Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I'm sure everyone has heard by now about McCain adviser Charlie Black saying that another terrorist attack before the election would be a "big advantage" to McCain's election campaign. But what I find amusing is his non-apology apology for it:
Speaking quietly, Black read from handwritten notes. "I deeply regret the comments. They were inappropriate. I recognize that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration," Black said.
What the hell does the third sentence have to do with the first two. "I deeply regret the comments. They were inappropriate. And isn't McCain great?" Even as political apologies go, that one was really bad.
Politics
Comments
In other news, dog bites man.
This shit is just reflex for right-wing scumbags like Black.
Posted by: PhysioProf | June 29, 2008 10:25 AM
As far as I can tell (I only read reports of his comments), Black was just being candid at the time he spoke his original statements, saying something that is probably true (or that is at least the conventional wisdom).
Thus, not something where he needed to back track on the content of his message. His comments were more of a tactical blunder, and an embarrassment to the McCain organization.
In that regard, his 3 sentences make sense: he regrets saying them, they were inappropriate (they were, if you work for McCain), and he end with a suck up to McCain, to drive home the point that his comments about the effect of an attack doesn't not mean that he or McCain would desire such an attack.
Posted by: divalent | June 29, 2008 10:49 AM
In general the Republicans seem to be in shit-throwing mode. They're launching as much into the air as they can in the hopes that something will stick. We've been seeing a lot more of those "Obama is a Muslim," statements, the "he's just John Kerry with a tan," and other attempts to dodge the fact that the polls are swinging in Obama's favor.
Personally I think this was a well calculated move. First, it's quite true. If the US was attacked again, it would be good for McCain based on his argument that Obama is weak on terror. You could have said the same thing in '04. The fear it would generate would offset the fact that it would be the second major attack on "the Repub's watch." Second, it utilizes the fear angle quite nicely. It brings up the argument that Obama is weak on terror without actually saying it. Finally, it gives this opportunity to reinforce the message that McCain is a staunch defender of ... blah, blah, blah.
Posted by: dogmeatib | June 29, 2008 10:50 AM
Actually, it makes sense if you realize that Black wasn't apologizing to the American public, but rather to his benefactor, McCain. It's a sign of the neo-Con's intense need for submission; you apologize to the alpha-male, because he's actually the one with the power.
Posted by: Duke York | June 29, 2008 10:58 AM
Damn, I thought it was JACK Black apologising for all his lame movies... ☺ DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 29, 2008 12:49 PM
An second "spectacular" (to use the term from the IRA-British war) would remind people Cheney and Bush have had seven years to find a certain Mr bin Laden, find some WMDs, prepare for another spectacular, spending something around one billion dollars a day on this, and the best they've accomplished is, um, er, ah, well, ah, have they accomplished anything?
Posted by: blf | June 29, 2008 1:30 PM
This is just another case of people not wanting to hear an uncomfortable truth, the same as Obama's "bitter" comment. Sure, it's bad politics, but let the idiots that think Obama is an Arab obsess over that. The rest of us should aim our sights higher.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 29, 2008 2:02 PM
Roger Ailes of FauxNews, who worked campaigns with Black, in the NYTimes, 7/21/90:
Posted by: Foggg | June 29, 2008 2:13 PM
It was a true statement, but it's considered bad taste, so he has to apologize. The Republican Party is the more hawk like party while the Democratic Party is the more dove like party. It's just a fact, and in the event of an attack people are going to support the party they see more likely to retaliate militarily as opposed to the party with a small, but vocal peace at all cost base that will loudly proclaim it's a racist war. I live in an overwhelmingly Democratic, Green Party type of town, and that was largely the approach to 9/11. The Democrats can't respond that way to an attack because it would be political suicide, but there is still that underlying element that sticks in many voters minds.
Posted by: soboco | June 29, 2008 3:09 PM
Even if it is a supposedly "true" statement, it doesn't put Black in a very positive light, considering that he's a McCain adviser. In that context, the statement makes it look like Black would actually desire to see another terrorist attack (after all, his guy would supposedly get more votes as a result of such an attack).
Posted by: daniel rotter | June 29, 2008 4:03 PM
dogmeatib:
Of course the Anthrax letters don't count.
Posted by: llewelly | June 29, 2008 4:24 PM
I don't think a second major attack during the Bush administration is going to lead voters to conclude that we need an anti-war Democrat as president. I think it will drive home the idea that there are people that want to kill us, and that will make voters more inclined to go with someone that they perceive as wanting to kill our attackers. Also, the name Hussein would be a serious drawback in the wake of fresh attacks by Muslims.
Posted by: soboco | June 29, 2008 4:41 PM
Sort of; I'd say that he's not apologizing for the implication that people think he is. The mention of McCain the "apology" is a bit of a non sequitur if he was apologizing for implying that voters are timid sheep who'll piss themselves and vote McCain if another attack happens. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense if you interpret it as an apology for implying that his boss is a cynical asshole who'd take advantage of an attack if one happened.
Posted by: Martian Buddy | June 29, 2008 6:58 PM
I am not so sure an attack would be an advantage to the Republicans.
They could say, "Look, eight years of Bush and we STILL got hit."
The democrats would be willing to see the Unites States suffer more terrible defeats if it ensured Democrat victory.
Who ya kiddin?
Posted by: Hieronymous | June 29, 2008 8:25 PM
"The democrats would be willing to see the United States suffer more terribel defeatis if it ensured Democrat victory."
First of all, it should be "Democratic victory," not "Democrat victory." Secondly, you know the thought processes of all Democrats in this country (after all, you wrote "The democrats," not "Some Democrats," or even "Most Democrats") how? Or were you just in the mood for a little smearing today?
Posted by: daniel rotter | June 29, 2008 9:00 PM
Nope, its Democrat party...not democratic party.
Nothing democratic at all about what goes on at the highsts levels.
And you also know they would be willing to see the US defeated if it ensured their victory. Thats why you are upset.
So I repeat, who ya kiddin?
Well, sport?
Posted by: Hieronymous | June 29, 2008 10:10 PM
And you also know they would be willing to see the US defeated if it ensured their victory. Thats why you are upset.
Hieronymous,
Upon what evidence do you base this bullshyte upon? The Democrats would be willing to see the US defeated? The Republicans sure seem to have the short sighted policies of late, the win now at any cost programs and philosophy.
Posted by: dogmeatib | June 29, 2008 10:16 PM
"Nope, its Democrat party...not democratic party."
Sorry, it's the Democratic Party. I looked in the dictionary. You're wrong, I'm right.
"And you also know they would be willing to see the U.S. defeated if it ensured their victory."
Maybe some would, just as some Republicans were happy to take advantage of the 9/11 attacks to push for a war with Iraq, a war that many of these GOP'ers wanted to see happen even before these attacks occurred. I think it's wrong, however, to smear all Democrats (which you did in your initial post) as desiring U.S. defeats, just as it is wrong to smear all Republicans as opportunistically using the 9//11 attacks as an excuse for the Iraq war.
Posted by: daniel rotter | June 29, 2008 11:45 PM
Whoops, I meant "Democratic party."
Posted by: daniel rotter | June 29, 2008 11:46 PM
Don't feed the troll. Nothing to see here, move right along.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 30, 2008 12:04 AM
I didn't read that last sentence as "and isn't McCain great?" My first intuition reading it was "wasn't I an idiot to say that and undermine McCain's image?" I guess there could be some of "isn't McCain great" in that statement but on my initial reading it struck as something that at least somewhat first with the rest of the apology.
Posted by: KKairos | June 30, 2008 1:17 AM
There is nothing democratic about the string pullers at the Democrat party.
Thats why it is not the Democratic party.
As to the US being defeated, they can hardly wait.
You know it, I know it, so quit pretending.
You lose.
Posted by: Hieronymous | June 30, 2008 2:33 AM
Considering the subject of the thread, it's kind of amusing to me that we have a right-wing troll trying to scare us all with the terrorist bogeyman.
Posted by: Martian Buddy | June 30, 2008 4:01 AM
Yes, you have to admire these people's loyalty; or you would, if blind loyalty were amdirable. It's nice when dogs do it, but when people do it it's just pathetic.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | June 30, 2008 5:30 AM
[W]e have a right-wing troll trying to scare us all with the terrorist bogeyman.
Is there a difference between terrorist bogeymans and republicans?
That's presumably quite broad. It's certainly possible there are republications who aren't batshite crazy and itching to blow up, burn down, or rapture the world. But each time one of these trolls pops out from under the bridge, I can't help but feel that possibility is noticeably lessened...
Posted by: blf | June 30, 2008 2:50 PM
"There is nothing democratic about the string pullers at the Democrat party."
Who are these "string pullers" and why aren't they "democratic?"
"As to the U.S. being defeated, they can hardly wait."
By "they," do you mean just the "string pullers" of the Democratic Party (whoever they are) want the U.S. to be defeated, or Democrats in general want this outcome (as you implied in your first post)...or, merging the two smears together, do you believe that all registered Democrats are "string pullers?" Clarify, please, oh wise and noble troll.
Posted by: daniel rotter | June 30, 2008 8:40 PM
It's amazing Hieronymous can type so well with the mittens on.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 30, 2008 10:37 PM