The al-Qaeda Vote

Al Qaeda endorses McCain / Republicans.  Bush, who himself has been called the #1 recruiter of terrorists, is humiliated by that ironic fact.

4 (40%)

Al Qaeda endorses Obama / Democrats, and wants the GOP to lose by a humiliatingly large margin.

6 (60%)

Total Members Voted: 6

[Alex Libman]

After you click the link it's obvious, but that headline, copy'n'pasted from Drudge Report, was misunderstood by my subconscious mind when I first read it.  Maybe it's because I'm tired, or maybe because "Bush Derangement Syndrome" has driven me to listen to a lot of left-wing crap around the 2004 election, when it was often said that Bin Ladin is overjoyed at America's presence in Iraq: without it he'd have very little local support there.  Did anyone else make that mistake in the first fraction of a second of seeing that headline, without really thinking about it?

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Looks to me like they're endorsing Obama

[HOO-HAA]

Bush has al-Qaeda (and some excellent propoganda spinning) to thank for his second term.

Joe The Plumber just doesn't have the same bite, does he? 

[Taors]

Looks to me like they're endorsing Obama

Hey, another war in Pakistan and/or Syria would do Al Qaeda wonders.

[Alex Libman]

I think if they could vote, they would support Obama in public but actually pull the lever for McCain.  I actually heard some of my Zionist relatives were planning on doing this too. 

[atomiccat]

Al-Qaeda Endorses Mcbama

[Alex Libman]

Hmm...  I'm having trouble reading it as pro Bush.

It all depends on whether you interpret that comma as a separator of two separate statements, or as a delimiter in a two-item list of entities that al-Qaeda wants "humiliated".

The pro-Bush version is comparable to:  "Elton John french-kissed the Pope.  The Vatican, which frowns upon homosexuality, was very embarrassed."

[Alex Libman]

Yeah, but I'm talking about how your mind parsed it in the first nanosecond or whatever, without stopping to think.

I think it might be psychologically indicative of subconscious McBama bias, one over the other.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, as long as you support neither of them in final analysis.