Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE CRUCIAL JIHADIST VOTE.
In the closing hours of the 2004 race, Osama bin Laden released a tape that seemed to endorse John Kerry. According to some analyses, this decisively swung the late polls in George Bush's favor. And according to the CIA's eventual analysis, that was the point: They concluded that Osama bin Laden had released the tape to aid Bush's reelection efforts. As bin Laden said in the tape, "[It is] easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there and cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses." A less easily provoked administration would probably prove less amenable to the ruse.
As we reach the closing weeks of the 2008 election, we're getting reports of online al Qaeda chatter about the best ways to ensure a McCain victory:
Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.Now, that's not a reason to vote for one candidate or another. It's stupid to take the endorsements of terrorists seriously. But it means it's worth being mentally prepared for the possibility that the terrorist group will stage a late intervention in the election, either via a tape or something worse. Meanwhile, can you imagine the outcry if intelligence experts had broken into a locked al Qaeda site and found deep conversations asking how best to ensure Barack Obama's election?The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida 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-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."
COMMENTS (10)
Meanwhile, can you imagine the outcry if intelligence experts had broken into a locked al Qaeda site and found deep conversations asking how best to ensure Barack Obama's election?
More to the point, can we imagine the outcry we'd see from the same people who are happy to run this.
Yes. They'd be crying about how irresponsible it is to mention such an obviously untrue political stunt.
Remember, this is *al Qaeda* talking about it in the same way that you can read 750,000 LA Lakers *players* on the internet discussing last night's game. Not. They're just fans.
So an equally accurate headline would be "The crucial arsehole vote".
Posted by: Kilo | October 22, 2008 9:58 AM
Tom Tomorrow foresaw this problem.
Posted by: tomemos | October 22, 2008 10:36 AM
The link didn't go. It is: http://dir.salon.com/story/comics/tomo/2004/04/05/tomo/
Posted by: tomemos | October 22, 2008 10:38 AM
Tom Tomorrow is right on the mark. It reminds my of the battle of wits scene in the "Princess Bride" - "are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EkBuKQEkio
Of course the money quote in that scene is "never get involved in a land war in Asia".
Posted by: SoilCreep | October 22, 2008 12:03 PM
this came up on a fivethirtyeight guest column a few weeks ago...
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/guest-column-will-bin-laden-strike.html
Posted by: molly | October 22, 2008 12:03 PM
Kilo's and Ezra's comments show nicely the limits of hypocrisy as an argument tactic.
I am more and more realizing that most charges of hypocrisy occur when one doesn't have an actual argument.
But saying the other side does it too is not the same thing as saying it is right. Yes, both sides take advantage of statements by terrorists to further their political aims. But that doesn't change the point that what terrorists are saying generally shouldn't influence our elections.
Wah wah wah, the Republicans do it too. Wah wah wah, the Democrats do it too. But your supposed to think that your side is BETTER than your opponents.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | October 22, 2008 2:06 PM
"But saying the other side does it too is not the same thing as saying it is right."
Um, I must have missed where Ezra and Kilo, or anyone else for that matter, really thinks that this is a reason to vote against McCain or that this particular stunt should be taken seriously. In fact, Ezra specifically says: "It's stupid to take the endorsements of terrorists seriously."
That's pretty much the point: the McCain camp *did* take this stuff seriously earlier this year, bleating about how Obama was being "endorsed" by Hamas, Castro, Ahmadinejad, etc. Now they're getting hoist on their own petard, a rather delicious irony.
Pointing this fact out does not mean that I take that particular argument, or al Qaida "endorsements" seriously; I'm just pointing out the irony and laughing.
Posted by: PaulB | October 22, 2008 5:37 PM
"Kilo's and Ezra's comments show nicely the limits of hypocrisy as an argument tactic."
I thought my comment showed merely that I was fed up with the tactic of citing something so you could explain how the other side would be low enough use it if it favoured them, as though you weren't doing the same thing.
Q: "Can you imagine what that would look like?"
A: Just like this but with more graphics of US flags.
Posted by: Kilo | October 22, 2008 7:21 PM
Nobody has any proof that the person or persons who were involved in this message are actually representing The Base. Beyond that, nobody has any proof that The Base actually exists as a cohesive whole in which people such as the quoted message board user are integrated as significant role players. Nor should we be so quick to assume that people who associate with or speak for 'Al Quaida' are of one mind regarding the US election.
I agree that a McCain presidency would strengthen the causes of violent Sunni opposition to the perceived values and activities of the United States, but I wouldn't assume that all sympathizers think in those terms.
Posted by: Quastou | October 22, 2008 10:23 PM
The hot-sale Ugg Boots are coming now.We offer wide range of colors and styles ugg boots uk and Ugg Boots Sale for you.Shopping now for your favorite!
Posted by: ugg boots sale | December 19, 2009 2:57 AM