McCain Aide Wishes on a Star
You always suspected that they thought it. But who would be so stupid as to say it. On McCain's "political maestro" Mr. Charlie Black and how he thinks thousands of Americans being incinerated would be a "big advantage" to the Republican Party.
"the longtime political pro got a bit too honest. Asked about the political impact of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Black replied: 'Certainly it would be a big advantage to him'."
You worry that people who think like Black would not be above a little wagging the dog, say, a provocation against Iran in October.
I wonder if Cindy McCain still feels safe, on knowing how her husband's associates really think.
We don't need any more of this politics of fear that Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Bush gave to us. That McCain has such people around him is yet another indication that he is too close to Bush and Bushism to be allowed anywhere near the White House.
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/24/2008 01:05:00 AM
|
Facebook
21 Comments:
and the thing is...it wouldn't be great for him. Can you envisage the Public not blaming the act on the policy in that case? Absolutely not. So he's not only reprehensible, he's risible.
It's not just "politics of fear." It's fearmongering as an instrument of public policy, and enough gaffes like this might get people thinking. George Carlin checked out when we need him most.
How true. But one possibly positive effect of Mr. Black's "incinerating" innuendo---well, actually it was quite precise and direct---is that it penetrates the cerebral cortex of the voting public, and gives them (hopefully not) a preview of an October (or before) surprise. This outrageous remark also magnifies the Klieg lights illuminating Obama. The WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING has been sheared and exposed...again!
Your point was well stated.
By the way, a successful impeachment campaign against Bush and Cheney could be completed in about one month, i.e., by the end of July. That would include conviction by the Senate. The recent media attention to the US torture policy would make it easy for the Democrats to succeed in getting a large majority of the public to think, "Hey, these two people are actually CRIMINALS."
Republican politicians would face a harsh choice: either save their own political future by voting to dump CheneyBush, or be tarred as a willing participant in the COVERUP of their crimes.
Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers appear too cowardly to put into practice the impeachment provisions that the Founding Fathers put into the Constitution for emergencies just like the current one. Unfortunately, most Democratic politicians care much more about retaining their power than preventing this republic from being turned into a dictatorship of the "Unitary Executive."
Isn't it a matter of record that bin Laden endorsed the re-election of GWB in 2004?
It seems like there is an overtly recognized symbiosis between the red-meat right and the jihadists.
Attack and counterattack inflames the core supporters.
Am I right that the last orange or red alert from homeland security came just before the 2004 election?
I would say that we have already done a series of provocations against Iran. I am hopeful that Iran will keep it's cool and the bullies will back off.
I wonder if Cindy McCain still feels safe, on knowing how her husband's associates really think.
Ha, ha, ha! You have to understand dahling, such concerns are for the little people! Surely people in a position of privilege don't have to bother their beautiful minds with such concerns!
The straight talk from McCain's political maestro...
"the longtime political pro got a bit too honest. Asked about the political impact of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Black replied: 'Certainly it would be a big advantage to him'."
resonates against the background that Rick Shenkman wants so desperately to dispel:
'A Scripps-Howard poll in 2006 found that 36 percent believe that it is “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that U.S. officials either allowed the attack to take place or were involved it.'
I note that the respective roles of "incompetence" and what Democrat Neocon Pat Moynihan used to call "benign neglect" with respect to the mass murders of 9/11 are impossible to differentiate without a real investigation of that event.
Looking at 9/11 from here, knowing what we do, it is not possible to say that it was "only" incompetence that allowed the crimes to go forward, or that the crucial investigations nipped in the bud from Washington would have aborted the attack, and whether those were in fact "nipped" with the hopes that the result would not be "too bad" but "bad enough" to furnish the ardently sought "catastrophic and catalysing event", the "new Pearl Harbor", of the PNAC.
This is not "conspiracy theory".
This is a straight forward question: what did they know and when did they know it?
We need a Challenger Commission and a man or woman like Richard Feynman to find out.
And folks like Shenkman are working overtime to make sure that we never have one.
None of us know what happened. Some of us don't want to know, and others of us do.
Too close to BushCo, yes, which is why many label him McSame. He's also adopted the Bush mantra of Drill, Drill, Drill. Unfortunately, while asking for oil companies to drill more, the Bush whitehouse made it even more difficult and expensive to do so by imposing massive tariffs, up to 700% in some cases, on Chinese steel imports. Why is Chinese steel cheaper? Maybe it's because their capacity to produce steel is greater than the US, EU, and Japan combined!
I am supporting Barack Obama now that Clinton is no longer a candidate, but I think this criticism is as unfair as similar criticism of Clinton.
The reporter's question was stupid, the answer had nothing to do with wishing anyone harm. I will not vote for McCain, but I think we need to be fair in criticism.
This is not being fair.
Actually, a major attack by Al Qaeda would help Obama. The fear of a major attack helps McCain.
After the Madrid and the London bombings, the Bush/Republican approval on 'handling terrorism'/leadership fell about 10% each time. Madrid dropped that approval rating from 68% to 58%. London, 58% to 49%. At currently 47-49%, it's what props McCain up.
Then again, Obama continues the selling out and "compromise" game on national security with Republicans. Contrary to what he and his team think, that's exactly why he's not getting to 50% anymore.
I do work in the Middle East, especially Syria and Israel, and I am also a professor of conflict resolution. I just published an oped in Common Ground News Service warning of the same thing, war in October that drives the Republicans back into office. http://www.commongroundnews.org/section.php?sid=1&lan=en
This is also a last ditch effort to etch the neoconservative agenda in stone before we can undo the damage of a war of civilizations. The Israelis are legitimately worried about Iran but there are others in Washington who are just driving them to war for other reasons. The real question is how do we pre-empt this reckless use of war and fear of war?
