Without press core “campaign donations” of distorted coverage, Democrats would probably be a “permanent minority party,” and might be fighting the Greens for their corner of the House.

THAT’S what’s maddening.

Because it’s a REPUBLICAN saying it. Can’t have honesty can we. Si se puedes!

True, but it doesn’t stop the opposition from alluding that our hawkishness is responsible for the attacks.

I suspect that they have learned from it.

Dusty on June 25, 2008 at 10:40 AM

…and are simply biding their time until a Democrat is in the White House.

I suspect that they have learned from it.

The bigger problem is with McCain who should taking that ball and running with it. If he wants to be elected on national security issues he’d better start knocking these easy pitches out of the park.

To this day, Kerry (D-Mass.) has blamed an Osama bin Laden videotape released on Oct. 29, 2004, for his defeat in the election the following week.

Besides himself, is there anyone that John Kerry doesn’t blame for 2004? The Swiftboat veterans, “smears” by the administration, voter fraud in Ohio, and now OBL.

The problem with Black, is not that he said what he did but, rather, that he should have known that it would be twisted by Obama and his media accomplices.

Is it somewhat impolitic to express Black’s analysis? Perhaps, but it shouldn’t be. The Obama campaign has said over and over again that they want a robust debate on national security…

Thank you, Ed! If more on our side would stand up to their PC bullying, we might be in better shape today.

I hate it when we let them tell us what we’re not allowed to say, and frame the debate so as to guarantee that we lose it.

And while it’s true that an attack would benefit him, it really shouldn’t be. McCain and Bush’s strengths are that another one hasn’t happened. If another one does happen, then they’re doing something wrong.

But without another attack, we forget about the danger, so what shouldn’t help, does.

Charlie Black is absolutely right. Every one knows that. Ony thing not right is McCain keep on distancing himself from his supporters. One day, I think he is going to stand alone with no body standing with him, if he keep on budging to MSM rather than to his supporters.

Anita on June 25, 2008 at 9:14 AM

I got a request from John McVain and the RNC for money. I sent them a note on the form, that I would be glad to send them money just as soon as McVain wakes up to the glowball warming hoax and the RNC decides to quit acting like liberals. Until I can see that conservative values are part of the mix, the WOT isn’t just a conservative value even if the libs don’t think so, I won’t be supporting them monetarily.

So let it be written, so let it be done.”

Barack Hussein Obama

McCain wasn’t the only candidate with a comeback in New Hampshire. Hillary won the state in a surprise, too, and while the pundits ascribed that to her emotional outburst, it could just as easily have been the Bhutto assassination. Hillary had built her campaign on a ready-to-lead theme, and that momentary intrusion of international reality could have briefly focused Democratic voters on terrorism rather than the economy.

Don’t you think that had to do with the fact that Bhutto was a woman, and Hillary played the “I was friends with Bhutto card”?

why does Black’s offhand comment cause such consternation?

There are plenty of people on the left and right who look at 9/11 through partisan glasses. Most don’t. To me American’s focus is on the people in the WTC, Pentagon, and four airliners. We just don’t give a damn which side of the politcle aisle they were on. That is why Black’s comments cause consternation. It isn’t the act of terrorism that punches us in the gut, it is the final result that puts advantage comments, like Black’s, in the STHU catagory.