I've seen a
few articles and a
post discussing the McCain campaign's response to the news articles reporting al Qaeda would prefer a McCain Presidency:
"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." (
link)
The McCain campaign response to this news, in a conference call Wednesday morning, was to suggest that the al Qaeda supporters were using reverse psychology: that what they were saying was the opposite of their belief (aQ member “not speaking from his heart”)... and that their statements were actually intended to harm McCain's chances (aQ “clearly trying to damage John McCain”).
Putting aside, for the moment, that this logic contradicts
the findings of the CIA regarding al Qaeda's tactics relative to the 2004 US election, I am wondering if anyone is going to note this response as YET ANOTHER case of hypocrisy and incoherence from Republicans and the McCain campaign.
This instance of al Qaeda commentary, potentially damaging to the McCain campaign, is reverse psychology... but, according to both members of the Republican ticket, McCain & Palin, we're supposed to base our Middle East policy directly on the comments of Osama bin Laden (where bin Laden's statement provides support for McCain's continuation of the Iraq occupation)...
"General Petraeus and
I and Osama bin Laden are in agreement," McCain said (
link)
Palin: "You don’t have to believe me, the hockey mom from Alaska, proclaiming that the war on terror, central front there, has been Iraq. Please, believe Gen. Petraeus, an American hero. Unfortunately,
you gotta believe even bin Laden." (
link)
So which is it? al Qaeda's statements can be taken at face value, or we have to consult elementary school students to help determine whether we know that al Qaeda knows that we know what al Qaeda knows, etc.
Do we really want an Administration that isn't perceptive enough to consider the likelihood that basing our policy on the recommendations of our enemy (i.e. continued occupation of Iraq) may not produce results to our benefit? The American people deserve to know on what other matters of US policy might a McCain/Palin Administration seek the advice of Osama bin Laden? (Would McCain/Palin have Osama bin Laden as National Security Advisor? They could certainly argue that he wouldn't be much more strategically destructive than Condoleeza Rice and Stephen Hadley.)
It's time we have an Administration that understands the strategic goals and tactics of the enemy, and works to defeat the enemy ... as opposed to assisting the enemy in checking-off the items on their to-do list.
