I just got off a conference call the McCain campaign held 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 McCain. "An amazing piece of journalism, and I use journalism in quotation marks," Scheunemann said, going on to list barely-approving quotes of Barack Obama given by Hamas, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, which he manfully 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 in order 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.
More from Greg Sargent & Eric Kleefeld at TPM and Dave Weigel at Reason.
Crossposted to The Streak.



17 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
The obvious point is that, assuming the posting is true, al-Qaeda might try to stage some sort of incident before the election to achieve this goal
This leads to the question: Will Bush pay any more attention to this potential threat than he did to those before 9/11? And, if he doesn’t, does this mean that he agrees with al-Qaeda’s logic that such an attack helps the Repugnicans?
Normally, such a thought would be beyond the pale, but this President has shown that his depravity has no limits.
A President Obama would go after al-Qaeda where they live — in Afghanistan.
Yes, throw up the Hamas “statement” and the dems should throw up the endorsement of McCain/Palin by alQaeda
Um, most of what I’ve read suggests the leaders are in Pakistan.
OT for a moment of levity…do not miss Pach over at the Silo.
Silo link
Digg
What al-Qaeda really wants is 4 more years of GW Bush.
Failing that they will settle for McPailin, hoping for a strong role from the OVP
No assumption required.
The attack has been called for
Al Qaeda has also given thumbs up to An American Carol and has panned Religulous as heresy.
-G
OT
Palin’s clothes shopped is a McCain robocaller.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc…..in-clothes
“An amazing piece of journalism, and I use journalism in quotation marks,”
Were those ‘air-quotes’?
I hear they’re quite the rage with the republics….
The mcShame folks have boxed themselves in so much at this point, there is no way to maneuver. It’s like a bunch of rats in a maze – with no exit!
Has’nt Obama publicly and repeatedly said he will hunt bin Laden down and kill him, let alone step up the effort in Afghanistan? No wonder al-Qaeda is for McCain. Having Obama end the war in Iraq is certainly not in their interest. Or maybe bin Laden is simply trying to help out those undecided voters to choose Obama, and get the US election back to talking about the issues. I know that bothers me too.
James Woolsey is one spooky dude. When he came to Ohio University as the guest speaker for the Baker Peace Conference (not sure what Woolsey has to do with Peace) speak I was able to ask him a question about the invasion of Iraq and the WMD’s. He was so pissed he barely see straight when I was bringing up what Scott Ritter was saying before the invasion and El Baradei’s speech at the Un in early March of 2003 when he told the world the Niger Documents were “forged”.
I thought Woolsey was going to jump off the stage and try to beat me up. He kept telling me to “sit down sit down” when I was naming names and references
Guess this blows the Colin Powell endorsement out of the water.
al qaeda also refuses to endorse jj abrahams’ fringe, saying in a statement, “it’s a luke-warm wannabe copy of x-files. death to america.”
The CIA has really got to hire some better script writers.