Who Really Gets the Jihadist Endorsement ?

News has broken that messages celebrating the USA's economic worries have appeared on a Jihadist website. Said website also features posts that endorse Senator John McCain's candidacy:

"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" (Washington Post)

So is there a terrorist plan in the works? First, we need to be clear that the people posting on the Jihadist website aren't plotting something--they're just speculating. ABC news reinforces this point in noting that "experts" have been all over the website. Moreover, there's been a "lack of chatter" elsewhere about the presidential elections (AP). It looks like someone is simply trying to stir up Americans' fear and anxiety.

As far as al-Qaeda wanting John McCainelected--recall al-Qaeda's previous attempt to influence US elections. Bin Laden issued a tape "endorsing" John Kerry, which effectively ended Kerry's presidential hopes. One theory explaining bin Laden's motivation, as expressed in Ron Suskind's book about the War on Terror, The One Percent Doctrine, has become something akin to conventional wisdom:

According to the book, Osama bin Laden apparently wanted Bush reelected in 2004, and therefore issued a video message which, in the US media, was described as “Osama’s endorsement of John Kerry.” Why he wanted Bush in office remains unknown. In the book, unnamed CIA analysts speculate that this can be attributed to the view that the controversial policies Bush advocated would help recruit Jihadists and would cause the image of USA decline globally due to aggressive foreign policy. [Also see here].

So if al-Qaeda produces a new videotape, an "official" message, which expresses support for Obama, we'll understand why. However, as Jonathan Alter argues, such an event would be an opportunity for Obama to "seem muscular on national security."

Has McCain's "Rogue State Rollback" Morphed into a "League of Democracies"?

(an update of a post from 8/28/08)

In the first presidential debate, Senator McCain "said he envisions a "league of democracies" [. . . ] that would help the U.S. impose "significant, meaningful, painful sanctions" on nations such as Iran (Sun-Times). This “league of democracies” appears to be a modification of McCain’s proposal for a “rogue state rollback,” for which we should be grateful.

During the his campaign in 2000, John McCain endorsed a foreign policy strategy he called "rogue state rollback." What defines "rogue state rollback"? According to ABC News, during a debate in February 2000, the moderator posed the question, "[w]hat area of American international policy would you change immediately as president?" To which McCain responded:

"I'd institute a policy that I call 'rogue state rollback,'" said McCain. "I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically- elected governments."

McCain retained this faith in remaking foreign nations, evidenced by his 2003 article on North Korea published in The Weekly Standard. Although he wavers a bit from asserting that America should deal with North Korea with armed force, he dismisses diplomacy and calls for isolating North Korea (no more carrots, he states), and then, should North Korea fail to cease nuclear development, we move in. He criticizes the Bush administration's assurances that America wouldn't be the first nation to attack North Korea, should an attack be needed, and writes, "[t]his rapid deterioration of our resolve is as reckless as it is disingenuous," adding later, "[i]f we fail to achieve the international cooperation necessary to end this threat, then the countries in the region should know with certainty that while they may risk their own populations, the United States will do whatever it must to guarantee the security of the American people." Now, in his attempt to appeal to war-weary American folk, McCain has redefined "rogue state rollback." On a Hardball College Tour appearance earlier this year,

McCain said [of "rogue state rollback"]: "I wasn't saying that we should go around and declare war," said McCain. "I was saying that we nations of like values and principles and belief in democracy and freedom should make efforts to modify the behavior of other nations."

Infinitely better than arming, training, and equipping forces to overthrown other governments, but how, precisely, would "we nations of like values [. . .] modify the behavior of other nations" sans war? What do these "efforts" consist of"? Doesn't he say that sanctions don't work? Certainly McCain's proposal of a "league of democracies" and his ideas about "rogue state rollback" must be addressed in a larger forum; a debate, a detailed interview, but the mainstream media must focus on this point. People deserve to know whether there are any guarantees that McCain won't adopt a foreign policy approach that aims to remake belligerent, or unfriendly, nations in the American model?

Hagel et. al.: Obama Did Not Interfere with Negotiations

So you might have heard this story, first presented by Amir Taheri in the New York Post, that Barack Obama “tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.” This violation of the Logan Act, which "forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments," allegedly occurred during a July meeting with Nouri Al-Maliki:

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Sounds pretty horrific, no? A candidate who places his personal ambition at a higher priority than the safety of American troops in Iraq is cynical and traitorous in such plotting. So what does the Obama campaign have to say about it? Apparently, Taheri’s account is a complete distortion of the Iraq discussion:

"Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations," said Obama campaign national security spokesperson Wendy Morigi, "nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades."

