Richard WarnickJoe The Terrorist Backs McCain
Not really a picture of “Joe The Terrorist”
Via Talking Points Memo…
OK, his name isn’t really Joe and he may not even be a licensed terrorist. According to the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors al-Qaeda communications, a Web site message this week said they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency. The message is credited to a frequent and apparently respected contributor named Muhammad Haafid. However, Haafid is not believed to have a direct affiliation with al-Qaeda plans or knowledge of its operations, according to SITE.
The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaeda 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-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush.”
UPDATE: WaPo quotes Adam Raisman, a senior analyst for the SITE Intelligence Group:
“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.”
UPDATE: In a conference call, McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann says no, no, noo– the terrorists are really rooting for Obama. Spencer Ackerman writes: “To describe the call as panicked would be an understatement.”
UPDATE: Unlike the panicky McCain advisers, the Obama spokespeople have nothing they want to say about Joe The Terrorist. When your opponent’s campaign is shooting itself in the foot, why not just quietly enjoy the moment?
UPDATE: Writing in Mother Jones, Tom Engelhardt grades Bush’s so-called “Global War on Terror.” It failed, in a series of humiliating defeats.
Previous One Utah posts:
McCain’s Secret Plan to Capture Osama bin Laden (October 10)
Richard Clarke: al-Qaeda May Try to Help McCain (October 6)
Al-Qaeda (The Real One) Is a Bigger Threat Than Last Year (August 13)
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:25 am
….but can THIS Joe effectively operate a pipe wrench or make solder ’sweat’?
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:27 am
Does the phrase “useful idiot” ring a bell, Richard?
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
jd– Tell us again how well the so-called “Global War on Terror” is going, 7 years after the 9/11 attacks.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Well, since we haven’t had any terrorists attack CONUS, I’d say pretty well, Richard.
What’s your criteria? Butterflies and bell-bottoms for everyone?
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
jd– I tend to follow the U.S. intelligence estimates, which tell us that al-Qaeda is more of a threat than ever. For a quick summary, you can check out Tom Engelhardt’s article.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I’m all for remaining vigilant, Richard. But isn’t the absence of an actual concrete attack (as opposed to a theoretical future scenario) a good thing? Isn’t that a success?
Isn’t the A you recieved on your last [seven years of] math test[s] evidence of success?
Or are you the kind of parent who never sees the success, only the potential future failures?
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
jd– I seem to recall I have previously given you my view on what the lack of attacks on the USA signified. As long as the Bush administration was headed in the direction favorable to al-Qaeda, another attack would serve no purpose. The strategic aim of the 9/11 attacks (and earlier ones, such as the attempted sinking of the USS Cole) was to trigger a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan (Iraq was an unexpected bonus for al-Qaeda).
As Bush prepares to slink out of office, we are once again in danger. An Iraq withdrawal deal is on the table. The military situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating, but at the same time the Taliban seem to be ditching their alliance with al-Qaeda and engaging in diplomacy with the Afghan government.
Maybe you didn’t notice, but al-Qaeda recently mounted its first attack on a U.S. embassy in ten years in Sanaa, Yemen. This was mostly thwarted by Yemeni security, but they did kill quite a few people including one American. You may also have heard about the al-Qaeda truck bombing that destroyed the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan– apparently an attempt to assassinate President Zardari. Americans died there too.
These were major attacks, and the message is that al-Qaeda wants something. Maybe they want to head off improved relations with Yemen and Pakistan, or sabotage the embryonic Afghanistan peace talks. They could also be trying to provoke a new U.S. President (of either party) into rash military action. My guess is that al-Qaeda will continue to use terrorism as a tactic because it’s their core competency.
Don’t let me worry you, jd. But don’t be surprised when al-Qaeda strikes again.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
What’s this! The poll on the right side of Richards link to TPM shows Utah split 50/50 between McCain and Obama. Could it be true?
Maybe Utahn’s realize that McCain would help the terrorists to expand their vision of turning more of the world against US too.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Here’s a great video of a citizen trying to do Nancy Pelosi’s job:
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I don’t think TPM has any results for Utah, Idaho, Hawaii, DC or Rhode Island. No good reason to poll the Presidential election in any of those places, I guess.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I’m not sure how to read that poll Richard, but notice that the states in tan are very close to 50/50 and at the top it says 50% under a box with the same light tan color as Utah. Just wishful thinking on my part or maybe Utah is waking up.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Since Richard has demonstrated that he’s not above completely fabricating evidence to promote his vapid point of view, I challenge him to show the actual message that was attributed to Al Qaeda, or failing that, where on the SITE website we can see it, a translation or an interpretation.
No, Richard - you can’t demonstrate the veracity of your sources by linking to another blogger or to yourself.
You claim that this is on the SITE website, please show where.
While you’re at it, please top post the entire McCain quote regarding the military that you felt the need to truncate to support you’re irrational theories.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
jd– SITE is a subscription-based translation service that you have to pay for. The McCain campaign accepts this information as correct, but if you don’t believe them and you want it first-hand you’ll have to subscribe to SITE.
McCain’s entire long, rambling quote, as you know, was a feeble attempt to deny reality by saying he could expand our military using some unspecified incentive program that he hasn’t figured out yet. The U.S. Army is already offering $40,000 in signing bonuses, and can’t find enough qualified applicants. Without a draft, it can’t be done.
Someone ought to ask McCain why we need to expand our forces when the Pentagon is already spending more money every year than the rest of the world’s defense establishments combined. What are McCain’s neocon advisers planning to do?