Charlie Black, that big campaign strategist for John McCain with lobby ties and all the wrong types of friends around the world, said in a Fortune mag interview that a terrorist attack on American soil "certainly would be a big advantage" to McCain.

Apparently he's now beginning to backtrack on that statement.

Is this how low presidential politics in America have come? So low, so fast. It seems like every other day we're burdened with bullshit issues like this. But this bullshit issue is kinda sick.

I mean, whose thinking this way in America? The truly petty? I have to question anyone's patriotism when they suggest that 3,000 more US deaths due to terrorism would be good for their campaign. But would it? So the Republican Party has lead America for 8 years, doubled the deficit, overseen practically no job growth and a record number of manufacturing jobs go overseas, and they would benefit from having those 8 years bookended by terrorist attacks here at home?

I think another terrorist attack before Bush leaves office would put the nail in his and his party's coffin. Unless of course Americans are really the sheep that they're becoming and just get played by the fear card again.

According to a Rasmussen poll taken at the end of May, McCain enjoys a 53% to 31% advantage over Obama on national security issues. So, while making a statement like this out loud isn't really the greatest idea, it's not an absurd idea to hold.

Indeed. It may not be a smart thing to voice, but it is probably true.

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
Matthew 5:9

I don't understand these polls. What qualifies McCain at being better equiped to handle national security issues? Don't tell me it's because his plane got shot down 40 years ago and he was held captive for all that time. Or because he supported monkey-face Bush in his two simultaneous war adventures, one of which in a country that neither Bush nor McCain clearly understood beforehand. They didn't even know that there were three different sects of people in Iraq before the war.

Like Bush, McCain was confident and absolute that the war would be done and over with in a matter of weeks, not a generation or two or three. McCain just blindly went along, and then pushed back when he knew he wanted to run for President, and now is happy to take all the credit for the so-called "Surge", which was a policy that didn't actually add anymore additional troops to Iraq, but only returned troop levels back to where they had been a year or so before.

The success of the surge came when the Bush administration ran out of ideas and began paying off 100,000 militia and former Baathists to run the areas they've occupied instead of actually dealing some kind of reconciliation pact or engaging with them in any substantive way. When the money stops flowing and the people want to return to Iraq, all the problems will kickstart once more.

McCain is the dumbest of dumb warriors, involved in the never ending war in Iraq which has now become a huge nation-building project that directly counters true Republican principles.

The results of these polls are baffling and suggest that Americans are actually getting dumber and dumber in their knee-jerkness.

The only side that is truly capable in America of dealing with National Security issues is the side that recognizes that America's presence in the Middle East is the big problem and not the solution. McCain said last week, "it's not our presence in Iraq that matters....it's the troop deaths". That ought to disqualify him outright to be President since it shows a clear lack of understanding of foreign affairs in itself.

When it comes to matters of national security, Democrats are a great big pack of whining pussies. Americans understand that, and would vote accordingly.

If we were to be attacked, Obama would want to talk and reason with whoever did it. I'd be willing to bet he'd even make concessions to keep them from doing it again.

One of the things McCain is often criticized for is his temper. Well, there's a time when having a temper is just what the doctor ordered.

Anyone who thinks that Obama handling such a situation would net a positive result is fuckin' delusional...

McCain, IMO, is more qualified to handle national security issues than Barrack Obama due to his extensive military, and govermental experience. He comes from a prominent military family, and gratuated from the United States Naval Acadomy at Anapolis. John McCain has also been in the senate for over 22 years, and has made a name for himself crossing party lines to get things done. Arguably most importantly, McCain IMO, is more willing to use force when necassary than is Obama to protect our country.

Compare McCains experience and accomplishments to Barracks, or lack there of. Obama has absolutly no military experience, has only been in real politics for 3 years (2 of which were spent campaigning for POTUS), and has implied an unwillingness to use force to secure national security. Agree or disagree, I think its pretty clear why the majority of Americans would feel safer with MccCain as POTUS.


I'm not going to address the rest of your insult ridden post, but will give you one word of advice: It doesn't look very good to preach about partisan voters destroying america, then immediatly create a new thread that couldnt be any more underhanded or partisan.

Classy. Imagine the uproar if someone said "monkey-faced Obama"

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what's for dinner.
Liberty is a well armed lamb willing to contest the majority decision!" ~ Benjamin Franklin
"Diplomacy is the art of saying Nice Doggie! while you're looking for a rock. ~ Wynn Catlin
"There are no innocent civilians." - Gerneral Curtis Lemay. A.K.A Bombs away Lemay

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

It's less to do with the indivisual and more to do with the Party. The Republican Party has long been viewed as the tool of the Defence Department and defence contradtors. As a generalisation, Defence D'ment budgets generally decline under Dem administrations and increase under Republicans. This seems to equate in the minds of some that means the Dems are weak on national security. Quanity doesn't necessarily equate to quality, as the national defence of my own nation proves. Australia has one of the smallest defence budgets (as a % of GDP) in the West, yet our armed forces are among the best equipped and well trained. There's a reason that Australian special forces are sent into hotspots in Iraq and Afghanistan to clear the way for US forces to follow. The major difference between the US and Australia in this respect is that we have almost zero of our own defence contractors that are forcing up the costs of budgets and as such have little-to-no influence in policy and defence strategy.

You contended that a terrorist attack on American soil would be bad for McCain. The most current polls we have on the issue suggest that's probably not the case. The fact that said polls don't say what you want to hear isn't particularly relevant.

That would be a side that doesn't currently exist at the national level. I have heard absolutely nothing from Obama that would even hint at a desire to reduce American involvement in the Mid-East. Obama as President would employ different tactics than Bush in foreign policy (so would McCain, for that matter), but American grand strategy isn't going to change no matter who's in office. The foreign policy Obama would be likely to pursue would be different from Bush's foreign policy in terms of tone; but anyone expecting a difference in terms of substance is going to be sorely dissapointed.

I will now refer to him as "Obama: Boy Chimp".

I won't do it because I want to be racially devisive, or because I think his color matters. I'll do it just to piss off the libs (which is so fucking easy to do)...

McCain is an idiot. I saw his mealy mouthed answer to this so-called controversy. If he had any brains at all (or me as campaign adviser) he should have just said:
"Look, folks, Black may not have said it clearly enough, but my party is seen as more qualified in terrorism affairs than Democrats and if we were hit again people would want me, and my party, in the White House instead of a Democrat."

Not that I totally agree with that sentiment, but if he had honestly come out and said the guy was right in what he said, at least MY opinion of him would have gone up some.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Yeah, but it doesn´t make much sense. Bush looks vaguely like a chimpanzee, Obama doesn't.


Now, if you said Obama-Dumbo-Ears, on the other hand...

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
Matthew 5:9

IMO If we suffer another terrorist attack, after all the the GOP talking about how they are better at National Security it will just show that they aren't that good at it. They would be held completely responsible for their failed policies. I'm not saying the Dems are any better. Just that after the GOP talking about it. They would go down in flames.

Thats how it should go down....but Americans would most likely not stop and think for a min about it and realize that the GOP is the problem. They would just vote McCain into office.

Chimps have big ears, too: