WP: On Al-Qaeda Web Sites, Joy Over U.S. Crisis, Support for McCain

[Monte51Coleman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102477_pf.html

On Al-Qaeda Web Sites, Joy Over U.S. Crisis, Support for McCain

By Joby Warrick and Karen DeYoung

Washington Post Staff Writers

Wednesday, October 22, 2008; A13

Al-Qaeda is watching the U.S. stock market's downward slide with something akin to jubilation, with its leaders hailing the financial crisis as a vindication of its strategy of crippling America's economy through endless, costly foreign wars against Islamist insurgents.

And at least some of its supporters think Sen. John McCain is the presidential candidate best suited to continue that trend.

"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush.

The Web commentary was one of several posted by Taliban or al-Qaeda-allied groups in recent days that trumpeted the global financial crisis and predicted further decline for the United States and other Western powers. In language that was by turns mocking and ominous, the newest posting credited al-Qaeda with having lured Washington into a trap that had "exhausted its resources and bankrupted its economy." It further suggested that a terrorist strike might swing the election to McCain and guarantee an expansion of U.S. military commitments in the Islamic world.

"It will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda," said the posting, attributed to Muhammad Haafid, a longtime contributor to the password-protected site. "Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America."

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.

In an e-mail response, senior McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann noted that al-Qaeda leaders have repeatedly said that America "did not have the stomach to fight them over the long haul," which the Arizona senator has pledged to do. "Whatever musings and bravado on radical websites the Washington Post chooses to quote, the fact remains that only John McCain has the experience, judgment and fortitude to lead a country at war," he said. The Obama campaign declined to comment on the Web postings.

Both the Bush administration and the two major presidential campaigns have rejected any suggestion that the economic downturn will undermine the country's fight against al-Qaeda. Obama and McCain have stepped gingerly around the issue of how they would adjust their priorities in a recession and have spoken of the importance of maintaining a strong defense. Both have advocated expanding the size of the U.S. military overall, but neither has explained in detail how to pay for it.

From shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaeda attacks to last year, U.S. defense spending rose from 3 to 4 percent of gross domestic product, but it remains far below the 45-year average of 5.5 percent. The Pentagon's budget for fiscal 2009 is $527 billion, a figure that does not include Iraq and Afghanistan war costs, which have totaled more than $800 billion since 2001.

"History shows us that nations that are strong militarily over time have to have a strong economy," McCain said this month. He has said the United States must send more troops to Afghanistan while avoiding a withdrawal timetable from Iraq.

Obama has tied an Iraq withdrawal to increased forces in Afghanistan and the ability to fund domestic programs. The continued fight in Iraq "means we can't provide health care to people who need it," Obama said in his first debate with McCain.

"Nobody is talking about losing this war," Obama said of Iraq. "What we are talking about is recognizing that the next president has to have broader strategic vision."

It is not the first time al-Qaeda and its allies have weighed in on a Western election. Bin Laden released a video message Oct. 29, 2004, days before the U.S. presidential election, warning of plans for further attacks on U.S. targets. Some strategists for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic nominee, have said the timing of the message tipped the balance toward Bush, who defined himself as the anti-terrorism candidate.

The deadly train bombings in Spain that year were seen as an attempt by al-Qaeda to bring down then-Prime Minister José María Aznar, who had sent troops to Iraq. Aznar lost his reelection bid three days after the bombing.

Recent polls suggest that Iraq and terrorism are less important to most Americans than the economy. Still, terrorism experts have warned that al-Qaeda may indeed launch a major strike before the U.S. election or shortly afterward.

"The idea of testing a new president or hitting us when we're off-balance is enormously attractive to them," said Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University terrorism expert.

[SkinsHokieFan]

LOL

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=702bf6d5-a37a-4e3e-a491-fd72bf6a9da1

Yea AQ, you guys are doing real great these days

[SUSkinsFan]

OMG!!!! Al-Qaeda just endorsed John McCain, he isn't fit to be POTUS. He must be a traitor and a closet Muslim because he is palling around with terrorists. I also heard he isn't a natural-born citizen!

[brandymac27]

OMG!!!! Al-Qaeda just endorsed John McCain, he isn't fit to be POTUS. He must be a traitor and a closet Muslim because he is palling around with terrorists. I also heard he isn't a natural-born citizen!

OMG! Haven't you heard? He isn't even a natural born citizen!

http://www.etherzone.com/2008/nath021108.shtml

And...He's an alien!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM_llMsNOdI

[Midnight Judges]

I've always railed against the notion that Al Qaida/Islamic extremists should somehow hold any sway over anyone's vote. The absence of the folks who regularly espoused this nonsense on ES over the last four years is telling.

[SUSkinsFan]

OMG! Haven't you heard? He isn't even a natural born citizen!

http://www.etherzone.com/2008/nath021108.shtml

And...He's an alien!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM_llMsNOdI

legal or illegal?

[Zguy28]

"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."

Isn't this what I brought up the other day in AsburySkinsFan's thread?

And then Mad Mike :loser: called me a fool.

[Cooked Crack]

No surprise here, McCain gives them more job security.

[BigMike619]

it seems to me that with a group like al-qaeda they dont want mccain in there because he would knock them out faster then obama would. so they are going to go for mccain and know that people will do the exact opposite of them naturally out of hatred towards them.

[mjah]

it seems to me that with a group like al-qaeda they dont want mccain in there because he would knock them out faster then obama would. so they are going to go for mccain and know that people will do the exact opposite of them naturally out of hatred towards them.

I don't think that's their angle. They truly don't want the wars to end; they want more fighting. Without war, they have no recruiting, nothing to rail against and therefore no means to expand their regional influence. They also want to see the US continue exhausting ourselves with war, as they know it's the only way to see us destroyed.

And IMO they obviously don't think the US will be able to knock them out. Every time someone gets killed, they just replace him. Bin Laden is just about the only exception, and even he could be made a martyr and replaced.

[Mickalino]

I don't think that's their angle. They truly don't want the wars to end; they want more fighting. Without war, they have no recruiting, nothing to rail against and therefore no means to expand their regional influence. They also want to see the US continue exhausting ourselves with war, as they know it's the only way to see us destroyed.

And IMO they obviously don't think the US will be able to knock them out. Every time someone gets killed, they just replace him. Bin Laden is just about the only exception, and even he could be made a martyr and replaced.

And all of that means more Virgins for them

[F Landry]

They are so ignorant. If they want McCain to get elected they should support Obama.

Or perhaps...they know this...AND WANT TO GET OBAMA ELECTED!

TERRORIST!

:laugh:

[BigMike619]

I don't think that's their angle. They truly don't want the wars to end; they want more fighting. Without war, they have no recruiting, nothing to rail against and therefore no means to expand their regional influence. They also want to see the US continue exhausting ourselves with war, as they know it's the only way to see us destroyed.

And IMO they obviously don't think the US will be able to knock them out. Every time someone gets killed, they just replace him. Bin Laden is just about the only exception, and even he could be made a martyr and replaced.

I can see your point here.

[The Sisko]

****s. Our economy will ultimately survive-which is more than I can say for them. However, I don't buy the reverse psychology reasoning regarding their desire to see McCain win. IIRC OBL espoused the strategy of "bleeding us out" economically prior to our going into Iraq.

[Burgold]

Yeah, they are trying to do to us what we did in Afghanistan to the Soviet Union. It's beginning to have an impact too.

[The Sisko]

I think you're right to an extent. After all, AQ didn't securitize and highly leverage any risky mortgages.

However, you're right about the general mistake the Soviets made with going in with overwhelming force. I think in both Iraq and Afghanistan we're much better off fighting them with a combination of air power and smaller, highly trained commando units rather than large troop concentrations. That way, we wouldn't be bleeding ourselves financially, and we'd deprive them of the opportunity to kill many of our troops. When it becomes apparent that the only thing they can do is die needlessly for the cause, it will dry up and blow away.