CNN's Jeff Greenfield: "everyone knows" terrorism helps McCain

[AddisonMiles]

From http://www.chatterstream.com/

A preview of media coverage in the general election?

Jeff Greenfield, on The Early Show: "I probably agree with what Charlie Black said. But I disagree, or most people do, with his ability to say it as a McCain advisor."

Video link: http://www.chatterstream.com/thescoop/cnn-s-jeff-greenfield-quot-everyone-knows-quot-that-terrorism-helps-mccain/

[BridgeTheGap]

1. Message to Al Qaeda: "If you want more of us, you'd better attack soon!" n.t

[baldguy]

2. Jeff's track record over the last few yrs has been SPOT-ON, so we know its true!

I'm sure Tony Blair and José María Aznar would agree.

[City Lights]

3. So Greenfield is saying al Qaeda and McBush need each other.

Maybe al Qaeda will officially endorse McBush before the election.

[iamthebandfanman]

4. i fail to see how it helps him anyway

especially a terrorist attack in the united states.

dont bush n crew like to say there hasnt been an attack since 2001 as if theyve prevented it?
the arguement that theyve kept us safer would become mute....
i dun see how that would be helpful.

a reminder of fear, sure... but also a reminder that nobody protected them... again.

[kentuck]

5. I don't know that??

McCain has been by Bush's side all along in the fight against terrorism. I would think many people would see it as a failure to keep America safe? They have all been blowing smoke out their asses. I don't agree with Greenfield.

[ryanmuegge]

6. Because they created the myth that McCain holds a rational, undisputed, unchangable advantage

in the areas of "defense" and "national security."

This has been repeated so much that it has been internalized by the American public to the extent that it is now considered scientific law and gospel. The media are obviously ARDENT supporters of perpetual pre-emptive war and military imperialism, which has always been America's MO, but the ideological euphemism has shifted to a war on terror. Statements like this say much more about the media than the candidates. Of course, the media do not engage in objective, rational analysis; they simply float opinions without facts to support them.

The media are freaking out and calling this statement "tasteless" and trying to bully the McCain campaign into getting rid of Black, while they, of course, say the same thing. All of the coverage of this is just a way of trying to influence the polling data in McCain's FAVOR. They are freaked out that the American public are concerned about the economy more than anything else, and that issue, of course, does not favor McCain. They're trying to get the public to consider something else while making McCain look good by making Black look as if he doesn't represent the views of the McCain himself. They have already taken the Iraq Occupation off of the table by simply ACTING AS IF IT ISN'T HAPPENING by not talking about it under ANY circumstances.

[AlCzervik]

7. i don't know that and why in the hell would does anyone think that will benefit McCain?

he acts like a pissed off out of control dick and Greenfield thinks he's be the go to guy if there was another attack?

[gratuitous]

8. And why would that be, Jeff?

Is it because you and your media cohort don't have three working brain cells among you, and you just mindlessly parrot whatever comes over the RNC daily blast fax? What would Elmore Whippet say, Jeff?

[elias7]

9. so failure to protect us in 2001 and ?2008 means repubs are up to the task?

The media needs to stop perpetuating myths and Republican talking points.

I would think that given the warnings we had for 9/11, we should have been better protected. Another attack and I would say a republican administration is miserable at protecting the American people. Of course, since I'm a LIHOP/MIHOP proponent, my opinion is that protection from 9/11 and future attacks would be possible if it weren't so politically advantageous to allow terrorism to happen.