McCain disavows aide's comment about terrorism

Tuesday 24th June, 07:00 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 105 Total Comments Show All

rajakumar at 05:57 AM JST - 27th June

John Mccain or Barrack Obama in Nov 4th.

Another around 120 days only left to woe the electoral college/voters.
WilliB at 11:03 AM JST - 27th June

Betzee:

" It's one thing to say "an attack would favor McCain." That's a debatable point. It's quite another to say "an attack would really help us out" as his chief strategist Charlie Black essentially did. John McCain appears to appreciate the difference even if others do not. "

Then it is only a question of phrasing. Of course, if he phrased it like that, you are right. Insinuating that he would appreciate an attack is indefensible and McCain was right to sack him.
WilliB at 11:52 AM JST - 27th June

TJrandom:

" Obama is the stronger security candidate for the US i "

Sorry, that is ludicrious. Obama is being endorsed by Hamas and Ahmedinejad. Somebody who is being endorsed by terrorist organization is not a "security candidate".
apecNetworks at 01:56 PM JST - 27th June

I don't think it matters who is elected Pres. this fall. I have been testing the US Security State as evidenced in my neighborhood. Even if either candidate wished to return to a more constitutional democracy, it would take the new President his first term to change it.

I remember one of them telling me before 9/11 that they needed a threat to replace the Cold War or they are out of a job. The guy was indirectly talking about the military-industrial complex.
rajakumar at 02:54 PM JST - 27th June

Issue of world politics,is a big complex job, next new president, must be real good problem solver.
kinniku at 10:09 PM JST - 27th June

apecNetworks,

Just for some clarification, what are you talking about?
goodDonkey at 04:52 AM JST - 28th June

WilliB

Sorry, that is ludicrious. Obama is being endorsed by Hamas and Ahmedinejad. Somebody who is being endorsed by terrorist organization is not a "security candidate".

WilliB, you seem to miss the point in national security. It is not a national security issue to not be endorsed by whomever. In the current security environment the specific goal should be to reduce the number of Taliban/al Qaeda. However I do think you represent the short-sided nature of the Republican party. Your tactics would appear to be similar also. Instead of addressing my previous post referencing the failure of the Bush/McCain party to rid the world of Taliban/al Qaeda, you chose to throw out a red herring.
apecNetworks at 04:05 PM JST - 28th June

To Kinniku:

It's really involved. I'm in a strange situation where I was until recently being fed sensitive info. It's only in the last few years that these govt. people quit talking to me. Surveillance is very tight, it reminds me of the Cold War. I receive no assistance from this situation, so it must be condoned.

To explain some of my comments, it would be helpful to read my posts as "apec_net" if still available. My views are based on the info that I have been given for the last 15years. To go into my posts, it would involve several topics.
zurcronium at 05:02 PM JST - 28th June

Mccain cant control his own campaign let alone the country. Its filled with lobbiests who only care about their pet industries so what do they care about McCain really. Does the oil industry really care about Bush? No.

Lets face it, McCain is not up for the job. He is just too old. Old enough to have to issue more than 1,100 pages of medical records to prove that he is physically and mentally “fit,” The “young man” Obama issued a one-page personal health statement. The President job would kill McCain.
RedMeatKoolAid at 05:28 PM JST - 28th June

Why won't Obama issue his official birth certificate? The one his handlers posted at Kos was proven fake.
WilliB at 01:05 AM JST - 30th June

goodDonkey:

" In the current security environment the specific goal should be to reduce the number of Taliban/al Qaeda. "

And that you do by putting the candidate in the White House who is favoured by the islamic radicals? That is such a bizarre claim on so many levels, I won´t even bother to parse it.
WilliB at 01:08 AM JST - 30th June

GoodDonkey:

" At the time 911 happened there were very few Taliban/al Qaeda. "

Oh? Please do remind us who was in power in Afghanistan at the time, and and who piloted airplanes into the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11.
WilliB at 01:14 AM JST - 30th June

TJRandom:

" Obama is the stronger security candidate for the US if that is defined as a reduction in attacks, as he is unlikely to bait the enemy. "

The Jihad against the infidel world in general and the US and Israel in particular is not a response to being "baited", and it won`t be stopped by someone who tries to appease the Jihadists; to the contrary.

To remind you, the bombings of the embassies in Sudan and Nairobi, the Cole bombing, the first bombing of the WTC and the preparation for 9/11 all happened under Clinton -- who also believed in appeasement.
kinniku at 08:38 AM JST - 30th June

apecNetworks,

You are misunderstanding my question to you. Perhaps my wording was confusing. What I am trying to ask is what your personal experience (real or otherwise) with radio transmitters and such have to do with the content of this article. In reading what you have written, I don't seem any connection with McCain or the issue at hand. Could you clarify what you want to say?
goodDonkey at 11:30 AM JST - 1st July

WilliB

Clinton -- who also believed in appeasement.

That statement is blatantly untrue. Since you find no purpose is an honest discussion I won't research and answer your questions directed at me. I will finish with you by stating there is plenty of evidence out there establishing that the Taliban was state sponsored in Afghanistan and therefore the proper target of responsibility for the 911 attacks. I have never suggested that the ultimate progress in Afghanistan would be to have eradicated every single member of Taliban/al Qaeda. The goal should have been to first win the war and then to win the peace. We did have the Taliban reasonably under control for awhile. At that time it was imperative to use resources of both money and manpower to rebuild and sometimes initially build infrastructure. This should have been expected to be costly, time consuming and labor intensive. Bush oversimplified the process and now because of W.P.E. Bush we have more terrorists bent on the destruction of the U.S. Not only did he not properly fund and execute the peace in Afghanistan he also diverted resources to Iraq and failed to win the peace there also. If McCain is so good at security why doesn't admit the entrance into the Iraqi war increased the security risk to the United States. Of course you do not have to take my word for the fact that Bush screwed up winning the peace in Iraq. Right now the U.S. Army released an official report. In the 720-page report, put together by the Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, it states that leaders in the United States were more concerned with winning the military battle in Iraq than what to do once it was concluded. That's not exactly earth-shattering news, since most of us already know that, but the historical report is interesting because it's the first major report issued by U.S. military criticizing civilian leaders. Bush is no longer able to collar the military and prevent the truth from coming out! Likewise as you criticize Obama you will get a chance to see what he does when he actually governs. You will get to see his success at security. Once he becomes President you won't need to speculate any more.