FACTCHECK.ORG

Context Included: Obama on Iran

McCain ad cherry-picks Obama remarks on Iran, twisting his meaning.

By Viveca Novak | factcheck.org
Aug 27, 2008 | Updated: 4:46  p.m. ET Aug 27, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: StMTraveler @ 08/28/2008 4:40:48 PM

    Senator McCain Ad makes Iran an Issue

    Senator McCain attempts to divert our attention away from our national problems by creating imaginary threats such as Iran. He forgets that we have seen these puppet masters works and we have learned about their tricks.

    Senator McCain is out of touch with my generation. My generation demanded we should give all children in America the same opportunity irrespective of the gender, color of skin, religion of the parents, and the national origin of the parents, or where they live in America. My generation supported the American workers, farmers, and the middle class.

    The Republican Party represents the "me-generation". The life objectives of the ???me-generation??? are to get money as much as you can and where ever you can. Then, use the money to buy more power and self-gratification.

    The Republican Party is responsible for the mass migration of the American industry and technical jobs to other countries; they had one objective to maximize their profits using the cheapest labors at the expense of the environment. The Republican Party is responsible for withdrawing investment in our country???s infrastructures and industries so that they can invest the capital in the other nations; they had one objective to maximize their returns at the expense of the American future.

    The Republican Party and their flag bearer Senator McCain supports multi-national corporations whose sole allegiance is to the profits at the expense of my children and grand children. The Democratic Party supports the workers, the farmers and the middle class Americans.

    Senator McCain, we have seen the Republican Party???s puppet dance before. It would not work again. The issues are: job, medical insurance, transportation, education, housing, and the national infrastructures.

    • Posted By: jollyrancher @ 11/04/2008 4:20:15 PM

      Obama does not support the middleclass. The 12 Point Black Theology system of his church of 20 years rejects middleclassness.

  • Posted By: johnadams12345 @ 09/04/2008 9:41:15 PM

    Nazi's would have loved Viveca Novak on their team.

  • Posted By: observer101 @ 09/04/2008 4:47:27 PM

    Those who assume Iran isnt a threat to the U.S.need to look up Irans history...They have no intentions of using their "electricity" for peaceful purposes...Many nations besides our own agree Iran is a threat to the mid east region should they obtain what they really want to obtain...Russia wont admit that because they (as always) have their sticky little fingers in Irans technology in the hopes it will be a threat to the U.S. Obama if elected would no doubt help insure Irans goal and help open the door to blackmail, threats to its neighbors and their ultimate goal to put "electricity" on top of a "communications sat" rocket booster and send it our way..McCain makes it clear what would happen if thats the case..So Iran and Russia can only hope Obama wins...McCain 08'

  • Posted By: mccainsupporter @ 09/04/2008 9:50:43 AM

    Democratic leadership under Barack Obama wanted to cut and run in Iraq now today and just before our successful surge, just as Democratic leadership wanted to cut and run in Vietnam before our 1200 POWs came home in 1973. John McCain realizes he would not be here today if the Democratic leadership had their way back in 1972. Because he spent early years in Indonesia, Barack Obama may not be the Democratic Presidential candidate today but for our efforts in Vietnam in 1972. Richard Nixon a former Navy officer who served before John McCain years in the Navy understood that North Vietnam never returned any of the captured French POWs after their defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. Only the week long bombings of Hanoi including Christmas day in 1972 with our B52 bombers finally convinced North Vietnam that we wanted our 1200 POWs back now. The bombings also convinced the South Vietnamese that we would support them in the future under the Paris Peace Talks agreement. Although the United States lost in Vietnam are efforts there gave other countries time to develop their fragile democracies. Indonesia today is a democratic country today that is friendly to the United States and has a population of nearly two hundred million people, the fourth largest in the world. Barack Obama spent his early childhood in Indonesia attending school with his mother and step-father during the time of the Vietnam War. It has been reported that the former President of Indonesia stated that our efforts in Vietnam although we lost allowed Indonesia to fight off communism and develop as a democratic country. Our efforts in Vietnam bought Indonesia time. Barack Obama could have been caught up in a communist insurrection in Indonesia during his early childhood if the United States had cut and run and had not tried to slow or stop a rapid North Vietnam takeover of South Vietnam. All of Southeast Asia including Indonesia could have rapidly gone Communist if the United States did not at least make a stand to resist the rapid expansion of communism and stand by our ally South Vietnam. Ironicallly both John McCain and Barack Obama would not be the men they are today and John McCain would not be here if we had followed Democratic leadership to cut and run in Vietnam before our POWs were returned.

  • Posted By: mccainsupporter @ 09/04/2008 9:50:21 AM

    Some Democratic leaders including Obama but not Joe Leiberman have asked what have we accomplished in Iraq? John McCain was right in his support for the Iraq surge. Iraq today is in relative peace and is no longer hostile to the United States. Iraq is currently producing two and a half million barrels of oil a day and is capable of producing four and half million barrels a day. At $120 one hundred and twenty dollars a barrel Iraq has current oil revenues of $300 three hundred million dollars a day. Those revenues can grow to $500 million dollars a day with increased production. Thanks to the John McCain support of the war and the surge $300 million dollars a day are not being funneled to enemies of the United States to support terrorism around the world and to buy missiles and nuclear weapons that can be used against the United States. With an income stream of three hundred million dollars a day, Iraq was capable of purchasing hundreds of nuclear weapons. Our current progress with North Korea on nuclear issues is a result of cutting off the money flow and purchase of missiles and nuclear technology from North Korea to Iraq.

  • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 08/28/2008 5:54:38 AM

    Just like how Obama and the Dems take the 100 years out of context, the 5 million out of context, the Houses out of context, so really either the Dems start praticing what they preach or I see no problem with this add. This ad is not lying, just giving an over interpretation of what Obama actually said. Now that Ayers ad....I can't wait to see that on National TV.

    • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 08/28/2008 8:06:05 AM

      no i think the message of mr.mccains 100 year statement was rather clear. in this case mr. obama was making a comparison. when you exclude what he was comparing with, than it is intentionaly misleading.

      • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 08/28/2008 9:48:46 AM

        Nope, Obama distorted the quote for his own gains, the whole thing reads 100 years IF things turn out like they did in Korea, Japan and Germany....Obama deliberately distorted by omission, same as McCain did....so they both fail....just shows how partisan you are...if you are talking about comparisons then why do Dems still harp on McCain economy comment, since it was clearly a comparison to his other knowledge...McCain's knowledge of Economy isn't a good as compared to his knowledge of Foreign Policy...which of course you partisans will take to the nth degree....but just call a spade a spade....your biased.

        • Posted By: neos @ 08/28/2008 7:19:09 PM

          If things turn out like they did in Korea, Japan, and Germany??? We invaded without cause an independent middle eastern nation with the vague notion of democratizing a Moslem population, many of them of the fundamentalist variety. Its as if a Moslem nation sent troops to Texas with the intent of forcing their way of life on the locals, well, you can imagine the results. We can never have a peaceful ocupation in iraq, I've been there pal. And if John McCain has said otherwise, then his knowledge of Foreign Policy is about as 'good' as his knowledge of the economy.

          • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 08/28/2008 9:33:34 PM

            How many troops dies in Korea? How many Japanese died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many American lives did that save? What are you saying we shouldn't have done anything about Germany?
            Well his knowledge of foreign policy is by far better than your knowledge of history...but that's not saying much.
            So what's Obama's supreme knowledge in anyway?

            • Posted By: neos @ 08/28/2008 11:24:10 PM

              I really do not understand what you tried to say here. But the point was that the conflicts in Korea, Japan and Germany were clearly morally defensible responses to agression and America not only had the right but the moral obligation to take action. The current conflict in Iraqi does not fit into this category. Mr. Bush and Cheney had led us into a foolish misadventure into a country which had no part in 9/11 and a conflict which has no possible favorable outcome from our poit of view. Either the country will fall into chaos or they will accept our "democritization' and elect a pro-Iranian fundamentalist government. John McCain is stuck in Nixon's 'peace with honor' spin, and didn't THAT just work out swell.
              And by the way, an Ad Hominem attack is the surefire sign of a weak debater..

              • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 08/29/2008 5:44:47 AM

                Your right, I apologize. I'm just done debating Iraq, The reality is we are there and what to do next. Obama talks a lot but he voted with Bush in supporting war funding. He didn't have the balls to show some backbone and vote against it even though he knew they would all pass eventually. It would have been a symbolic gesture to show that he really is against Iraq but he didn't want to tarnish his image....because that's all he has.
                All those Dems like Biden voted for the war and have voted for the money to fight it, all those lame attempts to insert withdrawals dates failed and they all voted like Bush wanted them to vote even Obama. Make no mistake I think it was wrong to go to Iraq, I sometimes lose that on here defending McCain. We are there and you have your opinion, I have mine, I think we need to fix the mess WE started in the first place. There was a lot of unnecessary blood shed because Bush was too stubborn to listen to his Generals in the first place and Iraq was stuck in a quagmire for 3 years. McCain supported early on, so did Biden, of the Surge strategy that worked, once in place, has made significantly more progress then the old Bush strategy. Obama seems to think he knows more than the Generals, like Bush did. He insists on pulling out, even when his Generals tell him its a bad idea, just like Bush did when he didn't listen to the Generals at the start of the war. Don't forget back in 2005, when Obama said he would have done everything just like Bush did, on the Iraq war.
                So the main question is do you want to cut and run like Obama, and let the death of all those volunteer servicemen go in vain, don't acknowledge the Surge at all, diminishing the actions of the troops in helping quell the violence that was rampid in Iraq?
                Don't forget that it was the Democrats that got us into Vietnam in the first place, not Nixon.

                • Posted By: neos @ 08/29/2008 8:00:00 AM

                  Yes, you are right about not being able to change the past as to our invasion of Iraq. But merely using a loaded phrase like 'cut and run' presupposes a bias in your thinking, as though anyone who wants to remove the exacerbating factor in the equation, namely the presence of US troops in a Moslem nation, is a coward. Let's work together for a solution, and stop calling each other names. Again, there is clearly no easy solution to Iraq, but a clear and flexible timeline for withdrawal makes sense to me,
                  As to funding for the war, this is also funding for the troops. As to the surge, let me remind you of my earlier, albeit far-fetched, analogy about Moslem troops in Texas. An increase in foreign troops may be able to temporarily suppress major opposition, but it can not address the fundamental underlying problem when the troops must be withdrawn. Our troops have served bravely and made enormous sacrifices - THEIR actions will never be diminished. To pointlessly ask them to remain in harm's way due to pride is to diminish their efforts. Every extra day we prolong this nightmare is an attack on our troops. Take the time someday to visit the 7th floor at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. That's where the traumatic brain injury cases are. Talk to the families of these heros. Then we can resume debating McCain's plan to stay on in Iraq to maintain our pride.

                  • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 08/29/2008 10:59:07 AM

                    "I'm also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them.

                    It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.

                    We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way."

                    I agree but if your were in the armed forces, you know its all volunteer. Most of the troops there choose to be there, not all wanted to probably but they had the ultimate choice of serving or not serving. Rumsfeld screwed everything up from the get go, but once Petreus got in command, everything began a turn in the right direction. Do you agree with the above quote? I do....

                    • Posted By: neos @ 08/29/2008 5:47:30 PM

                      Thank you for asking for my opinon. And yes I do agree with most of the quotation no matter who made it; however, I do not feel that 16 months can be considered a'precipitous withdrawal'. We send our kids off to Basic Training and Advaqnced Individual Training and within 6 months or so they are expected to fulfill their roles as soldiers. Ostensibly, we have been training up the Iraqis to take over for years now. Its tiime for them to stand up to the plate.
                      As volunteers, our young soldiers chose to defend our constitution and country. George W. Bush chose to misuse them in Iraq.
                      General Petreus has been an outstanding commander and I am sure that his sound TACTICAL advice will be heeded by either candidate. The STRATEGIC decision to leave or not is for the President to make - ideally in consultation with his cabinet and congress.

              • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 08/29/2008 7:51:50 AM

                I agree with this statement below:
                "I'm also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them.

                It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.

                We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way."

