by Frank James
A lot of push back from the McCain campaign, as one might expect, to the Washington Post's story today on a posting on an al Qaeda linked website that expressed a preference for Sen. John McCain to win the White House over Sen. Barack Obama.
In a teleconference for which the McCain campaign provided a partial transcript, Randy Scheunemann, McCain's top foreign-policy adviser, questioned why the WaPo would run the story in the form it did, with what he called an "inflammatory" headline: "On al Qaeda web site, joy over U.S. crisis, support for McCain."
He also suggested the WaPo cherry-picked information, implying that it was an anti-McCain hatchet job.
Scheunemann said:
"Now The Washington Post can explain why it used the quotes it did. Minimal perusing of the same website they quoted finds many, many other quotations including one which says quote, 'regardless of who wins the election, the old man or the climber, I inform you it will be dealt with according to your policies towards the land of Islam and Muslims.' So they had many alternative postings that they could have chosen to write about but they obviously chose one, for whatever reasons, wherever they found it, why ever they did it, to create an inflammatory headline that is not even supported by its own story and certainly not supported by a full reading of the Post.
To be honest, I had some qualms about the story when I read it. While the posting was attributed to someone named Muhammad Haafid who was identified in the story as "a longtime contributor to the password-protected site" linked to the terrorist group, the story went on to say:
It was unclear how closely the commentary reflected the views of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who has not issued a public statement since the spring. 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."
Islamist militants have generally had less to say about Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. Leaders of the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah expressed a favorable view of Obama during the primary campaign but later rejected the Democrat after he delivered speeches expressing support for Israel.
So we're uncertain if the posting reflects al Qaeda's leaders' real thinking. We also don't know whether or not the posting and other jihadi postings reflects some form of psy ops. What if al Qaeda, for its own strategic reasons, would really prefer an Obama presidency but is using reverse psychology?
McCain supporter James Woolsey, a former Central Intelligence Agency director, made a somewhat similar point during the teleconference.
"... If one takes one individual Islamist blogger from one terrorist Islamist blog, who has come up with this statement that it would be good to have McCain in the White House, I think one has to consider the motives. This individual knows that the endorsement of people like him is a kiss of death, figuratively and literally, so it seems to me it's pretty clear that by making this statement that he wants, that it would be a good thing for McCain to be President, he is clearly trying to damage John McCain, not speaking from his heart. So I must say I think the overall structure of the debate as one analyzes it coming out of this story taken at face value is quite remarkable."
This isn't to say that it's not worth knowing what the enemy is thinking. It's always important to know what's on the enemy's mind. It's just hard to be sure if that's what we're truly getting on these jihadi websites.
But even if terrorists prefer one candidate over the other, what do we do with that information? Are we going to allow terrorists to choose our nation's leaders? I doubt that. We're not going to let them or their sympathizers choose our leaders any more than they let us choose theirs.
Which connects to something else Scheunemann said. He tried to turn the tables on Obama by suggesting that if terrorists support anyone, it's the senator from Illinois. This seemed like misdirected anger, kind of like invading Iraq if you're outraged at al Qaeda.
"Now let me be clear. If we are going to talk about who had got support from terrorist groups in this election I am going to read some quotes, I am not going to characterize them, I will let others judge whether the amount of expression of support or opposition whether they amount to expressions of endorsement or opposition. First this week a Hamas spokesman, Ahmed Yousef said quote, 'I do believe Mr. Biden is a great man and we do count on him as also a good partner with Mr. Obama to put the right policy regarding how to handle problems in the region. It is good for America to have the new administration with someone like Mr. Obama and his vision for change. I do believe actually with this administration, the Bush administration, we don't have luck in ending our isolation. We as Palestinians are thinking we might have better luck with the new administration if Obama wins the election. I do believe that he will change American foreign policy in the way they are handling the Middle East.' Now this has been publicly available for several days. Again this is terrorist group Hamas and their spokesperson Ahmed Yousef. The Washington Post did not find time to write a story about that. Not a single story, not a single mention about a very clear statement from Hamas.
"Second, last month when Iranian President Ahmadinejad was in the United States, he was asked by a student whether he supports Democratic nominee Barack Obama or Republican John McCain. This is what president Ahmadinejad, who has called for the extinction of Israel has said, quote, 'the American government 28 years ago decided to cut its own ties with Iran. We do prefer to have relations whereas one of the candidates in this election would prefer that.' I think everybody on this call understands which candidate for president has endorsed unconditional meetings with president Ahmadinejad.
"Three, from Muammar Qaddafi of Libya, he said talking about Obama 'all the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaign to enable him to win the American presidency.' I'm not sure if The Washington Post ever reported on that. So we have three clear examples here of very strong statements, none to my knowledge have ever been covered by The Washington Post, all are on the record, all are clear, they are not on an obscure website by an obscure individual where words have to be twisted to create headlines that The Washington Post chooses to put on its stories."
I'm not sure Scheunemann win many points from the fair-minded by doing to the Democratic presidential nominee the exact same thing he excoriated the Post for doing to McCain.
Comments
Hilarious (TM)
McBush is al Qaeda's man, hey?
Now it's conventional wisdom.
The only thing that could be better for AQ would be Bush getting a third term.
And let's not forget the Col. Duyet endorsement.
Posted by: C.Hussein.Morris | October 22, 2008 8:54 PM
great article
Posted by: Pam Sery | October 22, 2008 8:59 PM
"VOTE FOR MCCAIN/PALIN - 08"
-
I'm Osama Bin Laden and I approve this message.
Posted by: Al-Qaeda | October 22, 2008 9:35 PM
RNC memo: $75,000 for palins new hijabs.
Posted by: bill "Hussein" r. | October 22, 2008 10:08 PM
Give it up Scheunemann. Woolsey and his pals have been music to al Qaeda's ears the last eight years. They can only hope for four more.
Posted by: thinkresults | October 22, 2008 10:51 PM
Yes, I especially agree with the last sentence in this blog -- I was pretty disgusted by McCain's hypocrisy. Here he is, complaining about how unfair this connection is, and what does he do? He turns around and slimes Obama the same way. Need we remind him that it's the Post that got on his bad side on this issue, not Obama?
But no, he's so desperate he will take any opportunity to throw mud at his opponent. It reminds me of the ridiculous comment he made about Mitt Romney ... "You can't get down in the mud and wrestle with a pig. You'll get dirty, and the pig will only like it."
Well, take your own advice, Mr. McCain ...
Posted by: Amy Williams | October 23, 2008 12:37 AM
This is GREAT! The GOP is getting a taste of its own slime.
Posted by: Steve J. | October 23, 2008 1:00 AM
But even if terrorists prefer one candidate over the other, what do we do with that information?
If the site had said Al Qaeda prefers Obama, Sean Hannity would repeat that 24/7.
Posted by: Steve J. | October 23, 2008 1:01 AM
al Queda is just playing politics to get their guy in.
The Haaretz Article, Top Iran officials recommend preemptive strike against Israel, has triggered the need to repost an article that I wrote some time ago about a dream I had when Iran was testing their missiles. I light of Sen. Biden’s recent remarks that Obama would be tested by our enemies, I ask the question, “What would Obama do?”
http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/what-would-obama-do-haaretz-article-top-iran-officials-recommend-preemptive-strike-against-israel/
Posted by: ZachJonesIsHome | October 23, 2008 6:19 AM
Although I believe Al Quaeda loves reactionary types, who will further isolate the US and do its bidding if attacked -- like George Busn & Co. invading Iraq - I do not see that this "endorsement" can be read as either true or false. The only "endorsement" by Al Quaeda for McCain would come in the form of an attack, if one takes place before the election. Al Quaeda knows the US situation, and that the polls show that Americans -- wrongly, I feel -- think McCain would be a better leader against terror. Therefore, if Obama is ahead, and they attack to upset the election -- that would be an inequivocable "endorsement" for McCain. That is the very idea of "terror" --manipulating people, the way the terrorist wants, by scaing them. Most Americans are too dumb to see this, which is just what Al Quaeda is counting on. George Bush was like a puppet in their hands.
Posted by: frank burns | October 23, 2008 9:12 AM
Can't help but appreciate the irony here. A while back, we were hearing a WHOLE lot about how terrorists wanted Obama in office, therefore we should avoid voting for him at ALL costs. Now the shoe's on the other foot.
*
And in this case as well, I have to say it's an absolutely moot point. Al Quaeda doesn't get a voice in what happens here, whatever it is they want. Neither McCain nor Obama are going to do the bidding of some terrorist. Let bin Laden spew all he wants to. Hopefully, somewhere in all that spewing, is going to be some of his blood. Wouldn't make me feel sad at all, I confess freely.
Posted by: Op109 | October 23, 2008 10:34 AM
Its simple--al Qaeda wants for continued American financial ruin. McBush will spend more money than Obama would with McBush continued Iraq occupation and constant wars somewhere--anywhwere on earth. Ergo, al Qaeda would prefer McCain for next US prez.
Posted by: Vivian | October 23, 2008 2:39 PM
If they can find some expensive designer burkas for his running matet hey may even pump some cash his way.
Posted by: Rodger Lemonde | October 23, 2008 2:52 PM
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The Post was acting on it's interest in seeing Obama win and probably with no small amount of assistance from Obama campaign aides. Scheunemann may have been in the wrong to link Obama to Hamas and other jihadist organizations and terrorist sympathizers but at least his quotes were factual rather than grossly distorted as the Washington Post headline clearly was. As for Iraq, Frank, how quickly we forget that regime change was a policy long held by the Clinton administration with regards to Saddam's rule of that country . How quickly we forget just how many Democrats were supporting the forceful end of Saddam's regime long before Bush 43 ever took office. Both Gore and Clinton blasted Bush 41 for failing to end Saddam's regime and ensure the removal of the WMD's he was believed to be in possession of. Bush 43 takes office and actually does it and Dems tear him apart for it. How's that for hypocrisy? As to your assertion that most Americans are too dumb, to notice when they are being manipulated, I will attribute that to a classic a**hole liberal elitist mentality on your part. People in general are pretty smart (perhaps not geniuses but certainly capable of recognizing manipulation). The manipulation here is on the part of the Washington Post and the obscure (Al Qaeda ???) blogger whose statements they appear to have cherry picked. Since no terrorist attack occurred prior to the election we have no way of knowing for certain how such an attack might have affected the election. The notion that Bush is somehow Al Qaeda's puppet is laughable. Al Qaeda's leadership has suffered tremendous losses under Bush from which they are unlikely to recover provided the next POTUS doesn't choose to relieve the pressure upon them. Whereas once they were a tightly knit group they are now disorganized and in desperate need of both recruits and funding. The only country still willing to grant them safe haven is Pakistan. Their actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere have rendered them highly unpopular in the Muslim world and brought the movement they sought to create among Muslims to a grinding halt. As for the notion that " McBush will spend more money than Obama would with McBush continued (sic; continuing the) Iraq occupation and (waging) constant wars somewhere--anywhwere on earth", I would call to your attention the fact that "McBush" has a record of fighting wasteful spending whereas Obama clearly does not. The Iraq war is also drawing to a close independent of the actions and promises of Obama. It is unrealistic to imagine that under the leadership of either man the cost of the Iraq war would remain at present levels. I would also ask if you believe that somehow the myriad of social programs, the building of a new electrical grid, and the institution of universal health care (all proposed by Obama) will somehow cost less than the imagined wars of a President McCain. The potential for more wars is there no matter who the POTUS is. Do you imagine that with Obama as POTUS the possibility of a broader war in the Middle East catalyzed by Iran has now vanished? If so wake up and smell what you're shoveling. I would also call your attention to the fact that Biden himself is undoubtedly a hawk. The record clearly indicates that he and McCain both supported the Iraq war at its onset (in other words Biden was for the war before he was against it). Lastly I must admit to finding humor in the fact that some of you seem to be more familiar with the cost of Palin's outfits than the actual policy positions of McCain/Palin. How sad.
Posted by: David W. | December 9, 2008 8:06 PM