George W Bush, when he accused Obama of seeking to appease terroists.
I was called stupid in post #5.
Clintonesque hogwash.
You said McCain supporters were calling you stupid.
Ravenman, who wrote post #5, is an Obama supporter. And he didn’t call you stupid. He said “This is stupid”, not you are stupid.
Of course, if you really think he called you stupid, you should report that post to a mod. Why don’t you do that and see if **Ravenman **gets warned? That would be the easiest way to set the record straight on this.
No, he didn’t. If you are referring to the speech in Insrael, you might well note it was directed at hmerous people who had seen the results of apeasement, and likely wasn’t targeted at Americans at all.
The fact that you do not like the facts does not mean they are the universe out to get you.
…
But, alright, let’s say you are correct and those behind the escape DID help McCain. So what? What is the moral problem with it? The Columbians certainly like McCain over Obama, and Bush would probably prefer McCain somewhat. Why shouldn’t they help him win if they can do so legally?
Update: It was a ransom, not a rescue.
So says some anonymous source on Swiss radio.
[shrug] Still a more credible source than the Colombian government.
So what?
Since you have no idea of who the actual source was, you have no basis for saying that.
If it was targeted at any American, it was targeted at Jimmy Carter, who had just returned from a failed attempt to negotiate with Hamas, even though the U.S. State Department asked him not to go.
I’m a little surprised at this. In the past, you have been a lot sharper about how debates are supposed to work. You’ve certainly carved up your share of poor debaters with logical scalpels.
The typical course is for a proposition to be offered, followed by supporting evidence. If that evidence is found wanting, the proposition withers and dies. If there is at least some concrete evidence offered, then the proposition can be considered.
What’s happening here is this:
Lib: offers proposition
Responder A: evidence?
Responder B: evidence?
Responder C: evidence?
Lib: offers evidence
Responder A: I find evidence unconvincing
Responder B: I find evidence unconvincing
Responder C: I find evidence unconvincing
Responder D: I find evidence unconvincing
Responder E: I find evidence unconvincing
Responder F: I find evidence unconvincing
End of debate.
What is not happening is this:
Lib: offers proposition
Responder A: evidence?
Responder B: evidence?
Responder C: evidence?
Lib: offers evidence
Responder A: I find evidence unconvincing
Responder B: I find evidence unconvincing
Responder C: Well, now, hold on a minute
Responder D: I agree, there’s something there
Responder E: I disagree
Responder F: What about X?
Responder G: And Y is corroborated by Z
And now there’s a debate, and the proposition can be considered.
Take a step back, and read the thread as if someone else wrote the OP. Would you take it seriously?
Just basing it on what I know of Uribe. (Little of which has been clearly proven, of course, but in LA, little ever is.)
Just to be clear, I only wanted to point out that you stated it as a fact when it is not a fact. It could well be true, but one unnamed source on a Swiss radio station is a bit weak.
For me, it’s about whether my government is deceiving me, or attempting to deceive me, for some political purpose — much like it did for the war in Iraq. I believe that, in order to conduct oversight of our elected officials, we need to be an informed electorate. Deception, by definition, leaves us uninformed or misinformed.
I appreciate, by the way, your framing the question in a serious way, rather than just making fun of some caricature of the topic. I don’t think anyone is saying that some massive conspiracy took place over the course of years, or that the whole rescue itself was conceived and orchestrated for the benefit of McCain.
I think all anyone is saying is that its convenience and timing are conspicuous, and possibly suspicious. Again, we’re talking about an administration that has a track record of deception, a vested interest in repairing the Republican image, and yet a stigma with its electorate that precludes all but the most necessary direct contact with Republican candidates. As we’ve seen already, the “brand”, as they call it, is so bad that in at least one instance, a Republican candidate has run ads associating himself with Obama.
If the White House wants to campaign openly and honestly on behalf of McCain, I have no problem with that — so long as it isn’t on the public dole (as in a speech before Congress or something). But I don’t think it’s totally preposterous to be vigilant about this administration’s motives and methods. In fact, I think it would be foolish to be otherwise.
You are.
Now, let’s be fair. He’s only asking if some massive conspiracy took place over the course of years, or that the whole rescue itself was conceived and orchestrated for the benefit of McCain.
At least, that’s what I figure his response will be.
No, he’s doing more than just asking:
Good point.
I wonder if McCain really does have black children.
Regards,
Shodan
Nevertheless, I perceive a deliberate attempt at maintaining semantic wiggle room.
I think you’ve chosen a narrow application of the term that suits the caricature you’re addressing.
But suppose, for example, something like this happened (Note: “suppose” doesn’t mean “take as fact”): The rescue had been months or years in the making with meticulous planning, even including acting lessons for those posing as guerillas. Then, a few weeks before the launch, the Colombian government informs the White House. The White House, in turn, informs McCain — or at the very least, without giving away classified information, tells him he needs to be there for something grand that will happen and will benefit him. McCain schedules a sudden trip to Colombia which leaves pundits scratching their heads and wondering why he’s leaving the country when his whole message has been on the economy and the economy is tanking. Not only that, but jobless figures are to be released the day he is to be gone. Even with the rescue, there still were comments about how odd that was in and of itself. And so when he gets there, he is in the center of the drama as it unfolds, and he benefits by — as Lieberman explains it — being shown to be a world leader, trusted by the Colombian president with classified information. As I see it, in that or a similar scenario, even though the plan wasn’t originally drawn up to benefit McCain, there came a point when White House intervention was engineering the rescue — as it stood at that point — to benefit McCain vis a vis making sure he was in the right place at the right time.
Then again, it could just all be a happy coincidence. Going to Colombia to discuss NAFTA, even though Colombian participation in NAFTA has an all but negligible effect on the US economy, could be made into something sensible in the context of being just another bad decision by the McCain campaign and another weird twist and turn — which it likely would have been had the rescue not occured. After all, he is now saying that he will “refocus” his campaign now that Karl Rove’s longtime associate, Steve Schmidt, has been placed in charge. Maybe it was sheer dumb luck. Either way, I don’t think it looks good for him.
So is the answer to the thread’s title question… “Maybe” ?