                • Posted By: observer101 @ 08/29/2008 2:27:39 PM

                  Any dictatorship that runs amuck and threatens the U.S. and violates human rights as Iraqs Saddam Hussein so blatantly did during his reign should be dealt with...It is our moral responsibilty to stand up to regimes such as this..esp if it involves any of our interests..Which it does..Whether ppl want to admit it or not....If Obama becomes President I hope to God someone asks him why he doesnt send troops to Somalia, or Mugadishu and stand up to them...Ofcourse Obamites will buy and accept what ever reasoning he gives for NOT going. Because Obamas word is the word of God. The mentality of Obama supporters is such that if Obama says he wants to send troops to find Atlantis in the bottom of the Bermudas it would be ok with Obamites, no matter the cost of lives or money. Because Obama says. Follow the herd Obamites follow the herd.

                  • Posted By: neos @ 08/29/2008 5:27:11 PM

                    First of all, if you stop insulting people they just might listen to what you have to say. If your premise for the invasion of Iraq is valid, then why aren't we in Iran, North Korea, etc., etc. Standing up to a regime is one thing and violating international law with a reckless invasion is quite another.

        • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 08/28/2008 2:26:36 PM

          either way admitting you don't know jack $hit about the economy doesn't show much tact. it was probably the only honest thing that has come out his mouth. your damn right im biased, im no journalist. im blue as all hell and proud of it, and what

          • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 08/28/2008 9:31:14 PM

            Good for you...hell your one of the only ones to admit it at least.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 08/28/2008 7:41:13 PM

    Dunno. The NIE Viveca uses to make her case is seriously flawed. It does not take into consideration how a computer laptop with a warhead design managed to fall into El-Baradeis[IAEA] hands which was discussed in Geneva back in July before the walkout of the Iranian delegation. El-Baradei remains convinced [ARAB NEWS June 16,2008] that the Iranians are closing in on a nuclear weapon. Even FACTCHECK is unsure of the ''facts''as Iran has been uncooperative with the IAEA inspection regimen at Natanz. Then too,international weapons experts[including JANES and Global Security],worry over improvements in the Iranian SHAHAB series rocket that can be used as an ICBM platform.[note to Viveca.It only takes one of these to kill millions.Not your ''thousands'',where she drifts off into hyperbole]. Only a few years ago,we were discussing the 800KM 3 -Series. Now it is at 5,with the failed Iranian launch of a sat-platform suspected of being a 5-6 series. This happens,using a NK design,and this range will be extended to several thousand kilometers. You get Obama,and he had better get on the ball.

  • Posted By: observer101 @ 08/28/2008 1:02:48 PM

    War is inevitable no matter which candidate is President...To foolishly think that if Obama gets elected regimes will lay down their arms, is exactly that foolish. Extremists hate us religious beliefs, Russia and China hate our capitalist ways and are going back to their communist ideals...Obama will not have the experience to show that the U.S. will stand for itself in a serious crisis..Unless ofcourse his presidency is at stake then he will do as the polls tell him to do...Iran will continue no matter who is in office to build its "electric" power...They know Rebubs mean business..Bush made sure of that..They also know Dems will allow them to get away with what ever they want with "negotiations" and time...Doing nothing as Clinton did and Obama will undoubtedly do is only asking for a serious worldwide problem. So dream on Obamites, you will have to learn the hard way that Obama+inexperience=trouble.

    • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 08/28/2008 3:48:08 PM

      yeah and bush made an ass out of us all. if you think thats something to be proud of then your on your own with that one

  • Posted By: bramdean @ 08/28/2008 2:55:28 PM

    Iran has threatened Israel? You don't mean the Ahmadinejad speech with which someone took license and translated in a "creative" fashion and it has been roundly discredited. Other than that I don't know of any other expression of "threat" coming from Iran that has not attacked/invaded/occupied another country in 3 centuries. Now Viveca, it takes some serious gymnastics for McCain, Obama or Newsweek to dress up Iran as a "threat". On the other hand I have noticed unvarnished and open military threats expressed in plain English against Iran by Mofaz, Livni, Olmert, Peres and Netanyahou! And then of course there's John McCain's inimitable "bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran", how nice, how exceedingly "maverick" of him...Go check those facts!

  • Posted By: EyeNever @ 08/27/2008 9:19:55 PM

    Obama is on record as downplaying the threat from "tiny" Iraq and favoring sweet talk instead of tough talk. His would-be policy of appeasement toward Iran is indeed reckless, and his stated view that Iran is not as serious of a threat to our security as the USSR during the cold war was idiotic. This isn't a basketball game, there is no way to score the threat Iran poses, but we history tells us a lot. Sometimes a small country or seemingly unimportant events can trigger a much larger conflict.

    Japan entered WWII after it lost access to middle eastern oil. If Iran follows through on it threat to close the Straight of Hormuz (through which 40% of the world's oil passes) with its missiles in retaliation for not being allowed to pursue its nuclear ambitions, another World War-- this time with China, N. Korea and India as nuclear armed players-- is certainly a possibility. In which case Bush's Iraq adventure might end up seeming like brilliant military strategy... just a thought.

    • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 08/28/2008 8:08:04 AM

      oh what a scary world we live in. lets build a missle defense barrier between us and mexico. don't forgot we have more nuclear weapons than anyone. iran is a tiny threat compared to our recent warhawk president

      • Posted By: observer101 @ 08/28/2008 11:18:41 AM

        Wow jnakhoul!..You ignorance in how the world works is appalling...You bet your ass we should put up a missile defense barrier to protect the U.S. from present and future threats..Even though I know you were being sarcastic YOU are the stupid ones that think we are safe from any threats if Obama is in office...Obama will be a sign of weakness to many regimes and they will take advantage of the U.S. either diplomatically (so Obama can keep up his image) or strategically...Obama will continually down play any threats to show he is a "peace loving" politician and to keep up this charade he has been playing for so long..He is a fool to think he can pretend his way through foriegn affairs as he is doing in his campaign. And you are just as foolish to believe it...Please vote your Obama..When he fails on all levels of international politics, Im sure you will proudly say you voted for him...

        • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 08/28/2008 2:37:02 PM

          i'm just not afraid of my own shadow. We're the greatest country in the world so why do we act so petty. Bush has been successful because he has made people like you afraid to get out of bed in the morning. surprise but if we start treating other nations as our enemies as if by magic they become our enemies. ohhhh axis of evil how evil. and then when countries like north korea fall in line we don't hold up our end of the bargain and things go right back to where they started. maybe you can believe that we can bomb the rest of the world into peace, but i think thats assuring a short bloody future

        • Posted By: bwlear @ 08/28/2008 1:15:23 PM

          No, Sen Obama's election will be a sign that Americia is finially going to return to a foreign policy that has allowed this nation to prosper for 200+ years. Look at what Mr Bush has started around the world with the same policies that Sen McCain endorses. Talking to your enemys is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign of intellegence.
          The world is a dangerious place true enough but you can't fight and bomb your way out of everything no matter how strong your military. Most of us learned this as children. Sen Obama is prepared to defend this nation as is Sen McCain. The difference is that Sen Obama is willing use force as a last resort, kind of like "walk softly but carry a big stick" while Sen McCain and the Bush administration believe that talking is for the " weak ". (Of course, if you listen to both of them, you will understand their reluctance to speak because it is not something they do well.)
          And you have a problem with him "loving peace " ? You must not have ever enlisted in this nations military because if you had, nothing as ignorant as that would have ever come from your hand.

  • Posted By: tiredoflies @ 08/28/2008 11:50:06 AM

    It figures: Just more lies and distortion from McCain.

    Are you getting this people??

    ALL THE MCCAIN CAMP CAN DO IS TO FALSELY ATTACK OBAMA WITH LIES AND DISTORT HIS REAL POSITION.

    This is what republicans want in a President? Someone who can only make them self look better than they are by tearing down the opposition. All just negative?

    Sorry but that???s just plain pathetic. And this is what happens when they cannot win on the issues.


    As for some comments below, strength is not only in military might but in tact and diplomacy as well. This is obviously something the one dimensional, narrow vision McCain supporters cannot grasp.

    Obama will deploy the military IF NECESSARY. But diplomacy first is a much wiser policy than force first.

    The reality is MCCAIN IS JUST MORE WAR WAITING TO HAPPEN.

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 08/28/2008 12:48:56 PM

      Lets ask Obama about abortion and what his stand is...Im sure we will get an honest straightforward answer cause he is a Dem after all...Actually his answers are distorted on this and many issues...But who cares...Hes a star, lets vote for him...yeah right.

      • Posted By: bwlear @ 08/28/2008 1:33:44 PM

        You Republicans hate it that 70 thousand of people will wait in line to hear Sen Obama speak and wonder why your man could hold his acceptance speach in one of his own living rooms and still end up with empty seats. Well, here is the answer, Sen McCain does not inspire Americans to do better. His only selling point is FEAR. His speeches are like listening to that guy in the Ferris Buller(?) movies. His inability to articulate any thought in a manner that connects with his fellow Americans is a sad but true fact. If he cant talk to us, how is he going to talk to the rest of the world after 8 years of the Bush administration?

  • Posted By: EyeNever @ 08/27/2008 9:19:18 PM

    Obama is on record as downplaying the threat from "tiny" Iraq and favoring sweet talk instead of tough talk. His would-be policy of appeasement toward Iran is indeed reckless, and his stated view that Iran is not as serious of a threat to our security as the USSR during the cold war was idiotic. This isn't a basketball game, there is no way to score the threat Iran poses, but we history tells us a lot. Sometimes a small country or seemingly unimportant events can trigger a much larger conflict.

    Japan entered WWII after it lost access to middle eastern oil. If Iran follows through on it threat to close the Straight of Hormuz (through which 40% of the world's oil passes) with its missiles in retaliation for not being allowed to pursue its nuclear ambitions, another World War-- this time with China, N. Korea and India as nuclear armed players-- is certainly a possibility. In which case Bush's Iraq adventure might end up seeming like brilliant military strategy... just a thought.

    • Posted By: bwlear @ 08/28/2008 12:59:09 PM

      And if pigs could fly they would be called birds. Still cant admit you were wrong. You are an excellent Republican.

  • Posted By: techresmgt @ 08/28/2008 4:53:09 AM

    Just like the ladies, Oprahma is the eternal victim. The Dems seem to have a wholesale 'holier-than- thou- attitude that do them, actually seems 'real'. The baloney slicing continues...unabated.

  • Posted By: tiredoflies @ 08/28/2008 1:02:11 AM

    It figures: Just more lies from McCain.

    Are you getting this people??

    ALL THE MCCAIN CAMP CAN DO IS TO FALSELY ATTACK OBAMA WITH LIES.

    This is what republicans want in a President? Someone who can only make their self look better than they are by tearing down the opposition. All just negative?

    Sorry but that???s just plain pathetic.

  • Posted By: avg joe25 @ 08/27/2008 8:52:14 PM

    I am long time observer of some of the comments posted on this websites... some of the comments you guys make are awesome -- of course there are no goods like willnotvoteobama...

    I am still undecided, but to be honest, I think Mc Cain is a scumbag!
    btw, can one of democrats explain why John Edwards is not at the convention and Bill Clinton is?

  • Posted By: ikez78 @ 08/27/2008 7:14:46 PM

    thank God NEWSWEEK is out there as an agent of justice and honor defending their almighty Democrats

  • Posted By: notunderage @ 08/27/2008 6:43:32 PM

    Could not agree more TJ!

  • Posted By: TJ - Boulder @ 08/27/2008 6:14:17 PM

    With Rove and his swiftboat allies able to elect G.W. Bush TWICE using character assassination, I have lost confidence that the barely literate American voting public will see these tactics for what they are; lies. If McCain get elected they will get the president they deserve. But, I'm tired of having egomaniacs, dolts and liers running things for the rest of us. When will we learn?

  • Posted By: GregHere @ 08/27/2008 5:15:07 PM

    ...................................McCain is starting to unload the Negative Campaigning with his attack adds funded by selfish, wealthy elitists who want McCain to maintain their special positions and priveledges. His Right Wing supporters talk about Patriotism but to them Patriotism is for their selves and friends and has little to do with the good of America.....this version of Patriotism is just greed and a me, me, me attitude. McCain and Cindy are interested in preserving position for their rich associates, this has been visible for a long time.

  • Posted By: AskPlus @ 08/27/2008 5:53:06 PM

    In other words - he lied. Again. 12 for 13 now.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse