A Terrorist Attack = McCain's Miracle?

In an interview with Fortune Magazine Charlie Black, McCain's chief advisor, said something rather off-putting:

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.

Alright, now let me do a little prefacing here first. First, the article starts off with a lie, "On national security McCain wins." This is no doubt in here because Fortune is a conservative, pro-business publication. Does John McCain really win on national security? Does one of the Iraq war's biggest supporters win on national security? Given that the Iraq war has stretched our military to its breaking point, fueled anti-American sentiment around the world, no doubt greatly increasing terrorist recruitment and anti-American fanaticism in the Middle East, took our focus off the real terrorists like Osama bin Laden whom we've failed to find 7 years after 9/11, enabled al-Qaeda to build up even stronger than its pre-9/11 levels, and made Americans less safe all around (according to every intelligence agency including the CIA), I really wouldn't say that McCain "wins" on national security. McCain simply wants to continue the same failed policies of Bush that have made America less safe and more hated. No, on national security McCain most definitely loses.

Alright, now the bad part. Charlie Black, someone who would essentially be the Karl Rove of a McCain administration (that is if McCain didn't tap Karl himself, which he probably would), said that he thinks another terrorist attack on the United States, like the one on September 11th, would be a "big advantage" to McCain's campaign. What is worrisome, beyond that he would make political calculations like that, is that Republicans actually think another terrorist attack would help McCain beat Obama.

And then you have the recent Newsweek poll that shows Obama with a strong 15% lead over McCain nationally, and all of the electoral calculations showing Obama with a clear path to victory and McCain with a huge uphill battle. And then you have this running through their heads. Yes, they need a miracle. Yes, they need a deus ex machina to win this election and keep their greedy grip on power for at least another four years. Yes, a terrorist attack may be such an event, and probably the only event, that could give McCain better odds of winning on November 4th.

Now the scary part: Who is in charge of keeping a terrorist attack from happening now? George W. Bush. The same George W. Bush who ignored warnings about impending terrorist attacks before 9/11, and literally vacationed while he was letting Osama bin Laden strike.

Now imagine its October, McCain is still down in the polls by 15% or more, you can picture the media grudgingly writing his political obituary, and all looks grim for the GOP. Then Bush gets another one of those pesky intelligence warnings about an impending terrorist attack and Cheney/Rove/McCain/Black or someone else whispers in his ear "George, just look the other way", and suddenly another one slips through his fingers, and McCain gets his miracle. The Republicans spring into action with their fearmongering and attacks on Obama, they ramp up the jingo machine and drape themselves in the flag and pray that their poll numbers go shooting up just like last time they exploited a terrorist even for their political gain. Maybe it would boost McCain to a win, maybe it wouldn't, its hard to say, but the scary part is, the Republicans might believe it will. Would you seriously put it past them? Seriously.

This is what worried me about the recent FISA battle. FISA is a perfect tool to use in such a shadow plan to paint the Democrats, specifically Obama, as weak on terror. The FISA bill that just moved through the House is crap, plain in simple, it expands the president's power to spy on Americans and violate Constitutional protections over privacy, and even worse it gives telecom companies that knowingly violated the law retroactive immunity from prosecution. The presidential power part can be undone by the next, more Democratic, session of Congress and President Obama. The immunity can't be undone. Of course with Bush in the White House and a Congress completely unwilling to hold him accountable for breaking federal laws, it doesn't really matter what the law says now does it? But that is another story. Obama had to support the so-called compromise. If he opposed it and it didn't pass, the Republicans would embark in a major disinformation campaign to paint the Democrats as weak on "terror" and if a terrorist attack did occur, you can be sure that the Republicans would blame the Democrats' rejection of the FISA bill (even though the existing FISA bill already gives the president more than enough power to combat terrorism). If Obama had opposed it and it had failed in the Senate I'd be even more afraid of Bush purposely letting a terrorist attack slip so they could exploit it politically. I don't think many people who were upset about Obama's less-than-enthusiastic support of the FISA legislation (minus the telecom immunity that he has said he'll try to get removed) really had an understanding of the very fine line he has to walk. They failed to see the political context or the strategic bigger picture. They placed way too much meaning into that single vote, which hasn't even occurred yet.

Let me tell you what I hope happens now. I hope that the Democrats manage to get the telecom immunity stripped from the FISA bill and I hope they send it to Bush without telecom immunity so that he is "forced" to veto the bill, since he has pledged to veto any bill that doesn't give full legal immunity for his corporate friends. Then, the tables are turned and suddenly it is Bush who is "putting the nation at risk" by playing politics (or playing corporate whore) with national security. Suddenly if terrorists strike, it is Bush and the Republicans who are going to be in the hot seat because they put corporations over the safety of the American people (or so it would look, according to the Republicans, who like to pretend our existing laws aren't good enough). I think there is a much smaller chance of Bush letting a terrorist attack slip past if the guilt could easily be pinned on him. If that is what Obama had planned all along, he is brilliant.

Anyway, I will be on the lookout for any other hints that McCain, Bush or any other Republicans are alluding to a future terrorist attack. If such an attack does occur, it better be quickly investigated to discover whether or not the Bush administration had any warning. Let's just leave it at that for now, if the worst should happen, be suspecious, but nothing is a coincidence with these people, and nothing is sacred, just look at the war in Iraq waged for corporate profits that has led to the deaths of many more Americans than died on 9/11, you can't tell me that they wouldn't sacrifice a couple hundred or a couple thousand more Americans to change their political prospects around.

Oh yeah, and for those who don't recall Charlie Black, here is a refresher:



Update: Obama's campaign responds:

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.

Notice they begin with saying that Obama welcomes a debate over national security with McCain, perhaps to hit back at the beginning of the offending quote that asserted that McCain wins on national security. Obama has made it clear throughout this campaign that he will not shy away from the national security or foreign policy debate like other Democrats have because he knows how to fight back, and he has the facts on his side. In other words, bring it on.

Update #2: I should also point out, as the Obama campaign has, that McCain said something similar about benefiting politically from tragedy. Following the tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto:

In an interview with reporters after the event, McCain said, "I would hate for this tragedy to affect anyone's campaign." But he was quick to add that "my theme throughout this campaign has been that I'm the one with the experience, the knowledge, and the judgment. Perhaps it may serve to enhance those credentials."

This is not insignificant, because it shows that McCain looks to major tragic events, like a political assassination or a terrorist attack as something that would help him politically by giving him an opportunity to "enhance" his "credentials" (read: fearmonger and pretend he doesn't have a horrible record on national security and foreign policy).

In Defense of Rev. Wright

If you want to see the actual context of Rev. Wright's comments, instead of just the cherrypicked versions the media is forcing down everyone's throats, you can watch them here:





The second video shows how his "chickens coming home to roost" comment actually comes from the comments of a US ambassador, which he then relates to a lesson from the Bible, not nearly as shocking when it isn't being distorted by the media.

Yes, he speaks rather flamboyantly, but in reality his comments weren't all that out there if you look at the substance. His comments were born out of frustration and a personal understanding of racism and history in our country, something that most people want to pretend doesn't exist and doesn't matter anymore. And to use one example, his condemnation of our foreign policy and drawing the link between our foreign policy and 9/11, what is most amazing is that so many people were shocked by his statements (even if taken out of context), that somehow drawing the link between our foreign policy and 9/11 is taboo, despite bin Laden flat out saying that our foreign policy as the reason for terrorist attacks against Americans. We are so caught up with Bush's rhetoric about terrorists hating "our freedom" and "our democracy" that to mention the obvious facts of our past and current involvement in the Middle East (and around the world) is somehow sacrilege. We have employed terrorism and backed ruthless dictators all over the world, at least he is pointing out the real reasons for anti-Americanism, albeit in a somewhat sensationalized manner, instead of white fundamentalist Christian hacks like Pat Robertson who say that the blame for 9/11 falls on homosexuals, feminists and not having enough prayer in schools.

Now on his comments about the government's involvement with spreading AIDS I think people should be a little more historically open minded. But first, let's actually look at the context of his comment:

This government lied about their belief that all men were created equal. The truth is they believed that all white men were created equal. The truth is they did not even believe that white women were created equal, in creation nor civilization. The government had to pass an amendment to the Constitution to get white women the vote. Then the government had to pass an equal rights amendment to get equal protection under the law for women. The government still thinks a woman has no rights over her own body, and between Uncle Clarence (Thomas), who sexually harassed Anita Hill, and a closeted Klan court, that is a throwback to the 19th century, handpicked by Daddy Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, between Clarence and that stacked court, they are about to un-do Roe vs. Wade, just like they are about to un-do affirmative action. The government lied in its founding documents and the government is still lying today. Governments lie.

The government lied about Pearl Harbor. They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Governments lie. The government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin. They wanted that resolution to get us in the Vietnam War.Governments lie.

The government lied about Nelson Mandela and our CIA helped put him in prison and keep him there for 27 years. The South African government lied on Nelson Mandela. Governments lie.

The government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposely infected African American men with syphilis. Governments lie. The government lied about bombing Cambodia and Richard Nixon stood in front of the camera, ‘Let me make myself perfectly clear…’ Governments lie.

The government lied about the drugs for arms Contra scheme orchestrated by Oliver North, and then the government pardoned all the perpetrators so they could get better jobs in the government. Governments lie.

The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. Governments lie. The government lied about a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and a connection between 9.11.01 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Governments lie.

The government lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq being a threat to the United States peace. And guess what else? If they don’t find them some weapons of mass destruction, they gonna do just like the LAPD, and plant the some weapons of mass destruction. Governments lie.

Now I'm not offering a blanket endorsement of Wright's views on every subject, but in his examples here he is absolutely right. His point in this sermon was that governments lie to citizens from time to time, which was undoubtably part of a larger point which was to show that God is more perfect and honest than government, that people should put their trust in God. Now whether or not you believe in God, or gods, or the Tooth Fairy, you should be able to see that this wasn't the paranoid rant Fox News and the rest of the media (and Hillary) made it out to be.

And in response to the AIDS comment specifically I can certainly understand suspicion in the black community toward the government when it comes to diseases. At the time Wright was forming his worldview it was revealed that the US government was involved in unethical medical experiments on blacks where they denied the black subjects cures for syphilis--the US government was essentially using blacks as lab rats. Our government has used smallpox to help eradicate Native Americans. As recently as a few decades ago our government was funding research on torture on unwilling participants (MKULTRA), and we are currently torturing people today. On top of that, the original source of HIV/AIDS is still disputed, and one of the theories involves it being spread in Africa through polio vaccinations with US government funding, which I'm assuming is what Rev. Wright was referring to. Now I have no idea what the truth is (as I haven't studied the subject extensively), but given the history, and the unanswered questions, I don't think it is all that crazy for some people to think something like that is a possibility. I personally wouldn't make the claim without having some good evidence (and there have been books written on this, which I haven't read, so I can't say whether or not the evidence is conclusive), but I know, as does Wright, that our government has done very immoral, very horrible and unethical things, so it is hard to put much past them.

Anyway, I wish I could say that this was all Fox News, but all of the mainstream media is pretty much complicit in spreading this crap story using clips deliberately taken out of context. Of course Fox has taken the lead, especially Sean Hannity.

But hey, I guess that's what happens when the media is so head over heels in love with you. Poor Hillary, it must be so hard to have the media attacking her like this...

Oh...wait...

Update (3/26): Here is another video that goes against the media's (primary lead by Fox News) attempt to paint Rev. Wright and his church as racist, crazy and black separatist. While I find religion pretty silly in general, I at least understand it, and I can at least realize that the flamboyant nature of these sermons aren't as out there as they may seem to some outsiders.



The video contains some examples of "weirder" religious customs, and I'll add another one, close to home for the conservative religious fundamentalists who are leading the attack against Obama. Watch this and tell me who is more out there, who is more sadistic and immoral, the person who correctly points out that US foreign policy has something to do with anti-Americanism and terrorism, or these shameless snakes:



Or let's be outraged by the priests who molest children, and then get little more than a slap on the wrist afterwards. So really, a little perspective and reason is well deserved.

Update (3/26): A pastor at Hillary's longtime church defended Rev. Wright, and specifically in response to Hillary's shameless attempt to revive the fiasco (read: Fox News smearjob) for her political gain:

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize.

Update (4/7): Watch as The O'Reilly Factor's producer goes out on a witch hunt against Rev. Wright (yes, both Fox News and the Hillary campaign are both pushing this still, beating the dead horse), and watch as Father Pfleger puts him in his place: