The Q to His List

by Eric Martin

The McCain camp is scrambling to contain the damage from the story reporting on al-Qaeda's alleged preference for John McCain over Barack Obama.  From Spencer Ackerman:

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.”

A few thoughts on this:

First, it was not "one individual Islamist blogger from one terrorist Islamist blog," as Woolsey claims.  From the article that sparked the uproar:

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...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." [emphasis added]

So there is a consensus view emerging on many forums, not an isolated incident involving one individual.  Consistent with this interpretation of al-Qaeda's interests vis-a-vis US foreign policy, as mentioned in my prior post, the CIA concluded that bin Laden's release of a videotape near election day in 2004 was designed to boost Bush's electoral prospects.

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.  The attempt to thread that needle goes something like this: You can't trust al-Qaeda, and they're obviously using reverse psychology. But Hamas would never lie to us, and isn't now. Nor A-Jad.  Or something.

Finally, I want to touch on the odd inclusion of Muammar Qaddafi on the list of putative Obama advocates of ill-repute.  Unlike Ahmadinejad and Hamas, the US has established fairly cordial, and in some instances cooperative, relations with Libya.  Some recent history: As far back as 2006, the US removed Libya from the list of state sponsors of terrorism and began the process to restore full diplomatic relations.  In October 2007, the US allowed Libya to be voted on as a temporary member of the UN Security Council (the US had blocked the prior attempt by Libya).  Last month, Secretary of State Rice visited Libya as part of her North African tour (the first visit from a US Secretary of State since 1953).

The reasons for the recent detente between the US governement and Libya's ruling regime are well documented. After a long negotiation process that began under the first Bush administration continued through Clinton's tenure and culminated in the second Bush presidency: (a) Libya renounced the use of terrorism; (b) loudly (and almost immediately in the aftermath) condemned the attacks of 9/11; (c) provided intelligence and other assistance to US in its effort to combat al-Qaeda in the region (at one point, Qaddafi offered a $1 million reward for information leading to the capture of al-Qaeda operatives); (d) gave up its WMD program; and (e) made other concessions with respect to making payments to victims of the Pan-Am flight 103 bombing.

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. 

It's a success story of sanctions and negotiations that should be trumpeted.  But then, once you acknowledge the possibility for the success of such (relatively) peaceful means, you take the fun out of everything.

Comments

[Robert M.]

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.

[Elvis Elvisberg]

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?

[tomeck]

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.

[Vincent]

Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.

[Fledermaus]

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

[bobbyp]

"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.....

[Eric Martin]

Right Fledermaus. Didn't think of that.

[KCinDC]

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.

[Bellwetherman]

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.

[Eric Martin]

True Bell. There should have been an option c.

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

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.

[alchemist]

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.

[Pithlord]

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.

[Eric Martin]

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.

[Barbara]

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.

[Barbara]

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.

[J. Michael Neal]

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.

[nabalzbbfr]

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.

[nabalzbbfr]

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.

[nabalzbbfr]

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.

[nabalzbbfr]

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.

[nabalzbbfr]

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.

[Anarch]

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

[russell]

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 -

[russell]

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 -

[Eric Martin]

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.

[novakant]

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.

[Gary Farber]

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

Withdrawn support.