John McCain has always been a phony & a scumbag; want proof?

While I personally don't think McCain having an affair and then leaving his disabled wife for the other younger richer prettier woman is something to disqualify a person from office (though in my own view quite disgustingly typical of some types of men), cyclop is right that most of on the 'right' were singing a different tune when talking about Clinton's sex life.

Also while I don't think we should be questioning vets on their military record namely medals, the mere fact that someone served and even was a POW does not mean anything they say in regards to foreign and military matters is taken as gospel.

Lastly for someone who has talked so much about the military he hasn't been the best friend for vets lately in terms of supporting them.

"No, but it's not too important.

( liberal but links embeded within the article as usual at think progress.)

28 years ago, McCain was not a sitting President of the United States and did not lie under oath about any relationships.

Why people like you and cycloptichorn can't get that difference through your head is beyond comprehension.

You guys bitch about the hypocrisy of these events not being equal, but then include some dumbass link to yet another liberal post about a comment taken completely out of context... again...

It amazes me some of you remember to breath.

What amazes me is that everything McCain says is supposedly taken out of context.

There is no difference in someone getting blow job while a president and then covering it up and someone having an affair and then divorcing their wife. Both are private matters; the only difference was one became a public matter costing huge amounts of money in the process. shrugs.

It shouldn't amaze you, it's Deomcrats doing it. Frankly, I'd say it's expected as they have much to fear from McCain and have to use tactics like Cyc has been using and you have linked to in an effort to make McCain less desireable some how. It's a sure sign of weakness from the left when all they have is divorce and out of context attacks.

It's pitiful really.

As for the other matter, keep deluding yourself, but remember, breath in, breath out, breath in, breath out, breath in, breath out, breath in, breath out, breath in, breath out, breath in, breath out, breath in, breath out...

It's McCain's ties to Bush and his failed policies which make him less desirable. This other thing is nothing compared to that.

Cycloptichorn

p.s. perhaps you mean 'breathe,' not 'breath.'

What McG fails to acknowledge is the character indicators that are revealed in the Clinton and McCain issues.

Both the BJ (and the lying about it) showed the deficiencies in the Clinton moral compass.

McCain's c*nt comment, in conjunction with this infidelity issue refeals the exact same moral deficiency.

I'm no math whiz, but infidelity = infidelity.

But while mistakenly claiming that Clinton got a pass simply "because he's a democrat", McG fails to see the glaring contradiction in his giving of McCain a pass for no other apparent reason other than "because he's a republican".

Well, that isn't quite the only difference. I don't recall McCain being sworn in and asked about his divorce under oath and then lying about it.

All true enough...



Many of the people portending to speak for vets and many vets themselves aren't above using their veteran status as as a way to back-door public policies/programs. Many of them are quite upset with McCain for questioning the rationale used in their arguments. "Support the vets" has become a bit of a rallying cry much as "It's for the children!" has been used in the past.

If people want policy/program changes they should quit hiding behind vets and just admit what they want and let the cards fall where they may.

I hate getting into the whole clinton thing, but in legal terms he didn't lie about having intimate relations with monica lewinsky under the terms it was legally defined in the Paula Jones sexual harrassment case which excluded oral sexual relations performed by her on him. (got all caught up in the thing when it was going on..)

here is a link towards the bottom which explains the relevant parts.

I agree with him on this:





So yea; both cases are private matters that do not matter when it comes to being a president; imo.

Your own reference and quote seem to disagree with your assesment.

"he did not lie nearly as much as his enemies claimed" isn't exactly a solid statement that he didn't lie at all, is it?

A lie and perjury are two different things; which is probably why he was never convicted of perjury under a court of law but only cited for contempt and his Arkansas law license taken away; the last part of an agreement.

He was disbarred for not lying? Odd.

Countdown Keith Olbermann Special Comment
Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:59 PM
by Countdown Keith Olbermann Special Comment

Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on Senator John McCain's conclusion that it's "not too important" when American forces come home from Iraq.

Thoughts, offered more in sorrow, than in anger.

For two full days now, the Senator and his supporters have been outraged at what they see as the subtraction of context from this extraordinary remark.

This is, sadly, the excuse of our time, for everything.

Still. If the Senator claims truncation, we will correct that, first.

"A lot of people," Matt Lauer began, "now say the surge is working."

"Anybody who knows the facts on the ground say that," the Senator interjected.

"If it's now working, Senator," Matt continued, "do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"

"No," answered McCain. "But that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany.

"That's all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw.

"General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are. But the key to it is we don't want any more Americans in harm's way. And that way they will be safe, and serve our country, and come home with honor and victory - not in defeat, which is what Senator Obama's proposal would have done. And I'm proud of them, and they're doing a great job. And we are succeeding. And it's fascinating that Senator Obama still doesn't realize it."

And there is the context of what Senator McCain said.

Well... not quite, Senator.

The full context, is that the Iraq you see, is a figment of your imagination.

This is not a war about "honor and victory," Sir.

This is a war you, and the President you support and seek to succeed, conned this nation into.

