Bombs, terrorism and presidential politics
1 comment June 23rd, 2008
Speaking independently of each other in recent days, two prominent Republicans have opined, respectively, that 1) President Bush is more likely to bomb Iran this year if he thinks Barack Obama might win the November election, and 2) John McCain’s chances of defeating Obama will improve if there’s another terrorist attack on the United States before the election.
The first of these nightmares was given voice Sunday morning on Fox News (where else?) by celebrated neo-con Bill Kristol in a discussion with Chris Wallace about prospects for a U.S. attack on Iran:
Kristol: “I think honestly, if the president felt John McCain were going to be the next president he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out. I do wonder with Sen. Obama, if president Bush thinks Sen. Obama’s going to win, does he somehow think that, does he worry that Obama won’t follow through on the policy…”
WALLACE: “So, you’re suggesting that he might in fact, if Obama’s going to win the election, either before or after the election—launch a military strike?”
Kristol: “I don’t know. I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can’t, it’s hard to make foreign policy based on guesses about election results…”
The second was made public today with word that Charlie Black, McCain’s chief strategist, told Fortune magazine that another terrorist attack on American soil “would certainly be a big advantage for him (McCain).”
Black added that the assassination last December of former Pakistan leader Benazir Bhutto, though it was ”an unfortunate event,” actually “helped us (the McCain campaign).”
McCain, by the way, was quick to disavow Black’s statements. But will he, as we say in politics, throw his chief strategist under the bus?