Marc Gopin, marcgopin.com
Hmmm. Trust me, I am no McCain fan (nor Obama, nor Clinton, nor any other professional politician). Does no one find the question itself reprehensible? Why would Whitford ask such a thing and why does he not make us privy to the actual framing of the question? I am not at all surprised (nor any less dismayed) at Black's response - it is what I expect of his ilk. However, asking such a question betrays an incomprehensible depth of insensitivity.
The Israelis are legitimately worried about Iran....
The israelis and their 150+ nuclear warheads, and various delivery systems including submarines, along with their inventory of the latest American military equipment, along with their incessant, self-interested arm twisting of the United States government and military via AIPAC and other agencies of influence -- those israelis are worried about the American Establishment's favorite whipping boy, non-nuclear Iran with its home defense forces and second rate, domestically produced military hardware?
I would suggest that after observing israel's behavior in the region and israel's status as a declared protectorate of the United States the Iranians are legitimately worried about israel.
....but there are others in Washington who are just driving them to war for other reasons.
Yes, and quite a few of those "others" in Washington are eligible for israeli citizenship if they don't have it already.
The problem with speculating about voter reaction to such an attack is that, if such an attack were to occur, voter reaction would no longer be relevant because Bush would declare martial law. This is why it is important to impeach him ASAP.
Ms. Pelosi, are you listening? If you take impeachment "off the table," you'll be out of power (and thoroughly impotent) within six months.
What was Black thinking? Another attack would leave McCain flat footed. His fellow travelers will have played all their cards and come up empty.
The mike is jammed in his face and the reporters are screaming for him to reach deep into his national defense resume and stake out a course of action. What can he say: More torture, more domestic surveillance, meaner Patriot Act, expand Guantanamo, bomb Iran, lower taxes?
Another attack linked to al Qaeda would expose the failure of the war on terror, and all the things McCain has staunchly supported. People might even begin to ask why we are at war with the Taliban (whoever they are) and al Sadr (whoever he is), when it doesn't look like these foes had anything to do with the latest attack, as well as 9/11. (Although the Taliban were Bin Ladin's hosts, they were far to busy terrorizing Afghanis to think about blowing up buildings in Manhattan, wherever that is.)
Maybe it would be a good idea for reporters to ask McCain and Obama what new strategies they are contemplating to reduce the risk of another attack.
To Massminutemen
I'm not sure to agree with you. What is true of the Europeans, isn't necessarily true of the Americans. Since the two Bush's elections, the US people/opinion is much more aggressive than that of the EU, who massively opposed the Iraq invasion (unlike some of its leaders). The US opinion, seems opposed to appeasement politic, favoring blunt force instead. The truth is that we as Europeans we don't share the same values as the US anymore, but we are paying the price of the US wars, both in terms of terrorism (we are nearer of ME and have proportionnally more Arabs population and (still) a less policial state) and in terms of climbing gaz price (while we already have to pay twice as much as the US for the same quantity).
The israelis and their 150+ nuclear warheads, and various delivery systems including submarines, along with their inventory of the latest American military equipment, along with their incessant, self-interested arm twisting of the United States government and military via AIPAC and other agencies of influence -- those israelis are worried about the American Establishment's favorite whipping boy, non-nuclear Iran with its home defense forces and second rate, domestically produced military hardware?
What does that have to do with Israelis worrying about Iran?
What does that have to do with Israelis worrying about Iran?
The israelis have the capability to destroy Iran's hundred or more largest cities and infrastructure targets with nuclear weapons. The Iranians have no reciprocal capability against israel. Yet the israelis, those friendly folks who have never signed the NPT and have never had to answer for their nuclear arsenal, and who do not permit international inspection of their nuclear facilities claim that they are worried -- about non-nuclear and B-List military Iran.
The israelis have overwhelming military superiority in comparison to the the Iranians, and members of the israeli government and israeli military do detest the Iranian government. The israelis would dearly love to sucker the United States into doing their dirty work by attacking and destroying Iran, but I hardly believe that the israelis truly fear the Iranians will attack them without provocation. The Iranians are not suicidal. To launch an unprovoked attack on israel would be to invite Iran's own destruction and the Iranians are fully aware of that fact. That's the reason the israelis built all those nuclear warheads, isn't it, to deter any nation from attacking israel?
The israelis simply want the Iranians gone, or beaten or maneuvered into submission. Iran is emerging as a regional player, the country has an enormous quantity of oil, natural gas and Euros while israel is natural-resource poor, isolated and friendless aside from Uncle Sammy. The israelis don't want to share the neighborhood with a country that cannot be intimidated or bullied by israel or the USA.
Rational israelis do not fear an unprovoked attack from Iran. On the other hand the Iranians have been subject to saber-rattling, and military shows-of-force and continuous threats of attack from both the United States and israel for the last five years or more. I can understand the Iranians being fearful of the USA and israel but israel professing "fear" of Iran strikes me more as anger at not being able to push Iran around.
Dear Juan,
Could you please shed light on H. CON. RES. 362? Here is the text of the Resolution:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.362:
and here are two addresses where this resolution has been dealt with:
http://capwiz.com/justforeignpolicy/issues/alert/?alertid=11518951
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7354M1QmGYQ
Thank you in advance for the trouble. BF
Post a Comment
<< Home