world

McCain disavows aide's comment about terrorism

105 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

105 Comments
Login to comment

This is adding insult to injuries, as if America's image in the world is not tarnished enough.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Watch out. They might stage one before Nov

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Charlie Black, an adviser already in the spotlight for his past lobbying work, is quoted in the upcoming July 7 edition of Fortune magazine as saying such an attack “certainly would be a big advantage to him.”

I think the statement made by Sen. McCain's lobbyist-come-advisor is that very indicative of the current GOP policy, which is, EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL. If it helps the country, all the better but if not, no big deal, as long as the GOP wins.

"The continuing cloud of suspicion over the White House is not something I can remove because I know only one part of the story. Only those who know the underlying truth can bring this to an end. Sadly, they remain silent.

The result has been an increase in suspicion and partisan warfare, and a perpetuation of Washington’s scandal culture, one of three core factors that have poisoned the atmosphere in Washington for the past two decades. The central message in my book is the need to change the way Washington governs. We need to minimize the negative influence of the permanent campaign, end the scandal culture, and move beyond the philosophy of politics as war." -scott mcclellan

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dont be surprised if americans accidentally let their guard down at the right time making way for another attack.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Shoot. I hit the submit button too early.

I also wanted to add that I applaud Sen. McCain for speaking out against this statement however, I have to wonder why he hired the lobbyist whose former clientel list includes Ferdinand Marcos, Mohamed Siad Barre, Mobutu Sese Seko and Jonas Savimbi.

Not a wise move for the anti-lobbyist candidate. Had he not hired the lobbyist in the first place, he wouldn't have any of this to explain.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This comment is a sequel to the equally inane cry of "no terrorist attack on US soil for the last 7 years!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is very reminiscent of Netanyahu's comment: "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"“I cannot imagine why he would say it; it’s not true."

The Hell it isn't. The right has ridden the terrorist angle for all it's worth and then some. People have bought into it a lot more than they should.

Is he honestly saying that, if there were (God Forbid) a terrorist attack just before the election, that a significant portion of the chickens**t contingent wouldn't swing to the Right so fast it would leave a vapor trail?

You can not continually attack the Left for being weak on Terrorism, then pull off that quote. Mutually exclusive, sorry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Am I the only one here that sees this a bit differently?

We live in a time when terrorist attacks are a part of global society. As much as some people would like to think otherwise, terrorist attacks ARE political. Why do you think they carry out those attacks in the first place? They are meant to shape/change/transform the public/political behaviors and policies.

I think people are assuming if this guy speculates about a future attack, he must desire a future attack. I dont think so.

Having said that, it was a stupid comment to make because he should already know the public and media would take this and run with it.

Put it this way...if there was an attack next week, you bet both sides would make political statements about the attack, the security of USA, future foreign policies, military responses, Iraq, Afghan, regime change etc etc etc. It is a legit question as to how a terrorist attack would affect the two political parties of USA.

Stupid? Yes. But the public also falls into that category.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi,

Not exactly. That comment was made after the attacks. This aide's comments were made before any such attacks. Quite a big difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Had he not hired the lobbyist in the first place, he wouldn't have any of this to explain."]

Yeah, just like if Obama hadn't joined that church with the rascist preacher which swears allegiance to Africa, he woouldn't have any of that to explain.

McCain: "I've worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America. My record is very clear."

McCain doesn't need this aggravation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

Exactly, the aide should truly be ashamed of himself for making such an insensitive and ignorant comment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I tend to agree with McCain about the truth of his aide's comments.

Another attack on the US before the election might tend to convince voters that billions of dollars and the tanker cars of bloodshed have not made America safer.

If they are convinced of that, it seems to me that they might be open to the possibility that more dollars and more blood is not the answer and that a change in policy is at least worth trying.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Strategists do put everything on the table--behind closed doors. But to say this publicly makes it hard to convince the electorate politicians are anything other than cynical manipulators whose primary concern is gaining/retaining power, not their country's welfare.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka,

I guess Charlie Black never did a stint in the Navy or he would know, "Loose lips sink ships!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the Pew polls are to believed most foreigners back Obama in the General so perhaps they'll refrain from attacking the US between now and election day rather than give McCain a boost. But seriously, it's difficult to predict how a major attack would affect the election.