Well, we’d expect the campaign to say that, wouldn’t we? A case of CYA, right?
Not so fast, guys and gals.

ABC News's Jake Tapper has been looking into this, and he points outs a few problems with Taheri's tale in a column of his own: "Undermining McCain Attack, Republicans Back Obama's Version of Meeting with Iraqi Leaders."

Firstly, Taheri neglected to mention that several people attended this private meeting, including Ryan Crocker (the US Ambassador to Iraq), Senator Jack Reed, Senator Chuck Hagel, Bush administration officials, and “Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffers from both parties.” And guess what? All of those people, Republicans and Democrats alike, support the Obama campaign’s version of the event “and dispute the Post story and McCain attack." These corrections to Taheri's story include the following statements:

[Hagel spokesman Mike] Buttry said that Hagel agrees with Obama's account of the meeting: Obama began the meeting with al-Maliki by asserting that the United States speaks with one foreign policy voice, and that voice belongs to the Bush administration.

A Bush administration official with knowledge of the meeting says that, during the meeting, Obama stressed to al-Maliki that he would not interfere with President Bush's negotiations concerning the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, and that he supports the Bush administration's position on the need to negotiate, as soon as possible, the Status of Forces Agreement, which deals with, among other matters, U.S. troops having immunity from local prosecution.

There you have it: Taheri's version didn't happen: Obama supports the current administration's policy decisions. Yet, despite the Obama campaign’s refutation of Taheri’s article, the columnist’s allegations have become the new meme for those to the political right: Obama has attempted to interfere with national policy in order to further his personal goals. John McCain’s campaign has referenced the article, as have bloggers and broadcast pundits such as Rush Limbaugh.

Certainly, the Obama campaign will continue to battle this story, and chances are that the media will soon pick up on Tapper’s findings. It would be interesting to see if Jim Lehrer or John McCain broach this matter during the coming foreign policy debate. If so, it could be dire for John McCain if he beats this horse only to have it revealed that he’s relying on faulty intelligence that can be refuted by several witnesses to the “private meeting.”

McCain's "Rogue State Rollback." Sound Familiar?

This is old news (it first circled 'round in April), but it's worth repeating.

During the his campaign in 2000, John McCain endorsed a foreign policy strategy he called "rogue state rollback." What defines "rogue state rollback"? According to ABC News, during a debate in February 2000, the moderator posed the following question:

"What area of American international policy would you change immediately as president?"

To which McCain responded:

"I'd institute a policy that I call 'rogue state rollback,'" said McCain. "I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically- elected governments."

McCain retained this faith in remaking foreign nations, evidenced by his 2003 on North Korea article in The Weekly Standard. Although he wavers a bit from America should deal with North Korea through armed force, he dismisses diplomacy and calls for isolating North Korea (no more carrots, he states), and then, should North Korea fail to cease nuclear development, we move in. He criticizes the Bush administration's assurances that America wouldn't be the first nation to attack North Korea, should an attack be needed, and writes, "[t]his rapid deterioration of our resolve is as reckless as it is disingenuous," adding later, "[i]f we fail to achieve the international cooperation necessary to end this threat, then the countries in the region should know with certainty that while they may risk their own populations, the United States will do whatever it must to guarantee the security of the American people." Now, in his attempt to appeal to war-weary American folk, McCain has redefined "rogue state rollback." On a Hardball College Tour appearance earlier this year,

McCain said: "I wasn't saying that we should go around and declare war," said McCain. "I was saying that we nations of like values and principles and belief in democracy and freedom should make efforts to modify the behavior of other nations."

So, which is it? And how would "we nations of like values ...modify the behavior of other nations"? What doe these "efforts" consist of"?

Certainly McCain's policy on "rogue state rollback" must be addressed in a larger forum; a debate, a detailed interview, but the mainstream media must focus on this point. People deserve to know whether there are any guarantees that McCain won't adopt a foreign policy approach that aims to forcibly remake belligerent, or unfriendly, nations in the American model?

ASIDE: It just came over the BBC's newscast that Vladimir Putin has just accused the USA of prompting Georgia to act up for "domestic, political reasons." That is, we get anxious over a bellicose old enemy, so we vote for a national security man.


Update 9/28: In the first presidential debate, Senator McCain "said he envisions a "league of democracies" -- such as the French, British and Germans -- that would help the U.S. impose "significant, meaningful, painful sanctions"(Sun-Times). In other words, it's the "rogue state rollback" modified in an appeal to voters. Question: is its ultimate aim still to "eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically- elected governments"?