Frank Rich reads Charles Black's mind

Frank Rich asserted Sunday that John McCain adviser Charles Black's comments to Fortune magazine (which McCain repudiated) weren't an "improvisational mishap":

Don’t fault Charles Black, the John McCain adviser, for publicly stating his honest belief that a domestic terrorist attack would be “a big advantage” for their campaign and that Benazir Bhutto’s assassination had “helped” Mr. McCain win the New Hampshire primary.

In private, he is surely gaming this out further, George Carlin-style. What would be the optimum timing, from the campaign’s perspective, for this terrorist attack — before or after the convention? Would the attack be most useful if it took place in a red state, blue state or swing state? How much would it “help” if the next assassinated foreign leader had a higher name recognition in American households than Benazir Bhutto?

Unlike Hillary Clinton’s rumination about the Bobby Kennedy assassination or Barack Obama’s soliloquy about voters clinging to guns and faith, Mr. Black’s remarks were not an improvisational mishap. He gave his quotes on the record to Fortune magazine. He did so without thinking twice because he was merely saying what much of Washington believes.

Even if we grant that the second paragraph is satirical hyperbole, the third paragraph makes a direct claim -- that Black's remarks "were not an improvisational mishap" because he "gave his quotes on the record to Fortune magazine." In fact, however, the remarks were almost certainly an improvisation -- Fortune, not Black, raised the issue of another terrorist attack on the US, as Bob Somerby pointed out (emphasis added):

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an "unfortunate event," says Black. "But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black.

You certainly can't assert that Black intentionally raised the issue -- that is, unless you write novels about politics for a living.

Comments

[Jinchi]

Fortune may have raised the issue, but it's long been conventional wisdom among Republican officials, the press and quite a few Democrats that another terrorist attack would be "good news" for Republicans.

Before January, another attack was certain to result in a landslide victory for Rudy Giuliani.

“If we are still at war, and we get hit again, I think that changes the dynamics,” says Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State. “[Giuliani] is seen as a strong leader.”

Here was Charlie Black on the subject:

When he speaks of possible setbacks in Iraq and a long fight against terrorists, analysts say, Mr. Giuliani enhances that image, sounding tough but realistic.

“I think it’s an effective pitch,” said Charles R. Black Jr., a Republican consultant who is not involved in the 2008 campaign. “The idea that the war on terror will go on for a generation plays to his strength.”

And here's a short collection of quotes from across the political spectrum:

“We’re one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court” - David Addington

...

"You know, we are one terrorist attack away from John McCain I'm sure rising in the polls by ten points" - Bill Maher

...

"[I]f certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again - Hillary Clinton

[David]

If another terrorist terrorist attack were to occur before the election, would it help McCain's campaign? Probably, yes. But, when a McCain spokesperson gives this honest answer, it sounds as if he's hoping for another attack or that he's more focused on the election than the well-being of the American people. I guess that's why the comment is considered politically damaging.

Black was unsolicitedly asked to speculate on the political ramification of a hypothetical event. He foolishly played into the hands of opposing political activists when he complied.

Was Black's speculation accurate? A clue comes from John Kerry, who said the November 2004 bin Laden tape criticizing Bush cost Kerry the election.

[Brendan Nyhan]

For the record, whether Black is right or not has nothing to do with whether Rich characterized his statement accurately.

Of course you are right Brendan; your post concerned the accuracy of Rich's words, not Black's. I think I and another commenter wandered from that point because nobody really expects accuracy from Frank Rich.

[Jinchi]

I'm not as concerned with whether Black is right or not as I am concerned that he (and others) believes what he said. The latter has disturbing implications for the direction we take as a country.

If the Republicans believe they gain strength whenever the country is a war they will constantly call for war. If the Democrats worry that opposition to war makes them look weak, they will never oppose reckless military policies. This is a recipe for a nation perpetually at war and we're already seeing the results. Both the previous Republican majority and the current Democratic one have rubber stamped rapidly increasing demands for Iraq war funding while expanding executive power and stripping away civil liberties protections.