In any case, the comment was irresponsible and McCain was right to distance himself from it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee,

You're not suggesting that the RNC would actually consider mounting a terrorist attack on the US, are you? I can see that idea being put forward in a brainstorming session. I'd hate to think that it would merit any serious thought.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You're not suggesting that the RNC would actually consider mounting a terrorist attack on the US, are you?

No! No! No! But I'm certain they've discussed how a sudden attack would impact the election and how they would spin it to their advantage. Ditto for the Obama campaign. Nobody wants to be caught off-guard. The first election I voted in, back in 1980, there was considerable discussion of how a release of the hostages prior to November 4th would affect the outcome.

The Republicans have certainly played "the fear card" since 9/11. Who can forget John Ashcroft warning, "There's a 90 percent chance we will be hit again." Black's comment reveals how cynical those who traffic in fear really are as far as our national welfare is concerned.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Isn't it just horrible when some aid lets your stragedy out of the bag. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee,

OK. I don't think the Republicans would be able to spin it to their advantage. But I see what you are saying.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not much longer now til smiley hopey changeism is the law of the land and talk of terrorism disappears - or is outlawed. Whatever it takes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Charlie Black, an adviser already in the spotlight for his past lobbying work, is quoted in the upcoming July 7 edition of Fortune magazine as saying such an attack “certainly would be a big advantage to him.” Black said Monday he regretted the comment.

Great...so he's hoping for more death and destruction on American soil to give McCain "a big advantage" at the polls come November.

Even "a big advantage" won't be enough if McCain keeps advisers like this on his payroll!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey kool aid. If it bothers you so much, I recommend contacting the ACLU. ;-)

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku, Because of timing, I guess some people might see this as completely different from Netanyahu's comment: "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq."

So if you are one of those who wants to limit themselves to comments made before an attack, you should have a look at PNAC. Its not just a quick comment, but instead a well thought out report was prepared and signed by such respected criminals as Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz. It describes the transformations America should undergo and states that what they need is "some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Next thing you know McCain's campaign staff will be turning away Muslim women who show up at his rallies wearing head scarves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great...so he's hoping for more death and destruction on American soil to give McCain "a big advantage" at the polls come November.

Um, no, Betzee. Your confusing a discussion about whether an attack would help or hurt with supporting or not supporting it. I'm sure the current leaders in Spain can't deny that the terrorist attack helped them get elected, but I don't think anyone goes around accusing them of supporting terrorism in their country. I think you know the difference but you pretend to not know because you want to say that Black supports terrorism.

In reality, I don't think a terrorist attack would help McCain, I think it would hurt him. The Republicans talk about Bush's leadership and the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 as a way to justify some of their policies. If an attack goes off then they've lost their biggest selling point. The Democrats can turn around and point to the unpopular policies plus the fact that terrorism occurred anyway as a way to say that it's time for new leadership on terrorism. That's my guess on how it would play out.

Am I now open to accusations that I support a terrorist attack since I'm a Democrat? ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib, I see the point you are making about an attack hurting the McCain campaign. I guess it boils down to whether you believe they are playing the security card or fear card. If it's the fear card, the more fear, the better your cards.

It's a double-edged sword, that's for sure.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What Black said reminds me of Bush's trifecta quip right after 9-11. He saw the political value of terrorism and he has not averted his gaze ever since. Seems like some on McCain's team want to dip into that black well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A top Republican adviser's honest comment about another terrorist attack on U.S. soil this election year would not benefit the Republican presidential candidate but the Democratic presidential candidate seems to have sent the anti-republicans into a tailspin.

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What do you want to bet Black got a taste of the McCain temper? Time to see how long he lasts as a McCain adviser.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi,

Because of timing, I guess some people might see this as completely different from Netanyahu's comment: "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq."

Not only the timing, but also the content. As anyone who has actually read the speech would know, Netanyahu's was referring to his opinion that US citizens had become more able to commiserate with Israel's plight. It is obvious why you seem to cling to the idea that you can tie these two comments together. However, your comparison fails both because of timing and content.

As far as PNAC is concerned, that is a completely different matter as well that has absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Black's comments. It is no secret that many in the government wanted to get Saddam Hussein's government out of Iraq. In fact, after the first Gulf War, many in the US seemed to want the US to finish the job then and there. Of course, it is doubtful that they would feel this way if they saw how badly things have gone there this time around.

It describes the transformations America should undergo and states that what they need is "some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor."

