David Corn

"Bottom line: the McCain campaign attacked Obama falsely. It made up facts. It distorted history. "

And we can expect more of the same.

WaPo and the rest of the M$M will grant themselves license to publish what they think will sell - it is just business after all.

What used to be newspapers are now multimedia profit centers. The actual news is only a small consideration unless it starts to sell better. That is why I really thought people should cancel their subscriptions to the newspapers when they carried water for this WH, held stories and helped get the war going.

If publishing the BS hurt their pocketbook they will change what they do - if their $$$ are coming in they will sell more of the same.

The truth and objective honest reporting used to matter and it will matter again as soon as the masses decide to make it so. We all vote with our wallets.

I resist linking to stories in the WaPo, NYT's and a few others - why even send them the page hits - they have to earn back the trust they lost.

Thanks

"Bottom line: the McCain campaign attacked Obama falsely. It made up facts. It distorted history. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bottom line: Mr Corn attacked McCain falsely, made up facts and distorted what John McC ain said about being Iraq for 100 years.

Even the DNC's own paper, the NYT's said that you guy's were distorting what McCain said.

So don't throw rocks in a glass house my friend!

Another lie from the left, disputed by a lefty~

Bush never lied to us about Iraq
The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

By James Kirchick
June 16, 2008

Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American involvement there "morally right and necessary." Two years later, however, Romney -- then seeking the Republican presidential nomination -- not only recanted his support for the war but claimed that he had been hoodwinked.

"When I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get," Romney told a Detroit TV reporter who asked the candidate how he reconciled his shifting views.

Romney (father of Mitt) had visited Vietnam with nine other governors, all of whom denied that they had been duped by their government. With this one remark, his presidential hopes were dashed.

The memory of this gaffe reverberates in the contemporary rhetoric of many Democrats, who, when attacking the Bush administration's case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate's 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: "We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true." On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that "the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress."

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

California's War Dead

Profiles of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus reactions from readers.

Browse by: Age, Cemetery, Country of Birth, High School, Hometown, Number of Children, ... Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.

"I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop communist aggression in Southeast Asia," Romney elaborated in that infamous 1967 interview. That was an intellectually justifiable view then, just as it is intellectually justifiable for erstwhile Iraq war supporters to say -- given the way it's turned out -- that they don't think the effort has been worth it. But predicating such a reversal on the unsubstantiated allegation that one was lied to is cowardly and dishonest.

A journalist who accompanied Romney on his 1965 foray to Vietnam remarked that if the governor had indeed been brainwashed, it was not because of American propaganda but because he had "brought so light a load to the laundromat." Given the similarity between Romney's explanation and the protestations of Democrats 40 years later, one wonders why the news media aren't saying the same thing today.

James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic.

Bush never lied?

Thanks!

Always good for a chuckle

This McCain Video Will Give You the Heebie Jeebies.

Meet John McCain the stalker. I know it's a "Saturday Night Live" spoof from 2002, but it appears that John McCain is really enjoying his role as a creepy stalker. I have to give credit to Chris Matthews who surprisingly found this gem for his recent "Chris Matthews Show." Matthews stated that he was "stunned" after showing it, and even his conservative guest commentator, Kathleen Parker, agreed with him and made a comment about hoping this video doesn't go viral on YouTube before the election. I think we should do just that--send it around and hope it goes viral:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lhomInJ7Pc

Ironically, the woman in the video resembles Cindy McCain a bit. It's like John McCain playing the male version of Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction." As Johnny Depp once said:

With any part you play, there is a certain amount of yourself in it. There has to be, otherwise it's just not acting. It's lying.

McCain really worries me, and how any women could vote for him is beyond my comprehension.

******

Never believe it - just like McSame on video saying 100 years - it is all photoshopped - fabricated, woven from whole cloth - oh yeah, and Busn never lied! EVER!

lolololololololololololo

McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

*****

Those video recorders are a bitch - see they record the actual words.

Democrats rip McCain "flip-flop" on oil drilling

Congressional Democrats ripped presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) Wednesday for “flip-flopping," after McCain reversed course and called for the lifting of a ban on offshore oil drilling, which he once opposed.

“It is so hard to tell what Sen. McCain’s positions are because they change so rapidly,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Wednesday morning.

“[This] is certainly not the position he had just six months ago.”

http://tinyurl.com/3rnsha

*****

I think McSame suffers from self-inflicted wounds. How can anybody believe him when he is so shamelessd about changing his core beliefs and values?

His problems are not age related in that respect, older folks are usually more predictably set in their ways and in their opinions - that is what is scaring people - the way too obvious pandering. It is expected from politicians but there is a line and I think Gramps crossed it.

The Chicago Sun- Times Ad

This letter will be ran in a full page ad on a Sunday.

AN OPEN LETTER TO

HOWARD DEAN, NANCY PELOSI, HARRY REID, SUPER DELEGATES, ALL DNP DELEGATES AND THE DEMOCRAT NATIONAL PARTY:

FROM: HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTER'S FOR JOHN MCCAIN (www.hcsfjm.com/)

This is an open letter to inform you that we will not be backing, supporting or voting for Obama in November at the General Election. We have heard all of you say that we are "FEW" or that we are a "SMALL" group of angry, bitter women, but that we will fall in line and vote for a Democrat when we look at the issues. Well you can keep on thinking that if it makes you all feel better about the "Crooked" Election you ran in the 2008 Presidential Primary. We are here to tell you now that there are over 2.5 million of us and we will vote for "John McCain and the Democrat's on the ticket that supported Hillary Clinton ONLY" in November, unless she suddenly become's the nominee.

Even if you put Senator Clinton on the ticket as VP we will still NOT vote for Obama. We are part of a coalition of other's that feel the same way we do and we are all listed under the Group of "Just Say NO Deal". We are not just women, we are men and women from all race's and nationality's. We are also made up of Independent's and Republican's that voted for Hillary in the Primary's and that would of voted for her in the General Election.

We even have Independent's and Republican's that didn't vote for her in the Primary, but have now joined us, because of the way you let her be treated by the sexist, degrading and insulting remarks to and about her. You never defended her, but any thing that was said about Obama, you all fell over yourselves to get to a microphone and defend him. We can not say how everyone from every Group will vote, but we are all of the same mind that come November we will REMEMBER what you did during the Primary's and NOT vote for Obama.

This is not because we are "sore loser's" or any other stupid reason you come up with. It is because you took the Democratic Party and made a SHAMBLES out of it. The Democratic nominee was NOT elected, he was selected by "those smoke filled back room deals", that you all have said over and over you didn't want to see happen. It was the way you proportioned the Delegates, the way you STOLE Delegates, the way that you started trying to push Hillary to drop out before the Primary's were over and all of the people had voted. The way you blamed her for the "Division" in the Party, saying that she was only staying in to hurt Obama's chances. You and Obama are the one's that divided the Party with a lot of help from the media, so all of you need to pat yourselves on the back and stand up and take responsibility for destroying the Party and any chance we had of taking the White House back. On January 20, 2009 there is only one Democrat that can take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and that is Hillary Clinton other wise it will be John McCain.

