Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 12th October 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Republicans go to war against Obama



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 18 May 2008
DON'T tell Hillary Clinton, but America's presidential election campaign proper broke out last week, with Barack Obama and John McCain firing the opening salvoes of what promises to be a bruising war.
The two men have been circling each other warily for months while the never-ending Democratic primary contest played out. Now, suddenly, battle has commenced.

The opening shot was fired by the current president, George Bush, when he told Israel's
Knesset that anyone seeking to talk to terrorists could be compared to appeasers of Nazi Germany.

Obama was not mentioned by name, but everyone understood the message. The Chicago senator has promised talks "without preconditions" with America's enemies, including Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the man who has threatened to "wipe out Israel".

Hours later, in case anyone missed the point, John McCain rammed the message home. "I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism."

Obama shot back, branding the comments "dishonest and divisive", and war was declared.

This exchange has also marked the surprise ending of one of the most bruising primary battles in American history. Despite her win in West Virginia last week, Hillary Clinton has suddenly, by pundit consensus, been written off.

The killer blow to her slender hopes of staying in the game came with Obama's endorsement last week by John Edwards, a Democratic veteran who dropped out early in the race.

Edwards is seen as appealing to the same electoral block – blue-collar white voters – that Clinton has made her own, one reason why he is now many people's choice as Obama's vice-president.

But he has made clear he does not envisage that particular script. "Won't happen," Edwards told NBC's Today programme. "This is not something I'm interested in." He revealed, however, that Obama had told him: "I want you on my team. I want help both in the campaign and with the work we want to do when I'm the president."

Both Obama and McCain had earlier promised that their race would be fought with dignity, but these opening shots presage a battle that may make the Clinton-Obama spat look like a tea party.

McCain is hammering Obama on national security because he wants to paint the Chicago senator as dangerously naïve.

Voters seem to agree. Never mind that McCain voted for the war, while Obama opposed it. Opinion polls show the Republican beating his Democrat rival by 55% to 35% when voters are asked who is more "competent" on national security.

But if the campaign ahead will be bruising, it will also be very different from the primary battle that preceded it. Clinton and Obama shared almost identical platforms, leaving them to fight over their contrasting personalities.

The Obama-McCain face-off, however, will expose a wide ideological gulf between America's two parties. Obama wants to quit Iraq, while McCain famously said troops can stay therefor "100 years".

Obama wants to move America towards a national health service, arguing that it is cheaper than the soaring costs of private health insurance.

And Obama wants to bring in protectionist trade measures, arguing that "free trade" has led to millions of American jobs going overseas.

McCain spent time last week outlining how America will look at the end of his first term in office. He painted a rosy picture, but his policies remain anchored in those of the current Bush administration.

But behind the sparring, there is much calculation as both camps try to frame the debate. For McCain, it is national security. For Obama, it is virtually everything else as he seeks to portray his rival as simply Bush in new clothes, heir to one of the most accident-prone presidencies in modern history.

"The American people are going to have a dramatic choice," he told supporters this week. "If they want four more years of George Bush then they should vote for John McCain."

And then there is the race issue. In one of the few polls to ask the question, a fifth of voters in West Virginia last week said that race was the issue that decided their vote.

On Friday came evidence of just how nasty the contest may become. McCain's Republican sidekick and one-time rival Mike Huckabee was speaking at the annual convention of the National Rifle Association, when his speech was interrupted by a backstage noise.

"That was Barack Obama. He just jumped off a chair," he told his all-white audience. "He was getting ready to speak and someone aimed a gun at him and he dived to the floor."

In a part of America where memories of blacks being lynched, shot and burned out of their homes by the Ku Klux Klan remain raw, his comments, and the applause that followed, wiped out any notion of the coming battle being civilised.

But the race issue cuts both ways. Obama will probably lose millions of whites who cannot bear the prospect of a black president. But equally his campaign so far has galvanised millions of African American voters who have turned out for him in unprecedented numbers.

