Is the McCain campaign hoping for another 9/11?

[Popeye]

You have to wonder after what McCain top adviser Charlie Black told Fortune Magazine:

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.

The Obama campaign has responded with this statement:

"Barack Obama welcomes a debate about terrorism with John McCain, who has fully supported the Bush policies that have taken our eye off of al Qaeda, failed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, and made us less safe. The fact that John McCain's top advisor says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a 'big advantage' for their political campaign is a complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change. Barack Obama will turn the page on these failed policies and this cynical and divisive brand of politics so that we can unite this nation around a common purpose to finish the fight against al Qaeda."

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_campaign_mccain_advisers.php

 

[Pandora]

An attack would probably be helpful more to McCain than to Obama.

I remember in 2004 people thought Bush would make his own attack just to scare people into voting for him.

I have a hard time accepting that anyone Bush, McCain or Obama would purposfully cause an attack, but I guess anything is possible.

It seems though that Bush would not want an attack so He would be able to say there were no more attacks after 911 on his watch.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

One McCain did not say anything, in fact made statements against what was said. Why is it people have a hard time with the fact that evryone that works for you, or you know....when they say something...that its the same as you said it?

2.its maybe true But I hope we dont find out.

 

[Libsmasher]

As Michael Kinsley of The New Republic once said, a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. This is the truth, just as it's the truth that the level of violence is down 80% in iraq compared to before the surge is harmful to democrat prospects.

 

[Pandora]

As Michael Kinsley of The New Republic once said, a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. This is the truth, just as it's the truth that the level of violence is down 80% in iraq compared to before the surge is harmful to democrat prospects.

But you do not think they want an attack do you?

It is pretty clear an attack would help the republicans but you do not think the republicans actually want one to happen.

 

[GenSeneca]

But you do not think they want an attack do you?

It is pretty clear an attack would help the republicans but you do not think the republicans actually want one to happen.

Lets say Republicans are the meglo-maniacal war machines they are made out to be, cold, calculating and underhanded in every way...

We all know Republicans are heartless bastards, so we're going to ignore the cost in human lives completely - they wouldn't factor in such mundane things anyway as it may interfere with the master plan.

Karl Rove, the architect of Republican political strategy, is certainly a calculating person. He would have to recognize a few factors working against allowing a terrorist attack on America.
1. Republicans have abysmal poll numbers and are viewed suspiciously.
2. Republicans are under a great deal of scrutiny already and the leadership necessary to pull this off are already involved in investigations into other areas of the Administration.
3. An attack while approaching an election, with Obama's popularity, could be the tipping point that pushes America to the left for protection.

Should there be another attack on the US, AND, whether or not its allowed to happen: Bush would be crucified by the media and the Left as being totally incompetent and since McCain is already painted as Bush3, the pounding will be relentless. Thus, Obama would win the Election and the Democrats would be in a greater position of power. Not worth the gamble on any level.

Republicans are every bit as human as Democrats, I don't think anyone of our elected officials would really hope for, wish, invite or otherwise allow a terrorist attack if they could prevent it.

As we have seen, Prevent an attack and people question whether or not there was really a threat stopped - new Conspiracy Theories are born - and you get very little if any press time for the victory.

Fail to stop an attack and your legacy as president is written by those who least like you.

 

[Pandora]

Lets say Republicans are the meglo-maniacal war machines they are made out to be, cold, calculating and underhanded in every way...

We all know Republicans are heartless bastards, so we're going to ignore the cost in human lives completely - they wouldn't factor in such mundane things anyway as it may interfere with the master plan.

Karl Rove, the architect of Republican political strategy, is certainly a calculating person. He would have to recognize a few factors working against allowing a terrorist attack on America.
1. Republicans have abysmal poll numbers and are viewed suspiciously.
2. Republicans are under a great deal of scrutiny already and the leadership necessary to pull this off are already involved in investigations into other areas of the Administration.
3. An attack while approaching an election, with Obama's popularity, could be the tipping point that pushes America to the left for protection.

Should there be another attack on the US, AND, whether or not its allowed to happen: Bush would be crucified by the media and the Left as being totally incompetent and since McCain is already painted as Bush3, the pounding will be relentless. Thus, Obama would win the Election and the Democrats would be in a greater position of power. Not worth the gamble on any level.

Republicans are every bit as human as Democrats, I don't think anyone of our elected officials would really hope for, wish, invite or otherwise allow a terrorist attack if they could prevent it.

As we have seen, Prevent an attack and people question whether or not there was really a threat stopped - new Conspiracy Theories are born - and you get very little if any press time for the victory.

Fail to stop an attack and your legacy as president is written by those who least like you.

I do not think anyone would let it happen on purpose or be glad it happened.

I think it’s sad that anyone would think that.

Your point is interesting how you think it would help Obama. I don't think I can agree that it would help him, but it would be terrible for Bush and why would Bush want to leave on such a bad note, especially on purpose.

Hopefully we won’t get any more attacks, but that does seem Pollyannaish.........eventually it is going to happen again and probably be worse than last time.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

As Michael Kinsley of The New Republic once said, a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. This is the truth, just as it's the truth that the level of violence is down 80% in iraq compared to before the surge is harmful to democrat prospects.

I thought I was going to have to attack you again for saying LIbs...as I supported the surge long long ago ...but you said Dems....

 

[pocketfullofshells]

But you do not think they want an attack do you?

It is pretty clear an attack would help the republicans but you do not think the republicans actually want one to happen.

Its not Clear, just possible, it could just reinforce the idea Republicans did not do enough and for all the personal liberties they took, they still cant stop a attack.

 

[GenSeneca]

all the personal liberties they took

List them...

Please include the relevant legislation or executive orders that were responsible for revoking personal liberties.

(all of them and Patriot Act are incorrect answers)

 

[pocketfullofshells]

so list them, but dont say the one that took many of them away or eroded them...

 

[GenSeneca]

so list them, but dont say the one that took many of them away or eroded them...

Please cite the specific Titles and/or sections in the Patriot act that you feel violate or erode the rights of innocent citizens. Remember, there have been numerous amendments to the original act, each one strengthening the protection of civil liberties and increasing oversight. Its also important to note you are aware of the Patriot Act, its predecessors were far more insidious and completely secret.

The Patriot Act, its activities and legal basis are under constant review with both congressional and judicial oversight. A paranoid public and media keep a close eye on everything our government does, we have a system of checks and balances which has been demonstrably proven to work - even with the Patriot Act.

When it first became active, there were at least 7 abuse cases that I know about - The government arrested 7 drug dealers with no ties to the middle east or terrorism. I raised hell and I wasn't alone. The purpose was not to make the war on drugs stronger, it was to stop terrorism. The uproar was sufficient to make the proper changes in legislation through the system of checks and balances.

We needed "Definitions, Outlines and Rules" to fight the war on terror. I Don't complain about their existence, we need them, instead I'd like to make them better, stronger and constantly focused on the intended purpose.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Please cite the specific Titles and/or sections in the Patriot act that you feel violate or erode the rights of innocent citizens.

The Patriot Act was never necessary to stop terrorism. We could stop terrorism if the government wouldn't block investigations:

After September 11th, FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley wrote a scathing letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller over what she characterized as FBI Headquarters' pre-9/11 blocking of her Minneapolis Field Office's attempts to investigate "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui, whom they had arrested the month before the attacks.

Rowley was called to testify before the Senate and later the 9/11 Commission and was named 'Time Magazine's 2002 "Person of the Year" for her efforts to bring the truth to light in this matter.

Link

And disarm our pilots:

Armed pilots banned 2 months before 9-11: FAA rescinded rule allowing guns in cockpits just before terror attacks

Why would anyone trust a government that does things like this to write up a "Patriot Act" to stop terrorism?

The U.S. government is creating terrorism through it's actions overseas. For example, why were hostages taken in the U.S. embassy in Iran in the 70's?

It was because in Iran, in 1953, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected leader so that British Petroleum could maintain rights to the oil. The oil nationalization bill passed unanimously in the Iranian Parliament. I don't believe in socialist policies - however - that was what their democracy decided. The Shah - the U.S. puppet - had a secret police force that made several people "disappear." And that was the spark that caused the Iranian hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy. Not because they just woke up one day and decided to "hate us for our wealth and freedom."

The CIA's own report, which you can see in the documentary "Why We Fight," stated that the United States should expect "blowback" - meaning violent retaliation - for its role in the coup.

The U.S. has been sticking its nose in Iran and the Middle East for quite some time. It's actions have led to the imprisonment, torture and/or death of innocent people there. In many cases that leads their surviving friends and family to seek revenge. Sometimes this practice manifests itself by the election of radical leaders who preach against the U.S., as in Iran, sometimes it manifests in terrorism. But it all stems from U.S. involvement in the region.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Lets say Republicans are the meglo-maniacal war machines they are made out to be, cold, calculating and underhanded in every way...

We all know Republicans are heartless bastards, so we're going to ignore the cost in human lives completely - they wouldn't factor in such mundane things anyway as it may interfere with the master plan.

It's not that the Neocons are completely heartless. I would speculate that they do have some form of love, for themselves and for their own families, but they obviously don't give a damn about other people. They either ignore or pretend things like this aren't really happening. And they don't think about the women that have taken up prostitution as a result of being torn away from their homes because of the war in Iraq. They just don't think about them. They just focus on believing they're right about everything, and that the ends justify the means. And they delude themselves into believing God wants them in power and that they need to allow terrorist attacks to wake up the rest of the people who "just don't get it" - even though those are people that will have to do the fighting and the dying in a war and not the elitist Neocons.

So, it's not that they're heartless, just that they're extremely misguided. Much like the Democrats are on domestic policy. You think Democrats really stop to think about the people they're stealing from via taxation and the harm this is causing to the poor and the economy? No, they think they're doing the right thing. Just like the Republicans on the Iraq issue...