Another Terrorible Election

So the "gaffe du jour" is a statement by a McCain advisor that, according to the news, "a terrorist attack in the United States would be a political benefit to the Republican nominee." And of course this entirely realistic, if somewhat cynical, remark was greeted with shock -- shock! -- by both McCain and his opponent. Well, we've been through this before, right? Back in '04 it was all about, would an attack at that point help Bush, and the consesus was yes, it would, since the Republicans were perceived as strong on terrorism, and on national defense in general, and the Democrats were perceived as weak. This was not even considered especially controversial at the time, just a statement of what everyone knew to be the case. But now it's a cause for great alarm and indignation, and the question is why? Candidate McCain provided a clue when he said, "It's not true. I've worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America." Did I say a clue? Wrong, because he clearly doesn't have one. This belongs in the non-sequitur hall of fame. What relevance do McCain's efforts in the anti-terrorism arena have to do with the truth or falsity of the statement? The fact is that McCain's anti-terrorism efforts are the very _reason_ the statement is true. If he had said, "It's not true, because I have no interest in terrorism one way or the other", that would have made sense.

On the Obama side, the statement was received with the predictable shock and scorn, which is a sure sign that a nerve was hit. Of course, Obama could always take the high road and point out that the "war on terror" is basically a hoax, and that, as Ron Paul said, they (the terrorists) are over here because we're over there (in the Near East). But that would take true political courage, and we already know that Obama is a total piece of fluff in that department. So the masquerade goes on.

But let's linger for a moment on the question of everyone's thin-skinnedness on this issue -- especially that of McCain. Why is it _that_ scandalous to suggest that a terrorist attack would help a given candidate? Why, because that might mean -- in some conspiracy-ridden bizarro world -- that someone could stage, or provoke, a terrorist attack for the precise purpose of enhancing their chances in the election. Now, we know this could never happen here.... "but"... how many people are convinced that the government, specifically the Bush administration, "had something to do with" 9/11? Was it a massive provocateur action... or a sting operation, as the Oklahoma City bombing is suspected of being? Was it no more legitimate than the Gulf of Tonkin incident, for example? Or at the very least, was it anticipated but allowed to happen anyway, like Pearl Harbor? We have a long history of suspicious incidents that provided justification for going to war. McCain has already tipped his hand when it comes to Iran. The Bush administration is showing signs of backing off on the Iran brinkmanship, undoubtedly intending to hand the issue off to the next administration, which they hope will be McCain's. But they are laying the groundwork for a war on Iran, as is Israel, of course. But who can convince the American public, and the media, that another war in the Near East is a good idea? The Bush administration has a credibility rating of just about zero right now. McCain would represent a new face, if not a new approach. So the ideal timing, from the McCain camp's point of view, would be: (1) terrorist attack sometime between now and Election Day; (2) McCain is elected; (3) Iran is found to be "behind" the attack; (4) McCain takes office in January; (5) McCain starts war with Iran, with the full approval of Congress and the American people, the media having been at least temporarily declawed. Hey wait, doesn't this scenario sound a wee bit familiar? Doesn't it sound a little too much like the 9/11--Saddam--invasion of Iraq sequence, with Bush's re-election being a bonus? Sure looks that way to me. But! -- you might ask -- the war in Iraq is a total catastrophe! Who would want to repeat it? Well, as I've said before, it's a catastrophe for the American people, but certainly not for their rulers or for the friends of those rulers in the industrial sector. For them, it's pure manna from heaven. But wait! -- you'll say -- Bush has become one of the most despised presidents of all time. How can you say it's good for the "rulers"? Well, who ever said George Bush was "ruling" anything? I'm not talking about him, silly.