Hoping for a terrorist attack

[TexasTiger 12,993]

At least Black is honest...about this, anyway:

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.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/magazines/...itford.fortune/

[Tigermike 3,047]

"Hoping for a terrorist attack", I think that's a stretch don't you Tex?

Not America's dependence on foreign oil? Not climate change? Not the crushing cost of health care? Eventually McCain gets around to mentioning all three of those. But he starts by deftly turning the economy into a national security issue - and why not? On national security McCain wins. 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.

It seems to me he was just saying McCain has an advantage over Obama in the area of national security.

In reality measures taken since 9/11 have prevented other attacks and plots. So it was just talking, don't you think?

[TexasTiger 12,993]

"Hoping for a terrorist attack", I think that's a stretch don't you Tex?

Not America's dependence on foreign oil? Not climate change? Not the crushing cost of health care? Eventually McCain gets around to mentioning all three of those. But he starts by deftly turning the economy into a national security issue - and why not? On national security McCain wins. 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.

It seems to me he was just saying McCain has an advantage over Obama in the area of national security.

In reality measures taken since 9/11 have prevented other attacks and plots. So it was just talking, don't you think?

Actually, the larger context you provided only makes it more clear that he is referring to a perceived electoral advantage.

[Ranger12 46]

Let's be honest here Tex. Another terrorist attack would probably help McCain because most people know he would be a better CIC when it comes to national security. I said it, so does that mean I am hoping for another terrorist attack also? Of course not. I hope McCain does win, but not at the expense of a terrorist attack.

This comment is similar to the comments made against liberals by conservatives when they were accused of wanting Iraq to fail to help their cause in 2006 and 2008. Liberals got all up in arms about those claims and now it sounds like you guys are trying the same thing by saying conservatives are hoping for a terrorist attack to win the Oval Office.

The economy, especially the ridiculous gas prices, has caused many voters to start overlooking national security, which favors Obama. I could be wrong, but I think that was sort of the point that was trying to be made.

[Tigermike 3,047]

Per ABC News' Bret Hovell, McCain distanced himself from the remarks today.

"I cannot imagine why he would say it," McCain said. "It’s not true. I’ve worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America. My record is very clear. The Armed Services Committee, and pieces of legislation. Sponsoring with Joe Lieberman the 9/11 Commission so we could find out the causes and how to fix the challenges that we face to fix the security of our nation. I cannot imagine it. And, uh. So, I would … If he said that, and I do not know the context, I strenuously disagree."

Regardless of McCain distancing himself from Black's sentiment, Democratic consultants have said similar things to me.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...in-adviser.html

OK, it was a crass thing to say. But since "Democratic consultants have said similar things", there must be a little truth to it.

[autiger4life 3]

Let's be honest here Tex. Another terrorist attack would probably help McCain because most people know he would be a better CIC when it comes to national security. I said it, so does that mean I am hoping for another terrorist attack also? Of course not. I hope McCain does win, but not at the expense of a terrorist attack.

This comment is similar to the comments made against liberals by conservatives when they were accused of wanting Iraq to fail to help their cause in 2006 and 2008. Liberals got all up in arms about those claims and now it sounds like you guys are trying the same thing by saying conservatives are hoping for a terrorist attack to win the Oval Office.

The economy, especially the ridiculous gas prices, has caused many voters to start overlooking national security, which favors Obama. I could be wrong, but I think that was sort of the point that was trying to be made.

I completely agree.

I actually wish politicians could always be this honest without having to worry about dumb attacks. It is true that an attack would help, but knowing McCain I doubt he wants one.

[TexasTiger 12,993]

Let's be honest here Tex. Another terrorist attack would probably help McCain because most people know he would be a better CIC when it comes to national security. I said it, so does that mean I am hoping for another terrorist attack also? Of course not. I hope McCain does win, but not at the expense of a terrorist attack.

This comment is similar to the comments made against liberals by conservatives when they were accused of wanting Iraq to fail to help their cause in 2006 and 2008. Liberals got all up in arms about those claims and now it sounds like you guys are trying the same thing by saying conservatives are hoping for a terrorist attack to win the Oval Office.

The economy, especially the ridiculous gas prices, has caused many voters to start overlooking national security, which favors Obama. I could be wrong, but I think that was sort of the point that was trying to be made.

Most people think he would be a better CIC. He wouldn't. But anyway...

I believe you don't want another attack, Ranger.

[RunInRed 16,454]

If this was the other way around...

Pure shameless from the McCain campaign. And for the Republicans and John McCain for try to claim a national foreign/military affairs advantage after they authorized and engineered the biggest foreign policy disaster of our generation is quite amusing.

[Tigermike 3,047]

If this was the other way around...

Pure shameless from the McCain campaign. And for the Republicans and John McCain for try to claim a national foreign/military affairs advantage after they authorized and engineered the biggest foreign policy disaster of our generation is quite amusing.

You never let facts and truth get in the way of rants do you?

[RunInRed 16,454]

The Republicans using the war on terror to scare up votes? Nah, they would never do that.

[kwagoner 214]

Per ABC News' Bret Hovell, McCain distanced himself from the remarks today.

Good thing for him. All these guys are going to have idiots on their side. Morons too often have the biggest mouth and get more attention. Some folks feel they will help, but do more damage.... just like the 'ol preacher man.

[Tigermike 3,047]

The Republicans using the war on terror to scare up votes? Nah, they would never do that.

You mean kind of like Obama bringing up and playing the race card? :rolleyes:

[GoAU 1,600]

Most people think he would be a better CIC. He wouldn't. But anyway...

Sure, because as a young senator with no military experience he is much more qualified to lead the military than a deorated combat vetran...

You must be crazy...

[RunInRed 16,454]

Most people think he would be a better CIC. He wouldn't. But anyway...

Sure, because as a young senator with no military experience he is much more qualified to lead the military than a deorated combat vetran...

You must be crazy...

Kerry was a decorated combat veteran...Bush was an Air Force reservist who never served in active duty. See the irony in your own argument?

[TexasTiger 12,993]

Most people think he would be a better CIC. He wouldn't. But anyway...

Sure, because as a young senator with no military experience he is much more qualified to lead the military than a deorated combat vetran...

You must be crazy...

Kerry was a decorated combat veteran...Bush was an Air Force reservist who never served in active duty and didn't even honor his commitment. See the irony in your own argument?

Enhanced that for ya.

[Tigermike 3,047]

Most people think he would be a better CIC. He wouldn't. But anyway...

Sure, because as a young senator with no military experience he is much more qualified to lead the military than a deorated combat vetran...

You must be crazy...

Kerry was a decorated combat veteran...Bush was an Air Force reservist who never served in active duty. See the irony in your own argument?

The irony I see is, during a time of war, the dims put up Kerry because he was a "a decorated combat veteran". Thinking that was enough. They never took into consideration the rancor and animus many, many vetrans feel toward that slime ball. Not because of what he did in VietNam, but because of what he did after he left.

Fast forward to 2008.

The irony I see is, during the last election Kerry & Dean tried to talk the talk of a committed Christian and failed miserably. They may be but they sure didn't sound like they knew what they were talking about. So what did they do? They went out and got themselves a "values talking, Christian". Low and behold what did they end up with? Rev. Wright & Louis Farrakhan.

The irony I see is, John Kerry being called a flip flopper so the dims come out with a catchy phrase: Hope and Change. As it turns out Obama has fliped over more flops than John Kerry ever did. That's just a little of the irony I see.

[kwagoner 214]

Most people think he would be a better CIC. He wouldn't. But anyway...

Sure, because as a young senator with no military experience he is much more qualified to lead the military than a deorated combat vetran...

You must be crazy...

Woodrow Wilson lead the way in WWI. He had no military experience at all...... law, engineering, & football. He was elected over Theo. Roosevelt ( Asst. Sec. of Navy & also played a huge part in the Spanish American War.) and over Taft (served as Sec. of War 1904-1908)

LBJ was heading up the Vietnam. Serve in Army (WWII) and Naval Reserves. He won over Barry Goldwater (no military experience, thought well of by McCain) What came of that conflict?

Though it may seem likely that a wild statement like that to be true, it isn't always the case. I'm just saying it would take other evidence to convince me either would be better at nat'l security b/c it can go either way. (Big military guy flops or no military experience handles the situation well) A lot of different factors also go into the equation. Who is the intruder? What is their motive? What is the history of the relationship?

Knowing those answers would help justify an opinion on who is better, McCain or Obama. Other countries can be like kids. Some kids you have to spank, put in timeout, and take away the Wii to get them to behave. Others you can just sit them down and voice your disappointment and ask them not to do ______ again. Both can work depending upon the child. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing those variables, so I cannot say one way or the other.

[TexasTiger 12,993]

Most people think he would be a better CIC. He wouldn't. But anyway...

Sure, because as a young senator with no military experience he is much more qualified to lead the military than a deorated combat vetran...

You must be crazy...

"Decorated combat veteran."

The truth is, McCain may be more subject to the "Kerry treatment" than was Kerry, if Dems were so inclined, according to Col. David Hackworth:

DEFENDING AMERICA

BY DAVID H. HACKWORTH

ARE McCAIN'S HANDLERS PLAYING THE WRONG CARD?

John McCain is being hailed by the press as a "genuine war hero." But is he a war hero in the conventional sense like Audie Murphy and John Glenn?

Or is his "war hero" status the creation of a very slick publicity campaign that plays on flag, duty, honor and country?

For sure, McCain has the fruit-salad -- a Silver Star, a Legion of Merit for Valor, a Distinguished Flying Cross, three Bronze Stars , two Commendation medals plus two Purple Hearts and a dozen service gongs.

On a purely medal count basis, he out-weighs Murphy and Glenn, who both for years repeatedly performed extraordinary deeds on the ground or in the air against an armed enemy.

McCain's valor awards are based on what happened in 1967, when during his 23d mission over Vietnam, he was shot down, seriously injured, captured and then spent 5 1/2 brutal years as a POW.

In an attempt to find out exactly what the man did to earn these many hero awards, I asked his Senate office three times to provide copies of the narratives for each medal. I'm still waiting.

I next went to the Pentagon. Within a week, I received a recap of his medals and many of the narratives that give the details of what he did.

None of the awards, less the DFC, were for heroism over the battlefield -- where he spent no more than 20 hours. Two Naval officers described the awards as "boilerplate" and "part of an SOP medal package given to repatriated (Vietnam-era) POWs."

McCain's Silver Star narrative for the period 27 October 1967 -- the day after he was shot down -- to 8 December 1968 reads: "His captors… subjected him to extreme mental and physical cruelties in an attempt to obtain military information and false confessions for propaganda purposes. Through his resistance to those brutalities, he contributed significantly towards the eventual abandonment…" of such harsh treatment by the North Vietnamese.

Yet in McCain's own words just four days after being captured, he admits he violated the U.S. Code of Conduct by telling his captors "O.K, I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital."

A Vietnam vet detractor says, "He received the nation's third highest award, the Silver Star, for treason. He provided aid and comfort to the enemy!"

The rest of his valor awards -- issued automatically every year while he was a POW -- read much like the Silver Star. More boilerplate often repeating the exact same words. An example: "By his heroic endeavors, exceptional skill, and devotion to duty, he reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Naval Service and the United States Armed Forces."

Yet McCain's conduct while a POW negates these glowing comments. The facts are that he signed a confession and declared himself a "black criminal who performed deeds of an air pirate." This statement and other interviews he gave to the Communist press were used as propaganda to fan the flames of the anti-war movement.

Accounts by McCain and other writers tell of the horror he endured: relentlessly beatings, torture, broken limbs. All inflicted during savage interrogations. Yet no other POW was a witness to these accounts.

A former POW says "No man witnessed another man during interrogations… We relied on each other to tell the truth when a man was returned to his cell."

The U.S. Navy says two eye-witnesses are required for any award of heroism. But for the valor awards McCain received, there are no eye-witnesses, less himself and his captors.

And they're not talking.

Our POWs in Vietnam were treated appallingly. The Viets would either break a POW or kill him. POWs provided info beyond name, rank and serial number or they didn't come back.

Based on these stalwart men's horrific experiences, the Code of Conduct has been changed. A POW says, "Now the training is to give them something… don't risk permanent damage to health, mind or body."

McCain refused an early release. An act of valor? Three former POWs told me he was ordered to turn it down by his U.S. POW commander and he "just followed orders."

McCain certainly doesn't appear to be a war hero by conventional standards, but rather a tough survivor whose handlers are overplaying the war hero card.

http://hackworth.com/25jan00.html

And Wes Clark nails McCain on how well his experience has prepared him to be CIC:

"The truth is that, in National Security terms, he's largely untested and untried. He's never been responsible for policy formulation. He's never had leadership in a crisis, or in anything larger their his own element on an aircraft carrier or (in managing) his own congressional staff. It's not clear that this is going to be the strong suit that he thinks it is... McCain's weakness is that he's always been for the use of force, force and more force. In my experience, the only time to use force is as a last resort... when he talks about throwing Russia out of the G8 and makes ditties about bombing Iran, he betrays a disrespect for the office of the Presidency,"

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.c...y-clark-an.html

Watch it:

[CCTAU 3,337]

I HOPE you guys keep singing this loud and clear. I mean it's the same thing that was done to Kerry, right? So sing it loud. I'm sure you will convince MOST of America that what happened to McCain was his own fault and that he acted like the little weasel guy in the Chuck Norris movies just to get preferential treatment. PLEASE. I'm begging. Use this info against him. Confront him on this claim.

[GoAU 1,600]

If you have any experience with Hackworth his opinion has always been suspect, or more in my opinion. He has an axe to grind with just about anyone he comes into contact with. I respect his service, but not his writing.

The article he wrote IMO was disgraceful to all POWs. What these guys went trhough was hell, and whether his superiors told him to refuse an early release or not is irrelevant - he could have done it anyway if he were only concerned about himself. If anyone doubts the so called "confession" you have very little knowledge of interrogation - ANYONE would talk, thats why the CoC was rewritten, the idea is merely to talk as little as possible, and hopefully the information becomes "stale" by the time it is extracted and disseminated. This is also the main reason for compartmentalization of information.

I agree there is no way to tell how either candidate will handle a crisis the size of what the CinC could potentially face, but the one clear place where McCain leads Obama is in being able to empathize with the servicemen and women he leads - he's been in their shoes. That says alot, more than anyone who has never served would ever understand.

My beef with Kerry was never with his service - sure there were some embellishments and some conflicting accounts, but he did serve and I credit him for it. My issue with him was how he disgraced the uniform upon his return.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Back to the original point. There may be SOME truth to it. Not that anyone wants an attack, but that there are SOME positives for a war experienced candidate if it happens.

Just like the way Democrats won't admit that a troubled economy, low consumer confidence, and high $ oil is EXACTLY what they want right now.

If the economy and oil prices today were at the same point they were 2 years ago, Obama wouldn't have a shot in hell of getting elected.

[kwagoner 214]

My beef with Kerry was never with his service

Mine either. Too many things fuel my dislike of him.

[kwagoner 214]

If the economy and oil prices today were at the same point they were 2 years ago, Obama wouldn't have a shot in hell of getting elected.

I think the opposite would be true. If 67% of the people want to drill then it seems that the drilling candidate would be favored and get voters based on the hope of lowering gas prices. Obama most likely will be against and most likely McCain will be for it. That leads me to believe that not wanting to dril when prices are not as bad levels the playing field. McCain is probably in a better posistion now than two years ago.

[arnaldoabru 11]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...24/1163501.aspx

And he is a lobbiest. What happened to the "maverick"

[AUTiger1 0]

If anyone in here is stupid enough to believe that John McCain really wants to see another terrorist attack on US soil please raise your hand.