McCain in bed with crooks, terrorists and Saddam

[Guest Guest]

You have not heard about these stories because unlike his opponent, Barack Obama has class and a presidential temperament. I don’t. Therefore, let’s expose John McCain’s connections to terrorists, thieves, convicted felons, Nazis and Saddam Hussein.

The Keating scandal is well-known. In the late 1980s, John McCain was reprimanded for “poor judgment” as one of the Keating five: five Senators who had lobbied Congress from within to pave the way for Keating to bilk the American people in what is known as the S&L debacle. McCain admits that this is the low point in his public career. That’s open to question, but check out these links.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/24/...olitics_3964240

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1989-11-29/...-keating-five/1

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/mcc...o-chapter7.html

What most people do not know is that the Keating five scandal is only the tip of John McCain’s ethical iceberg. Liddy held a fundraiser for McCain in 1998, and McCain appeared on Liddy’s radio talk show in 2007. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-bernstein/ayers-and-the-mccain-g-go_b_134256.html ) Liddy is a convicted felon who served four years in prison for his role in Watergate. He was in charge of plotting the break-in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy ). He has said publicly that he was prepared to kill someone if necessary to carry out the illegal Ellsberg break-in (http://mediamatters.org/items/200810040004 ), has admitted to plotting the murder of journalist Jack Anderson (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/national/18anderson.html ), admitted to plotting to kill Howard Hunt to silence him (http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/print_blog.cfm?bID=4879 ), admitted to plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy ) and to kidnap people he called “leftist guerrillas” at the Republican National Convention in 1972 (http://turn-left.hypocrisy.com/2008/10/09/what-was-that-biblical-saying-about-casting-the-first-stone/ ). In other words, Liddy is a terrorist. So what’s the difference between Liddy and Ayres? McCain has an ongoing association with Liddy during this presidential campaign.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/john-mccain...-g-gordon-liddy

http://foolocracy.com/2008/10/mccains-old-...ical-terrorist/

So if McCain wants to talk about associating with terrorists, then why is he palling around with G. Gordon Liddy?

We’re just getting started. In the early 1980s, McCain sat on the board of an organization comprised of Nazi collaborators who eventually were instrumental in the Iran-Contra scandal that tarnished Reagan’s presidency.

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/mccai...orld-freedom-na

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/w...u_n_132470.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...8_10/015061.php

So why is this different from Obama serving on a community board with William Ayres? Because the community board was dedicated to education. Ayres’ previous activities had nothing to do with it. By contrast, illegal activity was the business and purpose of the so-called U.S. Council for World Freedom, and there was John McCain sitting on its board.

The head of McCain’s transition team (as though he’ll need one) is none other than William Ayres, who lobbied for years on behalf of Saddam Hussein. You think I’m making it up? Check it out.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics/story/848528.html

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/mccai...-my-timmons-sto

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=10107

http://beltwayblips.com/story/breaking_mcc...ied_for_saddam/

So, Resmuglicans, you want to play this game? Let’s play.

[Guest 2smart4u]

You have not heard about these stories because unlike his opponent, Barack Obama has class and a presidential temperament. I don’t. Therefore, let’s expose John McCain’s connections to terrorists, thieves, convicted felons, Nazis and Saddam Hussein.

The Keating scandal is well-known. In the late 1980s, John McCain was reprimanded for “poor judgment” as one of the Keating five: five Senators who had lobbied Congress from within to pave the way for Keating to bilk the American people in what is known as the S&L debacle. McCain admits that this is the low point in his public career. That’s open to question, but check out these links.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/24/...olitics_3964240

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1989-11-29/...-keating-five/1

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/mcc...o-chapter7.html

What most people do not know is that the Keating five scandal is only the tip of John McCain’s ethical iceberg. Liddy held a fundraiser for McCain in 1998, and McCain appeared on Liddy’s radio talk show in 2007. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-bernstein/ayers-and-the-mccain-g-go_b_134256.html ) Liddy is a convicted felon who served four years in prison for his role in Watergate. He was in charge of plotting the break-in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy ). He has said publicly that he was prepared to kill someone if necessary to carry out the illegal Ellsberg break-in (http://mediamatters.org/items/200810040004 ), has admitted to plotting the murder of journalist Jack Anderson (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/national/18anderson.html ), admitted to plotting to kill Howard Hunt to silence him (http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/print_blog.cfm?bID=4879 ), admitted to plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy ) and to kidnap people he called “leftist guerrillas” at the Republican National Convention in 1972 (http://turn-left.hypocrisy.com/2008/10/09/what-was-that-biblical-saying-about-casting-the-first-stone/ ). In other words, Liddy is a terrorist. So what’s the difference between Liddy and Ayres? McCain has an ongoing association with Liddy during this presidential campaign.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/john-mccain...-g-gordon-liddy

http://foolocracy.com/2008/10/mccains-old-...ical-terrorist/

So if McCain wants to talk about associating with terrorists, then why is he palling around with G. Gordon Liddy?

We’re just getting started. In the early 1980s, McCain sat on the board of an organization comprised of Nazi collaborators who eventually were instrumental in the Iran-Contra scandal that tarnished Reagan’s presidency.

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/mccai...orld-freedom-na

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/w...u_n_132470.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...8_10/015061.php

So why is this different from Obama serving on a community board with William Ayres? Because the community board was dedicated to education. Ayres’ previous activities had nothing to do with it. By contrast, illegal activity was the business and purpose of the so-called U.S. Council for World Freedom, and there was John McCain sitting on its board.

The head of McCain’s transition team (as though he’ll need one) is none other than William Ayres, who lobbied for years on behalf of Saddam Hussein. You think I’m making it up? Check it out.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics/story/848528.html

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/mccai...-my-timmons-sto

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=10107

http://beltwayblips.com/story/breaking_mcc...ied_for_saddam/

So, Resmuglicans, you want to play this game? Let’s play.

I have a better one. John McCain is actually James "Whitey" Bulger, the infamous Boston crime boss who's been on the run for over 20 years. It must be that vast right-wing conspiracy that's been protecting him all these years.

[Guest Keith]

I have a better one. John McCain is actually James "Whitey" Bulger, the infamous Boston crime boss who's been on the run for over 20 years. It must be that vast right-wing conspiracy that's been protecting him all these years.

Well that's every bit as plausible as Obama supporting terrorists.

[WilliamK]

So, Resmuglicans, you want to play this game? Let’s play.

I think these kinds of guilt-by-association smears are dishonest and dishonorable no matter which side they come from. Two wrongs don't make a right. But I don't think there's anything wrong with bringing up McCain's seedy associations when the purpose is not to smear McCain in the same way that he and the RNC have smeared Obama, but to illustrate what's wrong with their use of those tactics. One cannot accept the smears against one candidate and reject analogous smears against the other without applying two different standards. There are three options:

1. accept both

2. reject both

3. be a hypocrite

I think that's essentially the point you were making, correct?

[Guest Loki]

You have not heard about these stories because unlike his opponent, Barack Obama has class and a presidential temperament. I don’t. Therefore, let’s expose John McCain’s connections to terrorists, thieves, convicted felons, Nazis and Saddam Hussein.

The Keating scandal is well-known. In the late 1980s, John McCain was reprimanded for “poor judgment” as one of the Keating five: five Senators who had lobbied Congress from within to pave the way for Keating to bilk the American people in what is known as the S&L debacle. McCain admits that this is the low point in his public career. That’s open to question, but check out these links.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/24/...olitics_3964240

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1989-11-29/...-keating-five/1

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/mcc...o-chapter7.html

What most people do not know is that the Keating five scandal is only the tip of John McCain’s ethical iceberg. Liddy held a fundraiser for McCain in 1998, and McCain appeared on Liddy’s radio talk show in 2007. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-bernstein/ayers-and-the-mccain-g-go_b_134256.html ) Liddy is a convicted felon who served four years in prison for his role in Watergate. He was in charge of plotting the break-in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy ). He has said publicly that he was prepared to kill someone if necessary to carry out the illegal Ellsberg break-in (http://mediamatters.org/items/200810040004 ), has admitted to plotting the murder of journalist Jack Anderson (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/national/18anderson.html ), admitted to plotting to kill Howard Hunt to silence him (http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/print_blog.cfm?bID=4879 ), admitted to plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy ) and to kidnap people he called “leftist guerrillas” at the Republican National Convention in 1972 (http://turn-left.hypocrisy.com/2008/10/09/what-was-that-biblical-saying-about-casting-the-first-stone/ ). In other words, Liddy is a terrorist. So what’s the difference between Liddy and Ayres? McCain has an ongoing association with Liddy during this presidential campaign.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/john-mccain...-g-gordon-liddy

http://foolocracy.com/2008/10/mccains-old-...ical-terrorist/

So if McCain wants to talk about associating with terrorists, then why is he palling around with G. Gordon Liddy?

We’re just getting started. In the early 1980s, McCain sat on the board of an organization comprised of Nazi collaborators who eventually were instrumental in the Iran-Contra scandal that tarnished Reagan’s presidency.

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/mccai...orld-freedom-na

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/w...u_n_132470.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...8_10/015061.php

So why is this different from Obama serving on a community board with William Ayres? Because the community board was dedicated to education. Ayres’ previous activities had nothing to do with it. By contrast, illegal activity was the business and purpose of the so-called U.S. Council for World Freedom, and there was John McCain sitting on its board.

The head of McCain’s transition team (as though he’ll need one) is none other than William Ayres, who lobbied for years on behalf of Saddam Hussein. You think I’m making it up? Check it out.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics/story/848528.html

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/mccai...-my-timmons-sto

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=10107

http://beltwayblips.com/story/breaking_mcc...ied_for_saddam/

So, Resmuglicans, you want to play this game? Let’s play.

Okay let's play. The following link will lead to excerpts of Bob Bennett's book In the Ring. On page 133 it details how two of the accused should face no further actions; McCain was one of these. Instead, the Democratic led Senate disregarded their own prosecutors recommendations because to do as he asked, would have made this a strictly DEMOCRATIC scandal.

Enjoy, but next time do your own damned research.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id...esult#PPA133,M1

[Guest Guest]

Okay let's play. The following link will lead to excerpts of Bob Bennett's book In the Ring. On page 133 it details how two of the accused should face no further actions; McCain was one of these. Instead, the Democratic led Senate disregarded their own prosecutors recommendations because to do as he asked, would have made this a strictly DEMOCRATIC scandal.

Enjoy, but next time do your own damned research.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id...esult#PPA133,M1

You see, that's the problem. You can't play because you don't have the brains to understand the point.

The Democrats who were in the Senate twenty years ago when this happened aren't there any more and aren't running for office this year. This is not about one party versus the other, and if you think the Republicans as a group are more ethical than the Democrats, then you must have been living under a rock.

What's relevant is that McCain engaged in improper conduct, which he has long since admitted. That is relevant to his candidacy even today. How relevant is up to the voters, but it is relevant.

[Guest Guest]

I think these kinds of guilt-by-association smears are dishonest and dishonorable no matter which side they come from. Two wrongs don't make a right. But I don't think there's anything wrong with bringing up McCain's seedy associations when the purpose is not to smear McCain in the same way that he and the RNC have smeared Obama, but to illustrate what's wrong with their use of those tactics. One cannot accept the smears against one candidate and reject analogous smears against the other without applying two different standards. There are three options:

1. accept both

2. reject both

3. be a hypocrite

I think that's essentially the point you were making, correct?

Basically, except that I think all of McCain's and Obama's associations are relevant, but only minimally. I'm more troubled by McCain's associations than Obama's because McCain was actively aiding radical agendas himself. But again, his record as a Congressman and Senator far eclipses these associations.