I hope you are right, but I don’t believe it.
Sure, you can vote for whomever you want. McCain however is supposed to have been a Bush supporter. If he didn’t vote for Bush, makes him look a little hypocritical … if he didn’t think Bush should be President, why did he campaign for him?
Start a thread about Huffington if you wish. This one is about McCain. There are 4 people corroborating. You must attack all four to get your idea of victory.
It is not really a smear. Just more info showing the other of his 2 faces.
Yep, that’s the truth since you proclaimed it.
:rolleyes:
Jesus Christ. does ANYONE else besides me realize that the the federal government makes bad decision sometimes, regardless of whom is President?
Presidents can only suggest laws, the Congress has to pass or override the Executive.
The Supreme Court exists to support or slay the Constitutionally allowable laws.
But now we have Magic Bush and his signings, which of course arfe beyond purview from Congress or the SCOTUS.
:rolleyes:
Sorry, I can’t help you out , but can you point me to these McCain lies you’re mentioning?
I’ve already mentioned some of them in this thread, but I’ll quote Huffington from the link above because it’s easy and I’m lazy:
In addition, I will reoterate the incident I mentioned upthread where he lied about being able to walk around Baghdad without a bodyguard.
See post #20.
I find the story believable. McCain knew he had to support Bush openly or else he would have no political future, but back in 2000 he had a few balls left, and so it is not surprising he couldn’t force himself to actually vote for Bush in the privacy of the booth.
As for the impact, I assume this would hurt with the 19% of the electorate who think the idiot is doing a good job. If any large chunk of them stay home, it is all over.
Nah. It’s the truth because it fits the facts better than anything else, most especially the crap the Pubbie spin machine has spewed so unsuccessfully for te past four years.
A nebulous entity called “the government” didn’t make the decision to invade Iraq. All the historical evidence evidence indicates that the bulk of the push for war came from Bush and his coterie of PNAC advisors. Where you been the last eight years?
Bush and his PNAC scumbags lied to Congress and the American people willfully and deliberately, particularly with that made-up bit about Iraq trying to buy Nigerian yellowcake. Congress, intimidated by the drumbeat for war, fell for it. But it was Bush that lied … and people died … and are still dying.
Y’know, if Bush had just stayed in Afghanistan and finished stamping out the fucking Taliban I wouldn’t be calling him a war criminal. THAT is a just war.
Bush’s invasion of Iraq didn’t break US law … remember, that’s why he lied to Congress, to get the AUMF … but I feel he has broken treaties that the US is signatory to, which forbid unprovoked aggression against other nations. That’s why he belongs in a holding cell in the Hague.
In any event, the crew of partisan hacks now on the Court would never contravene anything Bush does.
Yeah, the magic signings are a clear extension of executive power beyond Constitutional rules, making the Congress and the Supreme Court moot as governmental entities. Bush can pretty much do whatever he likes, including torture. Why doesn’t Congress stop him? Because the Pubbies would block any legislation (see, there are still Pubbies in Congress, and they are still mostly evil). Why doesn’t the Supreme Court stop him – because the majority are partisan hacks (see Bush v. Gore).
And let’s not forget his membership in the Keating Five.
Gotta be careful with those accusations of lying. What he said was
And there are. It just takes bulletproof vests, Marine guards, Hummers, and helicopters to do so safely.
Well, you know, *walk * is pretty much synonmous with scurry.
Well, that and the fact that she’s lied and spread smears in the past.
ISTM that your arithmetic is a bit off. Huffington is the one claiming that McCain and his wife told her that they didn’t vote for Bush. And they don’t corroborate this - they have specifically denied it, more than once.
The other two Democrats are alleging this, six years after the fact. Although one of them says McCain didn’t really say it, but mouthed it with his finger in front of his mouth. And the other describes the incident rather differently, saying that McCain said it out loud. (And, again to his credit, says that his recollection of parts of the incident is not 100% sure). So two of the people there (McCain and his wife) who deny the incident, and two who claim it.
Perhaps they’re accurate, although there is no real reason to conclude so, or perhaps they are mistaken. Partisan feeling can lead to those kinds of mistakes. Witness
The dinner party was not at Huffington’s house, it was at Candice Bergen’s house. The dinner party did not happen in 2002, and nobody voted for Bush in 2002 - he was not a candidate for office until four years later.
Isn’t it funny how these kinds of details are definite proof of lies in some cases, but not others?
Regards,
Shodan
I am impressed by the screaming unimportance of this whole fooferaw.
Yes, I got the location of the party wrong and the year as well. It was in 2000, not 2002. But you are wrong in when he became a candidate for office. He was first elected in 2000 and reelected in 2004. He ran for nothing “4 years after” 2002.
Those were my own mistakes, not Huffington’s
My point was not made about Huffington, whose credibility is suspect because of her previous demonstrations of inaccuracy (and therefore her allegations of what John and Cindy McCain told her are suspect). My point was that partisan feeling has led you to misreport the time, location, and circumstances of this alleged incident. Similarly, the two people who are making the claim share your partisan feelings (one is an Obama supporter, the other will vote Democratic no matter who they nominate).
It is hardly surprising that, at every remove, the partisans reporting the incident are moving further and further from the truth. Huffington can’t be trusted, you apparently can’t even get the story straight, and the only two remaining witnesses (whose recollections of the incident differ in detail and one of whom is reporting something that he lip read) are directly contradicted by the testimony of the other two witnesses (Senator and Mrs. McCain). And, as has been pointed out a few times, this is a statement against interest by McCain. The two witnesses both stand to gain for their candidate if they are believed, but McCain gains nothing and loses something - Bush is an unpopular President, and McCain is unlikely to gain support from the likes of the people who read Huffington’s blog (or The New York Times) by announcing that he voted for Bush.
I suppose we will never get any better evidence than we have now - third hand reports eight years after the fact, by people who cannot or will not keep their facts straight and uncorroborated by any disinterested witnesses. So we will all have to make up our own minds.
Or merely repeat “A left-wing blog said it, I believe it, that settles it.”
Perhaps The National Enquirer will take the story up, and then you can take it as gospel. 
Regards,
Shodan
I think we all take friend Shodan’s creative criticism to heart, and are grateful for his shining beacon of fairness and non-partisan analysis.
Cite for Arianna Huffington making up stories before?
How do you address the fact that, of all the witnesses involved, the McCains are the only ones with a demonstable history of lying and dishonesty. Hell, their entire relationship began as an extramarital affair. These are not the most trustworthy people in the room.
I’m sure he’ll be as quick to dismiss the numerous silly attacks thrown at the Dem candidate by journalists and others with known right wing leanings once the main event starts.
I find it hilarious that McCain is insisting he never, ever said that he didn’t vote for Bush in 2000. Clearly, he is deathly afraid of alienating the mouth-breathing 28% who still truly believe that Bush is doing a good job as president.
Well, according to Gallup’s May 8th poll, that includes 60% of all Republicans.
It’d be hard for John to win without them.