John McCain and Charlie Black's October Surprise

John McCain's top advisor, the Washington lobbyist Charlie Black, told Fortune magazine recently that another terrorist attack in the United States would "be a big advantage" for McCain in the coming election. "Certainly, it would be a big advantage to him," he asserted. On another occasion Black talked up how the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan would have played well for Republicans.

Now isn't that special?

Here is the leading strategist for the Republican Party's nominee for president publicly surmising that if Al Qaeda or some other extremist group kills a bunch of innocent Americans his candidate will benefit politically. Black's callousness is just the latest example of the pathological cynicism of our toxic political discourse. If we had any decency Charlie Black would be run out of town on a rail. We should shame McCain into firing this specimen.

In any case, Charlie Black's prediction about how the American electorate would respond to another terrorist attack is stretched at best and total bullshit at worst. Any honest observer would take a look at George W. Bush's approval rating, the number of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq, and the backlash of the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London, and conclude just the opposite. But Charlie Black is not an honest observer. He displays the moral integrity we might expect from a man who lobbied on behalf of Ferdinand Marcos, Mobutu Sese Seko, and Jonas Savimbi. Hell, he might as well moonlight when he's not riding the "Straight Talk Express" to give a helping hand to Robert Mugabe.

But the really chilling thing about what Charlie Black told Fortune magazine is the mindset it reveals. We're in big trouble if the McCain people really believe this stuff. They might truly believe that any act of violence that reminds Americans of the "war on terror" will cut their way this November. They might even believe that a well-timed military strike against Iran will do the trick and help them win the election. If they really see political gold in another 9-11 what would stop them from being delighted if Bush attacked Iran if the timing were right, say in mid- October? "National Security" would be thrown onto the front burner of American politics and shift the debate over to McCain's putative turf.

There are historical precedents for this type of thinking. Although it is impossible to prove conclusively, there is evidence that in 1968 and in 1980 the Republican presidential campaigns engaged in their own freelance foreign policy to gain domestic political advantage. In 1968, the Richard Nixon campaign used its secret contacts with Anna Chennault, the widow of the famous "Flying Tigers" commander General Claire Chennault, to urge the South Vietnamese government to scuttle the Paris peace talks. The Nixon campaign feared that Vice-President Hubert Humphrey would get a boost if some kind of peace accord were reached before the election. President Lyndon Johnson knew about these contacts because he had bugged South Vietnam's embassy. Hence, the Republican Party might have blocked winding down the Vietnam war in order to win the election of 1968.

In 1980, the Ronald Reagan campaign allegedly used secret contacts to get word to the Iranian regime of Ayatollah Khomeini that the Islamic Republic would get a better deal if they held the 52 American hostages until after the election. The Reagan campaign feared the Iranians would release the hostages to President Jimmy Carter. Some of the "cut-outs" and arms dealers and other intermediaries who might have orchestrated the deal, such as the Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar, later surfaced when Congress began investigating the Iran-Contra scandal. The motives behind the secret arms transfers to the Iranian regime during the Reagan Administration were never fully explained. Ultimately, George H. W. Bush pardoned over a dozen operatives who were facing criminal convictions for their Iran-Contra activities, and many of them ended up in high-level positions in George W. Bush's administration. (If McCain becomes president we can expect a similar bevy of pardons for Bush's cronies. That's why Bush desperately wants McCain in the White House to give him at least four years of cover-up that only a do-nothing Justice Department can provide.)

In 2008, an October Surprise might take the form of a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. "National security" would be front and center, which Charlie Black believes helps McCain. It could also put Barack Obama on the defensive. Obama could find himself in the unenviable position of having to answer the war hawks. McCain will throw red meat to a voracious corporate media about how Bush's "prudent action" saved Israel or even Europe from future nuclear annihilation. And if Obama sheepishly concurred it would be a disaster for the Democrats. With his tough talk on Iran at a recent gathering of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Obama has boxed himself in. In the event Bush attacks Iran we must press Obama to stand firm in opposition and show us that he doesn't "do cowering."

Every time I hear any American politician threaten Iran with military violence I ask myself: Don't these guys understand how fucking crazy an attack on Iran would be? My guess is that after the initial assault there'd be a short lull, maybe a week or two, and Bush and McCain will declare "Mission Accomplished" while the corporate media celebrates. And then all hell will break loose in the Middle East. Energy markets will go nuts. And the United States will find itself in a shooting war with a nation of 70 million people. War-weary Americans will have neither the money nor the will to pursue a war against yet another Islamic nation. The skies above Haifa will light up with Katyusha rockets. And we can kiss Iraq goodbye, not to mention the free flow of the world's oil supply. If Bush orders air strikes on Iran before he leaves office for whatever reason, political or otherwise, it will be a catastrophe.

McCain's key strategist believes a terrorist attack against Americans will help his campaign. They might also believe that some form of military action against Iran could be beneficial as well. That's a very dangerous scenario. But with Karl Rove and his Mayberry Machiavellians still creedling about in the shadows who knows how far these people are willing to go.

Comments

[gro]

John Bolton is quoted as saying that Israel will attack Iran AFTER the November elections and before any change of US administration.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6107#more-6107

[gro]

There will be a full moon in mid-October. The new moon will be October 28th, exactly one week from election day.
If this disaster unfolds, I have questions. How many American soldiers will be held ransom? How many billion dollar machines sunk? How much for another gallon of gas?
And who will pay the ultimate price for another aggressive war?

[SilviaMaria]

Great post. I knew about the 1968 election because of the movie documentary on Henry Kissinger, how Mr. Kissinger kept the republicans informed of what was going on during the negotiations. Sad to think that the Vietnam war could have ended earlier but Republican "political" reasons made it impossible. Regarding the 1980 election, again to use the hostages crisis and the hostages to win the election ... this just tells you what kind of morals Republicans have: NONE; they will stop at nothing to win. And regarding the Iran-Contra scandal, I always found very hypocritical, especially if you think that at the same time of the Iran-Contra exchange of arms, the US were selling weapons of mass destruction to Irak and Sadam Hussein and both countries were at war.

A war against Iran would be a disaster and I just hope that if there is a strike against Iran before the elections, people in this country do not forget what is happening in Afghanistan and Irak, and what is happening at the home front and vote wisely. Do we really want to engage in wars with all the countries in the world? We can not just go around hitting and beating the hell out of every country in the world just because we do not like them. What kind of lesson are we teaching to our children?

[PepperzMom]

One thing this whole scheme forgets:
the ECONOMIC crash that will happen w/ an unprovoked attack in ME or an attack on US soil . Oil supply? Gone. Markets? Tanking. Jobs? Slashed.

Only a Shrubbish mind would never consider this factor...after all, what's the economy to him?

Re-thuggers had better re-think their buy-in on this...if it happens before the election, I think the Re-thuggers can kiss there chance of holding any seat g'bye!

[littleblackcat]

That leaves it to those of you who have a speaking platform to get your message out to the American people. Get yourselves on programs like Good Morning America, Today, Morning Joe, 60 Minutes, McNeil-Lehrer, and keep this mesage front and center. Get on CNN, a whole network that seems to ignore the real issues at all times. 99% of the country is so battered by ever-rising costs of living that the mental stress we are living under doesn't allow us to focus on the people responsible for the problem. Most of the news is controlled by corporations who are coddled by the repu party and it is past time to throw in their faces that they are not holding up the portion of the load that is theirs, to report the truth, to do it in a way that is understandable by the average person, to ask honest questions that demand complete and truthful answers of those in powerful positions, and to cover ALL positions. No one can make a wise decision if they have only a fraction of the facts.

[Via]

Pelosi and Conyed to start impeachment investigations against Bush and Cheney NOW, and keep them both under a microscope until after January, 2009. Biden said that if Bush attacks Iran it would be an impeachable offense. It wouldn't just be an impeachable offense - what it would be is too effing late.

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

You know that's a great point -- I hope it never happens -- but we know Cheney sure wants it, as well as the neo-cons -- we'll see. They might conclude that such a strike would hurt them politically, but Black's talk is not soothing. They might have an idea that Bush must act because, as William Kristol said the other day, if Obama is going to win then they won't be able to hit Iran (perhaps) and then there's a nuclear armed Iran -- I wouldn't put anything past these people. thanks for the comment

[jvarga]

That's definitely true, and there are always compelling reasons like you listed. It's probably just the optimist (???) in me thinking that those guys figure that they can get away clean with what they've done so far and that they might not want to risk it by doing anything too stupid between now and january.

[jvarga]

Remember hearing about strikes on Iran as ways to sway the 2006 and 2004 elections? Are we just going to keep predicting this until it eventually happens?

[tompoe]

Excuse me. We have the Towers buildings all collapsing in free-fall mode, and you're still waiting for "it" to happen? HELLO!!