Charlie Black's Terrorist Attack Comment—a Flub or the Quiet Truth?
Charlie Black, a former lobbyist and close adviser to Sen. John McCain, told Fortune that a "fresh terrorist attack 'certainly would be a big advantage' " to McCain politically. He added that the December assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto helped McCain in the Republican primaries. McCain quickly condemned his aide's remark. But some say that Black was only expressing what pols have privately been saying for months—that national security events would only underscore a natural advantage the GOP has in that area. Was Black wildly out of line? Or did he merely make the mistake of speaking the truth? Post your thoughts below.
Previously: Is Barack Obama or John McCain a worse flip-flopper?
Reader Comments
Mc-Cain to Face the Republican Firing Squad
Charlie Black has given up on Insane McCain, the Podhrentz Neo-Con puppet.
Terror Attack
Overall...sad but true. If the attack can be directly linked to either a group, country or individual, then we would have to attack in response. But, if it is a situation, like Iraq, where there are no links, then bad for the Republicans.
Charlie Black
Since it appears that American politicians should never tell the truth if it creates a PR problem it was ipso facto unwise for Charlie to say what he did. Of course he was totally accurate and that may well be the reason there have been no attacks lately. .Obviously the terrorists will be far better off if Obama wins - especially with a Democratic Congress to abet and support his naivety.
advertisement