Again, this is where you continue to lose any possibility of credibility. It does not state that. What it states is:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RomeoRamenII,

If McCain is wise, Black will be history in the campaign. This kind of misspeak is not helpful nor healthy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku, I continue to be surprised by the extent you are willing to go to defend such criminals. Amazing!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi,

How is pointing out that you are wrong 'defending criminals'exactly? I continue to be amazed at how you seem to require bending and twisting the truth to try and support any of your largely vague and illogical points.

If you feel I am in error, how about pointing out where I am. I certainly have been able to point out where you are mistaken.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this was a stupid statement. One of those things you should leave to yourself.

However, I think most posters agree that a war is not something a president is going to accept defeat on. So, once Obama is elected, if you think it is going to be the end of the Iraq war, you have another thing coming.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong,

Interesting point. I agree that once Obama is elected (if he is elected) he will have to react within the geopolitical reality rather than the way he wishes the world was. In addition, I agree with your point that no president, or leader for that matter, wants to admit or accept defeat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have the feeling Scott McClellan is going to suddenly remember that John McCain was behind 9-11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It seems simple....

If there is a "terrorist attack" before the elections, cut, yes cut the Federal budgets of those responsible for national security in HALF. Then, Mr. Charlie Black's comments would only be musings, not a serious comment.

There was supposed to be a "terrorist attack" on the US West Coast in 1999, but local police and the FBI intervened by luck. It was a weird situation, and I paid for it w/ increased surveillance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have the feeling Scott McClellan is going to suddenly remember that John McCain was behind 9-11.

And to think you took every word he said as gospel. Boy, I bet you feel silly.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip,

I also agree with you on your point.

A President obama administration means we will be attacked again because barack is weak and will not go after AQ or whomever.

But don't take my work for it. Check out what Lord Soros' meat-puppet advocates:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

He has no plan for the GWOT. Besides pulling out of Iraq (which he's already back peddling on, BTW) all he lists are defensive measures. And we all know how effective that strategy was in the 1990s.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am a true believer in "performance". Incompetence should NEVER be rewarded.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

apecNetworks writes:

I am a true believer in "performance". Incompetence should NEVER be rewarded.

If incompetence was never rewarded we wouldn't have governments. Think about it. Thugs are not known for their acedemic achievements and incredibly important contributions to society.

Many gov't jobs are made just to pay people salary and keep them dependent, and unlikely to revolt.

Being a realist, taking in account how gov'ts work, they need to take more incompetence people off the street and assign them desks. Then hopefully there would be less riots in Osaka.

It's not a pretty picture, but it's how things work.

Dave Faulkmore

usguyintokyo.com

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To Faulkmore:

I see your point. If govt. didn't tolerate "incompetence", the US would not have the National Security Council, CIA, NSA, National Security Advisor, DIA, etc.... Incompetence is the accepted standard, and if they do anything well, it would be a miracle. The "peter principle", I guess.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ramen,

"A President obama administration means we will be attacked again because barack is weak and will not go after AQ or whomever."

You're suggesting the current miserable failure does have a plan for the so-called "GWOT". After 7 years of hearing this crap, I wouldn't mind seeing it.

Bush Co were in charge and sloppy when 9-11 occured. He supposedly went after them but screwed Afghanistan by leaving before the job was completed, and then went on to another country that had no links to attacks on America whatsoever by twisting and using false information to make his case - which is an even bigger disaster.

Am I really the only person on this thread that thinks these comments are wrong? The republicans have over-shrieked the terra card with the public, bar the paranoid, loyal few remaining to the sect, still sleeping in Saddam-proof chemical suits with duct tape on the windows.....

...an attack now would more than likely boost Senator Obama in showing how utterly the republicans have failed during this disaterous tenure. Heh, though I din't think Senator Obama wll need it in the slightest to give McCain a "thumping".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Been raised to believe "incompetence" equates to "losers". Former Pres. Eisenhower would view the present "national security apparatus" composed of "losers". Americans dislike "losers".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A President obama administration means we will be attacked again because barack is weak and will not go after AQ or whomever.

RR, this was the position of the GWB campaign when they ran against John Kerry in 2004. But Black is saying another attack on GWB's watch would "be a big advantage" to McCain.

Superlib, it's one thing to find your fortunes at the ballet box buoyed by some catastrophe. It's quite another to speculate on the benefits of a catastrophe which hasn't happened and that everyone, including John McCain, is trying to prevent. The difference is over the best preventive measures, not in prevention itself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As Juan Cole points out on his blog, "You worry that people who think like Black would not be above a little wagging the dog, say, a provocation against Iran in October."

Liz Cheney has been making the rounds talking about an "October surprise" emphasizing the time for diplomacy with Iran is fast fading. When did it ever begin?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

... using false information to make his case - which is an even bigger disaster.

Intel provided by CIA Director and clinton administration holdover George Tenant? You mean that kind of false information?

If so, then we agree, verts. Keeping Tenant on as the head of the CIA before, during and after the start of the Iraq conflict was one of my country's biggest mistakes.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"A little wagging the dog" ! Juan Cole is so right on. Guy has established himself as the heir to Edward Said. We are truly lucky. He amazed me when he explained that the events of Sept 11 2001 were "in response to the Israeli attack on the Jenin refugee camp, which left 4,000 persons homeless." The so-called Jenin "massacre" took place in April of 2002. Cole later deleted his wildly subjective musings, but the cached original can still be viewed at http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/Documents/ColeLondon.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: You couldn't be closer to reality here mate. Hey remember somebody asking Iran to wait until RR's inauguration before releasing the hostages? Scary what happens when humans without soul hold power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib, it's one thing to find your fortunes at the ballet box buoyed by some catastrophe. It's quite another to speculate on the benefits of a catastrophe which hasn't happened and that everyone, including John McCain, is trying to prevent. The difference is over the best preventive measures, not in prevention itself.

You said Black supported a terrorist attack, and I called you out on that specific point. End of discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Keeping Tenant on as the head of the CIA before, during and after the start of the Iraq conflict was one of my country's biggest mistakes.

GWB doesn't think so; he awarded George Tenant the Medal of Freedom after he was safely re-elected. As Adverts pointed out at the time, he might has well have given Barney his dog one, so much did such an award denigrate the standards on what constitutes outstanding service from a civilian.

As for Juan Cole's error, it would be nice if people would admit them instead of say, claiming the professionally made "Mission Accomplished" banner in fact was put their by the crew not the WH, a claim you defended here (in one of your many previous user IDs, pas).

But on this Cole may well have speculated after watching MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell ask about "an October surprise," in administration action toward Iran. Liz Cheney, made no effort to douse speculation. "It is absolutely clear that neither the United States nor Israel can tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran," she said.

If the Republicans get desperate, I can see them resorting to desperate measures. For example, if there's an upswing in violence in Iraq it's likely the provincial elections will be postponed from October to November. Funny that, it's a sovereign country but when they hold their elections is determined in Washington not Baghdad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee,

What in the heck does anything you posted have anything to with the fact that John McCain disavows aide's comment about terrorism?

He disavowed it, what more do you want??????

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Black supported a terrorist attack,

If he didn't by speculating on how it would advantageous to McCain's candidacy, then why did the presumptive Republican nominee respond “I cannot imagine why he would say it; it’s not true. I’ve worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America.

'Nuff said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He disavowed it, what more do you want??????

Um, like get rid of the guy. Mcain tried straddling with that wacko Reverend Hagee: "I appreciate his support but don't agree with everything he says." Finally he was forced to part company and, in the process, presumably lost all of his flock who do believe, like their preacher says, that Katrina was God's revenge for NO's gay pride parade.

The problem for McCain is that he's desperately trying to milk the GWB base for every vote he can get. (Liz Cheney reiterated her luke-warm support for the guy on MSNBC speaking for "a lot of Republicans.") Any replacement of staff indicates a mistake was made in taking the person on in the first place. And admitting errors is a sign of weakness.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee

Deflection on your part. Reverend Hagee, Bush, Liz Cheney and hurricane Katrina have NOTHING to do with this discussion . John McCain disavowed this, I believe him you seem to have problem with that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

John McCain disavowed this, I believe him you seem to have problem with that.

Yes, I think he should sack the guy. And he probably would like to but can't for fear of looking weak to the base. Yet will moderate voters accept this straddle? Time will tell....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On salon someone noted that when pundits openly discuss such scenarios nobody bats an eyelash. And this letter explains the difference:

If a 'disinterested' pundit makes this observation, we can assume that they are hypothesizing about the effects of a terrorist attack and do not have any implicit hope that it would occur. They do not have a dog-in-this-fight and no advantage that would accrue if this terrible thing were to come to past.

It is distasteful at best for one of McCain's senior advisors to state this because an advantage may accrue if there were an attack on the US. Because McCain could profit from a terror attack, it suggests that at some level there might be an implicit hope that it could come to pass.

http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/06/23/black/view/?show=all

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Salon

Might as well quote Rush on my part to show some lousy partisan position.

I have to ask this,

It is distasteful at best for one of McCain's senior advisors to state this because an advantage may accrue if there were an attack on the US. Because McCain could profit from a terror attack, it suggests that at some level there might be an implicit hope that it could come to pass.

You really think some people on the right hope for another attack so Mccain can get elected???

He is that far in your mind as unelectable and Obama is so appealing that this is the only way he can win if this comes to pass?

Now that my lady is plain insulting and Salon should be ashamed for even posting a letter like this in the first place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind, Betzee is a political machine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A new terrorist attack would not be a 'big advantage' for McCain.

Americans are split and undecided regarding what to do about terrorism.

Americans are split about which candidate would better protect them.

For a long time now, Americans have trusted Democrats more than Republicans on national security.

All this, because of Bush's failure in his war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

correction

his wars.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ramen,

"Intel provided by CIA Director and clinton administration holdover George Tenant? You mean that kind of false information?"

Yes, ramen, information they pressured from the CIA. Taka has already flattened the "clinton era holdover" argument for what it is.

"Keeping Tenant on as the head of the CIA before, during and after the start of the Iraq conflict was one of my country's biggest mistakes."

Perhaps it was one in a long list of an amazing tradition of mistakes by Bush Co, but it serpently wasn't anything near the scale of the terrorist creating nightmare of your Iraq quagmire.

As I said - a terrorist attack on US soil would further illustrate the republican failure at addressing the problem that they've actually madeworse, so I can only imagine it would further bolster Senator Obama's presidental run.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka has already flattened the "clinton era holdover" argument for what it is.

Heh, the same guy who believes the U.S. government attacked the Pentagon on 9-11? Come on, verts, you can do better than that.

I can only imagine it would further bolster Senator Obama's presidental run.

barack is willing to confab our enemies without any pre-conditions but won't meet Mr. McCain in townhall meetings unless provisions are provided? Heh, keep clicking your heels and repeating "There no democrat like this democrat", verts. Folks at this site have long realized that you hate America and us Americans, verts. Nonetheless, democrat Lemming Day fast approaches.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If McCain's campaign were on a roll and a senior advisor came out and said, essentially, "Victory is contingent on a terrorist attack" it would have generated a long more interest. Instead it was just another stumble which led to jokes such as, "Does this make McCain the pro-terror candidate?"

The guy's worst enemy is himself. Is there anything he hasn't flip-flopped on? The Bush tax cuts, torture, offshore drilling (I'm sure I've left out a few.) Just yesterday he conceded offshore drilling would only provide "psychological relief" to Americans. Huh? So we've got to drill up the California coast and risk another spill just to enable someone in a landlocked state to enjoy a false sense that prices will go down? Forget it.

McCain is making the same mistake Mitt Romney did. Carve up the electorate into different groups and pander to the interests of each. And it works out about as well as his marriage of convenience to Reverend Hagee.

Ken Mehlman looked at the demographics of the Republican Party and quit his job at head of the RNC after the 2006 mid-terms. You can't sell "fear" to young people, though they are plenty apprehensive about their job prospects and the debt which has been accumulated in their name.

In 2000 McCain based his opposition to the GWB tax cuts in part on the then USD 5.7 trillion national debt. By the time the new president is sworn in it will top USD 10 trillion. Yet he now supports making the GWB tax cuts permanent without offering any way to balance the books.

Personally, I think this is a sad way to end his career. He did stand for something once but it's certainly not evident now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Intel provided by CIA Director and clinton administration holdover George Tenant? You mean that kind of false information? If so, then we agree, verts. Keeping Tenant on as the head of the CIA before, during and after the start of the Iraq conflict was one of my country's biggest mistakes.

A plaque on the desk in bush's office reads: "The buck passed by here."

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ramen, Allow me to retort to your last post.

First of all, I NEVER claimed the U.S. Govt. attacked the pentagon. I claimed that I did not think it was an airplane. You, pasquinade and americanwoman then took off with that and spun it into the tripe you spew today.

Secondly, I admitted my mistake. I said, I was wrong. Have you done that? Have you said, "I was wrong to believe there was a connection between saddam and al quaeda." Have you said that you were wrong to believe donald rumsfeld that there were wmds sprayed everywhere in the vicinity of Tikrit?" Have you said, I was wrong to believe that the insurgency was in it's last throes YEARS AGO!" Did you admit that you were wrong in thinking the repubs were going to pull off a bit win in '06? Nope.

