McCain Advisor Suggests Another 911

FRESNO, California (Reuters) - A top adviser to Republican presidential candidate John McCain apologized on Monday after he was quoted as saying a September 11-type attack before the November election would benefit McCain.

www.reuters.com...

Laid clearly before you, is the mentality of the elite that support McCain. It certainly makes you wonder about 911 itself. Let's get to the meat and taters of this - the guy is just flat out suggesting another false-flag attack to get the puppet into place.

Just like Billary's comment about possible assisinations -- this a X-ray into a dark soul -- as one journalist described it. Here's another X-ray for us. Is our children learning?

I find it hard to believe that a McCain adviser would be clumsy enough to actually say this out loud, much less in an interview! It's almost like he's hoping for it. Or else hoping to remind people that it could happen.

I have said before that that's one of the only ways they're going to win. And I think they know it. Culture of Fear. It's scary, all right.

reply to post by TheObjectReport


I am not McCain supporter by a long shot but that is not exactly what he said... He said another terrorist attack would help McCain true but that is not the same thing as suggesting another 9/11... I know that will sound like I am splitting hairs, what he said was bad enough but nowhere did he literally evoke 9/11.

This is a topic that should probably be discussed. All the conspiracy theories aside as to who is organizing the attacks. If an attack does happen would it benefit one cadanite or the other. If it were to benefit McCain would a feorigen nation hostile to the U.S. continue operations against the U.S? If not would that mean that Obama is getting support from otherwise hostile feorigen nations?

Apparently this fellow has been a lobbiest for some of the most oppressive regimes on the planet.

Another 911? Which was a New Pearl Harbor.

'Well if we can't win the election on our own merits and capabilities, we could always just pray for a terrible disaster to occur, or make one happen ourselves...'

Maybe if they were able to pin the attacks on Obama's Kenyan half brother, then they could kill two birds with one stone. That would be an almost Coup de Ta.

I imagine that they would probably 'stage' the attack in Chicago, to better screw Obama's campaign, right? They could even hire a stunt double, and then digitally put McCain's face on the hero's body, as he saves hundreds of people from a burning Sears Tower while swinging from a firehose a la Die Hard. I bet if they got Stanley Motss to produce and direct it all, it would be a great success for their campaign.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." --- George W. Bush, September 17, 2002

"Fool me once Shame on you Fool me twice Shame on me." --Chinese Proverb


DocMoreau

Originally posted by TheObjectReport
Laid clearly before you, is the mentality of the elite that support McCain. It certainly makes you wonder about 911 itself. Let's get to the meat and taters of this - the guy is just flat out suggesting another false-flag attack to get the puppet into place.

He suggested no such thing. He is not "flat-out" suggesting anything of the sort, and you are purposefully twisting his words. He was asked a question by a reporter, and he gave her an honest answer.

What he did was give voice to what the public-at-large already believes, but dares not speak. It is a political reality that the public-at-large sees Republicans as strong on national security, and Democrats less so. They may not say it, but everyone from Democrats to Republicans feel that if there was another terrorist attack in the US, it would help the Republicans at the polls in November.

McCain's advisor's mistake was admitting this political-reality. The only people who are shocked by this are those fool ignorant to political-realities, or those pretending it doesn't exist so they can twist his words. A far-cry from knee-jerk hysterical suggestion that he is "flat-out" wanting another terrorist attack.

And to be certain, if there was another attack both sides will try to spin it to their advantage.

There will be no terror attacks before the election. Terrorists know that this will be harmful to their preferred candidate Barack Hussein Obama, so they will wait till after the election. It will come.

What if someone said, "If we had another Hurricane Katrina, it would benefit Obama." Would he be criticized the same way? Because he would be telling the truth just like McCains advisor.

reply to post by SaviorComplex

I agree that this is something that some refer to as "pillow talk" as in something you say between friends but not in public, but I wonder if something did happen if it would really help McCain.

Wouldn't another terrorist attack show that the current policies aren't working? Oh I know, that is one way to spin it, even though it would also be a reality. More pillow talk?

Actually, I do suspect an October surprise in the form of an air strike in Iran before the election, but who knows. We will see.

Originally posted by RRconservative
There will be no terror attacks before the election. Terrorists know that this will be harmful to their preferred candidate Barack Hussein Obama, so they will wait till after the election. It will come.

Do not be so sure he is their prefered candidate.

Sure, before the 2004 election, Bin Laden released a tape "endorsing" Kerry. But do you really think he was endorsing Kerry? Bin Laden is a very smart man; he knew exactly what effect the tape would have.

I have little doubt that if he could vote in the '08 election, Bin Laden would be pulling the lever for McCain. He wants the US to continue the policies that have lead us playing into his hands for 8 years.

Originally posted by RRconservative
What if someone said, "If we had another Hurricane Katrina, it would benefit Obama." Would he be criticized the same way? Because he would be telling the truth just like McCains advisor.

No, because he doesn't have an (R) beside his name and he isn't mentioning a word that happens to begin with a "T." But Democrats fear monger as much, if not more, than the Republicans; they just are not using terrorism (as much).

[edit on 25-6-2008 by SaviorComplex]

It's no surprise he would say something like this honestly. As others have said, this is generally the mentality of the American public.

It's no secret that Democrats are viewed as very weak on national defense, and for good reason.

McCain may not be the best candidate by a long shot, but I think people would feel safer with him at the helm than Obama.

I think we can rest assured that while McCain would be retaliating and trying to get the people responsible for an attack, Obama would be apologizing to the terrorists and trying to find out what we did to make them angry.

Originally posted by nyk537
I think we can rest assured that while McCain would be retaliating and trying to get the people responsible for an attack, Obama would be apologizing to the terrorists and trying to find out what we did to make them angry.

Obviously, you still don't understand why we were attacked on 9/11, do you?

Under the assumption that Bin Laden was behind 9/11, he said it was because of US foreign policy in the ME and a military presence in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia. So didn't GB appease our enemy by moving all military assets out of SA and into Iraq? Could that be why we haven't had another attack since? And don't get me started about going after the terrorists with Bin Laden still around. It's almost like they don't want to catch him.

Regardless, I don't see how republicans can be viewed as being tougher on terrorists.

Originally posted by Hal9000
I agree that this is something that some refer to as "pillow talk" as in something you say between friends but not in public, but I wonder if something did happen if it would really help McCain. Wouldn't another terrorist attack show that the current policies aren't working?

Despite the political-realities of how people view the strengths and weaknesses of the two parties, I wonder the same thing. I will go so far to say that in theory it would give McCain a boost. Fortunately, all we've had to go on is theory; in the post-9/11 political world, Republicans percieved strength on national security is predicated on the fact there have been no further attacks on American soil, and their percieved strength-of-will to pursue our enemies.

But in practice it may not be the case. The percieved Republican strength on national security could be broken in an instant. And the Democrats would damn sure hold it up as a proof that the Republican policies are not working. They made lame attempts of it in the past, from Hillary Clinton's "What did he know and when did he know it?" speech, to ocassional Democrat rhetoric that Bush has made America less safe. But it's hard to make a case we are less safe when you have no proof (in the form of a terrorist attack) of it. It is very possible the next time Americans see fireballs, crumbling buildings and broken bodies beamed into their homes, they will be furious with the Republicans, giving the Democrats a boost in the polls.

Hopefully, though, we'll never find out if these political-realities are as true in practice as they seem to be in theory.

Originally posted by Hal9000
I wonder if something did happen if it would really help McCain.

I think it would. They would spin it as "more work to be done", "We can't leave Iraq now because the terrorists are still out to get us", "They hate our FREEDOM"! sort of thing. Fear is the great manipulator and the US has proven time and time again that it can easily be manipulated by fear.

In fact, I'm a bit suspicious if this whole thing was even an accident. And here's why. Black also said that the assassination of Bhutto in December helped McCain win the primary (based on fear).

Of Black's statements, McCain said:

"I cannot imagine why he would say it. It's not true..."

Source

What does he mean "It's not true"? It's absolutely true! In fact, after the Bhutto assassination, McCain used the assassination to bolster his position in the primaries. He has echoed Black's sentiments several times before! After the Bhutto assassination:

cnn

In a campaign that had been drifting toward economic issues, the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the turmoil in Pakistan could refocus voters on who is best qualified to deal with crises in other parts of the world.

"My theme has been throughout this campaign that I am the one with experience, the knowledge and the judgment. So, perhaps it may serve to enhance those credentials," said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona.

And when an "Osama bin Laden" tape was received in 2004, prior to the election, McCain said it was "very helpful to President Bush".

Source

U.S. Sen. John McCain, campaigning in southwestern Connecticut on Saturday, said Osama bin Laden’s video message to Americans will likely energize President Bush’s re-election campaign.

“I think it’s very helpful to President Bush,” said McCain, R-Ariz., while stumping in Stamford for U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays. “It focuses America’s attention on the war on terrorism. I’m not sure if it was intentional or not, but I think it does have an effect.”

So, how can he say that what Black said "isn't true"? He KNOWS it helped him, He SAID it helped him.

Keith Olbermann's Take on Black's Statement

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What does he mean "It's not true"? It's absolutely true!

Because while the political-reality is that intuitively people feel it is true (at least in theory), the other political-reality is that you are not allowed to say so.

And a third political-reality is that terrorism is almost taboo. If you mention terrorism and have an (R) beside your name, you stand risk of accusations of fear-mongering. Terrorism is becoming the only subject that is not allowed to be fear-mongered (unless you have a (D) beside your name).

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it wouldn't help McCain. I'm saying that in reality, republicans are really not tougher on terrorists. An attack would help him only because it is a perception by the public that republicans are tougher. I think the perception of democrats being softer comes from Bill Clinton, but when he tried to do something like bomb terrorist camps, republicans claimed he was wagging the dog. It's all a bunch of BS.

I think you are right that it all comes down to perception in this case, but I don't think it goes so far as a generalization between the parties themselves.

I think this perception right now is the Republican candidate would be tougher on terrorism, not necassarily the party in general.

This stems, in my opinion, from Obamas policies of meeting with radical leaders without preconditions, and other comments he has made in regards to national defense.

Not saying it's justified, (although I think it is)... I"m just saying.

Oh, I agree, Hal. It's all about perception.

And nyk537, I think it IS about the parties. Any Republican (of today) is seen as being better for the fight against terrorism. Because they're seen as being "tough guys". (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, McCain, Guiliani)

And Obama being willing to speak frankly with our enemies is seen as being "soft" or "weak". When in truth, it takes a pretty strong person to stand up and TALK with his enemies instead of bombing them.

"The notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous," he said in an interview outside his Senate office. "But the general principle is one that I think Senator Clinton is wrong on, and that is if we are laying out preconditions that prevent us from speaking frankly to these folks, then we are continuing with Bush-Cheney policies."

Source

Just some thoughts...

To add to that, I asked the question about if the reason why North Korea is now cooperating with dismantling their nuclear program peacefully after the six party talks was due to "talking to our enemies" in this non-responded news post.

N.Korea invites media to nuclear plant blast

I think it depends on who is doing our talking for us.

[edit on 6/25/2008 by Hal9000]

Originally posted by Hal9000
To add to that, I asked the question about if the reason why North Korea is now cooperating with dismantling their nuclear program peacefully after the six party talks was due to "talking to our enemies" in this non-responded news post.

I don't think anyone actually believes that North Korea is dismantling their nuclear program.

And even if it is true, this is what the US wanted. They wanted the six-party talks; it was North Korea and critics of the administration who wanted single-party talks.