Any Democratic Politician on the ticket that does not support Hillary Clinton, we will campaign and work hard to make sure you are not re-elected or elected. THIS IS NOT A THREAT, IT IS OUR PROMISE TO YOU!

2 1/2 million Americans are ready, willing and able to support John McCain. Next month we will be 5 million. Wake up before it is too late.

TO ANY DEMOCRAT, INDEPENDENT OR REPUBLICAN WHO SUPPORTS OR WANTS TO SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON, PLEASE COME AND JOIN US AT: www.hcsfjm.com.WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING YOU THERE.

This Ad Is Paid For By Members Of The Hillary Clinton Supporter's For John McCain

Ed Hale, PO Box 147, Wellington, TX 79095

Maybe McSame is gong for the uninformed/confused vote?

It has to be confusing trying to represent his positions when they change faster than the price of gas, eh?

If Obama had a brain he would flip flop on drilling also:

Zogby: 60% Favor Domestic Oil Drilling

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:30 PM

The mood of Americans has improved slightly but remains gloomy this month, as high gasoline prices cause many to consider making significant changes in their lives—including how often they drive, where they go on vacation and how often they dine out, a new Reuters/Zogby poll shows.

The survey shows 58% considering changing driving habits due to high gasoline prices; 60% in favor of domestic oil drilling

The Reuters/Zogby Index, which measures American confidence, has risen slightly to 90.4, from 87.9 in May, and remains just above the all-time low of 87.7 it hit in March. The Reuters/Zogby Index includes 10 poll questions that gauge perception of the state of the country and the economy. The telephone survey of 1,113 likely voters nationwide was conducted June 12-14, 2008. It carries a margin of error of +/- 3.0 percentage points.

JOHN McCAIN
THE MOST FLAWED PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN HISTORY

It is now clear that what is left of the Republicon Party, after being fatally poisoned by the Bush administration, intents to commit suicide by nominating Senator John McCain (R-Hanoi) for the presidency. Where do I start?

THE EARLY YEARS

McCain spent his boyhood in exclusive boarding schools where staffers were paid to put up with his tirades. We all did some immature things before we matured. But with McCain, the tirades continue today.

Had he not been the son and grandson of admirals, there is scant chance he would have been admitted to the U.S. Naval Academy. Given his behavior patterns and academics, had he not been the son and grandson of admirals, there is little doubt he would have been thrown out. Instead, in 1958 he managed to graduate 894 out of 899. Had he not been the son and grandson of admirals, he is no chance he would have been accepted into the prestigious naval flight training program over far better qualified officers. On his way to becoming a North Vietnamese ace, the aviator lost 3 expensive aircraft on routine, non-combat flights. Little was made of all that, because he was, you know, the son and grandson of admirals.

McCain’s most horrendous loss occurred in 1967 on the USS Forrestal. Well, not horrendous for him. The starter motor switch on the A4E Skyhawk allowed fuel to pool in the engine. When the aircraft was “wet-started,” an impressive flame would shoot from the tail. It was one of the ways young hot-shots got their jollies. Investigators and survivors took the position that McCain deliberately wet-started to harass the F4 pilot directly behind him. The cook off launched an M34 Zuni rocket that tore through the Skyhawk’s fuel tank, released a thousand pound bomb, and ignited a fire that killed the pilot plus 167 men. Before the tally of dead and dying was complete, the son and grandson of admirals had been transferred to the USS Oriskany.

As a rising naval officer, McCain was surrounded by rumors of numerous adulterous affairs, such as used to be called “conduct unbecoming an officer.” Author and biographer Robert Timberg has detailed several of McCain’s sexual relationships with subordinates when serving as a Squadron Leader and an Executive Officer. I think we all know such behavior is a clear violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in other words, a crime.

When McCain’s application to the National War College was rejected, according to noted author and researcher Joel Skousen, he whined to daddy who pulled strings with the Secretary of the Navy.

http://tinyurl.com/5hj3ez

*****

Hard to hide from his history.

PRISONER OR HONORED GUEST?

McCain’s 5½-year stay at the Hanoi Hilton (officially Hoa Loa Prison) has ever since been the subject of great controversy. He maintains that he was tortured and otherwise badly mistreated. One of many who disagree is Dennis Johnson, imprisoned at Hanoi and never given treatment for his broken leg. He reports that every time he saw McCain, who was generally kept segregated, the man was clean-shaven, dressed in fresh clothes, and appeared comfortable among North Vietnamese Army officers. He adds that he frequently heard McCain’s collaborative statements broadcast over the prison’s loud speakers.

On October 26, 1967, McCain’s A-4 Skyhawk was shot down over Hanoi. The fractures of 1 leg and both arms were reportedly due to his failure to tuck them in during ejection. According to U.S. News & World Report (May 14, 1973), McCain didn’t wait long before offering military information in return for medical care. While an extraordinary patient at Gi Lam Hospital, he was visited by a number of dignitaries, including, to quote McCain himself, General Vo Nguyen Giap, the national hero of Dienbienphu.

Jack McLamb is a highly respected name in law enforcement circles. After 9 years of clandestine operations in Cambodia and unmentionable areas, he returned home to Phoenix where he became one of the most decorated police officers on record. Twice McLamb was named Officer of the Year. He went on to become an FBI hostage negotiator. This man has stated that every one of the many former POWs he has talked with consider McCain a traitor. States McLamb, “He was never tortured…The Vietnamese Communists called him the Songbird, that’s his code name, Songbird McCain, because he just came into the camp singing and telling them everything they wanted to know.” McLamb further quotes former POWs as saying McCain starred in 32 propaganda videos in which he denounced his country and comrades.

The Glavnoje Razvedyvatel’noje Upravlenije is the Soviet’s military intelligence division. Numerous sources confirm that during the Nam Era, the English-speaking Vietnamese who conducted interrogations of American prisoners were always overseen by Russian GRU officers. The ranking GRU officer at the Hanoi Hilton had a multilingual teenage son who was tasked with translating all interrogation reports into Russian. He would become known only as T.

According to T who interpreted all interrogations and notes pertaining to McCain during the latter’s stay from December, 1969, to March, 1973, when a well-fed looking McCain’s was released, privileges were extended. These included time at a furnished apartment in Hanoi – furnished with 2 prostitutes. McCain would attribute such absences to solitary confinement.

It has been widely reported that following his father’s appointment as CINCPAC Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater of operations, McCain was offered an immediate parole. McCain insists that he refused such a preference. Others insist that his father refused to allow such a preference. In any event, such an offer would have required the approval of the Soviet masters, and T would have seen documentation. He has no recollection of such an offer.