Yes, sir.

You.

Of the prospect of war in Iraq, you said, quote, "I believe that success will be fairly easy."

John McCain... September 24th... 2002.

"I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time."

John McCain... September 29th... 2002.

Of the ouster of Saddam and the Baathists:

"There's no doubt in my mind that once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators."

John McCain... March 24th... 2003.

Asked, about a long-term commitment in Iraq, quote, "are you talking about something in terms of South Korea, for instance, where you would expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq for decades?"

"No," you answered. "I don't think decades, but I think years. A little straight talk, I think years. And I hope that we can gradually reduce that presence."

John McCain... March 18th... 2004.

You were asked about the troops, and the future.

"I would hope that we could bring them all home. I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with

their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."…I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence.

And I don't pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be."

John McCain... January 31st... 2005

When a speaker at your town hall, five months ago, referenced the President's forecast that we might stay in Iraq for 50 years, you cut him off.

"Make it a hundred! 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 are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine by me…"

John McCain... January 3rd... 2008.

And your forecast of your hypothetical first term.

"By January, 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq war has been won."

John McCain... May 15th... 2008.

That, Senator McCain, is context.

You have attested to: a fairly easy success; an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time; in which we would be welcomed as liberators; which you assured us would not require our troops stay for decades but merely for years; from which we could bring them all home, since you noted many Iraqis resent American military presence; in which all those troops coming home will also stay there, not being injured, for a hundred years; but most will be back by 2013; and the timing of their return, is… not… that… important.

That, Senator McCain, is context.

And that, Senator McCain, is madness.

The Government Accountability Office just released a study Tuesday that concludes that one out of every ten soldiers sent to Iraq, takes with them medical problems "severe enough to significantly limit their ability to fight."

In five years, we have now sent 43-thousand of them to war even though… they were already wounded.

And when they come home, is… not… that… important.

---

Jalal al Din al Sagir, a member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, and Ali al Adeeb, of the rival Dawa Political Party, gave a series of interviews last week about the particulars of this country's demand for a "Status of Forces" agreement with Iraq -- a treaty ...which Mr. Bush does not intend to show Congress before he signs it.

The Iraqi politicians say the treaty demands Iraq's consent to the establishment of nearly double the number of U-S military bases in Iraq -- from about 30, to 58, and from temporary, to permanent.

Those will be American men and women who must, of necessity, staff these bases - staff them, in Mr. McCain's M-C Escher dream world in which our people can all come home while they stay there for a hundred years but they'll be back by 2013.

And when they come home, is not… that… important.

---

Last year, a 20-year old soldier from the Bronx, on the day of his re-deployment to a second tour in Iraq, said he just couldn't face the smell of burning flesh again. So, Jonathan Aponte paid a hit man 500 dollars... to shoot him in the knee.

Mount Sinai Hospital in New York reported treating a patient identifying himself as another Iraq-bound soldier, who claimed he had accidentally swallowed a pen at the bus station. No one doubted his story until examinations proved there was a second pen in his stomach bearing the logo of Greyhound Bus Lines.

In 2006, says his sister, a 24-year old Army Specialist from Washington State, on the eve of his second deployment, strapped a pack full of tools to his back, and then jumped off the roof of his house, injuring his spine.

And when they come home -- or more correctly all those like them who did not risk death or disability to avoid going back -- when they come home, is not… that… important.

You've sold them all out, Senator.

You.

You, whose sacrifice for this country was as all-encompassing and as horrible as the rest of us can only imagine in our darkest moments.

You, who survived, so that you could make America a better place where young men did not have to go and die in pointless wars… or be maimed… or be held prisoner… or have to hire hit-men to shoot them in the knee because that couldn't be worse.

You… who should know better.

---

Where, Senator, is the man who once said "veterans hate war more than anyone else, because veterans know, because veterans know these brave Americans, and others, know, that there is nothing more painful than the loss of a comrade."

Where is he, Sir?

Where is the man who described that ineffable truth?

Oh, so long ago you touched the essence of the reality of Iraq. Your comments about your lost comrades -- yesterday.

The men and women in Iraq, today, Senator -- they are your comrades, too.

And you are condemning them to die.

To die, for your misdirection, for Mr. Bush's lies -- for whoever makes the money off building 58 permanent American bases and all the weapons and all the bullets and all the wiring so costly and so slip-shod that it electrocutes our comrades as they step, not to fight freedom's enemies, but into the shower at the base.

That, Senator, that is context.

It is an easy thing to dismiss Senator McCain as a sad and befuddled figure, already challenging for some kind of campaign record for malaprops.

Just yesterday in Philadelphia he answered Senator Obama, not by defending or explaining his own "not that important" remark, but by seizing upon Obama's "bitter" remark - or trying to.

Obama had foolishly said that some, in despair, in small towns, cling to their religion and their guns.

Senator McCain vowed he'd go to those towns and tell them, "I don't agree with Senator Obama that they cling to their religion and the Constitution because they're bitter."

It was hard not to dismiss with a laugh, Senator McCain, or any Republican, for even accidentally implying that he's clung to the Constitution -- not after the last seven years.

It was hard, the day before, not to become almost bemused when the Senator tried to say he would veto every single bill with ear-marks, but wound up, instead, vowing "I will veto every single beer."

It was hard, this week, not to laugh at how Senator McCain could offer any serious defense against the accusation that he is running for President Bush's third term, when a 2006 interview suddenly surfaced in which McCain said he would consider Dick Cheney for a position in a McCain administration.

"I don't know if I would want him as Vice President. He and I have the same strengths. But to serve in other capacities? Hell, yeah."

These are all very funny, in a macabre yet unthreatening way.

And then one remembers Senator McCain's inability to separate Sunni and Shia, or his insistence that Iran is training Al-Qaeda for service in Iraq, and then being corrected about it, and then saying the same thing again anyway.

And then one is, inevitably, drawn back again to the overlooked substance of yesterday's remark...

"If (the surge) is now working, Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"

"No."

No?

The surge is working and even that still tells Senator McCain nothing about when we can ransom our soldiers?

Wasn't that the ultimate purpose of the surge? To get them out?

If we cannot tell -- if McCain cannot even guess -- doesn't that, by definition, mean... the surge isn't working?

---

And ultimately we are drawn back to the "not... too... important" remark, in its full context:

The context of the kaleidoscope of confused rhetoric, and endless non sequitur, and mutually exclusive conclusions -- and what they add up to: a veritable tragedy, a microcosm of the American tragedy that is Iraq, a tragedy of a man who himself will never understand… "the context."

Your tragedy, Senator McCain?

No. I'm sorry.

This tragedy... is of Justin Mixon of Bogalusa, Louisiana.

And it's of Christopher McCarthy of Virginia Beach.

It's of Quincy Green of El Paso, and Joshua Waltenbaugh of Ford City, P.A.

The tragedy is of Shane Duffy of Taunton Mass, and Jonathan Emard of Mesquite, Texas.

It's of Cody Legg of Escondido in California, and David Hurst of Fort Sill in Oklahoma.

The tragedy is of Thomas Duncan the 3rd of Rowlett, Texas, and Tyler Pickett of Saratoga, Wyoming.

And who are they, Senator?

They are ten Americans.... who have died in Iraq... since the first of this month. There are four more. The Defense Department has not yet identified the others.

And while you, Senator, may ask for all the context you can get, those ten men... will never know any of it.

Because the true context here, is that if you could ask those American war heroes, or the family and the friends that loved them, if they have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq…

They could rightly say, "No. But that's… not… too… important."

Good night, and good luck.

McCain Lobbyist Scandal Continues
McCain Lobbyist Scandal Continues: Government Warned Senator That Campaign Manager Was Undermining National Interests
The Huffington Post
June 12, 2008 04:23 PM

The lobbying firm of McCain campaign manager Rick Davis acted in direct opposition to American foreign interests, which prompted a warning to McCain's Senate office from the United States government, according to a recent New York Times article.

Much has been reported about Rick Davis, top McCain adviser and lobbyist whose company, Davis Manafort, made its fortune in part by accepting jobs that didn't require employees to register as lobbyists. Davis has been in particular hot water for his company's work with pro-Russian Ukranian political candidates; Davis arranged for one of Putin's allies to meet with McCain during the time.

However, the New York Times has managed to take that already embarrassing story and make it even worse:

Mr. McCain may have first become aware of Davis Manafort's activities in Ukraine as far back as 2005. At that time, a staff member at the National Security Council called Mr. McCain's Senate office to complain that Mr. Davis's lobbying firm was undercutting American foreign policy in Ukraine, said a person with direct knowledge of the phone call who spoke on condition of anonymity.

A campaign spokesman, when asked whether such a call had occurred, referred a reporter to Mr. McCain's office. The spokesman there, Robert Fischer, did not respond to repeated inquiries.

Such a call might mean that Mr. McCain has been long aware of Mr. Davis's foreign clients. Mr. Davis took a leave from his firm at the end of 2006.

This isn't the only time when Davis' business interests have appeared counter to those of the United States: Davis' Ukranian contacts shared several business ties with Iran.

McCain suffered from a perception problem last month when the extent of his lobbying connection caused him campaign to fire several key staffers, as well as institute a new conflict-of-interest policy. The McCain camp has said that Davis is unaffected by the policy, as its implementation is not retroactive. Davis is no longer registered as a lobbyist.

John McCain Denies Social Security Comments
John McCain has a life long history of lying and flip-flopping and is so stupid that he thinks he can get away with it as he once did---but not any more. ---BBB

John McCain Denies Social Security Comments
The Huffington Post
June 13, 2008 09:52 AM

John McCain tried to deny past comments on Social Security reform yesterday, a move which has exposed him to criticism from his rival as well as obscuring the record on what entitlement changes McCain would seek to correct.

During last night's pre-screened town hall, John McCain took a hard line against George Bush's plan to privatize social security saying, "But I'm not for quote privatizing Social Security, I never have been, I never will be."

But that doesn't quite fit with past comments made by McCain on social security. In fact, he was a big supporter of privatizing social security in 2004:

"Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits."
The DNC has footage of both statements:

He also told the Wall Street Journal this March that "as part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it - along the lines of what President Bush proposed."

Sen. Obama has already responded, sensing a potential soft spot of support among McCain followers on an issue that he has previously injected into the election cycle. From his prepared remarks:

Now, John McCain's ideas on Social Security amount to four more years of what was attempted and failed under George Bush. He said he supports private accounts for Social Security - in his words, "along the lines that President Bush proposed." Yesterday he tried to deny that he ever took that position, leaving us wondering if he had a change of heart or a change of politics.

Well let me be clear: privatizing Social Security was a bad idea when George W. Bush proposed it. It's a bad idea today. It would eventually cut guaranteed benefits by up to 50%. It would cost a trillion dollars that we don't have to implement on the front end, permanently elevating our debt. And most of all, it would gamble the retirement plans of millions of Americans on the stock market. That's why I stood up against this plan in the Senate, and that's why I won't stand for it as President.

Howard Dean has also released a statement:

"John McCain should realize that the American people know a bad idea when they see one. Despite the rhetoric, the facts don't lie. Senator McCain not only supports privatizing Social Security, he was part of the Bush propaganda machine that tried to sell it to the American people. The American people cannot afford another Republican president who will put the retirement security of millions of hard working families at risk. Telling the voters he opposes privatizing Social Security when he clearly supports it is not the 'straight talk' Senator McCain promised the American people. Senator McCain is ill-suited to be President if he thinks the American people won't notice when he says something in 2008 that is the exact opposite of what he said in 2004 and 2005."

John McCain's Chilling Project for America
John McCain's Chilling Project for America
Thursday 12 June 2008
by: Elliot Cohen, Truthdig

Former aide to Dick Cheney I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (L) and former World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz. Both men were instrumental in the creation of the "Wolfowitz Doctrine," which advocates preemptive war and oil security at all costs - a philosophy that lives on in McCain's mindset, according to Elliot D. Cohen.

John McCain has long been a major player in a radical militaristic group driven by an ideology of global expansionism and dominance attained through perpetual, pre-emptive, unilateral, multiple wars. The credo of this group is "the end justifies the means," and the end of establishing the United States as the world's sole superpower justifies, in its estimation, anything from military control over the information on the Internet to the use of genocidal biological weapons. Over its two terms, the George W. Bush administration has planted the seeds for this geopolitical master plan, and now appears to be counting on the McCain administration, if one comes to power, to nurture it.

The Road Map to War

The blueprint for this "new order" was drafted in February 1992, at the end of the George H.W. Bush administration when Defense Department staffers Paul Wolfowitz, I. Lewis Libby and Zalmay Khalilzad, acting under then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, drafted the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG). This document, also known as the "Wolfowitz Doctrine," was an unofficial, internal document that advocated massive increases in defense spending for purposes of strategic proliferation and buildup of the military in order to establish the pre-eminence of the United States as the world's sole superpower. Advocating pre-emptive attacks with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, it proclaimed that "the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests." The document was also quite clear about what should be the United States' main objective in the Middle East, especially with regard to Iraq and Iran, which was to "remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil." The Wolfowitz Doctrine was leaked to The New York Times and The Washington Post, which published excerpts from it. Amid a public outcry, President George H.W. Bush retracted the document, and it was substantially revised.

The original mission of the Wolfowitz Doctrine was not lost, however. In 1997, William Kristol and Robert Kagan founded The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a nongovernment political action organization that sought to develop and advocate for the militant, geopolitical tenets contained in the Wolfowitz Doctrine. PNAC's original members included Wolfowitz, Cheney, Khalilzad, Libby, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, William J. Bennett, and other soon-to-be high officers in the Bush administration.

McCain's Ties to PNAC

John McCain's connection to PNAC can be traced back to before its formation in 1997. In fact, he was president of the New Citizenship Project, founded by Kristol in 1994. This organization was parent to PNAC, and served as its chief fundraising organ.

McCain also worked cooperatively with PNAC and Wolfowitz in attempting to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. In 1998, he co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act-drafted by PNAC-which decreed "regime change" in Iraq to be U.S. policy, and which appropriated $97 million in U.S. military aid to the Iraqi National Congress (INC). The INC was a group of anti-Hussein Iraqi militants whose purpose was to instigate a national uprising against Hussein. It was led by Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi informant whose subsequent faulty intelligence-claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaida-was used to sell the Iraq war to the American public. In 2004, in response to accusations that he deliberately misled U.S. intelligence agencies, Chalabi glibly stated, "We are heroes in error."

McCain also was co-chair (with Sen. Joseph Lieberman) of The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI). Established by PNAC in late 2002, this committee continued to finance Chalabi's INC with millions of taxpayer dollars, until shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, when it was discontinued. In 2004, McCain became a signatory of PNAC, ironically signing on to a PNAC letter condemning Russian President Vladimir Putin's foreign policy for its return to the "rhetoric of militarism and empire."

McCain has accordingly been a foot soldier for PNAC from its inception, and, although this organization is no longer in existence, its ideology and its signatories (many of whom now serve as advisers to the McCain presidential campaign) are still very much active.

The Master Plan

In September 2000, prior to the presidential election that year, PNAC carefully formulated its chief tenets in a document called Rebuilding America's Defenses (RAD). This document, which was intended to guide the incoming administration, had a substantial influence on the policies set by the Bush administration and is likely to do the same for a McCain administration if McCain becomes president. Here are some of the recommendations of the RAD report:

Fighting and Winning Multiple, Simultaneous Major Wars

Among its core missions was the rebuilding of America's defenses sufficient to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars." And it explicitly advocated sending troops into Iraq regardless of whether Saddam Hussein was in power. According to RAD, "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The RAD report also admonished, "Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region." Therefore, it had both Iraq and Iran in its sight as zones of multiple, simultaneous major wars for purposes of advancing "longstanding American interests in the region"-in particular, its oil.

McCain's recent chanting of "bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb, bomb Iran" to the beat of an old Beach Boys tune, his suggestion that the war with Iraq might last 100 years and his recent statement that the war in Afghanistan might also last 100 years-all of these pronouncements are clearly in concert with the PNAC mission to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars."

RAD also stressed the need to have additional forces equipped to handle ongoing "constabulary" duties such as enforcement of no-fly zones and other operations that fell short of full theater wars. It claimed that unless the military was so equipped, its ability to fight and win multiple, simultaneous wars would be impaired. Along these same lines, McCain has recently stated, "It's time to end the disingenuous practice of stating that we have a two-war strategy when we are paying for only a one-war military. Either we must change our strategy-and accept the risks-or we must properly fund and structure our military."

Designing and Deploying Global Missile Defense Systems

RAD also emphasized, as an additional core value, the need to "transform U.S. forces to exploit the 'revolution in military affairs.' " This included the design and deployment of a global ballistic missile defense system consisting of land-, sea-, air- and space-based components said to be capable of shielding the U.S. and its allies from "limited strikes" in the future by "rogue" nations such as Iraq, North Korea and Iran.

Along these lines, McCain has maintained that a ballistic missile defense system was "indispensable"-even if this meant reneging on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 at the expense of angering the Russians. Unfortunately, while RAD acknowledged the "limited" efficacy of such a weapons system (presumably because it cannot realistically provide a bulletproof shield, especially against large-scale missile attacks), neither it nor McCain addressed the problem that deployment of such a system could be destabilizing: It could encourage escalation, instead of de-escalation, of ballistic missile arsenals by nations that fear becoming sitting ducks, and might even provoke a pre-emptive strike. Further, there is still the question of whether the creation of such costly, national defense shields is even technologically feasible.

The Use of Genocidal Biological Warfare for Political Expediency

Not only did RAD advocate the design and deployment of defensive weaponry, it also stressed the updating of conventional offensive weapons including cruise missiles along with stealthy strike aircraft and longer-range Air Force strike aircraft. But it went further in its offensive posture by envisioning and supporting the use of genotype-specific biological warfare. According to RAD, "… advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." In this chilling statement, a double standard is evident. In the hands of al-Qaida, such genocidal weapons would belong to "the realm of terror," but in those of the U.S., they would be "politically useful tools."

Rejection of the United Nations

PNAC's double standard is also inherent in its rejection of the idea of a cooperative, neutral effort among the nations of the world to address world problems, including the problem of Iraq. "Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality," states the RAD report. "The preponderance of American power is so great and its global interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be indifferent to the political outcome in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf or even when it deploys forces in Africa. Finally, these missions demand forces basically configured for combat." Accordingly, a McCain administration founded on a PNAC platform of self-interested exercise of force would oppose giving the United Nations any central role in setting and implementing foreign affairs policy.

Control of Space and Cyberspace

PNAC's quest for global domination transcends any literal meaning of the geopolitical, and extends also to the control, rather than the sharing, of outer space. It also has serious implications for cyber freedom. Thus the RAD report states, "Much as control of the high seas-and the protection of international commerce-defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new 'international commons' be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the 'infosphere' will find it difficult to exert global political leadership. ... Access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new 'global commons.' "

There is a difference between protecting the Internet from a cyber attack and controlling it. The former is defensive while the latter is offensive. But RAD also advocated going on the offensive. It stated that "an offensive capability could offer America's military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner."

However, state control of cyberspace for political purposes can have serious implications for the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. The Bush administration has already engaged in mass illegal spying on the phone and e-mail messages of millions of Americans through its National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program. As a result of copying these messages and depositing them into an NSA computer database, it began to assemble a massive "Total Information Awareness" computer network. The FBI has also begun to develop and integrate such personal data with a biometric database that includes digital iris prints and facial images. Combine this with other computerized databases including credit card information, banking records and health files, and the result is an incredible ability to exercise power and control over anyone deemed by a political leader to be an "adversary"-including journalists, political opponents and others who might not see eye to eye with the administration.

In concert with the PNAC mission of control over cyberspace, McCain has supported making warrantless spying on American citizens legal. When asked if he believed that Bush's warrantless surveillance program was legal, McCain responded, "You know, I don't think so, but why not come to Congress? We can sort this out. ... I think they will get that authority, whatever is reasonable and needed, and increased abilities to monitor communications are clearly in order."

Consistent with his conviction that such extended powers should be granted to the president, McCain has also recently voted for Senate Bill S.2248, which vacates substantial civil liberties protections included in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In contrast to the 1978 FISA, S.2248 would allow the president, acting through the attorney general, to spy on the phone and e-mail communications of Americans without individual court warrants or the need to judicially show probable cause.

Despite the fact that McCain has said that Bush's NSA spying program was not legal, he has also supported granting retroactive legal immunity to the telecommunication companies (such as AT&T and Verizon) that helped Bush illegally spy on millions of Americans. This means that he has openly admitted that the Bush administration acted unlawfully in eavesdropping on Americans' phone and e-mail messages, while at the same time opted for taking away their legal right to redress this violation. And this unequivocally means that McCain is prepared to allow executive authority to trump the rule of law.

Meet the McCain Team

Given John McCain's firm allegiance to the core missions of PNAC, it should come as no surprise that many of the old PNAC guard have shown up as foreign policy advisers in McCain's current presidential campaign, and are likely re-emerge as high officials in his administration if he becomes president. Here are snapshots of some of these potential members of a McCain Cabinet, giving their PNAC profiles, their advisory capacities in the McCain 2008 presidential campaign, and their politics.

William Kristol: Editor and founder of Washington-based political magazine, Weekly Standard.
PNAC co-founder.
Foreign policy adviser.
Has consistently been wrong in his foreign policy analyses regarding Iraq. For example, on March 5, 2003, he stated, "I think we'll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when we liberate the people of Iraq."

Robert Kagan: Served in State Department in Reagan administration on Policy Planning Staff.
PNAC co-founder.
Foreign policy adviser.
Has defended global expansionism by claiming it is an American tradition: "Americans' belief in the possibility of global transformation-the 'messianic' impulse-is and always has been the more dominant strain in the nation's character."

Randy Scheunemann: Former adviser to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Co-director and executive director of Committee for Liberation of Iraq.
Defense and foreign policy coordinator.
With regard to recent National Intelligence Estimate finding that Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program in 2003, stated "a careful reading of the NIE indicates that it is misleading." And he claimed that the NIE harmed our efforts to achieve a "greater diplomatic consensus" to crack down on Iran.

James Woolsey: Director of CIA, Clinton administration, 1993-1995. (Reported to have met only twice with Clinton during time as CIA chief.)
PNAC signatory.
Energy and national security adviser.
Speaking to a group of college students in 2003 about Iraq, he stated that "… the United States is engaged in World War IV." Described the Cold War as the third world war. Then said, "This fourth world war, I think, will last considerably longer than either World Wars I or II did for us. Hopefully not the full four-plus decades of the Cold War."

John R. Bolton: Former U.S. ambassador to U.N. (Nomination to U.N. rejected by Senate, but George
W. Bush put him in place on a recess appointment. Name floated for possible secretary of state for McCain.
PNAC director.
Ardent supporter of McCain for president in 2009.
Publicly derided the United Nations: In 1994, he stated "there is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that's the United States, when it suits our interest, and when we can get others to go along." Advocates attacking Iran.

Robert B. Zollick: President, World Bank.
PNAC signatory.
Announced in 2006 he would be joining McCain presidential campaign for domestic and foreign policy but instead replaced Wolfowitz as president of World Bank in 2007.
Has touted virtues of corporate globalization under the rubric of "comprehensive free trade." But as Kevin Watkins, head researcher for Oxfan, stated, he pays no heed to the effects of the "blind pursuit of US economic and corporate special interests" on the world's poor.

Gary Schmitt: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (home to other PNAC members including Wolfowitz and Pearle.)
PNAC director.
Foreign policy adviser.
Defended warrantless eavesdropping on Americans by claiming that Constitution "created a unitary chief executive. That chief executive could, in times of war or emergency, act with the decisiveness, dispatch and, yes, secrecy, needed to protect the country and its citizens."

Richard L. Armitage: Former deputy secretary of state in George W. Bush administration.
PNAC signatory.
Foreign policy adviser.
By his own admission, was responsible for leaking CIA agent Valerie Plame's CIA identity to the press. Allegedly involved in Iran-Contra affair during Reagan administration.

Max Boot: Council on Foreign Relations.
PNAC signatory.
Foreign policy adviser.
Stating that U.S. should "unambiguously ... embrace its imperial role," has advocated attacking other Middle East countries in addition to Iraq and Iran, including Syria. Said McCain's "bellicose aura" could "scare the snot out of our enemies," who "would be more afraid to mess with him" than with other then-potential presidential candidates.

Henry A. Kissinger: President Nixon's secretary of state.
Embraces expansionist power politics.
Consultant.
Played major role in secret bombings of Cambodia during Nixon administration as well as having had alleged involvement in covert assassination plots and human rights violations in Latin America.

What's in Store for Us if McCain Becomes President

That McCain has surrounded himself with such like-minded advisers who support the narrow PNAC agenda speaks to his unwillingness to hear and consider alternative perspectives. In fact, six out of 10 civilian foreign advisers to McCain are PNAC veterans. Even the newly appointed deputy communications director of the McCain campaign, Michael Goldfard, has been a research associate for PNAC. A die-hard adherent of the "unitary authority" of the chief executive, he recently stated that the framers of the United States Constitution advocated an "executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war."

Add to this list other major PNAC figures such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Dick Cheney who would probably play a significant role in a McCain administration and it is clear in what direction this nation would be moving.

A McCain administration would be likely to:

Invest incredible amounts of money in sustaining multiple, simultaneous wars overseas at the expense of neglecting pressing concerns at home, including the economy, health care, the environment and education.

Stockpile nuclear weapons, while seeking to prohibit its adversaries from having them.

Attempt to shield the U.S. with a multilayered missile defense system based on land, at sea, in the air and in space, while demanding that nations that are not its allies become sitting ducks.

Strive to develop more potent chemical and biological weapons-not to mention the genotype-specific variety, while at the same time claiming to be fighting a "war on terror."

Legalize "Total Information Awareness"-going through all Americans' phone calls, e-mail messages and other personal records without needing probable cause.

Take control of the Internet, globally using it as an offensive political weapon-while claiming to be spreading democracy throughout the world.

Dispense with checks and balances in favor of the "unitary executive authority" of the president.

Alienate nations that refuse to join our war coalitions.

Deny that there is (or can be) a United Nations.

A McCain administration would rule by fear, perceive right in terms of military might and subscribe to the idea of "do as I say and not as I do." As a consequence, instead of rebuilding the image of America as a model of justice and civility, it would further sully respect for this nation throughout the world.
------------------------------------------------------

Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D., is a political analyst and media critic. His most recent book is "The Last Days of Democracy: How Big Media and Power-Hungry Government Are Turning America Into a Dictatorship." He was first-prize winner of the 2007 Project Censored Award.

John McCain Makes Stuff up
John McCain Makes Stuff up
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
Posted June 14, 2008.

Is John McCain like George W. Bush, someone who has learned that the media is hesitant to call a Republican politician a liar? Tools

For years now, the U.S. political press corps has traveled with John McCain on his "Straight Talk Express," buying into his image as a paragon of truth-telling. But the real truth is that McCain routinely makes stuff up, as he did on June 11 in lying about Barack Obama's "bitter" comment.

During a political talk in Philadelphia, McCain claimed that Obama had described "bitter" small-town voters as clinging to religion or "the Constitution" - when the second item in Obama's comment actually was "guns."

But the Arizona senator didn't stop with a simple word substitution. He added that he will tell these voters that "they have trust and support the Constitution of the United States because they have optimism and hope. … That's what America's all about."

In other words, McCain didn't just make a slip of the tongue. He willfully accused Obama of disparaging the U.S. Constitution, a very serious point that, if true, might cause millions of Americans to reject Obama's candidacy.

Still, when some of the U.S. broadcast networks - including NBC evening news - played the clip of McCain lashing out at Obama's purported dissing of the Constitution, they didn't correct McCain's falsehood.

That fits with a long-standing pattern of the political press corps giving McCain a break when he makes statements at variance with the truth. Even in the rare moments when he is caught in an inaccuracy - such as accusing Shiite-ruled Iran of training Sunni extremists in al-Qaeda - the falsehood is minimized as an unintentional gaffe.

However, McCain actually seems to be following a trail blazed by George W. Bush, saying what's useful at the time even if it's not true and then counting on the U.S. press corps to timidly look the other way.

Through all his misstatements, McCain's "straight-talk" reputation survives.

Sweeping Denials

In another instructive case, McCain got away with sweeping denials in his reaction to a New York Times article on Feb. 21. The story led with unsubstantiated suspicions among some McCain staffers that their boss had gotten too cozy with female lobbyist Vicky Iseman, but McCain went beyond simply denying any sexual improprieties.

He put out a statement declaring that in his quarter-century congressional career, he "has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists." But that simply isn't true.

As the Times story already had recalled, McCain helped one of his early financial backers, wheeler-dealer Charles Keating, frustrate oversight from federal banking regulators who were examining Keating's Lincoln Savings and Loan Association.

At Keating's urging, McCain wrote letters, introduced bills and pushed a Keating associate for a job on a banking regulatory board. In 1987, McCain joined several other senators in two private meetings with federal banking regulators on Keating's behalf.

Two years later, Lincoln collapsed, costing the U.S. taxpayers $3.4 billion. Keating eventually went to prison and three other senators from the so-called Keating Five saw their political careers ruined.

McCain drew a Senate reprimand for his involvement and later lamented his faulty judgment. "Why didn't I fully grasp the unusual appearance of such a meeting?" he wrote in his 2002 memoir, Worth the Fighting For.

But some people close to the case thought McCain got off too easy.

Not only was McCain taking donations from Keating and his business circle, getting free rides on Keating's corporate jet and enjoying joint vacations in the Bahamas - McCain's second wife, the beer fortune heiress Cindy Hensley, had invested with Keating in an Arizona shopping mall.

In the years that followed, however, McCain not only got out from under the shadow of the Keating Five scandal but found a silver lining in the cloud, transforming the case into a lessons-learned chapter of his personal narrative.

McCain, as born-again reformer, soon was winning over the Washington press corps with his sponsorship of ethics legislation, like the McCain-Feingold bill limiting "soft money" contributions to the political parties.

However, there was still that other side of John McCain as he wielded enormous power from his position as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which helped him solicit campaign donations from corporations doing business before the panel.

The Times story reported that McCain did favors on behalf of Iseman's lobbying clients, including two letters that McCain wrote in 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission demanding that it act on a long-delayed request by Iseman's client, Florida-based Paxson Communications, to buy a Pittsburgh television station.

Rather than simply acknowledge this fact, McCain's campaign issued another sweeping denial of impropriety, calling those letters routine correspondence that were handled by staff without McCain meeting either with Paxson or anyone from Iseman's firm, Alcalde & Fay.

"No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," his campaign said.

McCain's Own Words

But that also turned out not to be true.

Newsweek's investigative reporter Michael Isikoff dug up a sworn deposition from Sept. 25, 2002, in which McCain himself declared that "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue. … He wanted their [the FCC's] approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

Though McCain claimed not to recall whether he had spoken with Paxson's lobbyist [presumably a reference to Iseman], he added, "I'm sure I spoke to [Paxson]," according to the deposition. [See Newsweek's Web posting, Feb. 22, 2008]

McCain's letters to the FCC, which Chairman William Kennard criticized as "highly unusual," came in the same period when Paxson's company was ferrying McCain to political events aboard its corporate jet and donating $20,000 to his campaign.

After the Feb. 21 Times article appeared, McCain's spokesmen confirmed that Iseman accompanied McCain on at least one of those flights from Florida to Washington, though McCain had said in the 2002 deposition that "I do not recall" if Paxson's lobbyist was onboard.

First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, who conducted the deposition in connection with a challenge to the McCain-Feingold law, asked McCain if the benefits that he received from Paxson created "at least an appearance of corruption here?"

"Absolutely," McCain answered. "I believe that there could possibly be an appearance of corruption because this system has tainted all of us."

When Newsweek went to McCain's 2008 campaign with the seeming contradictions between the deposition and the denial of the Times article, McCain's people stuck to their story that that the senator had never discussed the FCC issue with Paxson or his lobbyist.

"We do not think there is a contradiction here," campaign spokeswoman Ann Begeman told Newsweek. "It appears that Senator McCain, when speaking of being contacted by Paxson, was speaking in shorthand of his staff being contacted by representatives of Paxson. Senator McCain does not recall being asked directly by Paxson or any representative of him or by Alcalde & Fay to contact the FCC regarding the Pittsburgh license transaction."

That new denial crumbled, too, when the Washington Post interviewed Paxson, who said he had talked with McCain in his Washington office several weeks before McCain sent the letters to the FCC.

The broadcast executive also believed that Iseman had helped arrange the meeting and likely was in attendance. "Was Vicki there? Probably," Paxson said. [Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2008]

So, in the months ahead, there's urgency for American voters to figure out whether John McCain is the maverick "straight-shooter" of his usual press clippings or a sanctimonious phony who's just masquerading as the guy who tells it like it is.

Is John McCain like George W. Bush, someone who has learned that the mainstream news media - ever sensitive to accusations of "liberal bias" - is hesitant to call a prominent Republican politician a liar, regardless of the facts and the circumstances?

In this political/media climate, McCain appears to believe he can get away with falsifying key details of something even as heavily reported as Obama's infamous "bitter" remark.

Re: McCain's Brain: the next eight years?



If the above is the online equivalent of the insanity defense in jurisprudence, then fine - anyone declares that he's 79 and therefore gone ga-ga is probably telling the truth.

But if it is some stab at establishing general rules for all of us in this country, please note: our average life expectancy is 78 years. If we follow the poster's logic, then BBB has been not just ga-ga but actually dead for a whole year, while Senator McCain has another 7 years to go - as per perceptive "news outlets" reports, getting older all the time!

This must be a low-comedy thread

Re: McCain's Brain: the next eight years?


Dyslexia would probably say I've been dead for at least two years.

BBB

Re: McCain's no Brain: the next eight years?


And just imagine how many dead and seriously maimed and disfigured innocents there could be if he were given that full 7 years. He could probably get into the millions just given four. Up to now, there's been far far too little recognition and oversight by the Good Germans.

In that, there is no comedy.