McCain strategist Charlie Black recently made the mistake of saying what was on his mind, suggesting that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil “Certainly…would be a big advantage to him [McCain].”

The elite commentariat have coalesced around the idea that this represents a gaffe in the Kinsleyan sense, “when a politician tells the truth.” That is, that Charlie Black’s words, while inartful, were essentially true, and that another attack would indeed advantage McCain.

This is all based upon the assumption that, if attacked, Americans would run to the arms of conservatives. So it’s worth asking: What would McCain do if another attack occurred? What would he do that makes us “stronger”? The best predictor of how McCain would handle a future attack is how he handled the past one. Given that he’s already told us that he’s “totally in agreement” George W. Bush’s anti-terrorism policy, McCain’s response to a terrorist attack would probably go something like this: After attacking, but not capturing, the people responsible, McCain would divert troops to another, unrelated front.

As early as December 2001, McCain was calling for war with Iraq. He continues to believe that an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks was to invade and occupy a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

- Like Bush, McCain justified the Iraq war with the theory that ‘we’re fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here.’ Former anti-terrorism czar Richard Clarke pointed out that “the evidence is overwhelming that our presence [in Iraq] provides motivation for people throughout the Arab world to become anti-American terrorists.”

- Further demolishing the Bush/McCain “flypaper theory,” a new article in Democracy describes the phenomenon of foreign fighters returning from Iraq to apply their terrorist training in their home countries, another negative consequence of the Iraq war.

McCain seems blissfully unaware of any of the consequences of the policies that he has supported over the past seven years, and continues to advocate an anti-terror strategy that has shown disastrous results. Given all this, it’s a bit frustrating to have to contend with the idea that, were one of those results to take the form of an attack on the American homeland, McCain would benefit.

There are signs that this conventional wisdom is breaking down, however. The Raw Story reports on pundits who have questioned “the assumption that a terrorist attack would play to McCain’s advantage.”

It’s also interesting to note that, after Osama bin Laden’s video release right before the 2004 election, the CIA determined that bin Laden had been trying to help, not hinder, Bush’s reelection. Conservatives, including John McCain, should probably ask themselves why Osama bin Laden prefers their anti-terrorism policies to the progressive alternative.

On NBC Nightly News last night, anchor Brian Williams reported that on a recent trip to Afghansistan, “several U.S. commanders complained” to NBC that they lack “resources, aircraft, soldiers and support because of the war in Iraq.” Williams noted that the commanders’ complaints were echoed earlier in the day by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, who said that the military’s resources are “constrained” because of Iraq. Watch it:

As Williams noted, Mullen told reporters yesterday that in Afghanistan, “violence is up this year by every single measure.” Mullen then said that “we don’t have enough forces” to deal with the challenges there because of troop commitments in Iraq:

“In the last six or seven months, we have a put a tremendous amount of focus on Afghanistan, and I think rightfully so,” he said. “It is an economy-of-force campaign, and by definition, that means we don’t have enough forces there.

“I am constrained on forces I can generate quite frankly because of Iraq,” Mullen stated. “Afghanistan is a significant challenge and is going to take a significant period of time.”

In April, Mullen also told the Senate Armed Forces Committee that “with the bulk of our ground forces deployed to Iraq…we cannot now meet extra force requirements in places like Afghanistan.” Violence has increased to such an extent in Afghanistan that May 2008 was the first time that “American and allied combat deaths in Afghanistan in May passed the monthly toll in Iraq.”

Transcript: Read more

Our guest blogger is Ken Gude, Associate Director of the International Rights and Responsibility Program at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

How to close Guantanamo is a very challenging and emotive issue that draws on the memories of 9/11 and justifiable anxieties about future terrorist attacks. One aspect of this saga that deserves to be addressed with rational analysis is the concern that locating some of the Guantanamo detainees within the territorial boundaries of the United States for incarceration is a dangerous risk that could pave the way for terrorist attacks on the homeland.

In my report released yesterday, I recommend that the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, among a few other possible locations, could imprison a small number of the Guantanamo detainees. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), reacted swiftly and harshly to that prospect, describing my analysis as “misleading and inaccurate” and asserting that “Fort Leavenworth has neither the space nor the security arrangements to handle detainees from Guantanamo Bay.”

This statement seems at odds with Ft. Leavenworth’s mission and “Can Do” motto. The Disciplinary Barracks is the only maximum security facility in the entire military prison system. While the old prison at Ft. Leavenworth was commonly referred to as “the Castle,” that stone and brick facility was replaced in 2002 by a “new state-of-the-art, 515-bed” detention center complete with a special housing unit for maximum security prisoners. The maximum security wing is isolated from the rest of the facility, three guards are assigned to each inmate, and every inch of the prison is covered by video surveillance.

Another possible location I identify is the brig at the Naval Base in Charleston, South Carolina. Although it is only a medium security facility, it has already been the home of designated enemy combatants Jose Padilla and Yasser Hamdi, and currently holds Ali Al-Marri. If Charleston, a lower security level facility, can accomplish that mission, it seems logical that Ft. Leavenworth could safely and securely imprison some of the Guantanamo detainees.

The number of detainees at issue here is relatively small, in the neighborhood of 50 detainees with the majority of those ending up at the “supermax” penitentiary in Florence, Colorado. Sen. Brownback clearly believes that Ft. Leavenworth can not handle even a small number of Guantanamo detainees. He should know then, that the candidate he enthusiastically endorsed for president of the United States, Senator John McCain, has repeatedly pledged that he would close Guantanamo and move all of the approximately 270 remaining detainees to Ft. Leavenworth. Read more

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) sought to distance himself from adviser Charlie Black, who told Fortune Magazine that another terrorist attack on the United States would be “a big advantage” to McCain’s campaign. McCain rejected the comments, saying, “If he said that, and I do not know the context, I strenuously disagree.”

However, McCain himself has made similar assertions in the past. In 2004, just three days before the presidential election, McCain argued that a recently-released video-tape by Osama bin Laden would prove “very helpful to President Bush”:

U.S. Sen. John McCain, campaigning in southwestern Connecticut on Saturday, said Osama bin Laden’s video message to Americans will likely energize President Bush’s re-election campaign.

“I think it’s very helpful to President Bush,” said McCain, R-Ariz., while stumping in Stamford for U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays. “It focuses America’s attention on the war on terrorism. I’m not sure if it was intentional or not, but I think it does have an effect.” [AP, 10/30/04]

In the 18-minute video, bin Laden declared that al Qaeda was still motivated to attack the United States again.

More recently, McCain indicated that the terrorist attack that killed Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto would help him politically, as CNN’s Dana Bash recounted on the Situation Room yesterday:

BASH: I was actually with Sen. McCain the very day that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. … He really did understand from that moment that this was something that he thought could help him in the race at that point to be the Republican nominee. In fact, at that event that very day I asked Sen. McCain if he thought it would help his political campaign and he said pretty much “Yes.” … So it’s not a secret that back then that Sen. McCain and his campaign thought it would help.

To be sure — unlike Black seemed to do — McCain in 2004 was not advocating a terrorist attack. Yet just like his trusted adviser, McCain — who claimed yesterday he “cannot imagine” why Black would say such a thing — has not hesitated to claim political advantage from acts of terror.

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) distanced himself from chief strategist Charlie Black’s comments that a terrorist attack would be a “big advantage” to the McCain campaign. “If he said that, and I do not know the context, I strenuously disagree,” McCain told reporters.

Later in the day on MSNBC, former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke told Keith Olbermann that if McCain was serious in his outrage, he should fire Black immediately. He also criticized Black for basically encouraging terrorists such as Osama bin Laden to manipulate American politics:

CLARKE: Well, Charlie Black knows a lot about politics but he doesn’t know much about terrorism. If he did, he would know that Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and all the al Qaeda leadership, watch U.S. politics very closely. We’ve even had cases where in interviews, bin Laden quoted opinion polls from European public opinion polls.

So, yes, they understand that they can manipulate politics as they tried to in the Spanish election with the attacks there. And to say, “Yes, you can manipulate our politics, come and do it,” is an invitation that the McCain campaign shouldn’t be anywhere near.

Watch it:

Unfortunately, conservatives are often putting out such invitations. Last week, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton said that if Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is elected president, the United States would “simply have more embassy bombings, more bombings of our warships like the Cole, more World Trade Center attacks.” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) claimed that such a result would lead to terrorists declaring “victory in this war on terror.”

Transcript: Read more