Matt Yglesias

35 Responses to “Clarke: al-Qaeda May Try to Help McCain”

1. El Cid Says:
   October 6th, 2008 at 4:11 pm

   Also, if Osama bin Laden really desires the destruction of the USA, there’s no better way to do it than maintain a Republican as President.

2. Bill in Chicago Says:
   October 6th, 2008 at 4:14 pm

   The reason why another Al Qaeda attack might yet help John McCain is that the Democrats (including Obama) have refused to set the record straight on Al Qaeda and the War on Terror.

   The Bush administration has very deliberately let the nation most responsible for the rise of Al Qaeda and the attacks on 9/11 get away with it scot-free:

   http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

   The Republicans are wide open on this issue, but the Democrats are too timid (or maybe too dumb) to call them on it.

3. cmholm Says:
   October 6th, 2008 at 4:15 pm

   “That’s right, you heathens: Iraq is the battleground, don’t send any more soldiers my way.”

4. hey norm Says:
   October 6th, 2008 at 4:20 pm

   obama’s stated goal has always been the economic demise of the u.s. brought on by over-reaction. bush aided and abetted al queda by attacking and occupying iraq. mccain promises to be just as foolhardy.

5. SHF Says:
   October 6th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

   Given how the Chicago gang has dealt with the primary & general so far, I would hope/think/imagine they have some kind of response to this if another OBL tape did happen to show up.

6. cmholm Says:
   October 6th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

   Thinking back to last week’s post regarding the war in Afghanistan and the British field commander’s recent comments, it’s probably true that we’ll eventually have to cut a deal with the Taliban.

   However, that deal will have to wait until after OBL is photographed strapped to the hood of a HMMMV.

7. dbt Says:
   October 6th, 2008 at 4:30 pm

   Hey, uh, hey norm, do you have a minor typo to correct there?

8. ed Says:
   October 6th, 2008 at 4:45 pm

   Al-Q helped get Captain Bunnypants re-”elected” in 2004. Why wouldn’t they work that angle again?

9. AD Says:
   October 6th, 2008 at 5:04 pm

   Good point … this means if you vote Republican, the terrorists win. Better pass this along to fellow American voters.

10. big truck Says:
    October 6th, 2008 at 5:30 pm

    Bin Laden tape? Obama should handle it the same way he’s handling McCain’s new smear campaign: pre-empt it.

    Whenever he finds himself talking terrorism over the next four weeks, he should drop in a line about how Bin Laden still hasn’t been caught, and will undoubtedly be taunting us about that fact again some time soon, and that’s Bush’s fault.

    Anyway, a tape alone isn’t going to affect the election much.

11. 24AheadDotCom Says:
    October 6th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

    Does MattY even read the things he’s sent? Clarke’s nonsense boils down to him supposedly thinking that AQ could attack us in order to avoid us being buddies with France. Does he think McCain is going to bring back FreedomFries?

    I might take him a bit more seriously if he hadn’t already shown that he has no credibility.

12. Hector Says:
    October 6th, 2008 at 6:26 pm

    Whoever wins this election won’t be a popular president for long. Neither Obama or McCain is going to be able to do much about the impending recession, the energy crisis, or climate change. Whoever wins is going to be a single-term president.

    I would imagine that Obama will be a little better on energy and climate change issues- but not good _enough_ by a long shot, to get us out of the hole we’ve dug for ourselves.

13. Chris Says:
    October 6th, 2008 at 7:47 pm

    Shit, not *another* scary “video from the scary man in the cave.”

    We already *had* a reactionary stick-up artist with a flair for seizing the airwaves for another transmission from his undisclosed location (what, like Bush would dare show his face outdoors any more than Cheney would, now?) shake us down for $700 billion, with threats that if we didn’t give it to him, our economy would be ruined.

14. Ed Smithe Says:
    October 6th, 2008 at 8:11 pm

    This is something that has not received the play that it deserves. al Qaeda would much rather have John McCain in power than Obama for the simple reason that McCain will initiate additional conflicts (Iran) thus bringing the Muslim world closer and closer together (at least in their estimation).

    If there’s one thing (and I mean one thing) that Donald Rumsfeld was correct about, it was that rhetorical question that he posed in a memo in the early years of the administration asking if the U.S. in its ‘aggressive’ prosecution of the GWOT was creating more terrorists than it was eliminating. Of course like all good deeds in Washington, this one also did not go unpunished.

    The last thing this country needs is a war with Iran–something Senator McCain and Mrs. Palin have all but guaranteed.

15. James Robertson Says:
    October 6th, 2008 at 8:50 pm

    Right… You might want to examine how many more “victories” like Iraq (and even Afghanistan, where they are being severely bled) they can take.

    The other thing you might ponder: Obama has made noises about intervening in Pakistan, and into Darfur. The latter could easily take on “Crusader” overtones to Muslims (and no, I don’t think Obama would be looking at it that way) – given that we would be supporting the Christian and animist southerners against the Arab/Muslim northerners.

    Which is to say, I seriously doubt that the enemy cares who wins the election, and I believe that either one of them has the capability to make matters worse.

16. LarryM Says:
    October 6th, 2008 at 10:55 pm

    Hector,

    Like Roosevelt was a single term president? Look, the American people are stupid, but they aren’t THAT stupid. If the melt down had been delayed a year, or even another 6 months, you may well have been correct, but as it is, whoever is elected, even in the one in a thousand chance that it’s madman McCain, isn’t going to get blamed for something that didn’t happen on his watch.

    Hell, if Bush didn’t get blamed for 911, which happened more than 7 months into his watch, you can be sure Obama won’t be blamed for somethign that happened months before he was sworn in.

    Mind you, as some one who is not a huge Obama fan in many respects (I am motivated more by hatred of the senile monster McCain and his brain dead evil partner), it’s perfectly possible that he will manage to screw up in his own way.

17. miguel Says:
    October 7th, 2008 at 4:15 am

    btw, osama is probably dead.

18. Ed Smithe Says:
    October 7th, 2008 at 8:02 am

    James,

    I disagree with you on Pakistan and Darfur. With respect to the former, I don’t think that Obama is talking about initiating a war…rather, he’s looking to continue the policy of limited strikes on targets within Pakistan (probably no different than what the Bush Administration is doing right now). Now, I’m not a big fan of such a policy unless we’re very confident that our targets are of “high-value,” but the risk of an all-out war (and the consequences that come from that) is very low. The Pakistanis may shoot at us, but they’re not going to fight us.

    On Darfur, I don’t think that Obama has spoken about anything other than enforcing a no-fly zone…So again, I don’t see that as being too problematic (although I would prefer that we keep ourselves out of it).

    McCain on the other hand is talking about actions that will almost surely guarantee a significant Iranian response/war. Moreover, have you taken a look at the Natanz facility on a map? In the upper north east corner are homes…homes of innocent people that may just get the brunt of our (or Israeli) bombs when toxic particles are released from that facility. That is going to play a lot worse in the Muslim world than a predator drone blowing up some poor people’s wedding. An Iranian attack is far and away more dangerous than the previous two examples combined. This is something that al Qaeda has clearly figured out.

    Moreover, I don’t think that it’s lost on anyone (save McCain, Palin and the neocons) what an attack on Iran would mean with respect to Hezbollah. Indeed, it’s not just how we destroy what’s left of our image, but the damage that we do to ourselves. al Qaeda compared to Hezbollah is like Jack in the Box compared to McDonalds (I am to be cited if anyone decides to steal this brilliant comparison). We don’t want to make them any more of an enemy than they are now.

    Obama’s policies will certainly have consequences, but McCain’s policies are insane. al Qaeda, in releasing that video before the 2004 elections knew that Bush would be the best choice in this war…given what is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they were correct (although I don’t claim that John Kerry would have been a significantly better choice). 2008 gives them another opportunity to influence an election in the favor of the crazy guy.

19. Ed Smithe Says:
    October 7th, 2008 at 8:03 am

    Sorry…on Natanz it’s the upper north west corner of the facility.

20. Ed Smithe Says:
    October 7th, 2008 at 8:12 am

    Also, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on Iraq and Afghanistan. With respect to Iraq, al Qaeda came in after we invaded…and the folks that came in were completely inept. No one seriously worried about AQI striking the U.S.. Finally, take a look at who’s running Iraq now. Maliki is an Iranian stooge. We’ve spent more than 500 billion (more than a trillion overall) setting up a transit point for Iranian weapons to enter into Syria over the next 5 years. While we might have “bled” the b-terrorists in Iraq, we’ve messed up the Middle East further.

    In Afghanistan we’ve got a major problem (nearly every General has acknowledged it as such). This has a great deal to do with the fact that Afghanistan has never been anything more than a failed state…and al Qaeda.

    So the Bush Administration’s policies, while they seem to have kept us “safe” domestically, have made things far more dangerous internationally. This is exactly what al Qaeda has been trying to do…bring together the Muslim world. Because of our emotional policies, we’re brought them closer to that goal than ever before. McCain would only continue that trend-line.

21. MeLoseBrain? Says:
    October 7th, 2008 at 9:10 am

    Does anyone really think UBL is still alive? Yes, UBL will try to help McInsane rthis election, but my guess is it will be from the grave. Expect the October Surprise, bin Laden is dead.

    A couple of recent items have led me to this conclusion. Last week, ex-CIA op Robert Bear appeared on NPR’s Fresh Air to discuss Iran, and made a passing reference to UBL’s death. When questioned about it by host Terry Gross, he backtracked a little, and claimed it was just his speculation.

    Then, on Sunday, we have 60 Minutes, which featured a current Belta Force commander, who had written a book (under a pseudonym) about the hunt for bin Laden, using recently declassified information, including what really happened at Tora Bora. He concluded the interview by expressing his deep disappointment in not catching UBL, but vowed to do so soon, saying, “I know he’s out there somewhere.”

    Now, the timing of the book and interview certainly raises eyebrows, but not nearly as many as the fact that the Pentagon declassified the mission, which allowed the DF Cmdr to write the book. Given the secrecy of this administration, even about events long over, does anyone really believe that they would allow the release of information about strategies tried and/or discussed to catch UBL, if he were still living and at-large? Something stinks, and it ain’t my breakfast sandwich.

    I hope the Obama campaign is prepared.

22. henderstock Says:
    October 7th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

    I’ve never been able to figure out how a pre-election Bin Laden tape helps the GOP. Wouldn’t it remind the public that the guy is still out there and thus fix the blame for same on the administration and party responsible for failing to get him?

23. Chris D Says:
    October 7th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

    The latter could easily take on “Crusader” overtones to Muslims (and no, I don’t think Obama would be looking at it that way) – given that we would be supporting the Christian and animist southerners against the Arab/Muslim northerners.

    1. Darfur is in the west of Sudan, not the south.

    2. Darfur is predominantly Muslim.

    FAIL

24. Penis Enlargement Says:
    November 18th, 2008 at 3:20 am

    Nice way to pass on the msg and i am happy to see that u r getting positive comments on your post

25. 60 minutes interview obama Says:
    December 9th, 2008 at 4:58 am

    During a symbolic signing ceremony, Iraq ambassador Ryan Crocker said the Iraqi Cabinet’s approval of a security pact extending the presence of American forces in Iraq for three years is ‘historic’. The deal still needs parliamentary

26. obama 60 minutes interview Says:
    December 10th, 2008 at 3:54 am

    The Iraq-US military deal calls for US troop withdrawal from Iraq by 2011, the very thing President Bush vehemently opposed PRESIDENT George W Bush appears to have had to back down from his long-held opposition to an unconditional troop

27. levitra Says:
    March 2nd, 2009 at 5:32 am

    levitraI bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!

28. viagra Says:
    March 11th, 2009 at 4:52 am

    It is the coolest site,keep so!

29. zyban Says:
    March 12th, 2009 at 11:46 pm

    I want to say – thank you for this!

30. tramadol Says:
    March 17th, 2009 at 2:31 am

    Incredible site!
    tramadol

31. tramadol Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 6:24 am

    tramadol
    Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

32. brand viagra Says:
    April 2nd, 2009 at 5:32 am

    Incredible site!
    buy cheap viagra

33. Jeremy Harrison Says:
    April 2nd, 2009 at 10:30 am

    Thanks for the tip!!

34. viagra brand Says:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 4:19 am

    Great site. Good info
    cheap brand pfizer viagra

35. Biery Says:
    April 18th, 2009 at 6:38 pm

    nice blog, download games here http://rslib.com http://rslib.com/tag/game