Dr. J.'s Commentary: The Charlie Black [re]Mark of [Mc]Cain

So we have had Charlie Black's comments about how useful for the GOP another terrorist attack on the U.S. would be, preferably if it came before the election. "Certainly it [such an attack] would be an advantage to us," he said. The quote first surfaced a couple of weeks ago in a leak of a Fortune magazine interview with him. It got a bit of play last time. Let's hope that it gets more now, for it is really worth while looking at and evaluating.

Black, of course, immediately apologized for saying such a dastardly thing. Black said in fact: "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." (Well, there was a bit of hyperbole there. Black couldn't have included the time McCain spent as a member of the Keating Five or the time he spent dumping his first, somewhat dumpy wife, for a rich beauty shortly after he returned from those five years in a Vietnamese prison. But let's not be picky.) So from this quote, Black regretted the comments themselves, it would seem, but not their content. That is, he regretted expressing his thoughts on the matter. He did not express regret that he thought them.

Although it wasn't played that way in the media, Black's apology was aimed primarily at the McCain campaign and Republicans who think like Black does. That is, Black was saying, "Ohmygosh, I shouldn't have said out loud what all of us think, now should I. What a terrible mistake." As for McCain himself, he just phumphered around as he usually does with tough questions, until he could figure out a way to turn the focus to his so-called "national security credentials." Actually for him, he moved fairly nimbly on that one, coming up with: "I cannot imagine why he would say it. It's not true. I've worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the Untied States of America. My record is very clear."

Absolutely fascinating, folks. The real problem with what Black said, indeed reflecting the views of a certain type of Republican, is that somehow an attack that could be characterized as "terrorist," that took American lives numbering from one to who knows how many Charlie Black might have in mind, could be seen as helping the Republican Party. The matter here is not that Black said such a thing but that he obviously thinks such a thing: American deaths that could be tied to foreign terrorists would benefit the Republicans. (Obviously, Black is not thinking about the American terrorists who blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building, folks who not only look like what many Republicans like folks to look like, but hold to many of their views on matters such as abortion-rights, political homophobia, how undocumented aliens should be dealt with, and the unfettered ownership of guns. But that's another story.)

Then there was McCain's fascinating response, not commenting on the meaning of Black's comments at all but also referring to his "years of service to the country." McCain too did not say "No, this position absolutely does not represent mine. How could anybody think that American deaths here at home could help me and my party." Oh no. His response was about how he has "defended" his country. This whole episode is painfully reeking of Republican thinking. Too bad no one on the mainstream media (or even much in our media as far as I have seen) can see it -- and use it.

Yes indeed, the Obama campaign could so easily pick this one up and go on the attack with it, if they choose. A two-prong attack would be available to them. First is to use the observation above. "Fascinating, isn't it folks, that the Republican nominee's principal advisor could think that an attack leading to the deaths of who knows how many Americans could benefit him in the election." Second would be to go on a full-throated attack on the Bush-McCain record on actually dealing with terrorism. I have dealt with this issue here and elsewhere for quite some time.

Briefly: 9/11 occurred on Bush's watch, after he had been repeatedly warned of its possibility right from the outset of his administration. Where were those guys? Asleep at the switch, it would seem. As is well known, Bush's foreign policy has made al Qaeda stronger not weaker, and has by many accounts (including those from his own intelligence agencies), made more terrorists, not fewer. (Obama uses this one already.) The only job his Dept. of Homeland Security seems to do well is domestic spying.

You don't need to be fighting in Iraq and destroying civil liberties at home in order to prevent terrorist attacks. The Clinton Administration aborted both the 1998 "12-airliner-destruction plan" and the 2000 "Millennium Bomb Plot" to blow up Los Angeles International without resorting to a never-ending foreign war or the use of torture or the deep-sixing of the Bill of Rights.

Here's some ammo, Obama people. Let's hope that you use it.

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY), a weekly Contributing Author for the Web zine The Political Junkies.net; a Special Contributing Editor for Cyrano's Journal Online; and an invited contributor to the Web log The Daily Scare.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

buzzflash | delicious | digg | yahoo | technorati