David Kirkpatrick

June 24, 2008

McCain’s top adviser goes there

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 12:08 am

In an unbelievable gaffe, McCain’s top adviser, Charlie Black, went on record stating a major terrorist attack on US soil would help his candidates chances. I’m pretty sure the American public has had more than its fill of campaigns using scare tactics and fear to try and win elections.

In a year where the Democratic faithful are pumped up and enthusiastic and a portion of the Republican base is still openly talking about “punishing” the party for the Bush 43 years, I think floating the idea of terrorism helping either candidate will do no good and probably a lot of harm. Wonder if Black is out after this. I doubt it, but McCain will have to take some public measure beyond this tepid apology from Black:

“I deeply regret the comments, they were inappropriate,” Black said in a statement after McCain said that if Black had made such a comment, “I strenuously disagree” with it.

“I recognize that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration,” said Black, one of McCain’s most trusted political advisers.

Fortune magazine said Black, in discussing how national security was McCain’s strong suit, had said when asked about another terrorist attack on U.S. soil that “certainly it would be a big advantage to him.”

Black’s comment to Fortune was a distraction for McCain as he seeks to catch up to Obama in the polls, where Obama leads by about 6 percentage points.

Obama’s camp quickly came out with this response:

The Obama campaign is going after the McCain camp over top adviser Charlie Black’s claim that a terror attack on U.S. soil would help McCain politically.

Here’s the statement from Obama campaign spokesperson Bill Burton:

“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.”

Note the line about how Obama “welcomes a debate about terrorism” with McCain. That Obama wantsto have a debate about national security is fast becoming an Obama campaign refrain.



1 Comment »

  1. Published on Friday, June 13, 2008

    State of Emergency: The US in the Final Six Months of the George W. Bush Administration
    by Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg

    In short, we are living in an on-going state of emergency whose exact limits are unknown, on the basis of a controversial deep event — 9/11 — that is still largely a mystery.
    – UC Professor Emeritus Peter Dale Scott

    Unhindered by a neutered Congress and a compliant Court, President Bush has six months remaining to pursue his agenda of expanding the war in the Middle East and ensuring the continuation of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) beyond his tenure in office.

    The current administration has taken unto itself unprecedented, nearly hegemonic powers since the events of 9/11. On that day, George W. Bush issued his “Declaration of Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks” under the authority of the National Emergencies Act. This declaration, which can be rescinded by joint resolution of Congress, has instead been extended six times. In 2007, the declaration was strengthened with the issuance of National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51) which gave the president the authority to do whatever he deems necessary in a vaguely defined “catastrophic emergency” including everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack.

    Despite time constraints, there are clear signs that the president, the vice-president and their neocon collaborators are not finished. The constant saber-rattling toward Iran, with strong support from Israel, should send a chill down the spine of any peace-loving American. Military chiefs who oppose the president are “retired,” as observed most recently with the March dismissals of CENTCOM commander Admiral William Fallon and 6th Fleet commander Vice-Admiral John Stufflebeem. Public opinion counts for nothing. In a March 24 interview with ABC’s Martha Raddatz, vice president Dick Cheney responded to a question about the war weariness of Americans with a languid “So?”

    According to J. Scott Carpenter, former deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, Cheney pushed hard for airstrikes against Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases last summer. He was deterred by Pentagon officials who insisted that retaliation might be difficult to contain. Now, with Cheney ally General David Petraeus poised to take over Fallon’s command, a significant obstacle has been removed.

    It seems clear that there is a deadly struggle going on within the US government, a struggle that could well determine not only the election of the next president, but the survival of the republic. On one side are the neocons, the fanatics who led us into Iraq and who believe they alone possess the strategic acumen to usher in a “new American century.” On the other is the Republican Party old guard ostensibly led by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Gates was brought into the administration at the end of 2006 to replace the disgraced and despised Donald Rumsfeld, and generally to ride herd over the neocons.

    The conflict between these factions has broken into the open over the past eight months. The first public signal came in October of last year, when the sixteen US intelligence agencies issued a consensus National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that cut the legs out from under the administration’s argument that Iran was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. The NIE stated that the Iranians had stopped work on the project in 2003.

    Just before Labor Day last year, a B-52 Stratofortress bomber carrying six cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads flew an unauthorized mission from Minot AFB in North Dakota to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana. Due to anonymous, high-level tips to the Military Times, the warheads were recovered. After several seemingly inconclusive investigations of the incident, Pentagon chief Gates fired Air Force Chief of Staff Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne last week, without revealing the role either man played in the nuke heist. Given the volume of evidence that this unprecedented transfer of live nuclear weapons was not an accident, the question remains: what individual or individuals within the government have the authority to commandeer nuclear bombs?

    Conservative pundit Patrick J. Buchanan recently suggested that the neocons might be tempted to go to war with Iran in order to improve John McCain’s chances of winning the presidency. As audacious as that seems, we want to go one step further. We believe that this administration is so zealous, so determined to hold onto power, that they may well stage a “false flag” attack, creating just the kind of “catastrophic emergency” to which NSPD-51 refers.

