Three weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks, former U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith’s recently published account of the Iraq war decisions.
Feith’s account further indicates that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the country’s top military leaders.
Feith’s book, ‘War and Decision’, released last month, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W. Bush on Sep. 30, 2001 calling for the administration to focus not on taking down Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network but on the aim of establishing ‘new regimes’ in a series of states by ‘aiding local peoples to rid themselves of terrorists and to free themselves of regimes that support terrorism.’
In quoting from that document, Feith deletes the names of all of the states to be targeted except Afghanistan, inserting the phrase ’some other states’ in brackets. In a facsimile of a page from a related Pentagon ‘campaign plan’ document, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein regimes are listed as ’state regimes’ against which ‘plans and operations’ might be mounted, but the names of four other states are blacked out ‘for security reasons’.
Gen. Wesley Clark, who commanded the NATO bombing campaign in the Kosovo War, recalls in his 2003 book ‘Winning Modern Wars’ being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia.
Clark writes that the list also included Lebanon. Feith reveals that Rumsfeld’s paper called for getting ‘Syria out of Lebanon’ as a major goal of U.S. policy.
When this writer asked Feith after a recent public appearance which countries’ names were deleted from the documents, he cited security reasons for the deletion. But when he was asked which of the six regimes on the Clark list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, he replied, ‘All of them.’… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <IPS>
This is confirmation of a story I posted here in March, 2007. That story was the video of a statement by Gen. Clark, which I am reposting here:
Now we have confirmation from within the inner circle of the GOP Reich that Iraq was only part of a plan for world domination through military force. They made the US a rogue state, and all involved in their attempt to implement this plan should be tried as war criminals.
On the campaign trail, McBoomBoom has promised more wars. I submit to you that these are the wars.
All articles cross-posted from Politics Plus
Iraq said on Sunday it has no evidence that Iran was supplying militias engaged in fierce street fighting with security forces in Baghdad.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said there was no “hard evidence” of involvement by the neighbouring Shiite government of Iran in backing Shiite militiamen in the embattled country.
Asked about reports that weapons captured from Shiite fighters bore 2008 markings suggesting Iranian involvement, Dabbagh said: “We don’t have that kind of evidence… If there is hard evidence we will defend the country.”
Dabbagh said an Iraqi parliamentary delegation which visited Iran last week had useful discussions with authorities there and secured assurances of support and understanding of the crisis… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Yahoo News>
Bush, McBoomBoom and the GOP are fixing the intelligence around the policy, again. They are trying to deceive the US public around the war. Iran’s recent Nobel Laureate has a great take on this:
Shirin Ebadi wants Americans to do what they can to stop the Bush administration’s threats to bomb Iran as punishment for presumably making nuclear weapons.
“Nuclear weapons are not a daily concern of the people,” said Ebadi. “They want jobs; they want houses; they want health; they want more freedom.”
However, she predicted that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would whip up nationalistic support if Iran were forced into a face-off with the United States, just as it did when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980. The invasion resulted in an eight-year war between the two countries.
“Iranians may criticize their government, but if there is a military attack on Iran, they will defend their own country,” she said. “A government that is in danger from the outside will take any chance to accelerate nationalism inside the country.”
The lawyer, writer, teacher and former judge, became the first Muslim woman and first Iranian to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 for her efforts to promote democracy and human rights in Iran… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Common Dreams>
She makes an excellent point. The more militant the US position on Iran, the less likelihood that more progressive Iranians can effect reforms within their country. The McBoomBoom policy is McSame as the Bush policy: Bomb, bomb Iran.
Iran discussed with Russia on Monday its proposals to defuse a nuclear row with the West, which accuses Tehran of seeking to build atomic bombs.
Iran said earlier this month it would unveil ideas to help end the dispute over its nuclear ambitions, which have prompted three rounds of U.N. sanctions since 2006 for its refusal to heed U.N. demands to halt sensitive uranium enrichment work.
But a senior Iranian official said Tehran would never negotiate over its right to nuclear technology, suggesting Iran is not willing to rein in its work in line with U.N. demands.
“Iran … has serious proposals regarding the nuclear issue, about what to do to minimize the nuclear threat around the world,” Jalili said without giving specifics about the package.
The proposals were discussed with Valentin Sobolev, acting secretary of Russia’s National Security Council, an Iranian official said. Further talks would be held on Tuesday, he added.
Jalili said the ideas addressed security and political issues and would underpin “talks among influential and major powers, and Iran as a major power in the region can play an important role.”
A senior diplomat in Europe said Iran had earlier proposed turning its Natanz enrichment complex into a multilateral operation to counter foreign fears of diversions to bombmaking there, and that this might be among Iran’s proposals… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Reuters>
While nothing Iran can say will be acceptable to Bush or stop McBoomBoom from singing Bomb Bomb Iran, see this as a positive development. I can understand Iran’s reluctance to choose technology that makes them dependent on the US for nuclear fuel, considering that out nation overthrew a democratically elected government in their nation and installed a cruel dictatorship, and considering the extreme extent of Crawford Caligula’s saber rattling. I can also understand the West’s concern about nuclear proliferation. If Iran’s proposals allay that concern, I will be pleased to see it.
The Corporate Media spent a week attacking Obama for saying some rural voters might be “bitter” over the loss of economic opportunities.
By that measure, it certainly is worth a month of TV time to analyze John McCain’s claim that the recession is “psychological,” and the cure is a summer holiday from the $.18 federal gasoline tax.
I’m very concerned about it, Neil. And obviously the way it’s been going up is just terrible. But I think psychologically — and a lot of our problems today, as you know, are psychological — the confidence, trust, the uncertainty about our economic future, ability to keep our own home. This might give them a little psychological boost. Let’s have some straight talk, it’s not a huge amount of money.
According to the latest ABC/WaPo poll, 90% of Americans think the economy is going south. Did 90% of Americans suddenly lose their minds, or did the economy … turn south?… [emphasis original]
Inserted from <Democrats.com>
OK, McConJob! Lets have some straight talk.
That the distribution of income in the US is the most inequitable it has been since 1928, and the distribution of wealth, the most inequitable it has ever been is NOT psychological. That more Americans are homeless, unemployed, without health care and/or without enough to eat than ever before is NOT psychological. That we cringe every time we see huge price increases for our food, fuel and medicine is NOT psychological. That our currency is falling to record lows is NOT psychological.
In contrast, that you have placed yourself on both sides of virtually every issue IS psychological. That you cannot learn basic facts IS psychological. That you voted for torture IS psychological. That you gleefully sang “Bomb Bomb Iran” in a public meeting IS psychological. That you cannot hold your temper IS psychological.
That’s straight talk, McNutCase!
President Bush ordered an indefinite suspension yesterday of troop withdrawals from Iraq this summer but promised that the war “is not endless” as he braced for a new election-year showdown with Congress over the conflict’s economic cost and long-term future.
With Bush effectively freezing troop levels at 140,000 in August, Congress moved to challenge him on two fronts. Democratic leaders prepared to amend war-funding legislation to limit his options and to direct money to domestic priorities, while lawmakers from both parties took on his plan to sign a strategic agreement with Iraq that would outlast his presidency.
The decision to accept Army Gen. David H. Petraeus’s plan to halt withdrawals after the extra combat brigades that were sent last year depart in July means that Bush probably will bequeath his successor a force about as large as it has been for most of the past five years. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said he has given up hope of scaling back to 100,000 troops in Iraq by the end of 2008, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker indicated that he expects the war to last several more years…
Inserted from <Washington Post>
Gee! What a surprise that Bush is adopting the plan he gave his his sycophant toy general to parrot for him! If this sounds like a broken record, here’s why.
This morning, speaking from the White House, the president boasted, “American and Iraqi forces have made significant progress” in Iraq. It got me thinking, haven’t we heard that phrase before in relation to Iraq?
Indeed, it’s a phrase the White House has used to describe events in Iraq several hundred times over the last five years. I can’t imagine why anyone would be skeptical about the claim now…[emphasis original]
Inserted from <The Carpetbagger Report>
I suppose you can say a car is making progress, even if it is never shifted out of reverse. But there is a far greater concern, one that the MSM has failed to mention.
In his speech on Thursday, Bush wasted little time before getting to the ominous subject of Iran.
Time and time again, he lumped the alleged threat from Iran in the same breadth [sic] as the one from Al Qaeda, once again fusing enemies in the minds of the American people.
“Serious and complex challenges remain in Iraq, from the presence of Al Qaeda to the destructive influence of Iran,” he said, even before declaring that the surge has “renewed and revived the prospect of success.”
A little later, he said, “Iraq is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century: Al Qaeda and Iran.” (Bush has now elevated Iran over China as the looming threat of the century!)
And in the next paragraph, he said, “If we succeed in Iraq after all that Al Qaeda and Iran have invested there, it would be a historic blow to the global terrorist movement and a severe setback for Iran.”
Al Qaeda-Iran, Al Qaeda-Iran, Al Qaeda-Iran. That is the chant emanating from the White House.
But Bush was not content to be subtle about his belligerence toward Iran.
Listen to the saber rattle:
“The regime in Tehran also has a choice to make,” Bush said. “It can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties. Or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups, which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran. If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops, and our Iraqi partners.”… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <The Progressive>
Bush is itching to start another war, and McBoomBoom is his chief cheerleader.
Cross-posted from Politics Plus
Gen. David Petraeus dashed hopes Tuesday that the U.S. could start significant troop withdrawals from Iraq any time soon, drawing the ire of legislators as he suggested that there would still be 100,000 troops there until the end of the Bush administration.
Seven months after telling Congress that he would offer a plan for reducing the troop presence, the general instead recommended a halt in troop withdrawals after roughly 30,000 troops sent as part of a buildup leave this summer, followed by at least 45 days to consider any further pullbacks. The situation, he said, was too tenuous to do more than that.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was among the Democrats who decried Petraeus’ recommendation as an open-ended commitment. Meanwhile, many Republican senators countered that a precipitous drawdown would undercut the gains from the U.S. troop buildup…
…Under questioning, Petraeus said there was “no mathematical equation” for withdrawing troops, and he repeatedly called the situation “fragile and reversible.”…
…But they also were forced to acknowledge that the flawed Iraqi-led offensive in the mostly Shiite city of Basra showed that the Shiite-dominated south is on the precipice of an intra-sectarian war.
The Iraqi military all but collapsed within days of fighting rebel groups there, quashing hopes that the forces could soon take over security of their communities.
Moreover, violence has been rising in the capital. Twelve U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq since Sunday, most of them in Baghdad province. And civilian deaths in Baghdad are rising, from 172 in February to 211 in March, according to statistics compiled by McClatchy… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Seattle Times>
In a nutshell, the position put forward by Petraeus and Crocker is that they could not predict when we could withdraw troops and they could not even define a set of conditions under which troops could be withdrawn. It was a statement that they don’t know what it is, but they will know it when they see it. I think they were afraid to set parameters, because every time they have, they’ve had to return with a new line of BS.
They claimed that our most powerful enemy in Iraq is Al Qaeda and also claimed to have cut AQI’s resources in Iraq by nearly 90%. That is pure bull. When we invaded there was no AQI. A handful of local Sunni insurgents declared allegiance and receives support from some foreign fighters. At their strongest AQI never had more that 3,000 to 5,000 fighters. Their strength remains about the same today. But let’s assume, for the sake of argument only, that AQI is 90% wiped out. If that is true, the betrayer and the crock are claiming that a force of 300 – 500 guys is the most powerful enemy we face there. BEEP! BEEP!! BEEP!!! Listen to the sound of the Ka-shit detector going off.
They also claimed that Maliki was going after armed criminal groups when he struck Basra. I documented thoroughly HERE that Maliki was really going after Al Sadr because of the upcoming elections. They downplayed the failure and tried to paint it as a political success. They also tried to connect it to Iran. While it is true that all the Shia militia’s receive support from Iran, they failed to note that the one that receives the most Iranian support is the Badr Brigade, the militia connected to Maliki’s party. It was completely disingenuous for the betrayer and the crock to try to identify Al Sadr with Iranian influence, when Al Sadr is a nationalist, and Iran has more influence on Maliki.
Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were more low key that I would have liked. Both stated support for a responsible, not precipitous, withdrawal. Both asked relevant questions. Neither really went after Petraeus and Crocker. Senator Feingold and McCaskill did much better.
Representing the Reich, Joe LIEberman was the most extreme.
…But Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) thinks that all too much emphasis has been put on the caveats. Clearly criticizing the questioning by Democrats today, Lieberman said that “there’s a kind of hear no progress in Iraq, see no progress in Iraq, and most of all, speak of no progress in Iraq.”
Lieberman, at least, sees no harm in overstating the progress in Iraq: “The Iraqi political leadership has achieved a lot more political reconciliation and progress since September than the American political leadership has.”
Finally, he seemed to indicate that if only Democrats would accept the clear success of the surge, we “can move to more success so we can bring more of our troops home.”… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <TPM>
Has he been drinking the Kool-Aid or what? Note the picture of LIEberman at worship.
Then there was McBoomBoom. Here’s part of what he had to say:
…Because the U.S. did not “choose to retreat,” we now have a successful strategy in Iraq, the surge. And although “much more needs to be done… today it is possible to talk with real hope and optimism about the future of Iraq…. Success is within reach.”
If we pull out, he said, Iraq might descend into genocide and become a haven for terrorists and even “draw us into a far more costly war” as a result. “Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq,” he concluded, we “should choose instead to succeed.”… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <TPM>
As usual, McBoomBoom remained clueless about what is going on there.
During today’s hearing with Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) questioned Petraeus on what he called “the major threat” of al Qaeda in Iraq. Coming on the heels of his recent confusion over the nature of al Qaeda, McCain today seemed to refer to al Qaeda as a “sect of Shi’ites”:
MCCAIN: Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?
PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago.
MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi’ites overall?
PETREAUS: No.
… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Think Progress>
Earth to McBoomBoom! Hello? Is anyone home? Al Qaeda is still Sunni!!
All in all, this was quite a show. Someone else did an excellent review of this BS session and I’ll close by sharing that with you. Here is Keith Olbermann.
And here is part 2:
Cross-posted from Politics Plus
Iraq’s prime minister raised the stakes in his showdown with followers of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, saying in an interview broadcast on Monday they would be barred from elections unless their militia disbands.
The comments followed an offensive by government forces into the cleric’s Baghdad stronghold, the Shi’ite slum of Sadr City, in which heavy fighting returned to the capital after a week of relative calm when Sadr called his militiamen off the streets.
“A decision was taken … that they no longer have a right to participate in the political process or take part in the upcoming elections unless they end the Mehdi Army,” Maliki said in an interview with CNN, according to a report posted on the U.S. television network’s Web site.
Maliki’s threat to drive Sadr’s millions of supporters out of the political process heightens tensions in a conflict that has divided Iraq’s Shi’ite majority and led to the worst fighting since extra U.S. troops arrived last year.
Sadr’s followers are due this year to participate for the first time in elections for powerful provincial government posts that control the southern half of the country — and are widely expected to oust less-popular Shi’ite parties that back Maliki… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Yahoo News>
On March 30, I posted the following HERE., about Maliki’s failed attack in Basra:
This has nothing to do with Al Qaeda or sectarian violence. It’s a struggle between Shia militia’s, the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigade. Maliki is trying to consolidate then power of his faction over that of Al Sadr.
Despite support from US troops the attack failed, partially because over 1,000 Iraqi troops deserted.
This confirms what I said. Maliki cannot defeat Al Sadr in the upcoming provincial elections, so he is doing whatever he can to hang onto power, with GOP support, because with Maliki out of power, Bush, McConJob and the GOP will probably not be able to grab either the oil or the permanent bases they crave.
Meanwhile, on the McConJob front:
Appearing on Fox News Sunday this morning Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) repeated the false claim that Muqtada al-Sadr declared the ceasefire in Basra last week, which he pointed to as proof that Sadr didn’t “think he was winning” the battle in Basra. He also said that the Iraqi army performed “pretty well”:
It was al-Sadr that declared the ceasefire, not Maliki. … With respect, I don’t think Sadr would have declared the ceasefire if he thought he was winning. Most times in history, military engagements, the winning side doesn’t declare the ceasefire. The second point is, overall, the Iraqi military performed pretty well. … The military is functioning very effectively.
Watch it:
In fact, it was members of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government who brokered the ceasefire, to which Sadr agreed. Experts agree that Sadr’s influence was strengthened — rather than diminished — by the Basra battle
Inserted from <Think Progress>
As with all things pertaining to this war, not to mention virtually everything else, McBoomBoom is completely clueless.
It will be interesting to watch Bush’s toy general spin this failure and Maliki’s threat to disenfranchise millions of his fellow Shia as progress toward reconciliation.
Of this we can be certain. If Maliki follows through on his threat, there is no way Al Sadr will put up with it.
Cross-posted from Politics Plus
The Iranian general who helped broker an end to nearly a week of fighting between Iraqi government forces and Shiite Muslim militiamen in southern Iraq is an unlikely peacemaker.
Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, who helped U.S.-backed Iraqi leaders negotiate a deal with radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr to stop the fighting in Iraq’s largely Shiite south, is named on U.S. Treasury Department and U.N. Security Council watch lists for alleged involvement in terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear and missile technology.
His role as peacemaker, which McClatchy first reported Sunday, underscores Iran’s entrenched political power and its alliances in Iraq, according to analysts.
“The Iranians are into a lot of things, and have a lot of influence,” said Judith Yaphe, a former CIA analyst who’s now at the National Defense University in Washington.
Suleimani, about whom little is known publicly, commands the elite Quds (Jerusalem) force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. U.S. officials allege that the force is responsible for sending sophisticated roadside bombs, known as explosively formed projectiles, and other weaponry that Iran’s Shiite allies in Iraq sometimes have used to kill U.S. troops.
Suleimani’s name appears on a U.S. Treasury Department list of individuals and organizations with whom Americans are barred from doing business… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <McClatchy DC>
Yesterday McConJob stated that the cease fire was a victory for Maliki, because Al Sadr declared the truce. Like Bush and the GOP as a whole, McConJob proved his complete ignorance of the situation. The only reason Al Sadr did so is that Maliki backed down on his demand that the Mahdi Army be disarmed. After accepting defeat, Maliki asked Al Sadr to declare the truce. Maliki did so as a result of pressure from Suleimani, whose intervention probably saved the loves so several US troops.
Cross-posted from Politics Plus
.. The Saudi government is now preparing plans to deal with “any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards” that may arise from an attack on Iran’s nuclear reactors. This was reported by a top Saudi newspaper, Okaz, and relayed by a leading German news service, DPA — one day after Dick Cheney paid a visit to the kingdom. As we noted, no one knows exactly what was said at that confab of allied authoritarians — but something sure lit a fire under the Saudis, and convinced them that urgent action is needed to brace for the lethal overspill from a strike on Iran.
Floyd points out that nothing in Saudi Arabia becomes the top news story without government approval. That such a story should be released the day after Cheney’s visit, sends a message to everyone about what’s on Cheney’s mind.
This, combined with the dismissal of Centcom chief, Admiral Fallon, Petreus’ claim to have evidence (which he doesn’t produce) that Iran was responsible for the recent shelling of the Green Zone,
. . and the Egyptian report that a nuclear sub has been ordered by Bush into the Gulf, the bleak picture in both Pakistan and Afghanistan (accelerating collapse of Musharraf’s power and strategy, the coming spring offensive in the Taliban’s announced drive for Kabu[sic]),
. . plus the oft-stated desire of Bush and Cheney to attack Iran, and, as noted by former mideast policy official William K. Polk at Juan Cole’s site just a few days ago, the last time Cheney visited the nations he visited this time was right before the Iraq attack,
. . then only a moron would deny that Bush and Dick have nothing but contempt for the will of the people, congress and the courts, and that they crave war like a junkie craves his fix… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <OpEdNews>
As troubling as this news is, I think it’s a bit premature. For now, I think that the Reich is content to sit back and watch Democrats shredding each other, while the captive MSM concentrate on that. Once Democrats settle their differences and turn their attentions to McConJob, then is the time that this scenario becomes most likely, perhaps in late summer or early fall. Then the attack, if it happens, is sure to be preceded by a false-flag operation of some sort, because the people won’t be fooled by a trumped-up necessity for a preemptive strike. Iraq is too fresh in their minds, with the many lies surrounding that debacle. Instead, the attack will have to appear to be a direct retaliation for an attack against the US or Israel. When and if this happens, it will fall to us to scour the world news in order to learn and expose the truth, because we may rest assured that the media will be beating the war drum.
Cross-posted from Politics Plus
…10. Responding to a student who criticized his remark about our staying in Iraq for 100 years, McCain quipped, “No American argues against our military presence in Korea or Japan or Germany or Kuwait or other places, or Turkey, because America is not receiving casualties.”
I guess Ron Paul isn’t American. Or Dennis Kucinich. Or many others who have questioned the mindset behind keeping our troops abroad forever, which is what an empire does, not a republic. Although, perhaps more people don’t argue “against our military presence” in the other spots he named, because, you know, those wars weren’t based on 100 percent fabricated evidence and didn’t make us less safe after they were done. Just a thought.
9. John McCain is “very proud to have Pastor John Hagee’s support.”
Just FYI, John Hagee makes Jeremiah Wright seem like Richard Simmons. Hagee has called the Catholic Church the “Great Whore,” an “apostate church,” the “Antichrist,” and a “false cult system.” And let’s not even get into what he has said about Jews.
8. “In the shorter term,” said McCain, “if you somehow told American businesses and families, ‘Look, you’re not going to experience a tax increase in 2010,’ I think that’s a pretty good short-term measure.”
This is McCain’s statement in suport of making permanent the tax cuts he voted and railed against in 2001 and 2003. Back then they were only a giveaway to the rich and “budget-busters.” Now that we are much further along in borrowing our economy from the Chinese, and the rich have become even richer, they are a way to stimulate the economy by putting money in the hands of working Americans.
7. “This is a Catholic Voter Alert. Governor George Bush has campaigned against Senator John McCain by seeking the support of Southern fundamentalists who have expressed anti-Catholic views. Several weeks ago, Governor Bush spoke at Bob Jones University in South Carolina. Bob Jones has made strong anti-Catholic statements, including calling the Pope the anti-Christ, the Catholic Church a satanic cult! John McCain, a pro-life senator, has strongly criticized this anti-Catholic bigotry, while Governor Bush has stayed silent while seeking the support of Bob Jones University. Because of this, one Catholic pro-life congressman has switched his support from Bush to McCain, and many Michigan Catholics support John McCain for president.”
This was a John McCain for president campaign robo-call in 2000. Today, as we pointed out, he hangs with the Rev. Hagee who thinks Catholicism is a “cult” and the “Antichrist.” How romantic.
6. “Everybody says that they’re against the special interests. I’m the only one the special interests don’t give any money to.”
Here are some examples of Sen. McCain’s epic battle with special-interest money: According to the Center for Responsive Politics, McCain has taken nearly $1.2 million in campaign contributions from the telephone utility and telecom service industries, more than any other senator. McCain sides with the telecom companies on retroactive immunity.
McCain is also the single largest recipient of campaign contributions from Ion Media Networks — formerly Paxson Communication — receiving $36,000 from the company and employees from 1997 to mid-year 2006.
5. McCain listened intently, pausing a second before delivering what could be a defining answer. “The other one will do just fine.”
For what important reason was Sen. McCain interrupting an explanation to the press of his positions on Iraq and national security to take a cell phone from an aide? Why his wife needed to buy them a new barbecue grill.
4. During a Nov. 28, 2007, Republican debate Sen. McCain angrily denounced torture and offered unmitigated support of the Army field manual’s restrictions, saying they “are working, and working effectively.”
So naturally and quite logically, he voted against applying these same standards to the CIA. Apparently these rules won’t work effectively for spooks, just the men and women on the front lines.
3. McCain, while speaking at a town hall meeting in a suburb of Philadelphia, was asked if he had concerns that anti-American insurgents in Iraq might commit increased acts of violence in September or October with a plan in mind to tip the November election to the Democrats. “Yes, I worry about it,” McCain said.
How did he figure out what the insurgents — which his policies in Iraq have helped create — are up to? When they attacked us on 9/11, and the warning signs were all ignored by President Bush and his then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, he was punished with winning a second term. So, of course, militants, who follow john McCain’s campaign like Republicans do the signs of the Rapture, are closely planning their events because they know the exact opposite will be the result this time.
2. Let’s go back to the videotape: “I’m the only one the special interests don’t give any money to.”
Not only have we proven this false, but perhaps many can’t give money because they all work on his campaign. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, lobbyist. Top advisor, Charlie Black, lobbyist. The operative currently running his Senate office, Mark Buse, former lobbyist. And so it goes. Here is what one observer had to say. “It’s an interesting dichotomy. On the one hand, he’s presenting himself as the crusader against special interests and yet, on the other hand, he’s surrounded himself with senior advisers that are lobbyists,” said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan, non-profit research group focused on money in politics.
1. And finally, McCain’s craziest, coolest, most unstoppable McCain Moment: The senator said, while in Jordan, that it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.” A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, admiringly gazing at McCain until that moment, stepped up and whispered something in the presidential candidate’s ear. McCain then blurted out: “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <AlterNet>
McConJob is so McSame as Bush that his McConJobisms rival Bushisms.
Cross-posted from Politics Plus