In 1991 the Soviet Union was in a state of collapse. People and things were up for grabs. During that thaw, a mass document swap took place between the KGB and CIA. All T’s translations were included. If these dots are really connected, it is small wonder that McCain had fought consistently to keep all files sealed, block any attempts to retrieve POWs, and establish the friendliest of relations with his former tormentors.

Imagine the possibilities. A Clintonian leak during the presidential campaign. Or, in the unlikely event of a McCain victory, blackmail of the Manchurian Candidate.

It is public record that Admiral McCain was on hand to greet his son upon return. According to Major Mark A. Smith (USA Retired), a Green Beret and former POW, a trusted friend of his accompanied the Admiral that day. Later, when the friend referred to that meeting, McCain became enraged, volunteered that he had received “no special treatment,” and then denied that his father was there.

In 1989 legislation known as The Truth Bill was introduced in the U.S. House. It required the Department of Defense to publish the names and information on all unaccounted for POWs, MIAs, and KIAs in WW II, the Korean War, and Vietnam. It languished and was resurrected 2 years later. Then came the McCain Bill, promptly enacted, that blocked such information. The DoD does not even have to acknowledge confirmed sightings of live Americans.

http://tinyurl.com/5hj3ez

*****

Wadda guy, eh?

TEMPER AND TEMPERMENT

The senator’s temper and temperament remain in question. His biographer quotes him: “At the smallest provocation I would go off into a mad frenzy, and then suddenly crash to the floor unconscious.” Has he moderated over time? Apparently. Somewhat. Senators who have had McCain scream hyphenated obscenities at them nose-to-nose include Rick Santorum, Richard Shelby, Thad Cochran, and James Inhofe. Most colleagues decline comment. The man has been called psychologically unstable.

BIRDS OF A FEATHER?

Four years ago McCain loudly defended the glorious hero of the Vietnam War, John Kerry. That would be the young naval officer who hid out in an office until he took command of a river patrol boat for a few weeks. He put in for a purple heart every time he got a scratch or bruise. With 3 of those, he rotated out with the intention of running for public office as a war hero. When Kerry saw the level of anti-war sentiment, he quickly morphed into an anti-war hero running for public office and later married the widow of an extremely wealthy, conservative senator who died under highly suspicious circumstances. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have not died. Their affiliate is Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain, headed by former Sergeant Ted Sampley, who also serves as vice-president of the half-million member Rolling Thunder Motorcycle Rally.

Sampley has spent years working toward the return of Vietnam era MIAs and POWs abandoned by our government (which is invariably the case at a war’s end). McCann has thwarted him at every turn, dismissing 1,600 credible first hand sightings, 14,000 second hand sightings, and countless radio intercepts that supported the observations.

In 1991 a Senate Select Committee held hearings on the subject of Vietnam POWs. Tracy Usry, honored Vietnam veteran and former chief investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, testified that American POWs were routinely interrogated by Soviet intelligence officers. Several times, an enraged McCain interrupted, shouting that, “…none of the returned U.S. POWs released by Vietnam was ever interrogated by the Soviets.” He knew better. So apparently did Bui Tin, former Senior Colonel, NVA, who testified that he had been privy to all Soviet documents pertaining to American prisoners. He supported Usry, refuted McCain, and offered his personal records as added proof.

In short order, Usry and all participating staff members were fired. Jack Wheeler, Republicon insider and master strategist, attributed that to McCain’s behind-the-scenes pressuring.

Add to that McCain’s despicable treatment of families of POWs. Is that based on guilt or is the man simply despicable?

http://tinyurl.com/5hj3ez

*****

In my best Sylvester the cat: "Dispicable"

A LITTLE HISTORY LESSON

In the 1920s, the Bronfman family of Montreal rose to power and wealth based particularly on its Seagrams liquor business, which had as its Prohibition Era partner Meyer Lansky, American Mafia boss. Bootlegging profits were enormous. The family branched into many areas, including media. In recent years, Bronfman acquired a major chunk of Time-Warner.

Michael Collins Piper is the author of several books including FINAL JUDGMENT and THE HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR. According to his research, Jack Ruby, Texas nightclub manager and silencer of JFK’s alleged assassin, was a Bronfman asset. Piper identifies Ruby as “a key player” in the smuggling of arms stolen from U.S. military bases to Israel.

In the years prior to World War II, the move into Arizona was made. In 1941, Gus Greenbaum of Phoenix started a national wire service for bookies. When he shifted to Las Vegas in 1946 to oversee Meyer Lansky’s casino interests and subsequently replace the infamous, violent Bugsy Siegel, Kemper Marley was appointed crime syndicate boss of Arizona. According to sources within the Marley group, it was Bronfman who put him in the liquor business and enabled him to build a statewide monopoly. In 1948, the feds sent 52 employees to prison for liquor violations. Rumor has it that Marley remained untouched because one of his lieutenants, James Hensley, took the fall and did a dime. Piper reports that Hensley’s attorney and dealmaker was William Rehnquist. Yes, that would be the Chief Justice who later pulled his former girlfriend onto the high court and spent his last decade on the bench hallucinating on drugs. Upon release, Marley gave Hensley one of the biggest Anheuser-Busch distributorships in the country – certainly the biggest in Arizona. Thank you for your faithful service.

Then one day in 1981, an obscure, newly retired naval officer rode into the land of sun, cacti, and retirees. After his first wife, who had raised his children and waited for him became crippled in an accident, John McCain had dumped her overboard and married his mistress – Cindy, daughter of James Hensley. The next year the “straight talker” was installed in the U.S. House of Lords. Four years later he moved to the senate.

So who owns honest John McCain? The mob that runs Arizona? The big Vegas money that continues to contribute heavily? The Israeli connection? You be the judge.

UNDERSTANDING ECONOMICS – WHO NEEDS IT?

Not long ago, McCain stated to a journalist that, “Economics isn’t my strong suit.” But, he added, he is reading Greenspan. That would be Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan who, during his tenure, expanded the money supply more than in all the years since 1913. The Greenspan who kept the printing presses running at warp speed, turning out little pieces of paper called money and backed by the promises of politicians. Alan the Inflator fueled the dotcom bubble, the stock market bubble, and more recently the real estate bubble. It is no wonder that the LONDON ECONOMIST recently pegged 2007 true U.S. inflation at 17%. Just what we need – another president who is an economic illiterate. It’s small consolation that McCain admits it, because if elected, he’d appoint the wrong advisors.

http://tinyurl.com/5hj3ez

*****

Hard to pick good advisors if you know nothing about the subject.

This guy is actually running for president?

What has the world come to?

MCCAIN VERSUS THE CONSTITUTION

McCain, also known as senator hyphen around D.C., frequently partners with members of the far left. The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill was an obvious, full-frontal attack on the First Amendment – perhaps the most blatant since the Sedition Act 200 years previous. Specifically, it outlawed the most protected of free speech, political descent. This alone should be a deal breaker. Anyone voting for the bill should have been impeached and removed from office. George Bush, when he broke another of his pledges and signed the odious legislation, said he had problems with it but that the Supreme Court might very possibly strike down parts. Apparently, his thinking was (1) this is bad law, but why should I worry, and (2) I don’t need to do my job because somebody down the line might do it for me.

Accordingly, it is entirely logical that radio talk show hosts are in strong opposition to McCain. They understand how much he hates free speech, and they don’t want to see a return to the deceptively named Fairness Doctrine that used to force broadcasters to devote matching time to the promotion of liberal views to balance conservative. At the core is the liberals’ fear of exposure to the marketplace of ideas and free discourse. To them, it is not enough that you have a dial and an opposed thumb. If we’re going to have a Fairness Doctrine, let’s carry it all the way out. For every 80 anti-gun news stories, I want to see 80 (easy to find) pro-gun stories. Not 1. For every male bashing commercial, mandate one female bashing. Let’s limit the number of black players on college and NBA teams to 12½ percent, reflective of the population. Et cetera.

McCain also works to destroy the Second Amendment. John McCain does not trust you with a firearm, regardless of the plain words of the Constitution. He would bar you from defending yourself from marauders and certainly from an out-of-control government. The Gun Owners of America rates McCain F minus. Although the National Rifle Association is far softer in defending gun rights, its president has termed McCain the “worst Second Amendment candidate.” Example: McCain sponsored an amendment to S. 1805 that would destroy gun shows by outlawing private gun sales at such events, although they have been proven to not be a significant source of criminals’ weapons. A next step would be the outlawing of private transfers. A father would be unable to pass down a family treasure without government blessing. The unconstitutionality of all this is of no importance to the senator and his ilk. Check his record. This alone should be another deal breaker.

Just about everybody loves a maverick, right? Spirit of America and all that. We often impute a certain sense of integrity to someone who turns on his own. Is the senator from Hanoi really a maverick? Sure, but from what? Honor? Duty? The Constitution he works so hard to make irrelevant? But as a career politician and long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations, McCain is also a one- worlder and a senior insider.

http://tinyurl.com/5hj3ez

******

Just another politician that thinks the constitution only applies when it agrees with him.

Just like Bush.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

I’m sure the sponsor of the so-called Campaign Finance Reform Bill wouldn’t mind if we took a cursory look at his donors. They include the sinister international currency manipulator George Soros, JP Morgan Chase & Company, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Lehman Brothers. In other words, McCain is backed by most of the usual suspects who back “the competition.”

According to WorldNetDaily, since 2001, this candidate has receiving funding via the Reform Institute of Alexandria, Virginia, founded to launder money from George Soro’s Open Society Institute and Theresa Heinz Kerry’s Tides Foundation. Let’s just know who owns whom. All this only makes sense. The senator is a long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a one-worlder, an ultimate insider.

Funding scandals? Sure. We have them too. Does anybody remember the Keating Five debacle from 1987 that cost depositors and taxpayers $160 million? Charles Keating owned American Continental Corporation and its subsidiary Lincoln Savings & Loan. Facing multiple federal indictments, he called on the recipients of his largesse – Senators Alan Cranston, John Glenn, Don Riegle, and from the great State of Arizona Dennis DeConsini and John McCain. Strings were pulled, but, in the end, Keating was convicted. In 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee (I know, such an oxymoron) ruled that McCain hadn’t quite done anything illegal. But by his own standards he was corrupt.

http://tinyurl.com/5hj3ez

******

Corrupt is too nice a word.

D.C. FOLLIES

Recently, the New York Times ran a piece suggesting that McCain may have had an affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman that went back 8 years. Ms. Iseman is a partner in Alcalde & Fay, who represent Carnival Lines, several broadcasters, and municipalities. The Times, along with Drudge and the Washington Post, had been sitting on the story for some weeks. The allegations are unproven, and, the senator has exhibited extraordinary self-control when denying them. I can only say that he has a history of this type of Clintonian behavior, both in the military and, admittedly, during his first marriage. Apparently it is acceptable anymore. In any case, I question whether the Times should have run with this.

Influence peddling? Sure, McCain rode Lowell Paxson’s jet several times. It would be asking a lot of a high-profile senator to walk through a crowded airport and climb on a commercial flight. Maybe he wrote Paxson checks at the commercial fare rate. He did accept $100,000 donation from Alcalde & Fay. And he did write 2 letters recommending that the FCC approve Paxson’s purchase of a Pittsburgh TV station. Only two? Lobbyists lobby. I don’t have any finger to point here.

THE GREAT CONSERVATIVE

Taking a page from Bill Clinton’s Attorney General, McCain has called Christian leaders “agents of intolerance.”

McCain often crosses the aisle to block the confirmation of conservative judges with strict construction leanings. His record on taxes is clear; he likes them. Senator hyphen has co-sponsored ill conceived legislation that would boost gasoline prices by more than half a dollar a gallon. And he supports radical global warming measures that would significantly disadvantage the U.S.

COME ON UP. HERE’S A CHECK.

Teaming again with Teddy Kennedy, at al, the senator from Hanoi sponsored an amnesty bill for illegal aliens. A top aide, Juan Hernandez previously held a cabinet level position with ex-president of Mexico Vincente Fox. This dual citizen is on record as favoring “Mexico First.” McCain supports open borders. Well, until he caught sight of the prize. These days he’s auto-phoning into Ohio, promising that “first I’ll close the borders.” He’d still like to see Social Security money paid to the sneak-ins. Another deal breaker?

http://tinyurl.com/5hj3ez

******

"That's not change we can believe in, my friennnnnndsh"

Those video recorders are a bitch - see they record the actual words.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, I can't blame anyone that's not smart enough to figure out what McCain actually said from what they pretend he said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)
McCAIN: Make it a hundred.

Q: Is that … (cut off)

McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …

Q: [tries to say something]

McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

We take casualities daily.

The premise is a strawman.

We have to stay until we stop getting killed so we can then stay for 100 years?

I don't think McSame has thought this through.

He said exactly what he meant to say or do we have to parse his words as well as his deeds?

The follow up question is:

As long as we are getting killed how long do we stay?

THAT exposes the lie about his intentions, eh?

Any intellectual honesty there? (I didn't think so)

The invasion was illegal and a mistake. The Iraq invasion was a war crime, a crime against humanity and a crime against any country acting as an aggressor nation. Bush and his crew will be held to account.

Nothing can change that.

I guess McSame means to say a few troops killed once in a while is okay? As long as the statistics are good. Maybe if we get down to only one of our troops killed every week or so - then we can stay?

That kind of screw the troops - who cares - attitude is why McSame will never be shining the seat in the oval office.

I'd love to see gramps explain that logic to the family of just one of our brave troops, let him explain how it is all worth it.

No reason a warmongering armchair general can’t help with a draft of that letter?

How would you go about explaining to a military family that their loss is just a number, that their loved ones life wasn't worth the trouble of just getting out.

I'm sure we will see a good letter posted here with a reasonable explanation as to why just one dead troop didn't matter, why one death means less than just admitting you are wrong?

(I won't hold my breath)

The fact that any person can see the video and come up with some rationalization for the gaffe speaks volumes about the excuse maker. Man up - admit the error and move on. Whining about being taken out of context is already too old - shelf life has expired on that one. The context is there for all to see.

All that are able to open their eye's that is.

Main Entry: gaffe
Pronunciation: \ˈgaf\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, gaff, gaffe
Date: 1909
1 : a social or diplomatic blunder
2 : a noticeable mistake

It was a gaffe - trying to excuse it only makes it a pathetic gaffe.

Major General Antonio Taguba (USA-Ret.) stated:

"The profiles of these eleven former detainees, none of whom were ever charged with a crime or told why they were detained, are tragic and brutal rebuttals to those who claim that torture is ever justified. Through the experiences of these men in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, we can see the full-scope of the damage this illegal and unsound policy has inflicted --both on America's institutions and our nation's founding values, which the military, intelligence services, and our justice system are duty-bound to defend.

"In order for these individuals to suffer the wanton cruelty to which they were subjected, a government policy was promulgated to the field whereby the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice were disregarded. The UN Convention Against Torture was indiscriminately ignored. . . .

"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

There is no Iraqi insurgency

Military experts say

The good news is that there's no insurgency in Iraq. The bad news is that there's something much worse...

According to the conventional wisdom, the United States is fighting an insurgency in Iraq. In a classic insurgency, a group of guerrillas is trying to overthrow an otherwise-viable government. For an occupying power, the goal of counterinsurgency is to tip the balance in favor of the state and against the insurgents.

A group of military thinkers and Iraq war veterans disputes the claim that the U.S. is waging counterinsurgency in Iraq. They argue that the insurgency has degenerated into a much more complex and chaotic conflict:

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/23315&Itemid=1

John McCain and his lobbyists were involved in the rewarding of a lucrative contract for a tanker jet - the kind that refuels airplanes in midair - to NorthrupGrumman/Airbus partnering.

That would be as in... Out of the United States. To a competitor of Boeing. As in 'John McCain sent U.S. jobs overseas, with the help of his lobbyists.'

Well, it turns out the General Accounting Office was none too happy with all that.

Boeing's argument that the decision process was flawed worked. Bidding will be reopened to new proposals, per the NYT story.

(kos)

*****

Dollars to donuts - McFlip will McFlop on this one too, he has a fairly consistent record of changing his mind on everything.

Watch - he will say he always wanted Boeing to get the contract and he will end it with "my friennnnndsh" in that creepy crypt-keeper hiss.

Type, Severity of Iraq War Injuries Change Over Time

Insurgents' explosive devices killing more soldiers, leaving injured with more wounds, study says

TUESDAY, June 17 (HealthDay News) -- As the war in Iraq shifted after the fall of Baghdad to one in which U.S. troops were battling insurgents, the types and severity of injuries suffered by the Marine Corps became more severe and deadly.

That's the finding of a new report by a former U.S. Navy physician who served twice in Iraq. In the second "insurgency" phase of the war, it has also taken longer to transport the wounded to medical care, resulting in more Marines dying from their wounds, the report said.

*****

I assume McSame would admit if we keep taking casualties 100, 50, 20, 10, 5, years are certainly too many?

Under what utopian war world would we ever stop taking casualities?

One sure way is if we get out. Then we do stop taking casualties and we don't have any risk of losing troops that have been redeployed.

What is McSame's plan for stopping the casualties so we can stay there for 100 years?

THAT plan would have to come first.

Type, Severity of Iraq War Injuries Change Over Time

http://tinyurl.com/6h3xvj

McCain's Ugly Florida Problem

With two new polls today putting Obama ahead by at least four points in Florida, Sen. John McCain has a huge problem on his hands. It’s not that he can’t win there. In fact, I’ll give you 10-to-1 odds Florida goes Republican in November. The problem is, McCain can’t win there without trying. And here’s the ugly truth: McCain can’t afford to compete in Florida. It’s too expensive. If he has to try (i.e. spend money) in the Sunshine State, he’s sunk.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/18/154734/052/4/537991

McCain's Offshore Drilling Position A Flip From Three Weeks Ago

[...]

In late May, during a campaign town hall, McCain was asked about the prospect of coastal drilling. His answer then was far more nebulous and skeptical of the idea compared to his recent, full-throated endorsement.

On a campaign stop in Greensdale, Wisconsin, the Senator suggested that turning to the nation's coast for energy needs would be something of a waste in time and effort and do little to resolve America's broader energy needs.

"[W]ith those resources, which would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels," McCain said when asked about offshore drilling. "We are going to have to go to alternative energy, and the exploitation of existing reserves of oil, natural gas, even coal, and we can develop clean coal technology, are all great things. But we also have to devote our efforts, in my view, to alternative energy sources, which is the ultimate answer to our long-term energy needs, and we need it sooner rather than later."

http://tinyurl.com/63kh2s

*****

Three weeks ago?

Hard to keep track - would that be a flip or a flop?

McCain on Windfall Profits

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP8eDdVzy9s

****

Well there is something he agrees with Obama on - chapter and verse?

Yesterday, however, he criticized Barack Obama for wanting "a windfall profits tax on oil to go along with the new taxes he also plans for coal and natural gas."

Oh Gramps - nobody can keep track of what you want. . .

lol

This is unfortunately become a habit in our politics where anything's fair game, and we just make things up about people. If you think about Michelle, I mean here's somebody who's done everything right. She grew up in modest means. She grew up in a nuclear family. Her parents looked after her. She went to college on a scholarship. She's worked hard for everything that she has.

She is the best mother I know. She has made repeated sacrifices on behalf of her family and has said that her children and her husband are her number one priority.

So the fact that people have tried to make her a target, based essentially on a couple of comments in which she was critical of what's happening to our American dream and the enormous difficulties that people are experiencing -- the difficulties that she hears directly as she is traveling across the country, I think is really distressing. And you know I've said publicly before, and I'll say it again - I think families are off limits. I would never consider making Cindy McCain a campaign issue, and if I saw people doing that - I would speak out against it. And the fact that I haven't seen that from John McCain I think is a deep disappointment."

Barack Obama

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/394137.aspx

I think families are off limits. I would never consider making Cindy McCain a campaign issue, and if I saw people doing that - I would speak out against it. And the fact that I haven't seen that from John McCain I think is a deep disappointment."

Barack Obama

~~~~~~~~~~

And the part you left off;

The McCain campaign sent CBN News a written response to Obama's comments.

"Senator McCain agrees with Senator Obama that spouses should not be an issue in this campaign, and he has stated that position frequently," Joe Pounder, McCain's spokesman, said. "Unfortunately, when the Democratic National Committee was attacking Mrs. McCain, Senator Obama was not strong enough to stand up and speak out."

"Obama's silence speaks volumes, and it's unfortunate that he would single out others for a standard he himself has failed to live up to," he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama sounds like a whiny cry baby~~

Or, could it be that he knows that his wifes whitey tape is real and out there?

More Fun in Obamaconspiracyville: In Which Larry Sinclair Gets Arrested

I blogged a few weeks back about a convicted criminal, Larry Sinclair, who'd been begging the media to cover his wild allegations about Barack Obama. Today Sinclair trotted into the National Press Club to air the allegations before what can literally be described as an audience of international press, and can more accurately be described as an amused bunch of people taking in a circus act.

It had been a difficult morning for Sinclair. The Politico's Ben Smith published a short feature on Sinclair's 27-year criminal record of fraud and petty crimes; Greta Van Susteren linked the story, and told viewers/readers why she has ignored him. "While the internet is a great communication and educational tool, it is also viral when it comes to smearing people," she wrote, prompting commenters to call her a cover-up artist and an agent of Barack Obama. It got worse when Sinclair's lawyer Montgomery Sibley—whose license is currently suspended in D.C. and Florida—showed up in a kilt and told reporters that his above-average endowment made slacks tight and uncomfortable. The Rev. James David Manning, who gained web celebrity in April for a YouTube'd sermon in which he called Obama a "long-legged mack daddy," sat in the crowd of 50 or so with his family. He didn't take questions.

How did Sinclair hold up? Rather terribly. He started with a lengthy statement that admitted most (not all) of his crimes and dispatched Sibley to run around the room with a microphone. As Seth Colter Walls recounts, most of the questions were legalistic and (somewhat) credulous. Sinclair was asked who funded the event (donors, over the internet), how he made his living (he's on disability), and whether Obama was "well hung" (I'm not going to dignify his answer here). The only new "evidence" he presented was the name of a limo driver and the bar where he claimed to have met Obama (who, in Sinclair's story, used his real name and job title as he rendevouzed with a cruising criminal he'd never met before).

I only got to ask one question: What time of day did Sinclair meet with Obama on November 6th and November 7th? In Sinclair's story, Obama partied with him on the 6th and traveled to his hotel in Gurnee, IL (an hour and change from Hyde Park) on the 7th. Sinclair smiled at the question. "We met in the early evening of November 6th," he said. "As far as a specific time on November 7th, I can not provide that to you." He added, parenthetically: "And I know where this question is coming from?"

"You know where this question is coming from?"

"Thank you." Sinclair moved on and Sibley refused to let me ask another question. Why didn't I wait until the end of the press conference and rush up to the accuser? The second Sinclair stopped taking questions, he fled the room and reporters were denied access to anyone but Sibley. I was a little disappointed until I heard the reason. Larry Sinclair was arrested after the press conference and is being held by the Washington, D.C. metropolitan police. He's been charged as a fugitive from justice, based on the outstanding Colorado warrant that can be seen here.

http://reason.com/blog/show/127093.html

******

Some people will believe any liar if it suits their needs at the time. Now where have I heard of Larry Sinclair before? Someone was saying he was credible?

70707070707

(that's me laughing my ass off with my legs in the air)

Obama Camp Explains Bin Laden's Rights...Again

June 18, 2008 4:03 PM

ABC News' Sunlen Miller, Teddy Davis, and James Gerber Report: Two more Obama advisers acknowledged Wednesday that Osama Bin Laden would be extended Habeas Corpus rights if the al Qaeda leader were brought to Guantanamo Bay.

The Obama advisers were quick to add, however, that this reading of Bin Laden's rights, which was established by last week's Supreme Court ruling and would be binding on the next president no matter who wins in November, does not mean that the man who claims credit for the 9/11 terrorist attacks would be released.

The decision in Boumediene v. Bush would only guarantee Bin Laden and other terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay the right to request a hearing at which the government would have to establish through due process why the detainee should be held.

Speaking on a conference call arranged by the Obama campaign, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Mass., said that if Bin Laden were granted a Habeas hearing before a federal court "the judge would dismiss it" and rule that the United States has "ample grounds to hold him."

~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah, inexperience isn't an issue with this guy heh?

Obama Accuser Larry Sinclair Holds Stupefying Press Conference

It is not often that a political reporter can claim to have witnessed the single most stupefying event on any single day, what with the diversity of inanity on display from coast to coast in an election year. But today, I feel confident laying claim to that dubious distinction, for I attended Larry Sinclair's Wednesday press conference at the National Press Club.

The event began less than auspiciously for Mr. Sinclair -- who has gained Internet notoriety by spreading wild accusations regarding gay sex, drugs and possible murder committed by Barack Obama -- as National Press Club staff took pains to remove the association's logo from behind the podium where Sinclair was set to speak. (Politico's Ben Smith today detailed Sinclair's "27-year criminal record, with a specialty in crimes involving deceit.")

Of course, the club had made clear for some time that it should not be viewed as endorsing Mr. Sinclair's claims simply for having agreed to host his mind-numbingly preposterous litany -- heavens, no! All that could be said for the institution was that it was happy to rent out its space to anyone who might be willing to pay in order to switch on the microphone.

And pay Sinclair did -- for the venue and its microphone, as well as for a kilted lawyer (with a suspended license) named Montgomery Blair Sibley, who informed those assembled that his preferences in dress were arrived at as a way to secure comfort for his unusually large sexual organs. "I don't know why men wear pants," he said with a poker face. "It's a function of male genitalia. If you're size normal or smaller, you're probably comfortable with [pants]. ... Those at the other end of the spectrum find them quite confining."

"I asked him to wear a suit and tie," Mr. Sinclair said ruefully. Then, he admitted to suffering from a brain tumor.

Only slightly less mystifying were the several dozen assembled journalists who seemed to grant Mr. Sinclair some modicum of respect with their questions. They cross-examined his statement regarding his supposed meetings with the Illinois Democrat with a vigor and small-bore attention to detail that prosecutors reserve strictly for witnesses who are sane. Imagine if you were to encounter someone who had lit himself on fire, and then proceeded to ask which brand of gasoline he favored.

And so the inquiries came, most of which Mr. Sinclair easily batted back with the exhortation to investigate his claims more vigorously. As for the evidence he provided, it amounted to a few phone numbers -- registered under different names and in different states -- that Mr. Sinclair claimed he used to call, variously, a limousine driver, the deceased choir director of Trinity United Church of Christ, and others. Clearly, it is now the duty of the mobile phone companies to open up these records to court scrutiny. (Forgive me for not reprinting any of the "evidence" in full here. Should you care to see it, Sinclair promised a version would be made public on his website, one free of the several errors which vexed him during his public statement today.)

"I expect you to ask me questions," Sinclair told the reporters. "I expect you to do your job, and actually find facts as opposed to looking at DailyKos or FireDogLake or Huffington Post or all of these pro-Obama sites."

When a questioner asked Mr. Sinclair whether he would permit review of his mental health records "for more than 30 minutes" -- in a lame attempt to riff on the restrictions imposed by John McCain's campaign -- Sinclair mumbled for a few moments, unaware of the reference.

When he was clued in, Mr. Sinclair shrugged and said: "You can see where my head is today."

To borrow a phrase: yes, we can.

(huffpo)

*****

Then he was arrested, maybe he has the tape in question sequestered? Naw - that would be too cheeky!

70707070707070

What ?

Don't tell me you're not going to defend your guy Larry Sinclair? If I remeber correctly you said he would pass the poly?

What a loser he is, eh?

You post BS here and don't even bother to try to defend your lies- why would anybody take anything you post seriously?

I know I simply cannot - it is call credibility and intellectual honesty - study up you might get there someday.

That is why the JITA or in some cases JITJ works so well.

You think you are bashing liberals but you just make a fool of yourself.

I feel your pain.

How 'bout that Larry Sinclair? You still think he is going to sink Barack?

Come on, if you can't stand by the BS you post why bother?

Oh that's right - you have no interest in being taken seriously, you just post meaningless blather on David's dime because on this blog the truth doesn't matter? Because on this blog you don't have to even pretend to be credible?

Why, what do you want to communicate? So far all you have communicated has been proven a lie so what is the real deal?

I know David must be curious too?

Please offer a reason for your posting lies and meaningless bullshit here if you can't even stand by your posts?

Do you intend what you post to be meaningless of do you discard your ideas one by one as they are disproved?

Really, inquiring minds want to know?

I can tell you are a very slow reader, your replies are never timely - I'll check back later after you have looked up all the big words and worked through all the long paragraphs.

Larry Sinclair,

THAT is almost as good as Bush never lied.

7070707070707

Now "Whitey tape"

lolololo70707070lolololo (that's be me ROTFLMFAO)

Someone was saying he was credible?

~~~~~~~~~

That would be the National Press Club!

I wasn't going to bring it up but since you want to talk about it then lets have Obama answer these questions and put it to rest once and for all.

Or, can he?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In sum, you can discredit my story and then make your decision on who should be the next President of the United States. The burden is now off me as I have told my story without the distortions that have been intentionally heaped on me in what my lawyer tells me is an ad hominem attack – shoot the messenger so you don’t have to hear the message he is bringing. I am now done. It is for others to find the corroborating evidence of my story by locating the limousine driver – Paramjit Multani – and the telephone numbers related to Donald Young and/or Senator Obama. I leave you with these questions that I have asked of Senator Obama but which he – who wants to be the next President of the United States – has refused to answer:

1. Why won’t Senator Obama provide his cellphone numbers and telephone records for all his personal and official cell phones held by him for the time period of November 3, 1999 thru November 8, 1999, when we met?

2. Why won’t Senator Obama provide his cellphone numbers and telephone records for all his personal and official cell phones held by Senator Obama or September 2007 – December 23, 2008, the murder of Donald Young?

3. Why won’t Senator Obama provide all email communication both personal and campaign related to and/or from AKP Message & Media from January 18, 2008 through February 29, 2008 for Senator Obama, David Axelrod and David Plouffe?

4. Why won’t Senator Obama provide proof of all payments made from AKP Message & Media, Obama for America, David Axelrod, David Plouffe, and Senator Obama’s accounts for the period of January 18, 2008 through February 29, 2008?

Larry Sinclair

FoS:

Here is your post:

clipped

Larry Sinclair, the man making the claims, said his story was ignored by the news media. Still not willing to let this one slip quietly under the rug, Sinclair made a YouTube video in which he made his case. It's had over half a million views already, but the story has still been largely ignored by the news media.

Sinclair's next step was to file a suit in Minnesota District Court, in which he alleges threats and intimidation by the Democratic presidential candidate's staff.

Still out to prove that he is telling the truth, Sinclair said he is willing to submit to a polygraph test. A website (WhiteHouse.com) has come forth offering him $10,000 for the right to record the polygraph test, and another $100,000 if he passes it.

At least McCain goes for chicks!

Posted by: LBH | February 21, 2008 1:39 PM

Obama is in full damage control form his wifes whitey comments being off limits to limiting muslim women from being photographed with him to now this:

NYT THURSDAY: Obama aides increasingly limiting access for reporters; controlling settings Obama is photographed or filmed... Developing...

What's he sooooo afraid of?

We'll all know the truth about Obama on Feb 26th when larry takes the lie detector test. I wonder how you all will spin that one~~ he he

Posted by: LBH | February 22, 2008 4:58 PM

*****

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT

It is what you posted or did ya forget?

lololololo*snort*lololololo

Yeh, so what you haven't proven it's not true just because the guy was arrested for a prior warrant has nothing to do with Obama getting a hummer from this guy!

Now I'm laughing off my chair!

Thanks for bringing up a such a funny blow to Obama!

No pun intended~~

"If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error."

~ John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

Bush's ratings at all-time low

Less than one-quarter of Americans think President George W. Bush is doing a good job, giving him the worst marks of his two-term presidency, a poll showed Tuesday.

The poll also showed 80 percent think the United States is on the wrong track.

Only 24 percent of those surveyed gave Bush a positive rating, a score "worse than that of any president, except for Jimmy Carter (22 percent in July 1980) since Harris first started measuring them," the Harris polling agency, which conducted the survey, said.

Bush's previous low came in April, when 26 percent of Americans said he was doing a good job.

The survey of 1,001 US adults, which was conducted by telephone between June 4 and 8 by Harris Interactive, showed that Americans were in "a foul political mood," the polling agency said.

Eighty percent of poll respondents said the United States was on the wrong track -- a five percent increase from the previous high during the Bush presidency: 75 percent in April.

"Clearly the economy and record gas prices are a big part of the problem," the polling firm said.

"When asked, without being prompted or shown a list, which are the two most important issues for the government to address, the economy (38 percent) gets the most mentions, followed by the war (25 percent but another nine percent mention Iraq) and gas and oil prices (20 percent)," it said.

"Those mentioning gas and oil prices have jumped from only one percent in February and 10 percent in April to 20 percent now."

Prices paid by US motorists for a gallon (around 3.5 liters) of petrol have risen from around three dollars in January to more than four dollars this month.

Vice President Dick Cheney fared even worse than the president, with just 18 percent of Americans saying he was doing a good job.

His previous low score was a 21-percent positive rating in July last year.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/8858

*****

New LOWS! That's because he is the best pweisdent evah!

lololololo

We'll all know the truth about Obama on Feb 26th when larry takes the lie detector test. I wonder how you all will spin that one~~ he he

~~~

How was I to know that Obama paid off the lie detector results!

Finally, in February 2008 I was told anonymously that Dan Parisi of Whitehouse.com received $750,000 from the Obama campaign through AKR Media to organize an effort to publically discredit me.

3. Why won’t Senator Obama provide all email communication both personal and campaign related to and/or from AKP Message & Media from January 18, 2008 through February 29, 2008 for Senator Obama, David Axelrod and David Plouffe?

4. Why won’t Senator Obama provide proof of all payments made from AKP Message & Media, Obama for America, David Axelrod, David Plouffe, and Senator Obama’s accounts for the period of January 18, 2008 through February 29, 2008?

~~~~~

Obama can stop the rumors with proof, if he isn't affraid of what the truth really say's.

Obama rejects McCain terrorism criticism
21 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Democrat Barack Obama rejected any lectures from his White House rival John McCain on fighting terrorism Tuesday, in a scornful riposte to a day-long onslaught from the Republican's camp.

"Let's think about this: these are the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11," Obama told reporters on his plane.

"In part because of their failed strategies, we've got (Al-Qaeda chief Osama) bin Laden still sending out audio tapes. So I don't think they have much standing to suggest that they've learned a lot of lessons from 9/11," he said.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iKv85xX-Ujdh7PZuHx4DK-S-cbeA

Someone needs to decrease their dosage of happy pills!

LBH, you enjoy all the same level of credibility as Larry Sinclair - it just means different things to different people.

(lolololo)

"In part because of their failed strategies, we've got (Al-Qaeda chief Osama) bin Laden still sending out audio tapes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Would that be the failed indictment that Osama received for the 93 WTC bombings that Obama praised for being so effective?

LBH, you enjoy all the same level of credibility as Larry Sinclair - it just means different things to different people.

Ah Capt, you should be nicer to me than that, since I'm the only one here who even occasionally reads your posts!

Besides, your just jealous that it was Larry Sinclair who got to give Obama head.

it does just means different things to different people.

Hey Capt, when was the last time you got to speak at the National Press Club?

Hey Capt, what does Larry Sinclair have to do with Corns topic anyway? Since you brought it up!

I can tell you are a very slow reader, your replies are never timely - I'll check back later after you have looked up all the big words and worked through all the long paragraphs.

Posted by Capt

~~~

Wow! And you complain about McCain being a grumpy old man!

38 out of 55 posts and only one on topic and you accuse me of wasting Mr Corns bandwith.

That one about checking back later was good cuz we all know you live here 24/7.

The difference between you and I is that I have a life outside of a key board so your comments don't effect me one way or another.

However, it is very obvious that you have thin skin when it comes to my comments and are constantly whining to Corn about it.

I'm sure Corn will eventually get tired of your pissing and moaning and eventually ban me just to make you stop. It will only prove my point that the left doesn't have any tolerance for an opposing view and that Obama is full of shit about working with Republicans.

Either way I win!

LBH-out

George W. Bush Blames Torture Policy on U.S. Troops

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcbEuHGsQI4

It only takes a couple of minutes for Bush to blame the troops for his own incompetence.

(kos)

*****

Sociopaths and megalomaniacs always blame others - it is just the way they are.

If you don't accept responsibility for your own actions, then you are forever chained to a position of defense.

Holly Lisle, Fire In The Mist, 1992

John McCain, June 16:

Providing additional incentives for states to permit [oil] exploration off their coasts would be very helpful in the short term resolving our energy crisis.

John McCain, May 29:

But I also have to tell you, with those resources, which would take years to develop, it would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels.

(kos)

I guess the message is different depending on the day?

"That's not anything we can believe in my friennnndsh"

Cafferty File: McCain is liable to break a hip with all his flip-flops

Jack Cafferty’s 4 o’clock question Wednesday dealt with the interesting position John McCain finds himself in while he tries to play both sides of the fence on literally every issue in an attempt to secure the support of the dwindling GOP base, while at the same time trying to maintain his moderate, maverick image.

“If John McCain doesn’t stop changing his position on the issues, he threatens to make John Kerry look like an amateur. [..]

“So here’s the question. How clear is it where John McCain stands on the issues?”

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: When the history of the 2008 election is written, the main theme will be the tragic fall of John “Maverick” McCain who sacrificed every honorable principle he ever had at the altar of rabid and unappreciative Republican base,alienating everyone outside of that shrinking group in the process. Oh yea, that and America electing it’s first African-American President.

(C&L)

http://tinyurl.com/5ae2cy

A bit more from the McCain office of Overreaction:

McCain Campaign Falsely Accuses DNC Of Attacking Cindy McCain

It appears that we hit too close for comfort with the McCain campaign when we brought up the topic of the “Sugar Momma Express” use of Cindy’s private jets for the campaign, because now they’re lashing out. Too bad they have to make up things to complain about. Greg Sargent:

http://tinyurl.com/6e88sc

****

I just don't see much sense in the gross overreaction. I mean what will they do if there really is something worth getting all fired up about? Maybe their collective heads will explode.

McCain's Secret, Questionable Record

[...]

The New York Times' front-page story about McCain declining promotion to admiral lacks credibility for other reasons as well. For example, McCain had been promoted to captain on August 1, 1979, so he wouldn't have been due for another promotion by March of 1981.

Retired Admiral Peter Booth, who was promoted to rear admiral in 1981, flatly disputes Lehman's claim about McCain. "No, John McCain was not selected for flag rank, for admiral. With all due respect, I think I was selected that same year, and I have never heard anything even remotely like that. To begin with, John Lehman did not select Navy flag officers. That was done with a very august selection board headed by a four-star admiral. The Secretary of the Navy does not appoint. He is in the approval chain, but he is not on the committee.

"I have never heard a story, even remotely, that John McCain was going to be a flag officer. I was early selected for captain, in 1976, and I was regular selected for admiral in 1981. So it's probably five or six years, I guess. I've never heard of anybody being selected for flag rank within three or four years of making captain, ever."

http://tinyurl.com/5qdw5r

****

How sad has McCain become? He is now a cad, a panderer AND an outright liar?

McCain Still Hasn't Updated Adviser List

After getting zinged for having a number of domestic and foreign lobbyists advising the candidate, the McCain campaign recently introduced
new campaign rules barring anyone currently employed as a lobbyist from serving on the campaign.

But they seem to have another new policy too: not telling anyone who the candidate's advisers are.

Until a couple weeks ago, JohnMcCain.com included a page with a long list of its advisers.

But they took it down right after TPM asked about an economic adviser who was linked to Jack Abramoff's lobbying scheme.

A McCain aide explained at the time that the list was outdated and did not reflect the new no-lobbyist rules that took effect in May. (Yes, the adviser we asked about, Carlos Bonilla, is both a lobbyist and a former White House official accused of taking favors from Abramoff's shop. He's no longer with the campaign, the aide said.)

(TPM)

Forcing politicians to be truthful will destroy America's political system. I am not at all certain that anyone can clearly define the concept of politician without discussing prevarication being an inherent part of the job.

All people lie sometimes. Politicians do it as both a hobby and essential part of their chosen profession. They appear to be allergic to truth tellers and to honesty, ethics and morality.

That is one of the reasons politicians suck. All of them.

We pay them to lie to us. They are happy to oblige.

UGH!

It is also one of the reasons we have to hold ALL politicians feet to the fire - even the ones we support are corruptable or corrupted.