    On April 29 of this year, CIA veteran Roland V. Carnaby was shot dead by police officers after a high speed chase through the streets of Houston. Carnaby, who had been the CIA’s Chief of Station for the Southeast Region headquartered in Houston, was involved in conducting security surveys of the Port of Houston and had discovered that the Department of Homeland Security was tolerating gaping holes in port security. Carnaby and Houston intelligence and law enforcement personnel were also investigating the presence of “Middle Easterners” who were conducting surveillance of the Port of Houston. The “Middle Eastern” designator is the term used by the FBI for Israelis (typically Mossad agents) in order to avoid “political” problems with superiors.

    Former National Security Agency analyst and naval intelligence officer Wayne Madsen has been in Houston investigating the Carnaby case at great personal risk. Madsen believes Carnaby was involved both in heading off a potential war with Iran (by leaking Mossad plans to assassinate Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah just days before Carnaby himself was killed) and in trying to forestall a potential terrorist attack on the port.

    According to Madsen, “federal agents in Houston fear that ‘another 9/11-type part false flag’ attack is imminent, perhaps as early as July 4.” Such an attack along the twenty-five-mile Houston Ship Channel, site of more explosive materials, toxic gases, and deadly petrochemicals than anywhere else in the country, could create an environmental and economic catastrophe that would dwarf 9/11.

    How will the struggle within this administration be brought to an end? Will courageous military men like Adm. Fallon speak out before the next national tragedy befalls us? Will Congress act decisively to remove the president’s emergency powers, challenge NSPD-51, and defend the Constitution? Will Defense Secretary Gates hold the line?

    With just a half year left in what many believe has been the worst presidency in American history the possibilities are many, and some of them are truly frightening. As citizens of this country, we must do everything in our power to ensure that there is no expansion of war in the Middle East, no “false flag” attack at the Port of Houston or anywhere else, and a peaceful and constitutional succession to a new administration.

    Lewis Seiler is president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former US representative, is executive director.

    Explanation of what did not happen to the WTC towers on 911…

    1 – There was no jet fuel in the buildings when they disintegrated. It had long burned out. Jet fuel (kerosene) burns up in just a few minutes, whether it’s one gallon or 10,000 gallons. Anyone who has started a campfire with kerosene knows this, at least with small amounts of kerosene. The towers stood for 56 and 102 minutes respectively after the alledged plane impacts. If we give the kerosene a liberal 10 minutes to burn up then that leaves 46 and 92 minutes respectively when the buildings are standing there with no jet fuel present at all before they disintegrate-collapse. This reason alone, something that a 12 year old can figure out, is enough for there to have been widespread revolt right after 911.
    2 – Jet planes fly all the time burning jet fuel at its highest possible burning temperature (1,000 degrees centrigrade) and there is no compromising of the structural integrity of the steel in the jet engines.
    All over the world there are in use household kerosene heaters which also burn kerosene at its highest possible burning temperature. These heaters are made of steel about 1/8 ” thick and yet the structural integrity of the steel is not compromised.
    And yet, according to the government version of what happened, we are expected to believe that (EVEN IF THE JET FUEL WERE ACTUALLY IN THE BUILDINGS AT THE TIME OF COLLAPSE) the burning jet fuel from the planes caused the obliteration of about 200,000 tons of massive steel beams and the turning to powder of about 630,000 tons of concrete (which was insulating the steel from heat) all in about 10 seconds for each building????????????????? Add to that the fact that the melting temperature of steel is 1,500 degrees centigrage. That means that the steel has to be at that temperature through and through, not just exposed to air temperature of 1,500 degrees. In a nutshell, 2 + 2 is not 500.
    3 – We are told that the buildings collapsed due to structural failure caused by the fires and that one floor pancaked onto the other causing a sequencial structural failure of all 110 floors of each tower. Anyone watching the videos can see that both towers disintegrated at free fall speed, i.e. the time it would take any heavy object to fall from the top of the towers to the pavement, about 10 seconds. For this to happen at this speed there would have to be no more resistance to the fall of any of the debris than the resistance provided by air. In other words, there would have to be nothing under the debris from each floor as it fell for it to fall at free fall speed. However, there was something under the falling debris, namely about 1,000 tons of structural steel imbedded in about 3,000 tons of concrete for each floor. This would provide thousands of times more resistance (for each floor) to the fall of the debris from the higher floors than the resistance provided by air. So the government’s pancake theory is asinine.
    4 – Even if we were to ignore the preceding three points, there is a fourth observation regarding all of this. An observation of the collapse videos for both towers show that the disintegration-collapse occurred in perfect symmetry (with the exception of the top 30 floors of one tower which began to tip over assymmetrically and then suddenly turned to powder in thin air) all the way down to the ground. For this to happen the support structures for both towers, comprised of a combined 200,000 tons of structural steel imbedded in 630,000 tons of concrete, would have had to have failed in perfect symmetry exactly at the same time. Utterly rediculous from a common sense standpoint and utterly rediculous from a physics-mechanical engineering standpoint !!!


    Comment by James R. Pozlner — June 24, 2008 @ 7:40 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: