrutinizer]

17. Ready ..... Fire! ....... Aim

[Median Democrat]

13. Its Called Karma - Remember McCain Saying Hamas Endorsed Obama?

Karmic payback is a bitch.

[ProSense]

16. Digging a Deeper Hole

Digging a Deeper Hole

Posted by Max Bergmann

On the McCain campaign's conference call they just dug their hole even deeper.

Instead of just saying that talking about who terrorist groups endorse is ridiculous, Randy Scheunemann - McCain's foreign policy adviser - decided to whine that the Washington Post article should have included comments from Hamas, Qaddafi, and Ahmadinejad saying positive things about Obama. I see, stories that say 'terrorists endorse McCain' are unfair but ones that say the same about Obama are fair. I just don't understand how they can possibly complain about stories on Al Qaeda members endorsing McCain and then in practically the same breathe say stories should be written about other terrorist groups endorsing Obama. Randy - the correct response was this is all ridiculous. If those other endorsements of Obama are fair game then so is Al Qaeda's. And it would seem to me that Al Qaeda's endorsement is a bit bigger deal than Hamas'.

Another interesting note from the call is that I don't believe Scheunemann or Woosley ever mentioned Afghanistan or Pakistan once. But they spent an awful lot of time in Iraq. Do they 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. Here's what the Washington Post wrote:

at least some of its (Al Qaeda's) supporters think Sen. John McCain is the presidential candidate best suited to continue that trend. "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.” As Adam Raisman, a senior analyst for the Site Intelligence Group, says “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... They think that, to succeed in a war of attrition, they need a leader in Washington like McCain.”

Here is what the Associated Press wrote:

Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency. The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "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."

[FUCK_BUSH]

18. I always tought McCain is an anti-american. He doesn't love America as mush as I do .

HOw does it feel you repubs scumbags

[steve2470]

19. kick nt

[vaberella]

21. Wow, that's messed up. It's times like this I wonder how the freepers are fairing. n/t

[ProSense]

22. Their heads must be exploding. n/t

[vaberella]

24. Totally...added to the pic of Palin wearing that Dem shawl. Shame. n/t

[melonkali]

23. Al Qaeda figures it can bait McCain into U.S. "self-destructing" policies

And I've heard nothing about McCain or from McCain which would contradict that analysis.

[Waiting For Everyman]

26. If they want McC, then they will pull a terror attack somewhere.

...unless this controversy in the OP now makes that too obvious (which may very well be true). I was thinking this before the Convention when some were worried about it here... that if there was an "October Surprise" of a national security nature, it would prove that AlQ wants McC. It stands to reason that if they were to do something like that which would obviously benefit McC (which is no secret), it would be to get him elected. Otherwise, it would be stupid.

Interesting to see this.

[Franks Wild Years]

27. I do not believe a major terror attack benefits anyone

I really do not.

It causes the whole world - not unreasonably - to rally around the USA regardless of who is leader, it will - in the eyes of much of the global community - vindicate Bush and his "war on terror". It puts pressure other western nations into joining the US militarily. That hurts the terrorists.

On the flip side, it can hurt McCain and the Republican agenda domestically, particularly with this news article having emerged. It makes it easy to say "they've been in power, but they have not kept us safe because they've been screwing around in Iraq. Particularly with the added foreign policy cred that has now stuck to Obama first with the selection of Biden and compounded by Colin Powell's endorsement. Therefore, if the terrorists hope to elect a President McCain that way, my gut instinct is that there's a good chance they're mistaken.

A heroically foiled attack with no civilian damage or none at all, maintaining the status quo would be about the only endorsement of the current security policy. It actually surprises me that McCain - desperate as he is - has not been touting the fact that there's been no attack since 9/11 and claiming it all to be due to GOP security policy. It's such an obvious line that it's almost staggering that he hasn't been shouting it from the rooftops.

[FraDon]

28. • now THAT's funny ...

I always thought that they were two arms of the same, black octopus. They share a business model; oh yeah, and a paymaster. In their worldview, peace, itself. is the enemy ∆ permanent war the goal.

[Sirveri]

29. I really hope Obama is super well protected

The low level terrorists are pretty stupid and uneducated for the most part, but that doesn't stop them from car bombing a presidential candidate. Or a sniper attack. Or just a guy with a handgun in the massive crowds Obama draws. How far would people who hate America go to stop our best chance at recovering from Dubya's disaster term. Those people are both foreign and domestic.

[Divine Discontent]

30. Amen - if you hate America - you are against President Obama!

of course they would want further disarray that would come from the DramaMama and McManiac.


MORE AT www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[Sirveri]

32. Yes, but what if an assanation led to their victory?

I don't know what would happen if god forbid someone took out Obama, but if some nut job who hates America decided to do it what would happen?

Would we instantly put Biden on the plank, would Hilary come in and try to take it, would it turn into a power struggle. I doubt we'd get a delay in the election out of it. Would the split divide the party and cause McCain to sail in on a split democratic vote? Would we descend to violence? Would it start an outright shooting civil war? Would it cause Dubya to blame Iran and go into Iran? Pakistan? Any other place with oilistan? What happens to all those early votes for Obama, you know the GOP would challenge any attempt to convert them to the new Democratic plank.

A lot of potential for incredibly bad things to happens, and I am not sure if I can breathe easy until the 4th.

[Ferret Annica]

31. Nothing stings like a backhanded compliment by your enemies

Perhaps they could help this election by buying a full page ad in the Washington Post or NY Times making the pitch for McNasty.

[vagabund]

33. One individual Al Qaeda blogger expressed preference from McCain

Not the leadership.