WaPo reports on posts that have been appearing some Al-Qaeda websites:
That is Al-Qaeda's overall global strategy in a nutshell. Al-Qaeda doesn't want a cool headed US president who is not trigger happy. Al-Qaeda needs McCain.
"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. . . .
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."
In fact, both organizations' aims are in alignment. Polling data indicates that the one concrete hope for the McCain campaign victory on November 4 would be if McCain could find some enemy to make a last-minute stand against: Al-Qaeda, Iran, Russia, China. Any will do.
But preferably, the terrorists. Engaging in tough-talk about terrorists would be a far less complicated affair than justifying war with Iran. A pre-election terror attack would likely boost the McCain campaign considerably. Back in February I blogged that an Al-Qaeda attack would be a godsend for McCain. And I wrote that Obama had better prepare for this scenario:
Obama would be well advised to position his campaign to meet the challenge of the unexpected.Unfortunately, Obama does not appear to have effectively positioned his campaign to counter this eventuality. Obama has done little to differentiate himself from McCain on foreign policy issues generally. One obvious example: Obama has not exposed the dangers posed by McCain's reckless statements concerning Russian aggression. Far from it, Obama later mimicked McCain's position on Russia. Obama has not sufficiently exposed, challenged, and countered McCain's impulsive and potentially reckless hawkishness. Obama has not made the case that McCain is dangerous.
As a consequence, even at a time when Obama is leading by a big margin in the latest polls, most Americans continue to view Obama as "Hawk Light." That is a pity. The advantage to Americans -- and the world -- of having Obama instead of McCain occupy the White House cannot be measured on a simple "scale of relative hawkishness." McCain does not possess various qualities one would seek in a warrior-leader. By contrast, a far stronger case can be made that Obama exhibits characteristics of a successful "Commander in Chief." More on this here.
For the next two weeks, the world may well stand one major terror incident -- or act of war -- away from a McCain presidency.