McCain Adviser: Another Attack on U.S. Would Be "Big Advantage" For McCain

***READ BELOW FOR UPDATES - McCain's response, Black's Apology, Obama's Response***

Fortune Magazine is running a profile on John McCain titled, "The evolution of John McCain." McCain's chief advisor, Charlie Black, is interviewed in the piece. Below is a choice quote from Black on why he thinks another terrorist attack on US soil would help McCain win the presidency.

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.

McCain responded to Black's quote during a press conference today. The Senator told reporters, "I strenuously disagree":

At that same press conference, Charlie Black apologized to reporters for his comments:

Black, interviewed by reporters as he stood outside McCain's fundraiser, said: "I deeply regret the comments. They were inappropriate. I recognize that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration."

Barack Obama's campaign issued a response to Black's comments:

"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," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

Comments

[sherbug]

Teflon John is getting a pass, at least on Morning Joe. Their lead story this morning was Imus.

This just shows that the MSM is trying to bury this on the back page of the news. I hope Obama incorporates this gaffe into his stump speech and keeps it before the public. McCrypt is still harping on Obama's bitter remark, so one good turn deserves another, I'd say.

I don't think McCrypt was surprised at the remark, he was surprised that Black let it slip out. Those kinds of remarks are for closed door meetings.

Hopefully this will force the Repunks to take this option off the table.

[Phil123]

What Black said is simply fact.

McCain is percieved (and correctly so) to be a candidate that takes the threat of terrorism seriously. Obama takes it less seriously. You can surmise this from numerous statements that each of them have made.

Many have dismissed terrorism as a real threat simply because Bush has prevented attacks on US soil for 7 years. The very fact that the mention of terrorism is dismissed by many as mere "fear mngering" is evidence that it is not taken seriously by many.

A terrorist attack would certainly put "terrorism" back on the radar screens of those who are dismissive of it, and McCain would "win" on this issue. This is hardly "news."

Hovever, for the Huff Post to write this headline, and to put a picture of McCain giving a "thumbs up" under it was an obvious calculation to imply that McCain wants a terror attack. This is absurd.

We could also imagine a headline that said "Sharp Rise in American Casualties in Iraq Would Give Obama an Advantage" over a picture of a smiling Obama giving a "thumbs up." While the headline is a true statement, the implication would be absurd.

This article is unfair to McCain.

[ThunderclapNewman]

Your desperation is showing.

So is your utter lack of knowledge concerning this issue.

[Phil123]

So why don't you educate us all, Mr. Thunderclap Newman.

Dazzle us with your explanation of how tough Obama intends to be on terror, and how that is a much stronger stance than McCain's.

Let's see who has an utter lack of knowledge.

[idest]

"You can surmise this from numerous statements that each of them have made."

Well, provide some statements. Back your argument up. We'll see how correct the perception is, and how honest you are.

[Phil123]

I'm not providing full documentation in 250 words.

Anyone who follows the "news" (including the media that fawns over Obama... as I recall, he "makes your knees weak when you listen to him" - that news) knows that McCain will continue most of the Bush practices (with some significant differences on the treatment of prisoners), and more or less supports the Patriot Act.

Obama looks at terrorism as a matter for "criminal enforcement," pretty much like Clinton. We were attacked dozens of times overseas, and Clinton never "got" that these were more than just random criminal acts. Obama uses similar verbage.

And Obama has said several times that North Korea and Iran are "tiny countries" that "can pose no real threat." He changed this story later, but the fact that he was of that opinion shows that he doesn't take this stuff as seriously as McCain.

In fact, to people like you (I'm guessing here), McCain engages in "fear mongering" when he talks about terror, and Obama is more of a realist when he says that Iran is not much of a threat. This is exactly my point - and what Black said, which is fact: If a terrorist attack happened, "terrorism" would move up on the scale of "importance" to most people, and McCain's position would be seen as more in touch than Obama's.

This is simply true. No one wants a terrorist attack.

[PineyWoods]

Charlie Black has been around this City for a loooooooooong time. He knows what he can and what he can't say, and what he can say for certain reasons. He said what he said because he's playing to that audience of independents who are a little more on the right, and might not be sure of this Barack Hussein Obama guy. Absolutely cold blooded comments, and if McCain doesn't fire him, that's just confirmation of the fact that his comments were deliberate and served a purpose.

[kay]

It's June, and this is how desperate they are.

Imagine October. Conservatives will be threatening individual voters.

[gladys46]

He gets continued free seemingly semi-fav MSM advertizing! Disparate treatment had any O paid staff said anything remotely close to!

[AlexVonHussein]

If I was Obama I could you this in a Ad.in new york every day. Something like this

You thought 9/11 was bad enough the Mccain campaign believes with Another attack to win an election. Be very prepared and watch out for any suspicious behaving GOP

[dentuso]

The good news?

IF (and I do mean IF) there were back room plans to ensure a disaster of some kind in October, the dancer just popped out of the cake - and the surprise is over. Surely they'd be thinking now about Plan B - understanding that if Plan A was to, in fact, see some sort of catastrophic, election-changing event take place - they simply can't do it now. Every American alive would be staring at McBooshndick.

[kay]

They want to raise the terror threat.

They want to raise the specter of an imminent attack on Iran.

It's a campaign tactic. One or another conservative will say something like this from now until election day. This is, what? Three threats in four days?

They know they can't win without fear.

[gladys46]

Hard to believe that this kind of strategy is thought by Mc & Black a vote getter! The suggestion causes me to recoil! Nov. can't come fast enough! Americans ought to wake up and reject these people forever! Not only should this cause all Americans anxiety, world leaders surely must see this kind of politics as repulsive!

[HAYMONBRANDON]

I AGREE THIS IS A EYE OPENER BUT NOT REALLY THESE PEOPLE ARE WARMONGER I DON'T CARE HOW FOX NEWSHOUNDS TRY TO CUT IT. WHO THEY BRING ON STAGE . IF THE PUBLIC AND WE ARE ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES EVEN THOSE THAT ARE NOT LEGAL DON'T WANT TO GO TO WAR TO GET MORE PEOPLE KILLED ON EITHER SIDED TO GET OUR MAN IN OFFICE THAT'S INSANE. THIS IS CRAZY EVEN THE RIGHT I AM SURE DON'T WANT ANOTHER ATTACK ON THE US COME ON . AND THEY DON'T WISH FOR THAT TO HAPPEN .THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT HATE THAT SEN OBAMA COULD BECOME THE PRESIDENT . I DON'T UNDERSTAND, SO OBAMA IS WORST WE COULD GET TO BE OUR PRESIDENT THIS IS A BRILLANT AN HARVARD GRAD UN LIKE BUSH HE HAS A BRAIN AND SO DOES HIS WIFE .MY GOD THEY HAVE WORKED HARD TO GET WHERE THEY ARE IN THIS WORLD . THEY DID NOT COME FROM MONEY THEY ARE THE AMERICAN DREAM . THAT IS WHY SO MANY VOTERS ARE WITH HIM. HANNITY CAN KEEP DIGGING SO CAN ANY FOX OR CABLE NEWS OR SO CALLED REPORTER.

[Redrover666]

Then you don't read the paper or watch the news much. Hillary said this months ago.

[kay]

As if Black will get fired.

As if. This is a tactic, and Black's not the only conservative employing it.

[justwaitandsee]

On Tuesday, June 24, 2008

The entire Morning Joe Panel didn’t feel there was anything wrong with Don Imus comments.

So the entire Morning Joe Panel believes that Americans Killed would benefit John McCain

So the entire Morning Joe Panel spends more time trying to create negative things against Senator Obama

We all know Mika has no opinions of her but the unbalance of this show is astounding.

I bet if we go back and look at every show we would find an amazingly unbalance attack against Senator Obama and a slightly negative attack against Senator McCain.

Mika doesn’t appear to have that strong connection with the Obama campaign anymore probably because they as we all see is a woman incapable of having her own opinion in a room full of opinionated men. Mika you might want to take a look a Rachel on a Race to the White for some lesson it would probably benefit you greatly.

[Bobby]

Charlie was just trying the old Rethuglican fear card. As the Stones said...Paint it Black, Charlie. Your party reminds me of another Stones classic...Sympathy for the Devil. Except you will NEVER get any sympathy from me.

[Piatt]

I was at the World Trade Center for both attacks. I wonder if Black saw those poor souls jumping from the Towers, or being killed as chunks of the buildings fell off, or being crushed as the Towers collapsed. I wonder if he walked the streets of NYC in the aftermath looking at the photographs of the dead and missing.

If Black thinks another attack will be good for his candidate, I hope they're both at the epicenter. What a hideous thing to think, let alone say. This really does represent Bush 3.

[simplify]

He just said what a lot of right wing nuts and neocons are thinking out loud. Im sure people like Fix news and Joe Scarborough would agree with Black.

[wolf58]

The question is this, will the chicken littles of the country fall for it again? If so then why are they not asking why the Republican lead country has still not got Bin Laden and why would we trust them on a security isue, anyone can see they such at it.

[JTyroler]

It seems a lot of people are saying that an attack on American soil would be a boost to McCain's campaign. I disagree. It would show that with all the assaults on our rights as citizens, the war in Iraq, rendition, Gitmo, the Patriot Act, and every other thing that Bush et al has done for our "national security" HAS NOT WORKED!

Another attack on US soil (and I sincerely hope it does not happen) would only prove that everything Bush et al has done was wrong.

[eclane]

Leave aside the speech police, why is it that Black’s comment helps McCain? Isn’t Bush supposed to be the “stronger on national defense” president. If a bad event happens on his watch, what good was it that he was president? Did he protect us? It seems those who think this statement helps McCain want it both ways. If there’s an attack, it helps McCain. If there is no attack, the “strong president” protected us.


Where’s the logic?

[lovethesinner]

The only advantage an attack would give McCain would be his having an excuse to NOT SMILE for the remainder of the campaign. It's not his age, but a sad fact of his skin cancer that makes him look wooden whenever he tries to smile.

But even this would backfire, ultimately. There is an actually limit to how much people are willing to let themselves be afraid. The fable of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is based on this fact of human nature.

Crying "Wolf" would probably have a reverse effect this time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

But, I wouldn't put it past Bush to be dumb enough to bomb Iran thinking it helps Republicans somehow.

[NotWaldo]

Send Charlie Black in Iraq for a week or two. He needs "a timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world."

[Vinca]

To NotWaldo: Clarke is right, Black should be fired , for making that comment

[Bobby]

Like Bu$h fired Rove and Libby after Plamegate? Oh, that's right he didn't. Yes, Black deserves to be fired, but McCain is beyond that now. McCain sold his soul long ago.