Terrorism Becomes A Campaign Issue

The New Republic: McCain Is Determined To Have Debate Over Terrorism On His Terms

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Jonathan Chait.

---

Last week, the terrorism "issue" made its campaign debut. I use scare quotes not because terrorism is not a threat, but because it's unclear precisely what issue is at stake. John McCain's campaign has been determined to have a debate about terrorism, which polls have shown to be the only issue where he has any meaningful edge over Barack Obama. The problem is that on the only terrorism-related positions where Obama has staked out ground to the left of the Bush administration -- torture, closing Guantánamo -- McCain has, too.

But McCain saw his opportunity when Obama made the following comment:

What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center -- we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated. And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, "Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims."

You may wonder what exactly McCain objects to here. The answer is that Obama endorsed prosecuting terrorists. In the Republican mind, there is a vast metaphysical divide over the question of how you fight terrorists. Tough guys like George W. Bush and McCain understand the evil of terrorism at a gut level and want to fight it with the military, using big guns and bombs. Wimps like John Kerry and Obama have a daintier, more equivocal sensibility, and prefer to deploy nerdy prosecutors to "serve our enemies with legal papers," as Bush liked to say.

And so, when Obama let pass from his lips a reference to trying terrorists in court, McCain's campaign pounced. Foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann warned, "Obama holds up the prosecution of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 as a model for his administration, when in fact this failed approach of treating terrorism simply as a matter of law enforcement rather than a clear and present danger to the United States contributed to the tragedy of September eleventh." McCain's blog scoffed, "It's hardly surprising that a lawyer would think that the war on terror would be fought more effectively by lawyers than by the United States Marine Corps."

It doesn't matter that Obama never said, or even implied, that legal prosecution should be the sole method of preventing terrorism. The fact that he even mentioned prosecution apparently proves that he has what McCain's campaign called a "September 10th mindset."

Yet some logical flaws with this analysis present themselves. (And yes, I realize that the mere fact that I would intellectualize this issue, rather than understanding it in my gut, proves that I too have a September 10th mindset.) First, terrorists often operate in our country, or in friendly countries, which makes military action against them tricky. McCain (through his campaign blog) assailed Obama for favoring "prosecutors rather than predators." But, when the terrorists are holed up in New York City, as was the case with the 1993 bombers Obama referred to, simply arresting them strikes me as more efficient than leveling their apartment with a drone-fired missile.

Second, when terrorists can be found outside the reach of law enforcement, Obama has explicitly proposed to strike them militarily. Last summer, The New York Times reported that the Bush administration had actionable intelligence about high-level Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan. It planned a snatch-and-grab operation but cancelled at the last minute. In a speech the following month, Obama called this "a terrible mistake," and promised, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." McCain criticized Obama for this, too, saying he "once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan."

Third, none other than Rudy Giuliani, Mr. 9/11 himself, once prosecuted terrorists. In 1994, Giuliani said that the conviction of World Trade Center bombers "demonstrates that New Yorkers won't meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon-the law." You might say, in Giuliani's defense, that he did this before September 11. After that, Everything Changed, and, if he caught terrorists again, he would use tactical nuclear weapons against them. The problem here is that he continued to tout his prosecution of terrorists during his comically unsuccessful presidential campaign. But maybe this just goes to show that the September 10th mindset is so seductive that it can strike even its most vigilant adversaries.

I would have thought the example of Giuliani would be inconvenient enough that the McCain campaign would hide him in the closet while they bashed Obama for favoring the prosecution of terrorists. Instead, McCain's campaign trotted Giuliani out for a press conference call and a round of talk show appearances, possibly because he seems to materialize out of thin air whenever the phrase "9/11" is uttered.

Giuliani's sudden appearance is somehow perfectly apt. His lasting legacy to the political culture may be taking a concept (9/11) that was freighted with the strongest emotional and patriotic overtones and doing to it what Clara Peller did to "Where's the Beef?" Giuliani relentlessly milked 9/11 because (as McCain himself pointed out not long ago!) he had no foreign policy experience and repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance of basic facts about his alleged area of competence. He's the perfect embodiment of the foreign policy style that has prevailed most of the last seven years.

The sad irony is that McCain actually had a perfectly credible line of foreign policy attack against Obama: that Iraq is improving and could be imperiled by a pullout. I'm not sure I agree with his argument, but it is looking steadily stronger. His descent into Giuliani-ism, however, suggests his campaign thinks winning on Iraq wouldn't be enough. It's as if, by invoking 9/11, he can summon the return of the mentality that prevailed in the years after the attack.

McCain spent the previous couple months mimicking every theme of the Hillary Clinton unsuccessful candidacy. Now, dropping in the polls, he's mimicking the themes Giuliani rode to a spectacular flameout. It may work. If not, he can always try to tap into the magic of the Jim Gilmore campaign.

[zendigity]

Fear mongering fails when confronted with truth; this old Nazi practice of scaring the people into submission only works on the ignorant or stupid..I wonder why middle America keeps believing it?

[it_oldtimer]

I don''t believe that "terrorism" is anywhere near as big a threat as the Republicans would like us to think it is. It''s a relatively minor threat that has been vastly overblown for purely political purposes. It''s become the favorite boogeyman of the fear-mongers.

While it wouldn''t be prudent to ignore the possibility entirely, neither should we be more obsessive about it than any other equally minor or improbable threats.

And I don''t think that the Marines would have really been of much use at all in a case like Tim McVeigh, a lifelong American citizen who carried out the deadliest act of terrorism within United States borders until the September 11, 2001 attack.

Americans need to quit being so gullible and so frightened of every little possibility. They are such easy suckers for the political manipulators.

[texanforlogi]

Anyone want to bet that along about October our "terrorist alert level" will be pushed to the red level? The republicans did it in 2004 and I''m betting they are going to try it on again.

Please! DON''T FALL FOR IT AGAIN!!!
Obama in ''08!

[notblue]

maybe America believes terrorism is real since the 911 attack took more American lives than any other single attack in US history, even more than Pearl Harbor.

[bluestardad]

STEP BACK FROM FEAR!

AMERICANS ARE NOT BUYING IT ANY MORE!

THE REPIGS ARE DONE!

AMERICA STAND UP OR SHUT UP!

[notblue]

bluestardad your shouting, tiresome, repetetive rants do not stand as fact. When you join the adult world of reality and set petty nosesnical politics aside you may understand that after 30 plus years of attacks that terrorism is real and actually fighting the terrorists as Bush has done is not illegal. THe lies you have brainwashed yourself with out of hatred are now being exposed for whart they are. The dems funded the war because it was the right thing to do, they reinstated wire tapping beczause it''s a tool that keeps true Americans safe. The move.on lies will backfire in 08, this was the Dems election to lose and the common sense shown by them the last couple of days will keep their hopes alive in 08. It''s people like you that could destroy their chances.

[jimfinster]

maybe America believes terrorism is real since the 911 attack took more American lives than any other single attack in US history, even more than Pearl Harbor.

Posted by notblue


Over 43,000 Americans die each in car accidents. That is 10 times the number of people that died in 9-11. If the only worry is saving lives, then we could make cars safer or simply outlaw them!

Of course 9-11 was real. So is dying in a car accident. The real question is this: should we forfeit our freedoms to the govt in exchange for a promise of safety? NO!

[ubrew12]

notblue said: "maybe America believes terrorism is real since...911"
Oh, its real alright. Just ask the postmen who were carrying those anthrax letters in Fall of 2001. Oh, but we''re NOT supposed to mention THAT kind of terrorism are we, notblue. You know, the kind that right-wing America unleashes on the rest of us Americans, disguising it as an Al-Qaida attack. Think thats an anomaly? Say ''Tim McVeigh'' along with me.

[sparks224]

If the "terrorists" want to kill me, let them kill me. I will not be afraid.

I''d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

[truth832-2009]

As a Hillary supporter, I will not write her in. I take her at her word when she suggests that we all support Obama. Sounds like Republican deceit to suggest writing her in, thereby promoting the war of separation within the Democratic party ranks.

I would love to see the extreme intelligence of Obama as President and the strong support of Hillary as Vice President! But, that is Obama''s call; I am confident of his response...

[truth832-2009]

Thank God the use of prosecutor''s is beginning to be talked about instead of the Bush mentality. In a civilized world, the people will not allow other people to act in a way which is not in harmony for the whole. That is why the people create governments, to create systems for providing harmony for the whole. And legislation creates prosecutor''s and prosecutorial statutes. The Law is the preferred method...ALWAYS!

[joyous88]

write in Hillary? Hey! Why not vote for Ralph Nader again?

Don''t waste your vote unless you can stand another four to eight years of George McSame in the white house.

fear mongering ,war mongering, lying, republicons are fascists

[it_oldtimer]

If Hillary couldn''t even win the primary, what in the world would make anybody believe she has any hope at all of ever winning the national election -- especially as a mere write-in?

No write-in candidate has ever won the Presidency. It''s just plain silly to think that one ever will.

I would never throw my vote away on such an utterly impossible fantasy. This election is far too important for that kind of pointless theatrics.

[haroldk5]

So the Republican spin machine is again trying to make this campaign about Terrorism again. Why not - it helped get Bush elected ... twice!

Of course, terrorism continues, but its not the main issues of the day. The economy is. Education is. Health care, welfare, and Social Security are. But the Republicans are again trying to make terrorism the only topic.

Stay focused America. Next spring, are you going to be able to buy milk for your children? When your job is shipped overseas, are you going to be able to get another? If not, what future awaits your children? If you are able to stay employed, will you have to work through your retirement? Do your parents? Will your children?

It is quite likely that the Bush administration knows Bin Laden''s location. But its not in the interest of the Republicans to capture him. As long as Bin Laden is at large, the terrorist chant works. If Bin Laden were captured, there would be nothing left for the Republicans to sell to America.

We need a real change.

[komoncents]

Of course 9-11 was real. So is dying in a car accident. The real question is this: should we forfeit our freedoms to the govt in exchange for a promise of safety? NO!
Posted by jimfinster at 09:37 PM : Jun 20, 2008

Of course the 911 attacks were real, we just dont know who really attacked us.

The 911 ground audio recordings, recorded live after the plane crashes, (which citizens had to sue in court to have released), clearly show that both Mayor Juliano and a New York Fire Captain had prior knowledge that the twin-towers and building #7 were going to be destroyed. They ordered their people away from bldg 7 and tower #1 because, in their words, "The buildings are coming down". These orders were given 20 min - before - building 7 and tower 1 were destroyed in obvious controlled demolitions.

Look up 911 ground audio recordings. Hear it for yourself.

Keep asking questions, give up no rights.

[jimfinster]

PS...A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain....after the October
surprise when the Republicans tell us the things about Obama that the media hasn''''t. Don''''t take the chance.

Posted by TruUSA


You are a transparent republican. No one is stupid enough to buy into this write-in nonsense. Give it up!