You can point at my mistakes all you want. But remember this, when I made them, I was man enough to admit it. You...not.so.much.

As for your last post. Here again, it's America's fault that Tenet was kept on as CIA director? Who recommended it? Your dear leader. Who approved it? A rubber-stamp Congress.

Once again, you are proving that neo-cons and reality are too concepts born, never to meet.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I will give Old Charlie some credit, he took full responsibility for his comments (very rare these days) and didn't try to claim he'd been misquoted. But that doesn't mitigate the stupidity of it. Prior to the "big advantage" observation, the interview makes his mindset clear:

We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an "unfortunate event," says Black. "But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black.

Absent that horror, however, ...

Charlie Black has been working for Republican presidential candidates since 1972. This will probably be his last campaign.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku,

If you feel I am in error, how about pointing out where I am.

You would have been correct if I had claimed that my two examples were 100% identical, word for word, to the one in the article. But I never did such thing. All you did was to point out some differences, while ignoring (naive or deceptive?) the obvious and significant similarities.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi,

Let us logically explore what you have written in this thread, shall we? You found it neccessary to pull a quote out of context and to reword another statement to attempt to create 'obvious similarities'. I maintain that if they were so obvious and correct, that would not be neccessary. The differences that I pointed out change completely the meaning of what you used to compare to Mr. Black's statement. So, you have failed to successfully make a convincing argument for your opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee,

This will probably be his last campaign.....

One would hope. In addition, I agree with you that McCain should ask Black to step down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama's web page is full of whacked-out anti-Israel, anti-Semitic garbage and 9-11 conspiracies. It should give pause to any American professing to belong to the party of Truman and JFK.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The aide just said the obvious. But obviously, political correctness does not allow you to say the obvious. So, obviously, MC had to distance himself.

It is really bizarre watching these politically correct dance moves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Charlie Black, an adviser already in the spotlight for his past lobbying work, is quoted in the upcoming July 7 edition of Fortune magazine as saying such an attack “certainly would be a big advantage to him.

Being a top strategist, he probably saw the possibility of something happening before October. Because I live in a neighborhood of US Agencies' personnel, I got immediate reaction to my previous post on this thread: Easily angered.

Things are really strange on the US West Coast.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Being a top strategist, he probably saw the possibility of something happening before October.

You certainly do not need to be a top strategist to see that possibility. That is like saying you need to be a strategist to see the possibility of rain on a cloudy day.

Anything is possible and hopefully none of those bad possibilities will come true.

As I said before, Black made a huge mistake and he should resign. Failing that McCain should ask him to leave. Yes, it is a mistake. However, he should have known better.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To Kinniku,

A top strategist would have to take into consideration a countless number of factors to understand the thrust of a strategy. It would fit into a geopolitical backdrop, from my perspective. A top strategist sees things on a large canvas. I live in a neighborhood that helps me get that perspective.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

apecNetworks,

I do not know you. You do not know me. However, I do not need to live in a neighborhood populated by weathercasters to know it is possible it will rain on a cloudy day.

As far as being a top strategist is concerned, if Mr. Black still wanted to be considered a top strategist, he would have been able to see things on the large canvass that would have told him comments like the ones he made would make things difficult for the person for whom he is supposedly making strategy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To Kinniku,

Let's just say that I could be better informed on the McCain Campaign if I lived next door to Mr. Black's house.

It is strange for Mr. Black to make the statement in a major financial magazine, but it sure makes this year an exciting one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

apecNetworks,

We would probably be even better informed if we lived next door to Mr. McCain.

but it sure makes this year an exciting one.

That's for sure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I suspect that Black made this statement as a request for an attack – since an attack helps both sides. MC gets his big popularity push from the duped public, and the terrorists get their recruiting material. Both sides need each other. Black indeed is a top strategist.

MC disavowing is just maneuvering so that it is not so obvious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Barack Obama’s campaign called the comment a “complete disgrace.”

Interesting that he was pretty silent when Hillary said the same thing.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- She says she is the Democrat best equipped to fight terrorists, but White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton told New Hampshire voters Thursday that another attack on the United States would likely help Republican candidates at the polls.

And this from the article, well at least two Democrats at the time showed some spine.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who is also competing for the Democratic nomination, issued a statement Friday afternoon calling Clinton's remark "tasteless."

"Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States," he said.

New Mexico Bill Richardson, another Democratic presidential candidate, disparaged Clinton's remark.

"We shouldn't be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political consequences, we should be protecting the country from terrorists," said Gov Richardson in a written statement.

Obama change we can believe in or politics as usual. I'm leaning as usual he had a chance before to decry this but didn't say a peep when a fellow Democrat said it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/24/clinton.terrorism/?iref=mpstoryvie

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TJrandom:

" I suspect that Black made this statement as a request for an attack – since an attack helps both sides. "

Why? Something that helps both sides helps nobody, so that is totally nonsensical statement.

Islamic radicals, as well as other nutcases such as Chavez favour Obama (they are on record for saying that), so it is obvious that MCaine, for all his failings, deserves more trust in regards to national security.

Clearly, any terrorist attack before the election would help him, and clearly there won´t be one for precisely that reason. Saying that is simply stating the obvious. Of course, political correctness dictates that we can not state the obvious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Interesting that he was pretty silent when Hillary said the same thing

Sailwind,

If you recall McCain made the same types of attacks against Huckabee that Hillary did against Obama when they were duking it out for their respective party nods. But nobody ever went so far as to speculate "another terrorist attack would be an advantage [for me]." Charlie Black should resign.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course, political correctness dictates that we can not state the obvious.

This has nothing to do with political correctness. It's fair game to tout your credentials in any area as superior to those of your opponent. The electorate will be the final judge. It's quite another, however, to speculate that a terrorist attack, which would result in death amongst those whose votes you are seeking not to mention destruction of property, would "be a big advantage."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee:

" This has nothing to do with political correctness. "

It has all to do with political correctness. You can repeat ad nauseam that it does not, but that does not change the facts. An attack would favour the security candidate. And that is obviously not the candidate who endorsed by Hamas, Ahmedinejad, and Chaves, which is Obama. Thats a fact, like it or not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So are you saying McCain disassociated himself from Black's comments out of a need to be politically correct? Is that the type of leader you want, WilliB?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB,

MC and the terrorists ARE on the same team: MC to get elected, and the terrorists to remain relevant. Obama is the stronger security candidate for the US if that is defined as a reduction in attacks, as he is unlikely to bait the enemy. Black was simply stating this in his own words. To get elected MC needs the terrorists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fire Black!

WilliB

An attack would favour the security candidate. And that is obviously not the candidate

blah! blah! blah! I love your side's definition of security. At the time 911 happened there were very few Taliban/al Qaeda. Now, under the Republican administration, almost seven years later there are more Taliban/al Qaeda then there ever have been. McCain wants to continue this "secure arraignment" and we are supposed to consider him the "security candidate." Pah-leeze, to borrow a term from the WPE, Fuzzy Math never had it so good!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's one thing to say "an attack would favor McCain." That's a debatable point. It's quite another to say "an attack would really help us out" as his chief strategist Charlie Black essentially did. John McCain appears to appreciate the difference even if others do not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The statement from Mr. Black REALLY bothers me. The terrorist who was caught on the US West Coast in 1999 was right before the 2000 election. Then, afterwards, I was under intense pressure from US Agencies' scrutiny. Just doesn't make sense. Recalling that time, it was sooooo strange. I thought I was going to be rewarded, but instead, I was constantly being attacked by wireless transmitters.

Whatever happens this year, it is going to be interesting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

John Mccain or Barrack Obama in Nov 4th.

Another around 120 days only left to woe the electoral college/voters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee:

" It's one thing to say "an attack would favor McCain." That's a debatable point. It's quite another to say "an attack would really help us out" as his chief strategist Charlie Black essentially did. John McCain appears to appreciate the difference even if others do not. "

Then it is only a question of phrasing. Of course, if he phrased it like that, you are right. Insinuating that he would appreciate an attack is indefensible and McCain was right to sack him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TJrandom:

" Obama is the stronger security candidate for the US i "

Sorry, that is ludicrious. Obama is being endorsed by Hamas and Ahmedinejad. Somebody who is being endorsed by terrorist organization is not a "security candidate".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think it matters who is elected Pres. this fall. I have been testing the US Security State as evidenced in my neighborhood. Even if either candidate wished to return to a more constitutional democracy, it would take the new President his first term to change it.

