« Not Afraid of McCain's Secret Plan to Get Bin Laden | Main | My Deep Thought »

October 22, 2008

Comments

I wondered out loud to my wife this morning how long it would take for the pushback to start, and speculated that it would take exactly this form.

McCain's surrogates seriously want the electorate to believe that when terrorists endorse Obama it's because they want him to win, and when they endorse McCain it's also because they want Obama to win.

As you point out, Libya was turning things around long before 9/11. Libya, like Iraq 1991 and South Africa, is a great example of the effectiveness of multilateral sanctions. (In Iraq's case, because it made the world much more willing to come along with us in Desert Storm).

It's not like they don't know about Libya-- a favorite false talking point from neocons is that the Iraq invasion made Libya straighten up and fly right all of a sudden.

But, hey, Qadaffi has a Muslim name, and the media sucks at reporting the news, so, why not throw it out there?

It's not just the psychology, but also military strategy. Obama's made clear that some of the troops coming out of Iraq would be going to Afghanistan. The Taliban have been launching larger attacks and are gaining some ground. If we send in more troops, that hurts their effort.

On the other hand, if McCain keeps our troops bogged down in Iraq, that gives a freer hand to the Taliban.

Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.

that is a difficult claim to defend while simultaneously pointing to the statements of support for Barack Obama coming from other suspect groups.

Not to mention that GOPers love to cite Al-Q when they claim that Iraq is the central front on the war of terror

"Not to mention that GOPers love to cite Al-Q when they claim that Iraq is the central front on the war of terror.."

Well, this is really quite simple. Everything Al-Q says is a lie, and if they state something that is true, that too, is a lie...and...and.....

Right Fledermaus. Didn't think of that.

when terrorists endorse Obama it's because they want him to win, and when they endorse McCain it's also because they want Obama to win.

It's worse that that. The claim is that when the terrorists publicly endorse Obama (or Kerry), that's what they truly believe, but when they say privately that they want McCain to win, they're trying reverse psychology in the expectation that their comments are going to be publicized.

Eric said:

"Lumping Qaddafi in with Hamas and A-Jad is just so...1986. It's either a cynical move to disingenuously capitalize on the lingering negative connotations associated with Qaddafi's name, or a refusal to acknowledge the progress that diplomacy and negotiations (aka reckless appeasement) have generated in terms of reducing tensions and improving relations between the US and a man who, at one time, was one of a long line of New Hitlers."

I submit that the most likely explanation for this is neither of the ones suggested; but rather that Randy Scheunemann doesn't know or doesn't remember that US-Libya relations have warmed over the past several years. One more good reason to vote for Obama.

True Bell. There should have been an option c.

Any statement concerning US elections coming from a known enemy of the US should be treated as a mildly intertesting contemporary version of the Epimenides paradox and then ignored.

I think most of us here agree with you IN THEORY, ABQ, but I'm tired of the GOP tossing that cudgel in my face over and over again. It's rather fun to point fingers in the opposite direction.... in jest of course.

Obviously I don't take these sorts of things seriously. But this fear-mongering right wing must be taken to task for trying to endlessly link liberals to terrorists by nonsense points such as the one above.

Logically, this should matter not at all.

I suppose the right has invested itself too much in the slur that the other side are the terrorist's favourites to make the logical argument now.

Basically, what alchemist said.

I don't much think this matters, but if the McCain camp is going to play these games, then the other side should play right back.

I realize that it's the sheer hypocrisy of their own reasoning that McCain's camp can't stand, but the notion that we should try to figure out what the terrorists want, whatever it is they want, and do something else is so stupid that it I would call it transcendental stupidity. We don't listen to terrorists who know nothing about democracy trying to influence our election. It's the only sane answer. Except they were not sane enough to give the response the first time around when Hamas supposedly endorsed Obama.

I disagree with alchemist. In theory, I wish we could do that, but as a matter of principle, allowing enemies to dictate your news cycle by trying to screw with the outcome of your elections is too revolting a concept to try to play head games with. I really think that should be Obama's response and it both rips McCain a new one on his use of Hamas, and gets beyond these psychopaths.

I absolutely agree that Obama's response should be to say that it doesn't matter. That doesn't mean that I'm not asking pointed questions of those I talk to that made the attack.

Oh come now, how dumb can you get! Of course it's reverse psychology! That's what al-Qaeda's "McCain endorsement" is all about. This is the stupidity that al-Qaeda is counting on.

Oh come now, how dumb can you get! Of course it's reverse psychology! That's what al-Qaeda's "McCain endorsement" is all about. This is the stupidity that al-Qaeda is counting on.

Oh come now, how dumb can you get! Of course it's reverse psychology! That's what al-Qaeda's "McCain endorsement" is all about. This is the stupidity that al-Qaeda is counting on.

Oh come now, how dumb can you get! Of course it's reverse psychology! That's what al-Qaeda's "McCain endorsement" is all about. This is the stupidity that al-Qaeda is counting on.

Oh come now, how dumb can you get! Of course it's reverse psychology! That's what al-Qaeda's "McCain endorsement" is all about. This is the stupidity that al-Qaeda is counting on.

Whereas Hamas' support of Obama is presumably a sign of his terrorsymp ways. Sheesh.

I don't much think this matters, but if the McCain camp is going to play these games, then the other side should play right back.

Fair enough, but if you're going to play, you want to play on your own terms, and you want to play to win.

Responding to conservative claims that Al Qaeda wants Obama to win by saying "No, Al Qaeda wants McCain to win!" is playing on the conservative's terms.

Respond in some other way, that puts the ball where *you* want it.

"Why is Senator McCain interested in what Al Qaeda says?"

"Bin Laden? Why isn't that guy dead yet?"

Etc.

Someone smarter than I can come up with a better reply than these. But "No, Al Qaeda really wants McCain to win!" is basically just flinging conservative poo. One way or another, some of it is going to stick to Obama.

Don't play checkers. Play chess, and play to win.

Thanks -

Someone smarter than I can come up with a better reply than these

Reading the thread back, I think Barbara had that covered at 8:52.

Thanks -

Sure. Fine. I still think it was important to get this story out. That's for bloggers to do.

I don't think that Obama had to address it, nor should he in the same manner as us bloggers.

And then, once the story is out there for all to see, proceed with the chess.

I don't think it's an either/or, but a many roads to the same destination approach.

Unlike Ahmadinejad and Hamas, the US has established fairly cordial, and in some instances cooperative, relations with Libya.
(...)
Lumping Qaddafi in with Hamas and A-Jad is just so ...1986. It's either a cynical move to disingenuously capitalize on the lingering negative connotations associated with Qaddafi's name, or a refusal to acknowledge the progress that diplomacy and negotiations (aka "reckless appeasement") have generated

Hamas gained a majority of seats in the PA parliament in a free, fair and internationally monitored election - Gaddafi is an autocratic ruler with an appalling human rights record.

I hope you were just a bit unclear, but your position sounds like a throwback to the good old "he's a bastard, but he's our bastard" policy of the cold war.

"Whereas Hamas' support of Obama is presumably a sign of his terrorsymp ways."

Withdrawn support.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad