Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe Post today reports that Al Qaeda has endorsed John McCain for president. With seemingly impeccable logic, the cave dwellers -- actually, more likely, Quetta-squatters -- say that by electing McCain, the United States will commit itself to an extension of President Bush's blunders and thus exhaust itself militarily and financially.
Of course, Al Qaeda says that the way it can assist McCain is through a terrorist act that will rally Americans to his side.
Saying that McCain will continue the "failing march of his predecessor," Al Qaeda added:
"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election. ... [We] will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America."
The quotes came from an AQ-linked website called al-Hesbah and were written by Muhammad Haafid, a longtime contributor to the site.
Conspiracy theorists, along with pessimists and Cassandras on the left, will no doubt see in those words an imminent fatal blow to the Obama campaign in the form of a looming attack that would shift the electoral dynamic. I wouldn't worry. If the cave-dwellers and Quetta-squatters could attack the United States, they would have done it by now. I suppose its remotely possible that Al Qaeda types might blow something up, but there isn't a chance in the world that in the next two weeks they can do anything that could shift the election. In fact, by stepping up attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda does indeed have some actual ability to kill people, the organization will only add to Obama's arguments that the Bush-McCain policies have failed.
And that's the irony. It's actually Obama, not McCain, who is pressing an escalation of the war in Afghanistan and promising to attack Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan, as foolhardy and stupid as that might be. (No one has ever accused Al Qaeda of being politically astute.)
On October 10, I attended a forum organized by the New America Foundation and the Center on Law and Security called "Al Qaeda 3.0," which brought together terrorism experts of all sorts, both sensible and not-so-sensible. Fran Townsend, the long-time adviser to the Bush administration -- who bailed out earlier this year -- spewed doom-and-gloom about AQ's new potential to attack us, especially in the midst of an economic crisis. "Imagine, then, the vulnerability," she warned.
And Bruce Hoffman, who is a lynchpin of the terrorism-industrial complex, warned darkly against complacency about Al Qaeda. "Al Qaeda has been written off before," he said, adding that the organization's "hard core" remains intact.
True enough, Al Qaeda can cause trouble, and the United States needs to be vigilant. But there is vigilance, and then there is insanity, paranoia, and, well, the creation of the Homeland Security Department and the passage of the Patriot Act. There is also the militarization of the anti-Al Qaeda effort, including the senseless and destructive war in Afghanistan. As Ray Bonner reports in the Times today, a top former British intelligence official is warning the United States that its counterterrorism strategy is wrong-headed:
"Stella Rimington, a former director general of Britain's domestic intelligence agency, said in an interview published over the weekend that she hoped the next American president 'would stop using the phrase "war on terror." She also said there had been a 'huge overreaction' to the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001."
Hear, hear.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
On the whole Robert, I would agree with you. But in one phrase you say: "no one has ever accused AQ of being politically astute." Wait a minute; in your first paragraph, you accuse them of "impeccable logic" in endorsing McCain. Ummm...which is it? Are they politically astute or not?
Posted by Damascian at 10/22/2008 @ 11:04am
I guess we can expect "words of wisdom" from the right proclaim that Obama was able to influence his friends in Al Qaeda to support McCain. By the way, has anyone heard from GupDog lately? Not a word have I heard since his trip to the zoo.
Posted by Truthman at 10/22/2008 @ 11:37am
From the FBI's Most Wanted List:
CAUTION
USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
Geez.......I wonder if 9/11 is covered under "other terrorist attacks throughout the world."
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2008 @ 11:46am
Damascian, if you note, I wrote the word "seemingly" before I mentioned AQ's "impeccable logic." Like a broken clock, AQ can be right twice a day. It is certainly true that Bush has squandered American resources in a reckless use of military power against a terrorist foe that can't be defeated militarily. It's also true that McCain would continue that. Where AQ goes wrong is in thinking that Obama won't do the same, at least if we judge by his stated intention to escalate the Afghan war. In that sense, AQ wins either way.
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 10/22/2008 @ 12:00pm
This comes as no surprise that AQ would prefer McIdiot as president. He's in the hip pocket of defense contractors. Without these stupid ass wars and having the boogie man to threaten the masses with, what reasoning is there for wasting the fortunes of money we have on weapons and the pentagon?
You right wing idiots out there bitching about taxing those poor folks making over 250k, why don't you insist that your government curb it's military spending? If we cut our military spending by half we'd still outspend any other nation on the planet. We could also reduce the overseas bases we maintain by about 80% or more. Here's another idea to save tax dollars. How about we quit giving money to dictators in various countries along with militant iron fisted leaders such as Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, and cut off funding for countries such as Georgia, Ukraine etc.
You rethug idiots whine about socialized government and your tax dollars being wasted. Pull your heads out and see where the tax dollars really are being wasted. Billions upon billions of dollars propping up corrupt regimes to help international crooked businesses rake in the cash.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2008 @ 12:03pm
Sorry, I got carried away. Bush and Cheney are the best recruiters AQ has. Now that W has done pretty much as much damage as he can, they need McIdiot to finish the job for them. We'll implode with another moronic fool like W at the helm.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2008 @ 12:04pm
From Planning.com:
"Gap between rich, poor in U.S. among widest in world
Economic inequality is growing in the world's richest countries, particularly in the United States, jeopardizing the American Dream of social mobility just as the world tilts toward recession, a 30- nation report said yesterday.
The gap between rich and poor has widened over the last 20 years in nearly all the countries studied, even as trade and technological advances have spurred rapid growth in their economies.
With job losses and home foreclosures skyrocketing and many of these countries now facing recession, policy makers must act quickly to prevent a surge in populist and protectionist sentiment as was seen following the Great Depression, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said.
"What will happen if the next decade is not one of world growth but of world recession? If a rising tide didn't lift all boats, how will they be affected by an ebbing tide?" Oxford University economist Anthony Atkinson said at a conference at the OECD headquarters."
it is called the GINI coefficeitn..we also most incarcerated in the world!!!!
this is a fact, as much as mccain's owning 13 plus houses and having billions he didn't earn from his trophy wife....
what else is there to know???
mccain's willful igorance doesn't have to be copied by americans...if you continue to be ignorant, then electoral college will still have a place....
if you vote for trickle down cut all spending on "regular" things for "regular" people while saying only parts of the country are "real america"...using some guy who is as fake as mccain to represent "working class" is so disengenuous....if any american has half a brain or any self-respect whatsoever...VOTE OBAMA!!!
Posted by jrs112 at 10/22/2008 @ 12:22pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 12:37pm
Didn't we give Hitler a free pass until Japan atacked us and brought us into the war? Wasn't Hitler and the Reich mass-killing people as early as '39, if not earlier?
Posted by k330k at 10/22/2008 @ 12:49pm
From McCain:
"So let's try to get all this straight. My opponent says he's going to cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans – including that miraculous reduction for those who aren't paying any right now. Then he commits to more than a trillion dollars in new federal spending. And even after voting for the 750 billion dollar rescue package earlier this month, he won't even specify a single cut in spending that he would consider," McCain said. "That leaves us with almost two trillion dollars in new spending to which Barack Obama stands committed, and no explanation at all of how he is going to pay for it. Does anyone seriously believe that these trillions of dollars are going to come from only the very highest income earners?"
Source: From the Road; 'McCain Says Obama's Tax Plan "Not Plausible";' CBS News - John Bentley
Strange how military spending doesn't enter into the "cut spending" discussion. Promised cuts to military spending are apparently off the table for discussion. McCain is correct in saying that if you believe that Obama's spending will be paid for entirely by higher taxes on the rich....think again. Any tax bill that gets through Congress will be shared pain to be sure, but I anticipate that the rich will still carry less of a tax burden proportionately than the middle class. We should remember who owns our Congress, and ultimately who owns our President - of either stripe.
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2008 @ 12:50pm
If anybody bases their voting decision on whether or not Al Queda endorses their candidate then they shouldn't be voting in the first place. Of course that's just my opinion. Dumbbunnies(as my mother says) have the right to vote like everyone else.
Posted by k330k at 10/22/2008 @ 12:51pm
Rev. how do you read that as Dreyfuss being a chearleader for AQ? Pull your head out your ass man before it's too late!
Posted by Truthman at 10/22/2008 @ 12:54pm
Wait a minute!
Just yesterday the cons told us that ALL of Americas enemies supported Obama.
----
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2008 @ 11:46am
If one reads the FBI's Top Ten Most Wanted, which I think is where you pulled the Bin Laden list of deeds, you will notice that 9/11 is not mentioned as a cause for his being wanted. I have wondered about that for years.
---
5 more detainees at the US gulag in Cuba had charges dropped yesterday. They have been detained for years, and will continue to be detained without charges brought against them. More than 250 people have been released frm GITMO with no harm having come to America from their release. How any Patriot can justify the indefinite detainment of people with no hearings our chance at rebuttal of chatges is beyond me. Is fear a way of life?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2008 @ 1:04pm
Rev. how do you read that as Dreyfuss being a chearleader for AQ? Pull your head out your ass man before it's too late!
Posted by Truthman at 10/22/2008 @ 12:54pm
Dreyfuss opposes Bush, ergo he supports Bin Laden.
See how easy?
Lets try again:
GITMO holds only the "most vicious". But 250+ have been released. If you support trials for the remaining detainees, you support AQ. See?
Sample 2:
Iraq had no wmd's. If you held that opinion before March 2003, you supported Saddam Hussein.
It's all quite easy
Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2008 @ 1:07pm
Pull your head out your ass man before it's too late!
Posted by Truthman at 10/22/2008 @ 12:54pm
It's too late!! He's managed to shove his head up his ass about three times over and is now so entangled inside himself that he'll never see the light of day and even if he could he'd have to deal with the stench of sulfer seething from all of his orifices.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2008 @ 1:10pm
If you don't oppose evil that intends to destroy us, you are defacto a supporter.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 1:06pm | So, you support opposing yourself?
Posted by Truthman at 10/22/2008 @ 1:10pm
If you don't oppose evil that intends to destroy us, you are defacto a supporter.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 1:06pm
how about if you oppose the evil with words, but your actions play into their designs?
Example: You say you want to destroy AQ, but you start a war in a third country that bleeds us dry and has as one effect the ramping up of AQ membership, and another effect is to drain our coffers, a goal of AQ.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2008 @ 1:14pm
It's all quite easy
Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/20
How foolish of me, now I understand.
Posted by Truthman at 10/22/2008 @ 1:15pm
Taking a page from the PONTI play book
AQ ENDORSES JOHN MCCAIN!!
The public has a right to know about John McCains links to AQ.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2008 @ 1:16pm
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2008 @ 11:46am
If one reads the FBI's Top Ten Most Wanted, which I think is where you pulled the Bin Laden list of deeds, you will notice that 9/11 is not mentioned as a cause for his being wanted. I have wondered about that for years.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2008 @ 1:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes....directly from FBI website. A "suspect" has not been proven to be guilty, but is suspected to be potentially linked to a crime - and yet not even the FBI website definitively lists him as a "suspect" in 9/11.
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2008 @ 1:22pm
Hey rev. I bet your poor self-esteem and "needy" personality really enjoy all this attention. Come on admit it, you know you love it.
Posted by Truthman at 10/22/2008 @ 1:24pm
Up until last year, we were steadily paying down the deficit, and actually were ahead of forecasts in doing so. And that occurred while spending in Iraq was higher than it is now.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 1:19pm
Is this guy for real?! Really, we're paying our debt down?! How the hell do you figure that. Our debt grows by the day into the trillions. Our consumer debt alone is about 3 trillion.
By Livers logic, he himself has aided and abetted the enemy. Case in point. AQ wishes the downfall of the United States. The slam a few planes (at U.S. expense no less) into a few buildings. The U.S. starts a war in Afghanistan, but as Rumsfeld said, there aren't any buildings to blow up in Afghanistan, so W and company went after the black gold in Iraq instead under the false cover of WMD.
Nobody mentions the fact that the neocon wet dream is to bankrupt the federal government so private industry can take over all of it's profitable operations...but of course leave the expensive non-profitable ventures to the government such as military spending. That way, the government is broke and the private businesses running the country have more power than the government and the people.
Liverlips following this neocon drivel has managed to damn near accomplish this goal which is not short of treason.
But, Liver's goals and AQ's are quite the same actually.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2008 @ 1:29pm
Wolfgang don't forget, the rev. has got God on his side. He can't be wrong.
Posted by Truthman at 10/22/2008 @ 1:38pm
If you don't oppose evil that intends to destroy us, you are defacto a supporter.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 1:06pm | warn this person
Problem is Liburty we are trying to figure out just who and what that evil is.
Since you have used Pearl Harbor as an example, do you refute that the US had advance knowledge of the attack and that this "open the door" to the enemy was used as pretext to draw us into the war?
I am disturbed by parallels to 9/11 aren't you? How about Gulf of Tonkin incident as pretext for stepping up involvement in Vietnam?
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2008 @ 1:38pm
lvliberty did not come on here in order to debate socialists and anti Christians although,he will tell you that's what you are whether you are or not.I'm the only one he put on ignore so he could avoid debating someone who he can't write off as a socialist anti Christian and who has some of the same conservative views he has,but won't vote the way he wants me to and who can expose his dishonesty and hypocrisy.He,also,loves to call names and put people down.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 1:46pm
Nice try rev. at your attempt to appear pious. It is the vulgarity and evil that lies beneath your words that is obvious. Your words reak of self-rightous passive aggressive ignorance, pretending to be Christian. So, you say that there were better or more informed posters a couple years ago. I am sure you take credit for running those nasty, godless liberals away. Oh, you are such a good and descent man.
Posted by Truthman at 10/22/2008 @ 1:48pm
Onevote-Pearl Harbor was warned that an attack was possible and they did try to warn them,again,but we did not have the technology that we have today and the warning never got through.FDR loved the navy and never would have allowed it to be attacked without warning.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 2:00pm
Livery thinks like many right wing morons do. If the debt incurred by fighting these interminable wars is owed "furriners", you just tear up the IOU's & walk at some point down the line. But of course in his line of thinking, the economy will have quadrupled before that cataclysm is reached & the debt will be payed down. Do you encourage gambling among your flock, livery? Hope your parishioners start placing buttons in the collection plate.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/22/2008 @ 2:03pm
I'm not convinced about Pearl Harbor even though as someone who really dislikes FDR, I want to believe it's true.
Vietnam would have and should have happened regardless of Tonkin. I joined the military out of my support for that war back in 1966.
And 9/11, sorry but there is simply too much evidence that AQ planned and carried out this attack without any awareness by our intelligence personnel. The AQ determined to Attack US was uniformly understood by our Intel as a probable attack outside of the US. That fact is made abundantly clear in the 9/11 Commission report.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 1:55pm | warn this person
Well.....the debate will rage on. I think it behooves us to keep an open mind. I think that is our "patriotric" duty don't you?
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2008 @ 2:09pm
Wolfgang, lvliberty said that the government had been paying down the "deficit." I am not even sure if that is accurate, but he did not say that the government had been paying down the "debt." There is a difference.
Furthermore, the Nation thinks that its readers are a bunch of idiots. The Nation thinks that it can write a sensational headline (with no support) and hope that the sheeple on this website will make it a talking point as though it were the truth.
The headline and opening sentence of this article are entirely false. (1) Al Qaeda has not endorsed McCain. (2) The author falsely states that the Washington Post has reported that Al Qaeda has endorsed McCain.
The Washington Post article cites to one post on an extremist website which says that Al Qaeda will benefit if McCain is elected. This one post was made by a person with no stated ties to Al Qaeda. The Post article says that there have been other persons (none of whom are identified or mentioned as having any actual ties to Al Qaeda) who have posted similar comments. The Post makes a point of saying that it is "unclear" whether Bin Laden shares the views of these unidentified posters and that many terrorist experts think that these posts are mere bluster.
But, the Nation really doesn't care about facts. The Nation has no problem making false statements to make it seem as though our enemies have "endorsed" McCain and, thus, we should all be voting for Obama.
There are plenty of perfectly good reasons why people should support Obama and not McCain. The Nation and this author do not have to lie to get your support. Really shameful.
Posted by GBGB at 10/22/2008 @ 2:13pm
If you don't oppose evil that intends to destroy us, you are defacto a supporter.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 1:06pm
LIBERTY -
You are making an unwarranted charge here. One that, unfortunately, many supporters of Bush's foreign policy dust off from time to time and repeat.
I think it is safe to say that nearly everyone in America "opposes" AQ. Where people differ is how to best accomplish an effective "opposition" and protect our citizens and interests. For example, some may believe that invading and occupying a sovereign nation that had no connection to AQ was misguided. Others may believe that there actually was a connection, or even if not, our use of force was necessary in a broader sense to oppose AQ. Putting those differences aside, in both cases, you are dealing with people that oppose AQ, what it stands for, and what it has done in the past, and people that want to ensure AQ does not remain a threat.
There are many analogies that would show the fallacy of your accusation. Take laws promoting worker safety. You may oppose a federal law mandating specific guidelines for companies to follow. You may base that on your interpretation of the Constitution, concluding that the federal government has no authority to regulate private businesses in such a manner. But, you may see no impediment to individual states enacting such laws. It would not be fair to say you oppose protecting workers from harm or that you favor dangerous working conditions in the workplace.
Posted by Hman23 at 10/22/2008 @ 2:14pm
The AQ determined to Attack US was uniformly understood by our Intel as a probable attack outside of the US...
Once again, I call complete B.S. on account of Liver's recollections of the facts. The fact is that George W Bush was given a briefing stating that AQ had possible intentions of flying planes into targets within the U.S. They also had credible information before the attacks that known AQ agents were taking flying lessons.
What was W's response to this? To tell the briefer to consider his ass fully covered. The Clinton administration tried to warn the Bush administration about possible attacks, but Cheney and W knew better. So, either they turned a blind eye or are the most incompetant jackasses ever to sit in the White House. Take your pick Liver.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2008 @ 2:28pm
G---d told me not to debate you, L---y. He said it would be pointless. He said that you, being of & with him, makes you an impregnable fortress in the fight against those who are of the WORLD.
Btw, try reading Carl Etter's AINU FOLKLORE, the author himself, an evangelical minister. You might learn something about your own faith.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/22/2008 @ 2:31pm
On another point, I have to agree with GBGB. This is a very misleading article.
In the key quote from the website in question, Mr. Dreyfuss uses brackets at "[We]", implying that the author is indeed part of AQ. However, when you go to the Post article, you can see that the replaced word was "It."
He also leads into the quote with "Al Qaeda added," which is also very misleading.
I would say deliberately misleading. How else to explain the reason from changing "It" to "We." There was no reason to do that.
Posted by Hman23 at 10/22/2008 @ 2:34pm
Onevote-Pearl Harbor was warned that an attack was possible and they did try to warn them,again,but we did not have the technology that we have today and the warning never got through.FDR loved the navy and never would have allowed it to be attacked without warning.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 2:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Well there are allegations that attack plans were known well in advance - one allegation of 9 months prior.
"The Pearl Harbor Committee turned from diplomatic to military witnesses. Two facts were quickly established: 1) the Japs--sometimes through carelessness, sometimes through code messages--gave the U.S. much more advance notice of the Pearl Harbor attack than has been generally realized; 2) thanks to stupidity in Washington and in the field, the U.S. took the least possible advantage of the warnings."
Source: Time Magazine - "They Called It Intelligence" - 12/10/1945 - HP-Time.Com
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2008 @ 2:42pm
lvliberty-sorry to diappoint you, but the 911 commission report did not contain lot of intelligence reports that made it abundantly clear that US military intelligence had been anticipating more attacks on US soil since 1993 and the first WTC attack. Many of the reports were redacted before even making it to the commission, while others were never included; the excuse given? Members of the commission didn't have high enough security clearances to be given acess to the information. Even the commission acknowldged that they probably didn't recieve all the pertinent information, and it was based only what they were given. It is pretty hard to see the big picture when you are only allowed to look through the narrow end of the telescope. I don't know what other information you refer to besides the commission report, because none of it would have been available to the general public. (things that make you go hmmmm...)
Posted by oldintel at 10/22/2008 @ 2:46pm
I would say deliberately misleading. How else to explain the reason from changing "It" to "We." There was no reason to do that.
Posted by Hman23 at 10/22/2
I find your words interesting. I just reread the first part of the article again and I think the part with "we" in it was from some web site, wasn't it? I don't have the Post article in front of me and I am too busy to look it up, so help me out here. Was the quote from the web site or the paper?
Posted by Truthman at 10/22/2008 @ 2:49pm
Or, was the article quoting both the paper and the web site?
Posted by Truthman at 10/22/2008 @ 2:50pm
don't know what other information you refer to besides the commission report, because none of it would have been available to the general public. (things that make you go hmmmm...)
Posted by oldintel at 10/22/2008 @ 2:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
See Bamford's book "The Shadow Factory."
How anyone can consider the 9/11 Commission's report as dispositive is preposterous and pretty narrow minded.
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2008 @ 2:56pm
If you don't oppose evil that intends to destroy us, you are defacto a supporter.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 1:06pm
only a sith deals in absolutes!
so if you don't oppose president bush, you are a supporter? has john mccain got this memo?
Posted by palehorse67 at 10/22/2008 @ 2:57pm
onevote-It was because Pearl Harbor was warned that the aircraft carriers left and the military had been put on alert most everyday at Pearl Harbor,but for some unknown reason it was decided to give them Sunday off.Someone forgot that the Japanese did not see Sunday as a day of rest and it was believed that the Japanese were too honorable to do a sneak attack.They were sent another warning,but it did not get through because of the lack of technology that existed back then.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 2:57pm
Posted by Truthman at 10/22/2008 @ 2:49pm
If you click on the post, you can link directly to the Post article. There you will see that the Post article quotes the website:
(from the Post) "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."
Mr. Dreyfuss changed the "It" to "[We]."
Interestingly, in the Post article, this quote is preceded by the following:
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.
So according to the Post writer, the "It" in the quoted portion of the website (that Mr. Dreyfuss now changes to "[We]" ACTUALLY refers to a "terrorist strike" not AQ.
This makes Mr. Dreyfuss's change even more misleading, because not only is the author of the website not a representative of AQ (justifying the use of "we") but the "It" doesn't even mean AQ the organization.
Posted by Hman23 at 10/22/2008 @ 3:19pm
I figure Bush or Chaney contacted their BFF in the Arab World (Saudi's) and got them to tell AQ to issue this statement about the election. That way they can rest assured that the BASE and the uninformed would figure it was a trap and come out strong for McNuts. Using fear against those who are affraid of everything.
Posted by jimeuf at 10/22/2008 @ 3:19pm
Sorry, TRUTHMAN, I should have mentioned at the outset that Mr. Dreyfuss purports to quote the website and the Post -- given that the Post purports to quote the website.
After some further digging, here is how SITE translated the web posting. You can see the word "it" in the third line, and how according to this translation, it clearly refers to an attack or "operation":
SITE Intelligence Group, based in Bethesda, Md., monitors the Web site and translated the message.
"If al-Qaida carries out a big operation against American interests," the message said, "this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it."
Posted by Hman23 at 10/22/2008 @ 3:26pm
How anyone can consider the 9/11 Commission's report as dispositive is preposterous and pretty narrow minded.
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2008 @ 2:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person How is saying the commission didnt have all available information dispositive? All said was they didnthave all the information-they did the best they could with what they were given.
Posted by oldintel at 10/22/2008 @ 3:27pm
How is saying the commission didnt have all available information dispositive? All said was they didnthave all the information-they did the best they could with what they were given.
Posted by oldintel at 10/22/2008 @ 3:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Dispositive of their findings as not being dispositive. "Best they could with what they were given" follows the old adage - garbage in -- garbage out.
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2008 @ 3:48pm
onevote-It was because Pearl Harbor was warned that the aircraft carriers left and the military had been put on alert most everyday at Pearl Harbor,but for some unknown reason it was decided to give them Sunday off.Someone forgot that the Japanese did not see Sunday as a day of rest and it was believed that the Japanese were too honorable to do a sneak attack.They were sent another warning,but it did not get through because of the lack of technology that existed back then.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 2:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Sort of like the Vietcong would never attack during Tet? These assumptions are at the very least gross incompetence which makes you question whether or not that they possibly could be interpreted as premeditated gross incompetence.
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2008 @ 3:57pm
Posted by Hman23 at 10/22/2008 @ 3:26pm Thanks for the clairification and the hard work. I hope the auther of the article reads these posts and provides some thoughts of his own.
Posted by Truthman at 10/22/2008 @ 4:04pm
onevote-The officers that gave them the time off would not likely be thinking that way.Allowing a sneak attack that destroyed your command does look good on your records.There was no reason to allow the destruction.A failed sneak attack with only limited damage would have served the same purpose and got us into the war.In those days our Navy did not think in terms of aircraft and aircraft carriers and thought it would be a battleship fight and not a sneak air attack..That's why they let the aircraft carriers leave.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 4:07pm
"5.4 A MONEY TRAIL? Bin Ladin and his aides did not need a very large sum to finance their planned attack on America. The 9/11 plotters eventually spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct their attack. Consistent with the importance of the project, al Qaeda funded the plotters. KSM provided his operatives with nearly all the money they needed to travel to the United States, train, and live. The plotters' tradecraft was not especially sophisticated, but it was good enough. They moved, stored, and spent their money in ordinary ways, easily defeating the detection mechanisms in place at the time.110 The origin of the funds remains unknown, although we have a general idea of how al Qaeda financed itself during the period leading up to 9/11."
Source: 9/11 Commission Report -
Bamford's book reveals that NSA had been tracking these characters extensively pre 9/11. Escaped detection? Yeah right.
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2008 @ 4:12pm
Navy did not think in terms of aircraft and aircraft carriers and thought it would be a battleship fight and not a sneak air attack..That's why they let the aircraft carriers leave.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 4:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
"Sunday, December 7 - Islands of Hawaii, near Oahu - The Japanese attack force under the command of Admiral Nagumo, consisting of six carriers with 423 planes, is about to attack. At 6 a.m., the first attack wave of 183 Japanese planes takes off from the carriers located 230 miles north of Oahu and heads for the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor."
Source: Historyplace.com
So the threat from Japanese aircraft carriers was ignored? This is kind of hard to believe. Strategically, wouldn't you think that an attack might be launched from an aircraft carrier before a battleship?
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2008 @ 4:29pm
onevote-One has to look at history from the mindset that existed at the time and not now.Our Navy believed in battleships and that is where we put our emphasis nor did they have any idea that such low level bombing and modifying of torpedoes dropped from planes could be done because we looked down on the Japanese and did not believe that they could do such a thing because we could not do it.The idea that we would allow our pacific fleet to be destroyed and leave invasion of our mainland open to the Japanese would not have happened since that would have kept us from joining in the war in Europe, something that FDR wanted..
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 4:39pm
onevote-We even believed that the Japanese could not see very well because of the slanted eyes which lessened our fear of them and their pilots even more.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 5:02pm
I can't fault their analysis! McCain is an idiot!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 10/22/2008 @ 5:02pm
Wolfgang, lvliberty said that the government had been paying down the "deficit." I am not even sure if that is accurate, but he did not say that the government had been paying down the "debt." There is a difference.
GBGB, There is a difference, but I highly doubt that we are paying down the deficit...The deficit is the difference between the money Government takes in, called receipts, and what the Government spends, called outlays, each year. Receipts include the money the Government takes in from income, excise and social insurance taxes as well as fees and other income...When there is a deficit, TREASURY MUST BORROW the money needed for the government to pay its bills....that's what has been going on.
We borrow the money by selling Treasury securities like T-bills, notes, Treasury Inflation-Protected securities and savings bonds to the public. Additionally, the Government Trust Funds are required by law to invest accumulated surpluses in Treasury securities. The Treasury securities issued to the public and to the Government Trust Funds (intragovernmental holdings) then become part of the total debt.
And finally...One way to think about the debt is as accumulated deficits.
No way in hell are we paying down the deficits. Someone is cooking the books.
As for your comments about the article, the main point behind the article is that AQ would prefer McIdiot to be in office because he'll drag the war in Iraq out as well as Afghanistan and probably start something with Russia as well.
I believe this article was written to provoke thought which has been eluding many Americans as of late.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/pressroom_bpd08052004.htm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2008 @ 5:13pm
Wolfgang don't forget, the rev. has got God on his side. He can't be wrong.
Posted by Truthman at 10/22/2008 @ 1:38pm
I like to use Liver as a barometer of sorts. If I find myself agreeing with him, I really start to question my position. Instead of magnetic north, his pole is loacted at the fanatic religious zealot neocon on steroids pole.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2008 @ 5:19pm
Bamford's book reveals that NSA had been tracking these characters extensively pre 9/11. Escaped detection? Yeah right.
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2008 @ 4:12pm
OneVote, In Al Franken's book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Say Them, he points out that the Bush was handed a CIA briefing claiming that AQ may intend to fly planes into buildings in the U.S. waaay before the 9/11 commission. So either Franken has double top secret, really secret clearance, or the 9/11 commission didn't really try very hard kind of like Bush didn't really try very hard. It doesn't look good if a commission comes out and says that the president of the United States sat on his ass in did nothing to prevent a catastrophe, but rather went on vacation.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2008 @ 5:24pm
I'm voting for McCain because I Hate America.
Posted by jazzfan at 10/22/2008 @ 5:38pm
onevote-We even believed that the Japanese could not see very well because of the slanted eyes which lessened our fear of them and their pilots even more.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 5:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
It was a different era and different time to be sure. Those who fought in WWII are some our of greatest heroes. I couldn't walk a mile in their shoes if I tried. Sometimes its best to let sleeping dogs lie. The point is that sometimes we are pawns manipulated for reasons that may or may not be in our best interest. I have no doubt that we would have had to face down a imperialistic Japan and Germany at some point in history, and it was FDR's wisdom (along with others) that told him that we had better do it now while both Japan and Germany were occupied on many fronts, with many enemies.
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2008 @ 6:41pm
It doesn't look good if a commission comes out and says that the president of the United States sat on his ass in did nothing to prevent a catastrophe, but rather went on vacation.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2008 @ 5:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Christ the Commission apparently didn't even bother to interview the two FBI agents assigned to the bin Laden unit!
If you want a predetermined outcome - form a commission to study and investigate the problem - ain't it the way.
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2008 @ 6:46pm
I'm confused (as usual).
After visiting this site for a few months, I don't know exactly where The Nation stands on Al Qaeda.
Isn't Al Qaeda viewed in the same light as Che Guevara?
My question is this;
Is this The Nation indirectly endorsing McCain?
Just curious...
N/G'08
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/22/2008 @ 6:51pm
Vietnam would have and should have happened regardless of Tonkin. I joined the military out of my support for that war back in 1966.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 1:55pm
fuckin baby killer...no disrespect, fuhgetabout, how ya doin!?!
Posted by ADHD at 10/22/2008 @ 8:50pm
goddamned stupid ass incompetant neocons...
they fell into every freaking trap al qaeda laid out for us and blustered their phoney macho asses into oblivion.
Posted by dexter666 at 10/22/2008 @ 9:49pm
Wasn't Hitler and the Reich mass-killing people as early as '39, if not earlier?
Posted by k330k at 10/22/2008 @ 12:49pm
wasn't prescott their banker?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 10:47pm
well,
i'm expecting the "audio" tape of mr. bin laden to arrive any day now.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 10:54pm
The same logic dictates that McCain should be elected to solve the economic crisis we're in. When people are finally eating dog food, in houses they can no longer heat, they'll finally figure out that it's not tax and spend liberals but borrow and give away conservatives who have destroied our future. Maybe. Watching McCain actually still selling supply side crap withs some success - I think the dumbed down majority may turn out to deserves him.
Posted by uwakeup at 10/22/2008 @ 11:36pm
It is time for everyone to wake up.
Another terrorist attack on U.S. soil now could cause the reeling financial system to fall like a house of cards. A great depression now would make the 1930's look like a walk in the park. At least in the '30's their were less people and America still manufactured products.
Can the President really protect us from random terrorism? Or, should the President's priorities be to get the ecconomic system working again. So the U.S. could withstand a disaster without losing our auto makers, banks, stock market, etc...?
Posted by koroviev at 10/23/2008 @ 12:10am
lvliberty, the pearl harbor/hitler analogy just doesn't work. the germans and the japanese in WWII were industrialized nations and were opposed as such. AQ is a loosely organized polity of international criminals and cannot be eradicated by military means alone, if at all. Bush's approach, which Obama sometimes appears to wish to continue, is counterproductive at best, and appears to play directly into AQ's hand at worst. Dreyfuss is merely stating the obvious: no matter how determined we may be to eradicate AQ, if we don't choose the right strategies we will doom ourselves to failure. And AQ requires a different approach.
by the way, it's 'ad hominem', your reverendship, not 'ad hominum'.
Posted by maddox at 10/23/2008 @ 12:54am
hominum
do doo do do do
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2008 @ 01:21am
Did Al Qaeda register to vote with ACORN?
Posted by chaoszen at 10/23/2008 @ 02:28am
Pull your head out your ass man before it's too late!
Posted by Truthman at 10/22/2008 @ 12:54pm
Medically, this is called "Reverse Intusseception."
Posted by skeletonman at 10/23/2008 @ 06:38am
Vietnam would have and should have happened regardless of Tonkin. I joined the military out of my support for that war back in 1966.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 I joined the military because my draft number was below fifty. I did my time, recieved an honorable discharge, BUT, never thought we should have gone to war! I was and am a liberal. So you see that liberals do serve, even in unpopular wars. It took this nation close to 20 years before admitting that we killed somewhere between 2 and 3 million non-combatants in Vietnam. How you can be proud of that is beyond me!
Posted by Truthman at 10/23/2008 @ 07:38am
TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL RIGHTIST GIBBERISH:
If you don't oppose evil that intends to destroy us -- from the inside, in the case of self-haters George W. Loser, Dick Nineeleven and their asssaults on American law, security and prosperity -- you are defacto supporter. That is, when you are not an active, out-of-the-closet supporter of no-burden-is-too-great-to bear-to-lose-at-all-costs anti-American RepubliClown self-haters.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 1:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 10/23/2008 @ 07:52am
"The war was and is right. You should never make a decision on war based upon what the economic effect is. "
"And 9/11, sorry but there is simply too much evidence that AQ planned and carried out this attack without any awareness by our intelligence personnel. The AQ determined to Attack US was uniformly understood by our Intel as a probable attack outside of the US. That fact is made abundantly clear in the 9/11 Commission report."
Loveliberty, you are a wonderful way to start my day. Can I get my breakfast asking just upon what decision one makes a war? I know oil has nothing to do with economics, but as well, were we actually given a reason for invading Iraq that has held up? I guess if we wanted to murder women and children, just like in Vietnam, then hell, that's a great reason, and apparently by some standards, god's will. And apparently that also includes being accessory to the killing of our own soldiers. But I guess these things should never be taken into account when going to war. I guess nothing should.
The second quote of yours becomes more interesting in light of this. I know Sadaam and Al-Qaeda were good buddies, having the same religious faith and zealousness, so it makes good sense they would have worked together to bomb the World Trade Center towers...oh wait, that's what I think when I am dropping acid, and then I come down and remember the two hated each other, and if Sadaam ever found members of Al-Qaeda he would have had them killed.
So why are we there? You know, if you don't oppose the evil that intends to destroy us--idiots who run wars with no regard for anything but there own personal profit and some crumbs for the sheep that bleat in their path--you take part in your own country's destruction. Good job!
Posted by onthehelm at 10/23/2008 @ 08:32am
Terrorist attacks reduce our carbon footprint!
N/G'08
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/23/2008 @ 09:42am
Vietnam would have and should have happened regardless of Tonkin. I joined the military out of my support for that war back in 1966.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008
BY GOLLY, YOU'RE RIGHT! THANKS, LARRY!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2008 @ 10:01am
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2008 @ 10:01am
"regardless of Tonkin"?
Is he referring to the "incident" or the Congressional resolution?!??!?!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/23/2008 @ 10:16am
Is he referring to the "incident" or the Congressional resolution?!??!?!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/23/2008 @ 10:16am
he's referring to blood.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2008 @ 10:47am
Maybe we should consider that AQ are really endorsing Palin? With such similar anti-choice, anti-evolution, fundamentalist world-views, and of course their shared belief of being on a mission for God, they might find the 'Haq Imam' quite attractive. Islam's far-right meets Christianity's! You evolutionists better watch out!
Posted by mikecope at 10/23/2008 @ 2:33pm
I joined the military because my draft number was below fifty. I did my time, recieved an honorable discharge, BUT, never thought we should have gone to war! I was and am a liberal. So you see that liberals do serve, even in unpopular wars. It took this nation close to 20 years before admitting that we killed somewhere between 2 and 3 million non-combatants in Vietnam. How you can be proud of that is beyond me!
Posted by Truthman at 10/23/2008 @ 07:38am
Thank you! I've heard that hindsight's vision is 20/20... in LV's case is it 20/40...or blindfolded?
Posted by ADHD at 10/23/2008 @ 3:51pm
Is this the place where we talk about palling around with terrorists?
"I asked, "well what is going to happen to those people we can't reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?" and the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated. How about this regarding Obama's friend Bill Ayers:
"And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.
And when I say "eliminate," I mean "kill."
Twenty-five million people.
I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.
And they were dead serious."
This was the testimony of FBI informant Larry Grathwohl in the 1982 documentary No Place to Hide.
The 25 people plotting the extermination of the 25 million Americans who would bitterly cling to the American way of life?
The Weather Underground, led by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.
Posted by pontificus at 10/23/2008 @ 5:28pm
Obama claims he had no idea about his terrorist past when he met him, and hasn't talked to him since 2005.
But with the association going back to the 1980s and Ayers making no secret of his radical views, this is hard to believe.
Given glowing profiles of Ayers and his past in the Chicago Tribune, as writer Jonah Goldberg found, and Ayers' radical agenda in education and philanthropy while Obama and Ayers served on charitable projects, it's hard to imagine anything but a deep bond.
The reality is, either Obama is naive or he doesn't care that Ayers remains an anti-American radical who would hurt his country.
His ties to the rising radicalism in Latin America continue. Could anything be more useful to Chavez than to have someone like Ayers as a go-between with a U.S. president? Obama still has repudiated only Ayers' past terrorist actions. What about his present?
Posted by pontificus at 10/23/2008 @ 5:34pm
Posted by pontificus at 10/23/2008 @ 5:34pm
"Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests." ... "They've got a big target on there, ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots. Kill the sons of bitches." -- John McCain's good friend G. Gordon Liddy August 26, 1994
Want to talk about pallin' around with terrorists, Ponti? Unrepentant terrorists? Oh, Ayers did his time too, according to the criminal justice system. The difference is that Ayers turned his life into something better.
Posted by jmusolino at 10/23/2008 @ 6:10pm
"Obama still has repudiated only Ayers' past terrorist actions. What about his present ?"
OH Please,
Who's philslophy has done more to destroy our way of life - Ayre's or the Keating five? Take a look around you, all the money's been sucked up to the top and it's winter in America.
Regarding harm to our country the philslophy of sixties radicals compared to deregulation is like comparing a sneeze to terminal cancer. I despise the free market windbags whose (ongoing) stupidity has ruined our future.
Posted by uwakeup at 10/23/2008 @ 6:22pm
Hi I am new, LOL, wakeup. Starting off agreeing with someone else..So much for individualism. Anyway, here is my spill Please, research what you are saying, analyze the information, then come back and at least blog about the effects without generalizing and putting on a label. Please admit to life changing mistakes that have been made by certain people in power. What do you tell your children? That the "liberals" did it? Money has the power to corrupt any "brand", so just look at facts and perspectives, both are valid if used with logic and accountability, but please come up with something that resembles the truth..It may be too late for hope..however that is all we have. Or maybe you still have a couple hundred thousand left, or own your home? Does it have an underground free standing well? Do you have a garden that can sustain you and your family for years and are you sure you live far enough out that people won't come looking for that self charity(not government imposed kind) the "conservatives" are always espousing about. I mean really do you think you will be untouched? We as the majority we have to be intelligent and keep them all as honest as possible.....
Posted by theindividual at 10/23/2008 @ 10:03pm
Hi I am new, LOL, wakeup. Starting off agreeing with someone else..So much for individualism. Anyway, here is my spill Please, research what you are saying, analyze the information, then come back and at least blog about the effects without generalizing and putting on a label. Please admit to life changing mistakes that have been made by certain people in power. What do you tell your children? That the "liberals" did it? Money has the power to corrupt any "brand", so just look at facts and perspectives, both are valid if used with logic and accountability, but please come up with something that resembles the truth..It may be too late for hope..however that is all we have. Or maybe you still have a couple hundred thousand left, or own your home? Does it have an underground free standing well? Do you have a garden that can sustain you and your family for years and are you sure you live far enough out that people won't come looking for that self charity(not government imposed kind) the "conservatives" are always espousing about. I mean really do you think you will be untouched? We as the majority we have to be intelligent and keep them all as honest as possible.....
Posted by theindividual at 10/23/2008 @ 10:04pm
Hey, theindividual, I'm not sure I totally comprehend your drift. The truth is most certainly that a worthless economic philslophy of borrow and give away has bankrupted our future. You can't live like that. Reagan doubled and tripled the debt buying bonds and it became an ethos. No revenue just debt. The majority ate it up. Clinton couldn't have been elected if he wasn't on board. So, here we are.
As far as resources to survive - I don't think it's going to be like that. It'll be more like atilla the hun. America's a lynch mob waiting to happen. It's full of weapons, crazies, and misinformed fanatics. My personal hunch is we'll see malitias, martial law and alpha dogs with guns looking for food and more. Do I think I'll be untouched? Is that what I sounded like to you?
Posted by uwakeup at 10/24/2008 @ 01:26am
This was the testimony of FBI informant Larry Grathwohl in the 1982 documentary No Place to Hide.
The 25 people plotting the extermination of the 25 million Americans who would bitterly cling to the American way of life?
The Weather Underground, led by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.
Posted by pontificus at 10/23/2008 @ 5:28pm
Ponti, Your Messiah, Milton Freidman, is responsible for millions of deaths, torturings, and coups than any person aside from possibly Adloph Hitler.
Yet he was and is considered by morons like Reagan, Rumsfeld, the Chicago Boys of course, and 99.0% of the GOP folks like yourself as a great man.
He takes responsiblity for spreading "free market" principles to other nations, but in doing so didn't take the credit for all the people he put out of work, stole money and property from and were tortured, banished from their own countries and killed.
The likes of you, Liver, Rio, Red, and the other whacked right wingers posting here don't have a clue of what kind of people you back. If you knew, I wonder how many of you would be spewing forth their talking points on a daily basis.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/24/2008 @ 07:58am
Clear, accurate, and right on wolfgang1
Posted by uwakeup at 10/24/2008 @ 12:19pm
The 9/11 attacks were criminal and not acts of war. The matter should be handled as a criminal act. A military incursion was not the method to use to capture a criminal.
Fewer numbers and more stealth would have caught the perpetrators by now and would have been far less costly.
Posted by piglizard420 at 10/24/2008 @ 12:36pm
So what AQ wants Mccain..?? The jihadist who posted that comment (and thats all it really was) was spot on in my opinion... And to say that $2,000,000,000 a week(on a low ball estimate) isnt draining our coffers is just plain ridiculos... Bill Ayers now popping up... Stop.. Distraction Bullshit... Hows everyones 401K holding up... ?? Any of you guys/gals close to retirement..?? Hows that monthly statement from your investments... ?? really... 8 years of the bush doctrine has bankrupted this country economically and diplomatically... FACT. Can you imagine a palin stump speech if 'AQ' (aka The boogeyman) had "endorsed" President Obama...?? Dont Cha KNow...
Posted by Vvf1969 at 10/24/2008 @ 9:35pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/24/2008 @ 3:06pm
Spoken, as usual, without a fact to back up your assertions, Larry. Actually, Wolf may be wrong in one respect (but only one). You probably do know the sorts of people you back - and that, Larry, is truly degenerate.
Posted by jmusolino at 10/25/2008 @ 02:33am
Garbage in, garbage out.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/24/2008 @ 3:06pm
Sure thing Reverand Hate.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/25/2008 @ 10:43pm
Al Qaeda clearly prefers an Obama presidency. The claim that it has endorsed McCain is another example of The Nation's journalistic perversity.
Nevertheless, Dreyfuss has stumbled on something interesting. Devout Muslims like bin Laden may well be in a quandary about Barack Hussein Obama.
He was born to a Muslim father, was given two Muslim names and declared himself a Muslim in grade school where he received a Muslim education. Until the age of 10 he recited the prayers of Islam and on Fridays accompanied his devout stepfather to services in a mosque. According to the Koran, his birth to a Muslim father is alone enough to make him a Muslim, and never mind all the rest.
That he, in his thirties, became baptized and joined a church, makes him an apostate to pious Muslims, far more than a Christian. The Koran prescribes death for those who leave the faith. Offenders are routinely hunted down and killed; the authorities in Islamic societies do not interfere.
That puts Salafis like bin Laden in a bind. They accept the Koran literally and take apostasy seriously. At the same time they surely prefer America in the hands of a critic of the war on terror, rather than a hawk.
Probably they will reconciles themselves to a President Obama as the work of Allah helping nudge America into a more submissive posture. Unless Obama shows any real toughness, which is most unlikely.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/25/2008 @ 11:53pm
The claim that it has endorsed McCain is another example of The Nation's journalistic perversity... Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/25/2008 @ 11:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person Gimme a break... You going to pretend that The right wingers wouldnt be playing this for all its worth if some jihadist website claimed AQ was for Barack..?? They already tried the "Hamas for Barack".. Was FOX not being perverse when they trumpeted that ..???? thought not. Yeah, ANYONE with a little common sense, can realize that one guys position on an islamic website dosen't ring an "endorsement" from any one group... Let alone some shadowy "boogeyman" like AQ... (who in my opinion is way overestimated both in strength and numbers) after all... we need someone to scare us to keep that DOD budget sky high... Im not afraid of no GHOST.... The "GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR" is a joke.. Let me interpret... " The U.S. can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants... Dont ask any questions, cuz' we'll brand YOU as a terrorist too..." ... HOW FAR OFF AM I..?? YOUR PAL, Scot
Posted by Vvf1969 at 10/26/2008 @ 10:42am
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/25/2008 @ 11:53pm
You sir, are a complete dipshit. Obama's grandfather (the white guy) fought with Patton in WWII. That would be the husband of the sick lady Obama took time off the stump to go visit.
Even if Obama was a Muslim, what the hell difference would that make? I didn't know being a Christian was a law in this country nor did I know that there is a law on the books saying that only Christians can run for president.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/26/2008 @ 11:45am
Wolfgang1 @ 11:45am |says:
<<< Obama's grandfather (the white guy) fought with Patton in WWII. That would be the husband of the sick lady Obama took time off the stump to go visit. Even if Obama was a Muslim . . . >>>
My maternal grandfather hated Patton and came home from WWII on a troop ship, sick as a dog: sea sick but whole. Nevertheless he was in the thick of it in Belgium , and if not for two Belgian women who hid him and fed him, he would have become a prisoner of the Nazis.
So what does that amount to, who is it supposed to impress, and what does it make me?
Eight million Americans wore the uniform during WWII, what does that make their grandchildren? Nothing, they are not more or less for it.
In the absence of anything apposite to say you farted that drivel as if Obama's grandfather being drafted made him virtuous and heroic.
At any rate, you have the Obama spirit, phony heroics for a phony American, patriotic bunk for a candidate who comes out of a mindset that considers the US gov t enemy #1 and which despises most of America's 20th century achievements and for whom the idea of the 21st century as another American century is loathsome.
Incidentally, I don't care about Obama's religion, if he has one, which I doubt. Undoubtedly he pretends to one, which is part and parcel of his hypocrisy. But I certainly don't think he is a Muslim. That you think you can clobber me with that cudgel fits your cheap and cheesy profile perfectly.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/27/2008 @ 02:44am
Incidentally, I don't care about Obama's religion, if he has one, which I doubt. Undoubtedly he pretends to one, which is part and parcel of his hypocrisy. But I certainly don't think he is a Muslim. That you think you can clobber me with that cudgel fits your cheap and cheesy profile perfectly.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/27/2008 @ 02:44am
Hugo, YOu were the one harping about Obama being a Muslim. Read your own post above.
As far as Obama's other grandfather, I was merely pointing out that he had family who lived in the U.S., fought in WWII, and weren't plotting to turn the U.S. into a safe haven for terrorists. He has more family than just his father... you know, the black muslim guy you are so sure is influencing his son to the point of betraying his own country. lol
You can not think for yourself. You spew forth the talking points of the day for the rethug party and can't even keep track of what you said.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/27/2008 @ 09:40am
Wolfgang1 @ 09:40am wrote:
<<< I was merely pointing out that he had family who lived in the U.S., fought in WWII, and weren't plotting to turn the U.S. into a safe haven for terrorists. He has more family than just his father... you know, the black muslim guy you are so sure is influencing his son to the point of betraying his own country. lol >>>
Are you writing from a sanitarium? Have you, in blowing you nose too hard, squished your brains out as snot? Or do you simply not care how dumb, unfair or off the wall your ripostes are because that is expected and standard in this forum?
You typify the automatic reduction of any critical remark to the charge that Obama is a Muslim. You ignore my saying: I do not think Obama is a Muslim.
You find objectionable that I addressed Dreyfuss' essay, which is about al Qaeda's view of this election and its candidates. Since al Qaeda is an organization of Muslim zealots, how can that not involve their take on Obama's religion.
It so happens that Obama was born a Muslim and raised as one until the age of ten, becoming a Christian in his thirties. That is indisputable, and an organization of pious Muslims, will be the last not to have noticed that the Democratic standard bearer is a Muslim apostate in the eyes of the Koran.
That these fora are populated by idiots, unrepentant Stalinists, (but I repeat myself) anti-Semites, and assorted other ideologues, is merely sad. But that The Nation, while discussing al Qaeda's view of the election fears looking at bin Laden's Salafist take on the leading candidate, is stunning.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/27/2008 @ 3:29pm