I remember one of them telling me before 9/11 that they needed a threat to replace the Cold War or they are out of a job. The guy was indirectly talking about the military-industrial complex.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Issue of world politics,is a big complex job, next new president, must be real good problem solver.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

apecNetworks,

Just for some clarification, what are you talking about?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB

Sorry, that is ludicrious. Obama is being endorsed by Hamas and Ahmedinejad. Somebody who is being endorsed by terrorist organization is not a "security candidate".

WilliB, you seem to miss the point in national security. It is not a national security issue to not be endorsed by whomever. In the current security environment the specific goal should be to reduce the number of Taliban/al Qaeda. However I do think you represent the short-sided nature of the Republican party. Your tactics would appear to be similar also. Instead of addressing my previous post referencing the failure of the Bush/McCain party to rid the world of Taliban/al Qaeda, you chose to throw out a red herring.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To Kinniku:

It's really involved. I'm in a strange situation where I was until recently being fed sensitive info. It's only in the last few years that these govt. people quit talking to me. Surveillance is very tight, it reminds me of the Cold War. I receive no assistance from this situation, so it must be condoned.

To explain some of my comments, it would be helpful to read my posts as "apec_net" if still available. My views are based on the info that I have been given for the last 15years. To go into my posts, it would involve several topics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mccain cant control his own campaign let alone the country. Its filled with lobbiests who only care about their pet industries so what do they care about McCain really. Does the oil industry really care about Bush? No.

Lets face it, McCain is not up for the job. He is just too old. Old enough to have to issue more than 1,100 pages of medical records to prove that he is physically and mentally “fit,” The “young man” Obama issued a one-page personal health statement. The President job would kill McCain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why won't Obama issue his official birth certificate? The one his handlers posted at Kos was proven fake.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey:

" In the current security environment the specific goal should be to reduce the number of Taliban/al Qaeda. "

And that you do by putting the candidate in the White House who is favoured by the islamic radicals? That is such a bizarre claim on so many levels, I won´t even bother to parse it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GoodDonkey:

" At the time 911 happened there were very few Taliban/al Qaeda. "

Oh? Please do remind us who was in power in Afghanistan at the time, and and who piloted airplanes into the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TJRandom:

" Obama is the stronger security candidate for the US if that is defined as a reduction in attacks, as he is unlikely to bait the enemy. "

The Jihad against the infidel world in general and the US and Israel in particular is not a response to being "baited", and it won`t be stopped by someone who tries to appease the Jihadists; to the contrary.

To remind you, the bombings of the embassies in Sudan and Nairobi, the Cole bombing, the first bombing of the WTC and the preparation for 9/11 all happened under Clinton -- who also believed in appeasement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

apecNetworks,

You are misunderstanding my question to you. Perhaps my wording was confusing. What I am trying to ask is what your personal experience (real or otherwise) with radio transmitters and such have to do with the content of this article. In reading what you have written, I don't seem any connection with McCain or the issue at hand. Could you clarify what you want to say?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB

Clinton -- who also believed in appeasement.

That statement is blatantly untrue. Since you find no purpose is an honest discussion I won't research and answer your questions directed at me. I will finish with you by stating there is plenty of evidence out there establishing that the Taliban was state sponsored in Afghanistan and therefore the proper target of responsibility for the 911 attacks. I have never suggested that the ultimate progress in Afghanistan would be to have eradicated every single member of Taliban/al Qaeda. The goal should have been to first win the war and then to win the peace. We did have the Taliban reasonably under control for awhile. At that time it was imperative to use resources of both money and manpower to rebuild and sometimes initially build infrastructure. This should have been expected to be costly, time consuming and labor intensive. Bush oversimplified the process and now because of W.P.E. Bush we have more terrorists bent on the destruction of the U.S. Not only did he not properly fund and execute the peace in Afghanistan he also diverted resources to Iraq and failed to win the peace there also. If McCain is so good at security why doesn't admit the entrance into the Iraqi war increased the security risk to the United States. Of course you do not have to take my word for the fact that Bush screwed up winning the peace in Iraq. Right now the U.S. Army released an official report. In the 720-page report, put together by the Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, it states that leaders in the United States were more concerned with winning the military battle in Iraq than what to do once it was concluded. That's not exactly earth-shattering news, since most of us already know that, but the historical report is interesting because it's the first major report issued by U.S. military criticizing civilian leaders. Bush is no longer able to collar the military and prevent the truth from coming out! Likewise as you criticize Obama you will get a chance to see what he does when he actually governs. You will get to see his success at security. Once he becomes President you won't need to speculate any more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites