McCain and other right wing hypocrites exposed

[Guest Guest]

John McCain met his current wife by cheating on his former wife, who raised his children while he was in Vietnam. When she was disabled and apparently of no further use to Mr. McCain, McCain dumped her for a rich former beauty queen. These are facts.

“McCain was still married and living with his wife in 1979 while, according to The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof, "aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich." McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife's family money. In 2000, McCain managed to deflect media questioning about his first marriage with a deft admission of responsibility for its failure. It's possible that the age of the offense and McCain's charmed relationship with the press will pull him through again, but Giuliani and Gingrich may face a more difficult challenge. Both conducted well-documented affairs in the last decade--while still in public office.”

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...0607.benen.html

Here’s a partial transcript and a link to a video from Hannity and Colmes, August 12, 2008. Read, watch and weep, right wing hypocrites:

http://www.newshounds.us/2008/08/13/a_fire..._to_edwards.php

“In an unbalanced panel, the three conservatives (two guests plus Hannity) worked themselves into a self-righteous lather of sanctimony against John Edwards that included attacks on the so-called liberal media for not going after him harder. It was obvious they were completely unprepared for Colmes' very apt comparison of Edwards to McCain.

“Chris Wilson, Republican pollster, said, “(Edwards is) running for president on moral values. His wife has been diagnosed with cancer and yet this is a man that we’re going to trust of leading the free world? ...That’s why this is an issue.”

“Hannity smacked his hands together as he said, “If you can’t keep a promise to your family, can’t keep a promise to your wife, you’re having an affair, you’re lying about the affair repeatedly. Why should the American people trust you when you say you’re not gonna lie to them? Why should we trust you?”

““That’s a great question Sean asked,” Colmes said as he began his turn. To conservative Amanda Carpenter, Colmes asked, “Amanda, if that’s true, you can’t trust somebody who had an affair, how can we trust John McCain to be president of the United States since he cheated, by his own admission, on his first wife? He didn’t keep his marital vows. He didn’t keep his pledge to his first family.”

“That’s when the fireworks started. Carpenter dodged the question by saying it's an issue that has been thoroughly vetted. Wilson made the laughable claim that Edwards had attacked Clinton for cheating on his wife. Hannity had a major hissy fit (most likely because he had been caught red-handed with his own hypocrisy) and insisted that McCain’s behavior should be viewed through the lens of having returned home from being a POW.

“The producers clanged a bell to stop the argument at the end of the show.”

Of course, right wingers like PatRat, Hannity and the like wouldn’t notice hypocrisy, since they live by it.

[Manscape]

BANG ZOOM.............

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/081108b.html

Neocons Now Love International Law

By Robert Parry

August 12, 2008

It’s touching how American neoconservatives who have no regard for international law when they want to invade some troublesome country have developed a sudden reverence for national sovereignty.

Apparently, context is everything. So, the United States attacking Grenada or Nicaragua or Panama or Iraq or Serbia is justified even if the reasons sometimes don’t hold water or don’t hold up before the United Nations, The Hague or other institutions of international law.

However, when Russia attacks Georgia in a border dispute over Georgia’s determination to throttle secession movements in two semi-autonomous regions, everyone must agree that Georgia’s sovereignty is sacrosanct and Russia must be condemned.

U.S. newspapers, such as the New York Times, see nothing risible about publishing a statement from President George W. Bush declaring that “Georgia is a sovereign nation and its territorial integrity must be respected.”

No one points out that Bush should have zero standing enunciating such a principle. Iraq also was a sovereign nation, but Bush invaded it under false pretenses, demolished its army, overthrew its government and then conducted a lengthy military occupation resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

The invasion of Iraq also wasn’t a spur of the moment decision. In the months after the 9/11 attacks, Bush proclaimed an exceptional right of the United States to invade any country that might become a threat to American security or to U.S. global dominance. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush’s Grim Vision” or see our book, Neck Deep]

When asked questions about international law, Bush would joke: “International law? I better call my lawyer.”

The neocons’ contempt for international law goes back even further – to the 1980s and the illegal contra war against Nicaragua and the invasion of Panama. Only in the last few days have the neocons discovered an appreciation for multilateral institutions and the principles of non-intervention.

Despite this history, leading U.S. newspapers don’t see hypocrisy. Instead, they have thrown open their pages to prominent neocons and other advocates of U.S.-led invasions so these thinkers now can denounce Russia while not mentioning any contradictions.

On Monday, the Washington Post’s neoconservative editorial writers published their own editorial excoriating Russia, along with two op-eds, one by neocon theorist Robert Kagan and another co-authored by Bill Clinton’s ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke.

All three – the Post editorial board, Kagan and Holbrooke – were gung-ho for invading Iraq, but now find the idea of Russia attacking the sovereign nation of Georgia inexcusable, even if Georgia’s leaders in Tblisi may have provoked the conflict with an offensive against separatists in South Ossetia along the Russian border.

“Whatever mistakes Tblisi has made, they cannot justify Russia’s actions,” Holbrooke and his co-author Ronald D. Asmus wrote. “Moscow has invaded a neighbor, an illegal act of aggression that violates the U.N. Charter and fundamental principles of cooperation and security in Europe.”

And to top matters off, the authors accused Russia of breaking an even older international covenant: “Beginning a well-planned war … as the Olympics were opening violates the ancient tradition of a truce to conflict during the Games.”

The New York Times ran an op-ed by neocon columnist William Kristol, who also condemned Russia’s aggression without indicating any remorse for his own enthusiasm for U.S. invasions of countries that Washington didn’t like.

Wearing Blinders

While major U.S. news outlets may be comfortable wearing blinders that let them see only wrongdoing by others, the rest of the world views the outrage from Bush and the neocons over Russia as a stunning double standard.

This larger problem is that the Bush administration – along with its neocon allies and many establishment Democrats – have lost any credibility with the world community when it comes to invoking international law.

Bush has applied these legal principles a la carte for years (for instance, ignoring the Geneva Conventions when he chooses), and many longer-serving U.S. officials have viewed events through the lens of American exceptionalism for decades.

For instance, even as the Reagan administration condemned terrorism in the 1980s, it secretly armed the Nicaraguan contras who engaged in acts of terrorism inside Nicaragua. In 1990, when President George H.W. Bush denounced Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, everyone conveniently forgot that he had invaded Panama in 1989.

It has been as if the rules moved on separate tracks, one set for the United States and one set for everyone else – and it was impolite to notice.

Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, however, it has become harder to ignore Washington’s double standards. Also, after the five-plus-year fiasco in Iraq, the Bush administration must confront both the limitations on its own imperial reach and the fact that it has done grave damage to the protocols of international behavior.

As Russia is now demonstrating in its conflict with Georgia, other big powers may want to play by the same do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do rules laid down by the United States.

It is a case of Washington, Bush and the neocons reaping what they have sown.

[Guest Guest]

It is a case of Washington, Bush and the neocons reaping what they have sown.

That would explain all the weeds growing throughout the country

[Guest GUEST]

John McCain met his current wife by cheating on his former wife, who raised his children while he was in Vietnam. When she was disabled and apparently of no further use to Mr. McCain, McCain dumped her for a rich former beauty queen. These are facts.

“McCain was still married and living with his wife in 1979 while, according to The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof, "aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich." McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife's family money. In 2000, McCain managed to deflect media questioning about his first marriage with a deft admission of responsibility for its failure. It's possible that the age of the offense and McCain's charmed relationship with the press will pull him through again, but Giuliani and Gingrich may face a more difficult challenge. Both conducted well-documented affairs in the last decade--while still in public office.”

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...0607.benen.html

Here’s a partial transcript and a link to a video from Hannity and Colmes, August 12, 2008. Read, watch and weep, right wing hypocrites:

http://www.newshounds.us/2008/08/13/a_fire..._to_edwards.php

“In an unbalanced panel, the three conservatives (two guests plus Hannity) worked themselves into a self-righteous lather of sanctimony against John Edwards that included attacks on the so-called liberal media for not going after him harder. It was obvious they were completely unprepared for Colmes' very apt comparison of Edwards to McCain.

“Chris Wilson, Republican pollster, said, “(Edwards is) running for president on moral values. His wife has been diagnosed with cancer and yet this is a man that we’re going to trust of leading the free world? ...That’s why this is an issue.”

“Hannity smacked his hands together as he said, “If you can’t keep a promise to your family, can’t keep a promise to your wife, you’re having an affair, you’re lying about the affair repeatedly. Why should the American people trust you when you say you’re not gonna lie to them? Why should we trust you?”

““That’s a great question Sean asked,” Colmes said as he began his turn. To conservative Amanda Carpenter, Colmes asked, “Amanda, if that’s true, you can’t trust somebody who had an affair, how can we trust John McCain to be president of the United States since he cheated, by his own admission, on his first wife? He didn’t keep his marital vows. He didn’t keep his pledge to his first family.”

“That’s when the fireworks started. Carpenter dodged the question by saying it's an issue that has been thoroughly vetted. Wilson made the laughable claim that Edwards had attacked Clinton for cheating on his wife. Hannity had a major hissy fit (most likely because he had been caught red-handed with his own hypocrisy) and insisted that McCain’s behavior should be viewed through the lens of having returned home from being a POW.

“The producers clanged a bell to stop the argument at the end of the show.”

Of course, right wingers like PatRat, Hannity and the like wouldn’t notice hypocrisy, since they live by it.

It's probably useless at this point in time to try and convince the right wing nuts of the many atrocities this Bush administration has brought upon the U.S. Anyone still in the dark is either uninformed and un-curious (if that's a word), or loyal to the death. I happened to be watching Hannity & Colmes when that exchange about Mc Cain took place - I watch the show for the laughs, though most of the time it infuriates me - and it was a beautiful thing to FINALLY see Colmes get in Hannity's face. It's a topic the MSM and even the cable networks seem to tiptoe around, but I think it's a legitimate discussion and I'm sure many of Mc Cain's "followers" are unaware of the facts. For example, Mr. Mc Cain and his young (and very rich) mistress applied for their wedding license BEFORE his divorce was even final. A small point - but very telling of his moral character, don't you think?

[Guest Guest]

http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcaindiv.htm

http://www.236.com/tag/John+McCain+philanderer

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-...eft-behind.html

http://readerrant.capitolhillblue.com/ubbt...mp;Number=50819

[Guest Cupid]

It's probably useless at this point in time to try and convince the right wing nuts of the many atrocities this Bush administration has brought upon the U.S. Anyone still in the dark is either uninformed and un-curious (if that's a word), or loyal to the death. I happened to be watching Hannity & Colmes when that exchange about Mc Cain took place - I watch the show for the laughs, though most of the time it infuriates me - and it was a beautiful thing to FINALLY see Colmes get in Hannity's face. It's a topic the MSM and even the cable networks seem to tiptoe around, but I think it's a legitimate discussion and I'm sure many of Mc Cain's "followers" are unaware of the facts. For example, Mr. Mc Cain and his young (and very rich) mistress applied for their wedding license BEFORE his divorce was even final. A small point - but very telling of his moral character, don't you think?

Sounds more like true love, don't you think?

[Guest Patriot]

BANG ZOOM.............

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/081108b.html

Neocons Now Love International Law

By Robert Parry

August 12, 2008

It’s touching how American neoconservatives who have no regard for international law when they want to invade some troublesome country have developed a sudden reverence for national sovereignty.

Apparently, context is everything. So, the United States attacking Grenada or Nicaragua or Panama or Iraq or Serbia is justified even if the reasons sometimes don’t hold water or don’t hold up before the United Nations, The Hague or other institutions of international law.

However, when Russia attacks Georgia in a border dispute over Georgia’s determination to throttle secession movements in two semi-autonomous regions, everyone must agree that Georgia’s sovereignty is sacrosanct and Russia must be condemned.

U.S. newspapers, such as the New York Times, see nothing risible about publishing a statement from President George W. Bush declaring that “Georgia is a sovereign nation and its territorial integrity must be respected.”

No one points out that Bush should have zero standing enunciating such a principle. Iraq also was a sovereign nation, but Bush invaded it under false pretenses, demolished its army, overthrew its government and then conducted a lengthy military occupation resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

The invasion of Iraq also wasn’t a spur of the moment decision. In the months after the 9/11 attacks, Bush proclaimed an exceptional right of the United States to invade any country that might become a threat to American security or to U.S. global dominance. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush’s Grim Vision” or see our book, Neck Deep]

When asked questions about international law, Bush would joke: “International law? I better call my lawyer.”

The neocons’ contempt for international law goes back even further – to the 1980s and the illegal contra war against Nicaragua and the invasion of Panama. Only in the last few days have the neocons discovered an appreciation for multilateral institutions and the principles of non-intervention.

Despite this history, leading U.S. newspapers don’t see hypocrisy. Instead, they have thrown open their pages to prominent neocons and other advocates of U.S.-led invasions so these thinkers now can denounce Russia while not mentioning any contradictions.

On Monday, the Washington Post’s neoconservative editorial writers published their own editorial excoriating Russia, along with two op-eds, one by neocon theorist Robert Kagan and another co-authored by Bill Clinton’s ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke.

All three – the Post editorial board, Kagan and Holbrooke – were gung-ho for invading Iraq, but now find the idea of Russia attacking the sovereign nation of Georgia inexcusable, even if Georgia’s leaders in Tblisi may have provoked the conflict with an offensive against separatists in South Ossetia along the Russian border.

“Whatever mistakes Tblisi has made, they cannot justify Russia’s actions,” Holbrooke and his co-author Ronald D. Asmus wrote. “Moscow has invaded a neighbor, an illegal act of aggression that violates the U.N. Charter and fundamental principles of cooperation and security in Europe.”

And to top matters off, the authors accused Russia of breaking an even older international covenant: “Beginning a well-planned war … as the Olympics were opening violates the ancient tradition of a truce to conflict during the Games.”

The New York Times ran an op-ed by neocon columnist William Kristol, who also condemned Russia’s aggression without indicating any remorse for his own enthusiasm for U.S. invasions of countries that Washington didn’t like.

Wearing Blinders

While major U.S. news outlets may be comfortable wearing blinders that let them see only wrongdoing by others, the rest of the world views the outrage from Bush and the neocons over Russia as a stunning double standard.

This larger problem is that the Bush administration – along with its neocon allies and many establishment Democrats – have lost any credibility with the world community when it comes to invoking international law.

Bush has applied these legal principles a la carte for years (for instance, ignoring the Geneva Conventions when he chooses), and many longer-serving U.S. officials have viewed events through the lens of American exceptionalism for decades.

For instance, even as the Reagan administration condemned terrorism in the 1980s, it secretly armed the Nicaraguan contras who engaged in acts of terrorism inside Nicaragua. In 1990, when President George H.W. Bush denounced Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, everyone conveniently forgot that he had invaded Panama in 1989.

It has been as if the rules moved on separate tracks, one set for the United States and one set for everyone else – and it was impolite to notice.

Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, however, it has become harder to ignore Washington’s double standards. Also, after the five-plus-year fiasco in Iraq, the Bush administration must confront both the limitations on its own imperial reach and the fact that it has done grave damage to the protocols of international behavior.

As Russia is now demonstrating in its conflict with Georgia, other big powers may want to play by the same do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do rules laid down by the United States.

It is a case of Washington, Bush and the neocons reaping what they have sown.

More loony leftist ramblings from the Kool-Aid sideshow.

[Guest Guest]

More loony leftist ramblings from the Kool-Aid sideshow.

This is code for "you're right; that's why I'm saying the same stupid shit instead of making any attempt to refute you."

[Guest Guest]

Sounds more like true love, don't you think?

No love for the first person he vowed to spend the rest of his life with, huh?

[Guest Guest]

More loony leftist ramblings from the Kool-Aid sideshow.

The continued lack of anything constrictive/factual from the UpTighty-Righties who have NOTHING but asinine sound-bites to offer.

[WilliamK]

The continued lack of anything constrictive/factual from the UpTighty-Righties who have NOTHING but asinine sound-bites to offer.

What do you mean? The UpTighties are always constrictive.

[Guest Guest]

The continued lack of anything constrictive/factual from the UpTighty-Righties who have NOTHING but asinine sound-bites to offer.

I disagree. "loony leftist ramblings from the Kool-Aid sideshow" is accurate and to the point.