Abraxas, I hear you, it isn't just racist attacks. Remember the attack ad about Obama's "world tour?" You know the one where McCain accuses Obama of choosing  not visit the troops at the hospital at Landstuhl, and the
arguments about whether the Pentagon told him he couldn't go because it was a political visit unlike the one in
Iraq where he visited troops? 

Well, heres a bit of news. Not one of my posts from so-called "lefty" sources.  Shows the truth about McCain and
how far he has already stooped with his campaign ads. I agree this is just the way campaigns are.  Maybe have
been since John Adam's and Thomas Jefferson's?  Brilliant plan or now going even lower? You decide.

The New Normal: McCain's Desperate Ad Hours
Posted by: David Kiley on July 28

Excerpt:

"Obama’s cancellation of a visit in Germany to visit wounded U.S. troops has been adequately explained: that his campaign was advised by the Pentagon that since Obama was on a campaign trip and spending campaign resources, it would be viewed as using the wounded as props whether cameras were allowed in the hospital or not.

This ad asserts a McCain campaign talking-point that Obama wouldn’t make time for wounded troops unless cameras were allowed to follow him, but did make time to work out at a gym. This, of course, is a lie. It’s a blatant lie. Steve Schmidt, a disciple of Karl Rove’s who worked on George W. Bush’s 2004 ad/communications effort, though, is playing the Rovian playbook that says that it doesn’t matter if it’s true as long as your target audience (non-college educated white working class voters) won’t bother to find out the actual truth, and believe that it “sounds like it might be a true.”

For the second time in a week the non-partisan www.factcheck.org takes McCain to task for a false ad [false, btw, is another word for lie].

And USA Today wrote an editorial about last week’s ad scam from McCain, blaming Obama for higher gas prices. The paper wrote: “Even by the elastic standards of political ads, this is more than a stretch. It’s baloney. It’s also a marker on the path toward the kind of simplistic, counterproductive demonizing that many expect will poison the fall campaign.”


What the McCain campaign doesn’t want people to know, according to one GOP strategist I spoke with over the weekend, is that they had an ad script ready to go if Obama had visited the wounded troops saying that Obama was...wait for it...using wounded troops as campaign props. So, no matter which way Obama turned, McCain had an Obama bashing ad ready to launch. I guess that’s political hardball. But another word for it is the one word that most politicians are loathe to use about their opponents—a lie."

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2008/07/the_new_normal.html

Couldn't agree more!

And it's gonna get so much worse in September and October...




I have to take objection to this, mach.


A) Iran didn't laugh in our faces. In fact, Iran's foreign minister said our participation was "positive" and they "look forward to constructive engagement" (LINK).

B) Israel has ALWAYS had every intention of striking Iran. This is why they've sped up the delivery contract of several American-made F-35's (LINK) and have requested Pentagon support when they start their campaign.

C) These talks have begun to legitimize US foreign policy again, something the Iraq War has gone a long way to destroy.

D) An angry Israel shouldn't concern us... but it does, because the closer we get to a peaceful solution with Iran, the less of a reason Israel has to take action. They also lose crucial US support in the event other Arab countries react. The fact that Israel is upset about this should tell you something about Israel...

E) Diplomacy is NOT "soft". This kind of thinking is what has kept the US in a perpetual state of war for the last 70 years.


You're right, we should talk about it... but, I'd prefer we use facts and a certain degree of historical perspective when we do...

I concur Retro Fit.  Maybe I should recommend Abraxas pick up a copy of the ultimate conspiracy theorist, Taylor
Caldwell's, The Captains and the Kings?  Maybe it's time I hauled out my copy and read it again? Wonder
if that old novel might not be considered so much a conspiracy theory now?  Maybe those "gnomes in Switzerland" might be better understood today?

Wonder if machioveli has ever read it? Somehow, I suspect he would be more into Ayn Rand. Or maybe even Murdock's WSJ?  Where as of yesterday, this columnist had some very unkind things to say about McCain and
not about just his hitting the bottom with the campaign ads.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121745962594698731.html?mod=todays_columnists

Other than a bit OT machioveli, it appears Dubya has begun the leave the impression he's going to leave that attack to McCain, along with the mess he and the years of lock step, GOP Congress, who have screwed up the
economy, along with the results evident in the dual deficits.

Guess you haven't noted internal political circumstances are just a bit more than screwed right now in Israel.  A quick perusal of the articles on DEBKAfile, one of the more right wing and Zionist Israeli publications appear to confirm the Israeli's won't be attacking Iran anytime soon, if ever. 

 http://www.debka.com/index1.php

Actually, such a discussion is more appropriate on the Middle East forum, where I think you'll discover, even supporters of Israel, like Terry Mathis, continue to support Obama and hope for diplomacy rather than war.

It can be said that the Iraq War was legitimizing the terms of the ceasefire from Desert Storm.

How was failing to demand Saddam adhere to the terms of the ceasefire legitimizing US foreign policy?

Wasn't allowing him to laugh in our face, shoot at our planes, Oil-for-Food, the IAEA shell-game making a mockery of US foreign policy?

[/quote]E) Diplomacy is NOT "soft". This kind of thinking is what has kept the US in a perpetual state of war for the last 70 years.[/quote]

Diplomacy IS soft when terms of a ceasefire are allowed to be spat upon for 10 years.

War is another means of politics/diplomacy.......human history has well documented this.

Only a fool believes there will be no more war.

Abraxas, Patton is just having memory lapses or deliberate incorrect comparisons between Desert Storm and the current  debacle in the desert, particularly related to "legitimacy." But you're correct this is not the location to get into the comparisons.

No rocket science required when the comparisons to determine the differences in the world views and stated opposite methodology, diplomacy to attempt compromise vs  to shoot first and figure it out later, views of his
chosen candidate.  Neither candidate is running to be the Chair of the Joint Chief of Staff of the DOD. That is an
appointed position by the POTUS. Serving as CIC is hardly the only requirement to be considered when electing
a POTUS. Though the opposing views related to war and peace with the use of diplomacy first, remain a highly
important aspect of individual choices.

Maybe Patton has also forgotten the important factor related to who will sit in that chair in the Oval Office? The
real art of politics is the ability to compromise.  Hasn't been much available of that art over the past almost 8
years from a POTUS with his feet in concrete and an attitude, regardless of the issue, "my way or the hiway."

Nor will I deny the responsibility of the Democrats in Congress, prior to and following the election of 2006, who
hardly compromised, but laid down  and let the unitary executive and the right wing GOP in both Houses
of the Legislative Branch, march over them on a regular basis. The result of being so fearful of being called "unpatriotic" (actually fearful of loosing their seats) even though the voting public demanded major changes,
continued and still continue to act against the will of the people.

Even worse, McCain by his own words, hasn't gotten the message, "no more wars in the ME."  So he continues
the same "shoot first and ask questions later" choice of Bush.  The consequence is the bumper sticker statement,
"A vote for McCain is a vote for a third term for Bush," is quite realistic.