Al Qaeda Endorses John McCain

(From Mercenary's Cookbook)

We have heard quite a bit about Hamas endorsing Obama, but were you aware that Osama bin Laden prefers John McCain? I didn't think so. You would think this would be news. Voters would much rather have the candidate who is the anathema of Bin Laden than the one endorsed by Hamas.

Here we have two editorials in major papers pointing out that Bin Laden finds Barrack to be an Apostate, the most hated and feared of all non-Muslims.

To a terrorist, Obama is not just any Christian, you see, but a super-duper-Christian on steroids. McCain you can excuse. He just accepted the faith he was born in, but Obama! He had the opportunity to learn about Islam, yet found Christianity to be the superior religion. There is no greater insult than that. How is that possible for one to know about Islam, yet reject it, if it is the One-True-Faith?

So on the spectrum of Muslim-ness, over here, there's Osama bin Laden, and somewhere in the middle, you have John McCain, and then waaaaaay over there on the complete opposite end from bin Laden -- you might call him the "anti-bin Laden" -- is Barrack Obama.

But what do our major newspapers say? They say we need to appease bin Laden, that McCain, being the more Muslim (or, if you prefer, least Christian) of the two, should be our choice because he is the most palatable candidate to Al Qaeda. We wouldn't ever, ever want to make bin Laden angry, now would we?

No wonder Obama is the only candidate in the campaign who, if he knew the location of bin Laden over the Pakistan border, would take him out! He doesn't care if he ticks bin Laden off because he hates him already.

Clearly, to elect John McCain in the face of this would be to give Al Qaeda exactly what they want - a President whose existence does not challenge the validity of their faith.

For Al Qaeda, the answer - and the implication - is clear: Osama bin Laden endorses John McCain!

for the lovely irony.

Obama vs. Osama--love it!

We certainly want to choose the candidate whom Bin Laden approves.

Otherwise it would just be acting without regard for the other's wishes.

Actually, the NYT article came in for some pretty hefty criticism. While some hard-liners buy the "born Muslim, must stay Muslim" approach, and most jurisprudence seems to support that (which stands to reason, since most jurisprudence dates back centuries), most "moderates" do not.

The NYT article is easier to quarrel with than the CSM article. The NYT argues that BO would have a hard time in the Muslim world; most of the English-language press is pro-Obama (with the possible exception of the Pak press, because some remember his "bomb Pakistan" line and take it as a threat, a stated intention).

It's hard to see that UBL would suddenly ramp up his attempts if BO were prez, though. Compromise is already out of the question. His intentions are unlikely to alter, and I'm not sure his rhetoric would matter.