As for Rich's characterization, it's little known and likely to be quickly forgotten.

[David]

Jinchi, the comment was that Reps would benefit from a domestic terrorist attack, not that they would benefit from war. The war in Iraq sure hasn't made Republicans more popular.

Ironically Bush may have hurt his party's chances in 2008 by preventing domestic terrorist attacks so effectively for the last 7 years.

[Jinchi]

Jinchi, the comment was that Reps would benefit from a domestic terrorist attack, not that they would benefit from war.

That's a distinction without a difference. The threat of terrorism was used to justify the war in Iraq, is still used to justify a decades long presence in Iraq, not to mention a wider war in the Middle East. Republicans believe that staying in Iraq plays to their own strengths. Democrats fear leaving will brand them as cowards. Your observation that the war in Iraq hasn't made Republicans more popular hasn't swayed either party from that belief. (I think they're wrong, but that's beside the point.)

And, from my first comment, Charles Black himself is on record claiming that a generational war plays to a candidate's strength (at that point Giuliani, but also to Republicans in general). The Saber rattling against Iran and Syria as well as the occasional "bomb bomb Iran" and "nuke Mecca" comment is evidence that he isn't alone in this viewpoint.

[David]

The threat of terrorism was used to justify the war in Iraq, is still used to justify a decades long presence in Iraq, not to mention a wider war in the Middle East.

I agree, but is that good or bad? If the threat of terrorism is overstated, then Bush's aggressive policy deserves criticism, as does McCain's likely continuation of that policy. OTOH, if there is a real threat of major terrorism, then an aggressive policy is appropriate.

ISTM that another major terrorist attack in the US shortly before the election would convince many voters that terrorism was a major threat that needed an agressive response. Hence, such an attack would tend to help Republican candidates.

[Jinchi]

ISTM that another major terrorist attack in the US shortly before the election would convince many voters that terrorism was a major threat that needed an aggressive response.

It would convince me that George Bush had failed to prevent a major terrorist attack twice during his presidency. I'm not sure that sells the same way you do.

As for the aggressive policy. It's only appropriate when directed at the perpetrators of terrorism.

You credit Bush with effectively preventing terrorist attacks over the last 7 years, but al Qaeda never demonstrated the ability to attack the United States frequently. On 9/11/2001, it had been over 8 years since the previous successful attack by a foreign terrorist group so it's hardly astounding that we've survived the last 7.

Better to look at the numbers of attacks worldwide, which were always more frequent and are higher today than they were before the Iraq war, according to the State Department. Those include significant attacks in Indonesia, Spain, England and Turkey and of course Iraq and Afghanistan. Couple that with the resurgence of the Taliban, the escape of bin Laden and the safe haven al Qaeda has gained in Pakistan and at best we've achieved a bloody stalemate after huge failures at a long term cost of more than a trillion dollars.

Jinchi:

If you think Bush more than Clinton failed to prevent 9-11, you should read "The Looming Tower", an excellent book by Lawrence Wright.

Al-Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole occurred in October, 2000. The attacks on two US African embassies were in 1998.

What do you think would be the political fallout from a massive Iranian nuclear attack on Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities? And how could a person blame that attack on Bush?

Maybe all Bush's "saber-rattling" upset the mullahs? Or maybe Bush distracted our country from the growing Iranian threat by his concentrating on Iraq? How about both reasons?

Of course if Bush were to take preemptive action against Iran to stop Iran's attack, that would be another senseless Bushian war crime, right?

It's a tough world when nobody's actions mean anything except the Bush administration's.

[Jinchi]

What do you think would be the political fallout from a massive Iranian nuclear attack on Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities? And how could a person blame that attack on Bush?

David postulated another major domestic terror attack in the United States before the next election. That would be a complete repudiation of the administration's argument that they need extralegal powers to protect the country. Bush would deserve the blame for any such attack because defending us from terrorists is what he claims he does best.

Bush also gets the majority of the blame for the attacks on 9-11 because they happened on his watch and he had warning that al Qaeda was planning a major attack on the United States. (A plan to use multiple commercial aircraft was public knowledge years before 2001).

The attacks on the Cole and the African embassies took place on foreign soil, outside of the security of the United States. (The 1993 WTC bombing was the next most recent attack by foreigners on US soil). Attacks on foreign soil have always been easier to carry out and much more frequent. Those attacks have become more prevalent and more deadly since Bush launched his War on Terror which is a pretty good indication that he's doing something wrong.

As for your question about a massive Iranian nuclear attack on Tel Aviv - Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. It's not going to get them before Bush leaves office. Odds are that it'll never get them at all. Bush won't get credit for preempting a non existent threat and the fallout would likely be worse than the chaos that followed his last attempt at preemption.

[otey]

I think Brendan's main point is being missed.

He is not making a substantive point about the correctness of Black's statement.

Brendan's point is epistemological. It's that Frank Rich is indulging in a common (but fallacious) method of describing Black's thought process.

Brendan is clearly correct about Rich.

What's interesting is why Rich felt he had to address the topic the way he did. There are easier, cleaner ways to say what he wanted to say. Rich might have simply said that Black's views were often discussed in private but rarely spoken in public or something like that.

Part of the allure of whiggism (the epistemological problem noted above) is the cheap drama it can provide. Given what I know about Rich, he couldn't resist. Nor do I expect he will try very hard to resist in the future. It's too easy to do in front of an audience of editors and readers who don't even see it.

I don't think anyone here is missing or differs with Brendan's original point, otey; we're just talking about something else now.

Jinchi posits: "Odds are that [Iran}'ll never get [nuclear weapons] at all." Odds are, if he makes that bet, he will lose, and soon.

Jinchi posits: "[An attack on US soil] would be a complete repudiation of the administration's argument that they need extralegal powers to protect the country".

So I assume Jinchi thinks the the administration legitimately needs and should have such "extra-legal" powers? If Jinchi doesn't think this, his point is either absurd, or he absurdly regards such an attack as a good thing.

Somehow I don't think Jinchi agrees that Bush should have such powers, thus one must conclude... what Jinchi?

[Howard]

One can conclude that even though Bush has already assumed "extra-legal powers" we don't know to what extent that will (or can) prevent a terrorist attack on our soil.

It logically follows from Jinchi's position that he thinks our country's protection from attack is helped by the Bush administration's having what Jinchi regards as "extra-legal" powers.

Why? Because if, as Jinchi states, an attack is a repudiation, then no attack is logically a validation of the contention that our government needs such "extra-legal" powers to protect the country.

As Howard states, no one really knows if the evesdropping powers the administration has sought (and now has received from Congress) will protect us from attack. All one can do is speculate.

And neither an attack nor an absence of attack is a repudiation or a validation.

[Jinchi]

So I assume Jinchi thinks the the administration legitimately needs and should have such "extra-legal" powers? If Jinchi doesn't think this, his point is either absurd, or he absurdly regards such an attack as a good thing.

It logically follows from Jinchi's position that he thinks our country's protection from attack is helped by the Bush administration's having what Jinchi regards as "extra-legal" powers.

First off, the only people who claim such an attack might be a "good thing" are conservatives who believe that it would help the Republican party win elections (Newt Gingrich described it as "one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration" that Bush hadn't allowed an attack to get through to "remind us").

And secondly, I suggest you look up the definition of "non-sequitur" before you make any more arguments based on logic. Your statement falls into the "Socrates was mortal. I am not Socrates. Therefore I am immortal." category of sophistry.

Please explain how, Jinchi, if you consider an attack on the US a clear refutation of Bush's strategy, no attack is not a validation of it.

Thank you.

[Howard]

Let's agree that this statement is accurate and to the point: "neither an attack nor an absence of attack is a repudiation or a validation."

Let's also agree that people who envision such an attack as being potentially favorable politically are simply making what they consider to be a realistic assessment and aren't "hoping" for an attack.

That includes Charlie Black, who said (from my reading) that he thinks McCain has more Foreign Policy experience than Obama and would benefit if Foreign Affairs became a larger issue in the campaign, relative to other issues.

That also includes Newt Gingrich, who said (from my reading) that he thinks people have become complacent about the threat of terrorism and that if there were more domestic terrorist acts people would be more agreeable about granting "extra-legal powers" to the Executive Branch.

Let's also agree that the vast majority of people who disagree with actions taken by the Bush Administration (in whole or in part, in approach or in execution) do not do so because they "want the terrorists to win" nor because they just want to "blame Bush".

That will still leave lots of other things to disagree about (including the actual opinions that Black and Gingrich expressed and questions of "fear mongering", on one hand, vs. "complacency in the face of danger", on the other).

[Jinchi]

Please explain how, Jinchi, if you consider an attack on the US a clear refutation of Bush's strategy, no attack is not a validation of it.

The Republicans and the president in particular have repeatedly told us that we have to sacrifice civil liberties in order to stay safe from terrorism. (A favorite phrase is "You have no civil liberties if you're dead".) If major attacks happen anyway, then what's the point of sacrificing the 4th amendment, the right to habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the constitutional checks on the President?

On the other hand in order to validate Bush's actions, you'd have to conclude all of the following:

1.) There have been attempts to launch major terrorist attacks on the US since he began those policies.

2.) His actions in contradiction to US law stopped those attacks.

3.) Those attacks couldn't have been stopped otherwise.

Bush has also repeatedly argued that the president should be able to act alone, in secret, without Congressional or Judicial review and that he is not bound by the law. That means that you also have to explain why 2 branches of government are a threat to national security, while the 3rd one is not.

You have not addressed my simple question in a logical way. You have only pointed out that you do not, in principle apparently, like any policy if it can be connected to Bush.

My point was that no attack is no more of a validation of Bush's actions than an attack is a refutation of them. That point is untouched by you.

A reasonable person can disapprove of some of the administrations decisions regarding detainees, some of which test the limits of established laws. That is why the US Supreme Court has recently involved itself in clarifying some of these limits.

Your comments show you have no idea of the established US legal status or the long history of habeas corpus or the Geneva Convention in regards to their application to enemy fighters.

Regarding your second paragraph, what specific civil liberty have you, or anyone else you can specifically name, sacrificed under Bush's policies? Please give an example.

[Jinchi]

If you think your original question was untouched by me, then we truly aren't speaking the same language.

And considering that several U.S. soldiers are in jail for committing acts identical to those outlined, defended and implemented by the President's legal team, I'd say the courts have done more than "clarify" the limits of the law.

As for your final point, if you aren't concerned about civil liberties until the authorities are kicking in your door, then you don't understand how they work. We know from the record that the current government has put even the Quakers under surveillance for holding anti-war meetings (which is why people don't trust that wiretapping Americans without a warrant is truly focused on a terrorist threat). They've had people detained, arrested and charged for peaceful dissent in public forums, and attempted to strip at least one American of his citizenship in order to keep him locked up indefinitely, without charge, legal representation or trial. They also acted to turn the Justice Department into an arm of the Republican party.

[ERF]

I ask you to elaborate on your "examples" (please note: Daily Kos and Huffington Post commenters don't count as sources).

I'm especially interested in seeing specific information on those people whom, you claim, the current administration "detained, arrested and charged for peaceful dissent in public forums".

Please give names, not baloney, this time for all the offenses you charge, so that the few readers that are still with us can see the hollowness of your argument.

Jinchi, your bluff is being called.