Opinion polls give Obama a few points' lead over McCain, but both men know these are early days. After all, each was the rank outsider when the primary campaigns kicked off.

Key dates

The road to the White House

• June 3 Primaries in South Dakota, Montana (Democratic only) and New Mexico (Republican only)

• July 12 Republican caucus in Nebraska

• August 25 to August 28 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, will chose candidate.

• September 1 to September 4 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-St Paul, Minnesota. Republican presidential candidate John McCain will be confirmed.

• September 26 First presidential debate on domestic policy.

• Early October Early voting and absentee voting begins.

• November 4 Election Day



The full article contains 996 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

,

18/05/2008 00:10:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 18/05/2008 00:55:01
Obama better brush up on excuses as to why he would consider sitting down with a man who has every intention of destroying the US and Israel, and being the main support of terrorism. The kind that kills American soldiers with IEDs and rockets from Iran.
This just goes to show how INEXPERIENCED he is at this.
I think he thinks the thing going for him is that fact he voted against the Iraq War. He made sure he was at that vote, since he missed so many others.
Well, not so, in the US, we have other issues that now come before the War..and if anyone watched the debates, they still do not know what his changes are, just that is change.
3

celtic4,

USA 18/05/2008 01:44:28
It has nothing to do with race, but Obama is not fit to be our country's President. He has done nothing in the past but make noise, and I believe he will only make noise if elected. But what noise, like talking with terrorists,scares me to death! I will not be voting for that man.
4

Let's have the truth,

Queensland 18/05/2008 02:27:24
#2

"Obama better brush up on excuses as to why he would consider sitting down with a man who has every intention of destroying the US and Israel"

....You are a worse fearmonger than George Bush himself.

1. Iran has no intention or capability of destroying either the US or Israel.

2. Why can't you people understand that if Iran were to attack Israel, the US would destroy Iran no matter which outfit is in power?

3. Iranians are not stupid, far from it, they understand that the stronger they are the less the possibility of meeting the same fate as Iraq, ie an invasion by people who can't see further than their noses.

4. Sitting down with one's perceived adversaries is far better than threatening them with annhilation for obvious reasons that are a mystery to the likes of George W. Bush.

5. The results of the George Bush policy are evident for the world to see and they are not pretty.

6. Evidently, you are also not in favour of negotiating a peace process betwen Israel and the Palestinians. You are as bad as you claim Iran to be.
5

Stuart 2,

Pennsylvania 18/05/2008 02:53:51
Let's Have the Truth.
1. Iran has no intention or capability of destroying either the US or Israel....
They have been trying to destroy Isreal for sixty years. It is their official policy, according to their government and spiritual leaders to destroy Isreal. They are supplying, money, arms and weapons to the Hammas. As for the capability, they are upgrading their arsenal. Such as rockets and nuclear weapons.

2. Why can't you people understand that if Iran were to attack Israel, the US would destroy Iran no matter which outfit is in power?....
We know that but Iran and the terrorist organizations don't. Better tell them.

3. Iranians are not stupid, far from it, they understand that the stronger they are the less the possibility of meeting the same fate as Iraq, ie an invasion by people who can't see further than their noses. Iran main purpose is to destroy Isreal. Better we fight the terrorist in their country than ours.
If we didn't believe that read about WWII in the Pacific. Am not downing the Austrian Military, they were and are a top notch organization.

4. Sitting down with one's perceived adversaries is far better than threatening them with annhilation for obvious reasons that are a mystery to the likes of George W. Bush.

How many people won the nobel peace prize for failed negociations because the other side does not impliment their part of the bargain?

5. The results of the George Bush policy are evident for the world to see and they are not pretty
Maybe we should appease them and then they will be nice to us, like Hitler was to Chamberlan.

6. Evidently, you are also not in favour of negotiating a peace process betwen Israel and the Palestinians. You are as bad as you claim Iran to be.
Been negociating with them for many a year. They agree then tear the agreement up. Now if they would take out of their constitution the destruction of Isreal and quit the rocket and other attacks then they might be seriou
6

,

18/05/2008 03:58:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

W Smith,

Middle East 18/05/2008 04:18:11
Chris Stephen forgot to mention the following:

1) Condi Rice is BLACK, sorry if you missed that one, and she's very popular amongst the white Republicans. Mainly because she's one smart cookie.

2) Condi was born and brought up in one of Amerca's poorest states - Alabama(which couldn't have been easy).

Chip on the shoulder Leftie Obama was brought up in Hawaii and went to private school.

Guess which one is more likely to be anti-american.

3) George Bush has promoted more blacks within his administration than Bill Clinton.

Chris tried to play the old "the-white-protestant-right-are-racist" routine.

Nice try.

Its Obama's Reverend Wright who is the anti-white pro Nation of Islam racist who said "God Damn America", etc.

No mention of Reverend Wright in the article.

Not relevant then, eh?
8

Siroos,

uk 18/05/2008 05:58:41
4 #- 4 LHTH,
3. Iranians are not stupid, far from it, they understand that the stronger they are the less the possibility of meeting the same fate as Iraq, ie an invasion by people who can't see further than their noses.

May be I should say that, you should eat more fish to understand the relationship between the Mullahs government and the ordinary Iranian people. Let us also forget about their constant meddling in other countries affairs and their sponsorship of terrorists.
Do YOU really know what goes on in Iran?
You have turned yourself into a joker by your nonsense posts or maybe you are just high on some good sh*t.
9

Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi,

San Francisco 18/05/2008 06:08:24
7 W Smith

Some good points!
10

Siroos,

UK 18/05/2008 06:08:58
5- Stuart 2,

1. Iran has no intention or capability of destroying either the US or Israel....
They have been trying to destroy Isreal for sixty years. It is their official policy, according to their government and spiritual leaders to destroy Isreal. They are supplying, money, arms and weapons to the Hammas. As for the capability, they are upgrading their arsenal. Such as rockets and nuclear weapons.

I must remind you that, your estimation of 60 years is not correct. It is actually 29 years - since the inception of Islamic Republic.

Iranians as a whole have nothing against the Jewish people. It is a shame that, the extremists are portraying this wrong image.
Please read about Cyrus the Great on Wikipedia. You will understand me better.
11

Let's have the truth,

Queensland 18/05/2008 09:08:08
Siroos,UK

You are sounding more and more like a potential member of a future puppet US government in Iran.

**WARNING - Don't trust them!!
12

Richardinho,

18/05/2008 09:19:34
If and when a President Obama sits down and talks with President Ahmadinejad of Iran, it will be from a position of massive strength with the US holding all the cards.
I wonder why McCain is so terrified of doing this-is he not confident of his ability not to make another ridiculous gaffe?
13

Gramma Kitty,

Portage lakes, OH USA 18/05/2008 10:57:48
Such fearmongering and quoting of the republican party sputum. SIGH

Obama anti-American? HA HA HA HA HA HA
yeah, that's EXACTLY why he's running for president, because he wants to destroy America. OH PLEASE!

Only fools refuse to diplomatically negotiate.
14

The wilkman,

Isle of Skye 18/05/2008 11:06:00
Comment 2 Lynne wrote """ Obama better brush up on excuses as to why he would consider sitting down with a man who has every intention of destroying the US and Israel, """.

What planet are you on Lynne? The US's military expenditure EXCEEDS that of the whole of the rest of the world put together. The increase during Bush's watch EXCEEDS the total military expenditure of the world's second biggest military power, China. Iran comes way down in the list, it's a case of David's pet hamster versus Goliath. So what relevance whether some Iranian leader would just love to "destroy America"? None. As for Israel, Israel is a regional super-power. It has the world's 6th biggest nuclear weapons arsenal. It could obliterate Iran (= kill nearly everyone that lives there) at a few hours notice.

So get real. The 'threats' from Iran are assymetrical warfare - nasty pinpricks, the ability to keep Israel et al from feeling at peace, not the ability to destroy it. And that isn't easily overcome, invading Iraq did nothing to reduce that kind of attack, the opposite! And the US's own secret services think that too.

The US talked to Russia under Stalin, Iran's current leader is a no threat compared to him. Not to mention that there'll probaly be a different leader after the next election in Iran - even the clerics there are fed up with the current eedjit. There is no reason why the governments of Iran and the US should not be in constant contact, even if both are currently arming terrorists to attack the other. The US is arming Baluchi, Kurdish and other irregulars (= 'terrorists' in modern-speak) to attack Iran, in Iran. Iran only attacks the US in the Middle East, especially just across it's border, where it arms it's co-religionists in their fight against an invader.
15

Kelvino,

NY 18/05/2008 12:07:22
This ill-informed notion of not talking with enemies
is a child's game Are we only to hold talks with those who agree with us ? It seems that this is exactly the type of mentality that breeds mutual ignorance, mistrust and hatred. As for the definition of "terrorists," I would suggest that our own behavior deserves a careful, objective examination. The rest of the world observes that WE are terrorists; do we not try to determine why that is ? Do we continue on the
destructive, self-defeating imperial track we are on with Bush & Co., pushing ourselves right off an ideological and economic cliff ? We are members of a very different world than our fathers and our "empire" is fading fast, thanks to all of you Wal-Mart shoppers who sell out our American manufacturers with each purchase you make. Was WAS America has been sold to the highest bidder. . .thanks Bush !
16

Carolyn 1,

18/05/2008 13:26:48
15 Kelvino, NY
Ah yes, the remarks of a Elitist-
stating the brilliant truth that he and his fellow elitists are too elite to shop at Walmart....

The populists and the middle class, who can't afford a million bucks to buy a house, do not have the money, never did and never will have the money to shop at your elitist European stores like Armani, Coach, Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Dior, - they MUST shop at Walmart and guess what- they LIKE to shop at Walmart!! Why is that so difficult to comprehend? They are middle class Americans who work hard. When did it become a scourge on the economy to not be elite?

.... and you think it's this Middle American worker who is pushing you off your economic cliff... ??

The Walmart shoppers, looking for value in their purchases, are the very last cause of your economic dilemma.
17

Carolyn 1,

18/05/2008 13:57:24
14 The wilkman, Isle of Skye

Your last sentence, which refers to the US as an invader, reveals your true opinion, and places your previous string of words in context.
if you refer to any western history book, you will learn that in 1944 the US talks with Stalin was because Russia was an ALLY against the Nazis. Additionally, its my opinion that without Russia's help the war would have ended only at great cost and by use of the atomic bomb.
Therefore your assertion that the US was talking with its enemy is wrong. Get real.

This is a final summarizing paragraph from the US State Dept Office of the Historian Bureau of Public Affairs:

"The alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union during World War II developed out of necessity, and out of a shared realization that each country needed the other to defeat one of the most dangerous and destructive forces of the twentieth century. Ideological differences were subordinated, albeit temporarily, to the common goal of defeating fascism. As a result of this cooperation, the groundwork for a new international system was laid, out of which came the United Nations organization. The Soviets had suffered tremendous human and material losses during the war. Approximately 20 million people were killed, thousands of villages, towns, and cities were destroyed, and the Soviet Union’s economic infrastructure was devastated. Despite the subsequent postwar controversies and the beginning of the Cold War, nothing can diminish the importance of the wartime cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union."

What planet are you on?
Iran and many Arab states want nothing more than to remove all Jews from the Middle East. This isn't news. But I agree, the Iranian nukes will not be aimed at the US, they will be aimed for Israel, the UK and Holland.
18

Lionel S,

18/05/2008 14:02:37
With regards to Iran -

1) What good will it do the future US President to sit down with Ahmadinejad;

do they have any realistic hope of talking Iran out of developing nuclear weapons given what just happened to Iraq through its defencelessness, rather than the immunity that North Korea enjoys? Not really.

Do they have any realistic hope that Iran will stop positionining itself with regards to its self-interest in Iraq in favour of US self-interest? None whatsoever.

2) What good would it do Iran?

In the eyes of other ME states (and probably further) It would propel it to a level of geo-political importance that its military or economical strength simply does not warrant.

It would go from being a rogue state that petulantly thumbs its nose at the US to a major player that the US is reluctantly forced to talk to.

Any negotiations will be futile, win-win for Iran and lose-lose for the US.
19

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 18/05/2008 14:24:07
McCains advisers would never allow him to spaek to Ahmahdinejad. The man is nuttier than a squirrel turd.

How would it look if the President of a seeming tolerant and progressive country tries to throttle his opponent at the negotiating table.

Just look at the Video of him screaming at his Wife to realize what a ticking bomb this guy is.

Obama on the other had could meet with Amahadinejad and come off with the the majority of international opinion supporting his position.

Americans politicians always denegrate how important International support is in solving crisises. They like to play the lone Cowboy with righteuosness in his corner taking on the whole evil world.

They usually follow that act by leading you into some unilateral conflict you can't win, which you have to expend a lot of blood and treasure just to get an honourable defeat.
20

Carolyn 1,

18/05/2008 14:48:10
KampungHighlander, Jakarta

May I humbly give you advise to read current events beyond the border of Indonesia?
Your statement:
"Americans politicians always denegrate how important International support is in solving crisises."

Your anti-American retort is outdated.
Times change and so do leaders, events and circumstances.
Europe has become more conservative in the last elections and is aligning with the US on many issues. It looks like Brown will be on his way out as well.
Didn't you notice the number of European leaders who wanted the photo opportunity with McCain when he was there earlier this spring?
Anti-Americanism is last year's news. Get over it.

Unless.. - are you Muslim and referring to the Durban Conference on Racism which Canada and the US opposes? Durban II will be the newest collection of Muslim countries that want to clean up the middle east supported by the Muslim wing of the UN.
And Indonesia will vote how?
21

Carolyn 1,

18/05/2008 14:58:11
@19
"McCains advisers would never allow him to spaek to Ahmahdinejad. The man is nuttier than a squirrel turd."

I agree: Ahmadinejad is nuts.

As for fortitude and integrity:

Enduring torture that crippled him, McCain's experience in the Hanoi Hilton was longer than the soft and easy years young Obama has experienced in the US senate.
Think about that.

Who do you want controlling the world's largest stockpile of nukes?
A guy who hates war and can take years of torture and not crack, or a guy who wants change?


22

Dougie, Edinburgh,

18/05/2008 15:25:32
Stephen writes "Obama will probably lose millions of whites who cannot bear the prospect of a black president". This is laughable. The fact is, Obama is a black racial activist who's closely associated with some quite extreme anti-white racists. Despite his hypocritical claims to "transcend" race, his own autobiography demonstrates he's obsessed by it.
23

Dougie, Edinburgh,

18/05/2008 15:27:45
21 Carolyn 1
Ahmadinejad is nuts?? He's getting away with making his country into a nuclear power and he's causing America lots of trouble in Iraq at no cost to himself. Maybe you underestimate him because of his outrageous rantings. Remember that he's playing to his domestic audience when he talks about wiping out Israel etc. The Iranian regime has been very cool headed when required.
24

Nirvana,

18/05/2008 16:05:55
Ahmadinejad? Lol no homosexeuls in Iran? no Holacost.
25

Carolyn 1,

18/05/2008 16:33:03
Dougie,
I was responding in 'snark' retort to KHighlander, but I stand corrected and agree with you- Ahmadinejad is not nuts and he is playing to a 'captive audience';
Ahmadinejad is methodically positioning himself, and using the leverage of terrorism and oil revenues to raise Iran to an international power-
unfortunately, like most dictators who love to purchase power and weapons instead of food and infrastructure, he got the country in a state of economic failure, not unlike Mugabe and Chavez. But I also believe with conviction, that there is nothing this evil man wants more, than to eliminate Jews from the region.

'Cool headed' will require a new meaning when he pushes through the first nuke tipped weapon this year.

26

Richardinho,

18/05/2008 16:52:22
'Who do you want controlling the world's largest stockpile of nukes?
A guy who hates war and can take years of torture and not crack, or a guy who wants change?
'

Well McCain did actually crack and made a confession, so that's not strictly accurate. he said "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."
And he was tortured for four days, not 'years'.

It's irrelevant anyway-since when was being tortured a requirement for being president? The idea is laughable.

A far more relevant question is; 'do you want a loose cannon as president who's likely to burst out into song about "bomb,bomb,bomb Iran" at any given moment?'

McCain has the potential to be the US's Boris Yeltsin.

27

Wally,

By the Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 18/05/2008 17:05:19
the great hypocrite George Bush speaks at Knesset accusing his political rival of being a NAZI appeaser.

But in 1942 it was the hypocrite's grandfather Prescott Bush who was arrested by US federal prosecutor o'Neil who said at a press conference that Prescott bush was 'Hitlers Angel' in America. The president's grandfather and great-grandfather both began making financial donations to the NAZI party around 1925. They both began working for a bank set up by a major NAZI financier in the early 1930's. They arranged for American businesses to do business with the NAZIs. and even 10 months after Pearl Harbor events Prescott Bush was diligently serving the NAZIs. An undercover intelligence officer of the US Army witnessed prescott bush trying to find a source for industrial diamonds to be used by the NAZI war factories during WW2. Around 1950 when the Bush family's share of a NAZI-associated business was liquidated the Bush family received about 1 million dollars. The business that was liquidated in Germany owned the very factory at Auschwitz where jews worked prior to being exterminated.

But it is the hypocrite's opponents who are guilty and must be proclaimed loudly so in front of the Knesset even.
28

Wally,

by The Rivers Of babylon (USA) 18/05/2008 17:28:49
following up on whether McCain cracked in North Vietnam prison: yes he cracked, as noted above, he even said he cracked. The vietnamese released a statement 2-3 weeks ago saying that they gave him special treatment as a result of him being an important person also.

the only americans who didn't crack in that prison were killed during torture. Lots of them did not crack and thus died.

The US military changed its philosophy on prisoners after that experience and afterwards tells them in advance that it is all right to crack.
29

Carolyn 1,

18/05/2008 17:54:19
26 Richardinho

Ooops- you had a malfunction when you cut and pasted McCain's torture.

As we must embrace the new American Messianic way of debate, here you go with the rest of the story you forgot to post about McCain's torture:

"...His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head. He subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements.

McCain was sent to a different camp on the outskirts of Hanoi in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week. In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years.

McCain refused to meet with various anti-war groups seeking peace in Hanoi, not wanting to give either them or the North Vietnamese a propaganda victory.

From late 1969 on, treatment of McCain and many of the other POWs became more tolerable, while McCain continued to be an active resister against the camp authorities. McCain and other prisoners cheered the B-52-led U.S. "Christmas Bombing" campaign of December 1972 as a forceful measure to push North Vietnam to terms.

Altogether, McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. He was finally released from captivity on March 14, 1973"


Richardinho said:"And he was tortured for four days, not 'years'."
???
How can you possibly think everything he endured was NOT torture?
If it happened in Gitmo would you say okay?
Do you believe two years of solitary confinement meets the Geneva standards or the Red Cross standards of acceptability?
Or, is what you're really saying, that torturing an American Naval pilot is fine?




30

57Nomad,

california 18/05/2008 18:43:28
John McCain will with the election in a walk. Barak will be the Democrat nominee. He will have earned the everlasting antipathy of the Clintons. His main support comes from the Soros wing of the party. These are passionate and sincere believers in their goofball philosophy. A significant fraction of them will be too stoned on election day to make it to the polls while a smaller but worthy of mention group will have simply forgotten what day the election is on and miss it.

Barak Obama will be lucky to carry a single state.

31

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 18/05/2008 19:51:46
LHTT...you should change your name to Appeaser and Apologiser
32

Itchy,

18/05/2008 20:05:12
"Obama wants to move America towards a national health service, arguing that it is cheaper than the soaring costs of private health insurance.

And Obama wants to bring in protectionist trade measures, arguing that "free trade" has led to millions of American jobs going overseas."

Free trade leads to lost jobs? Mince!

And how is an NHS supposed to be funded? From scotch mist? No, Obama, you are proposing a far bigger free lunch than anything that President Bush has done so far and bigger government is not the answer to Bush's big government policies.
33

Richardinho,

18/05/2008 20:11:44
I am quoting from wikipedia's entry on the matter-the numbers designate wikipedia references to the original sources;
'In August of 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain.[45] McCain was subjected to repeated beatings and rope bindings, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery.[45] After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession".[34] He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable,[46] but as he would later write, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[47]'

34

Richardinho,

18/05/2008 20:17:09
'Or, is what you're really saying, that torturing an American Naval pilot is fine?'

Now you're just being silly.
I was simply correcting your inaccurate statements. You were saying that McCain didn't 'crack' when he did. I'm not making any judgment on that, but the fact is that your original statement was simply wrong.

And I'll say it again; the idea that you need to have been tortured in order to be American president is laughable.
But If you are going to make that the centerpiece of your argument in support of McCain, then you are obliged to get your facts right.

35

Sandi,

San Diego 18/05/2008 20:21:47
#2 Lynne,Palm Beach Gardens

"I think he thinks the thing going for him is that fact he voted against the Iraq War. He made sure he was at that vote, since he missed so many others."

Barack Obama never voted against the Iraq war resolution. He was not a US Senator at that time. All he did was make one speech in 2002 opposing the war. This did not in any way threaten his career as a legislator. He has acknowledged that he does not know how he would have voted in the Senate if he had been there. In 2004, he said he was more or less on the same page as George W. Bush on the subject of Iraq. Since becoming a US Senator he has voted the same way as Senator Clinton on Iraq issues and has never spoken out against the war.

#27 Wally,

Good points, and don't forget Joe Kennedy.
36

Wally,

By The Rivers Of babylon (USA) 18/05/2008 21:03:16
regarding this McCain controversy above - Richardinho is correct that Mccain did crack. but I don't hold this against him because most people cracked. they were under severe torture. As I said many American men died during that torture. those are generally the only ones who did not crack. There are reports that McCain made propaganda statements for his captors and that these were broadcast in North Vietnam. I'm not sure if this is true or not because the audio tapes we don't have. But there is evidence he cracked including his own statements. Like I said, it doesn't matter because of the severe torture they were under.

After that experience Admiral stockdale who was also held prisoner convinced the military to completely re-work the indoctrination of the soldiers/sailors towards such torture. Before the Americans were not allowed to cooperate even under torture. After that experience they're taught to resist, but to give in after they're tortured a certain amount. because to do otherwise means death under such circumstances.
37

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 18/05/2008 21:10:25
GW Bush the other day questioned Obama's patriotism & loyalty to our country. But as I said above GW Bush comes from a treasonous family and that counts for a lot IMHO. We shouldn't be putting people in the White House with questionable loyalties.

It is also ironic that GW Bush would say this when the Republican nominee Mccain also comes from a treasonous family. In 1967 the US navy ship USS Liberty was attacked 12 miles off the coast of Israel by the Israeli military. The attack lasted 2.5 hours, 35 Americans died, they almost sunk the ship, the Israelis did know it was an American ship. This was proven by transcripts of conversations released by the American National Security Agency. It was also confirmed by statements made subsequent to the event by the Israeli government. The first pilot they sent against the USS Liberty was a man born in the US, an American immigrant to Israel, he refused the orders on the grounds that it was an American ship. He landed his plane and was immediately arrested for this refusal. He speaks openly about these events.

It was Admiral Mccain, the father of the current presidential candidate, who ordered a navy aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean not to launch fighter jets to protect the Liberty. Therefore, John Mccain comes from a treasonous family just like GW Bush does.

He has no business being anywhere near the presidential race. But there's both McCain & GW Bush each ridiculing Obama for imaginary qualities that Obama allegedly has.
38

Regina,

USA 18/05/2008 21:25:35
#6 ScuIIion

I did not know Wally was gay. Is the tin foil hat a gay symbol like the rainbow sticker? I'm not insituating there is anything wrong with that.

39

Kelvino,

NY 18/05/2008 21:28:45
#16-Carolyn

While I enjoyed your convenient fantasy regarding my presumed "elitist" comments, I must confess that I am a self-employed tradesman, work 7-days a week ( for the past 33 years) have no pension to look forward to, pay unaffordable heath insurance premiums and frequently shop at the Salvation Army ! I try to stay away from Wal-Mart because it has successfully put most small, home-town businesses out-of-business, creating wastelands of many downtowns. This is not the capitalism and entrepeneurial spirit that built this country, nor does it really help any of us, in the long-run. I hope that your children are learing a trade that cannot be exported to a cheaper labor pool by our patriotic American capitalists. You really need to look into this "elitist" nonsense a bit more and you might discover it to be mere Republican "swiftboating" jargon from a failed political party. Adios, "Conservatives!" ("Conservators of wealth and profit" is my own, personal "conservative" definition)
40

Wally,

By The Rivers Of babylon (USA) 18/05/2008 21:45:26
Here is a web-site that gives info on Senator Mccain

http://therealmccain.com/

Also, the fellow above who goes by Nomad57 is poorly informed. Because opinion polls are showing that either Obama or clinton would easily beat mccain if the election were held today. The Republicans are very unpopular this year thanks to Bush.

Also, whoever it was above that said the Iranians were providing weaponry for Iraqis fighting against the US should stop saying this. Because in the last 1-2 weeks we've had news stories showing us that the assertions by the US that this is so have fallen apart. The US Army was forced to admit even that the weaponry in question did not come from Iran. Its merely an accusation made with no substance.

here's a link with some info on that.

http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=286
41

Itchy,

18/05/2008 21:52:03
"I try to stay away from Wal-Mart because it has successfully put most small, home-town businesses out-of-business, creating wastelands of many downtowns"

Wrong. It was the customer who put these businesses out of business. Walmart is successful because people go there of their own free will.
42

Oregon Scot,

Salem USA 18/05/2008 22:51:17
McCain really doesn't have much of a chance against either Obama or Clinton, if by some miracle she gets the nomination.
The Iraq War is quite unpopular here and people are just getting fed up of the endless occupation without end.
Even at the moment with the two Dem. nominees beating the hell out of each other, in national polls they still both are leading McCain.
Now Obama can concentrate on bringing it to McCain, the polls can only get worse for McCain.
Dont believe the race hype, Obama was here yesterday in a small city near Salem,Oregon, he had loads of support from folks of all races ( its 90% white here).
43

Richardinho,

18/05/2008 22:57:48
It's certainly not just the 'liberal elite' who don't like eternal war being raged in Iraq, there's plenty of 'ordinary' people who think that too. I'd therefore question the tactic of the 'Conservative elite' of labelling these people as 'weak' or 'treacherous'.
44

Oregon Scot,

Salem 18/05/2008 23:27:19
"I try to stay away from Wal-Mart because it has successfully put most small, home-town businesses out-of-business, creating wastelands of many downtowns"

Wrong. It was the customer who put these businesses out of business. Walmart is successful because people go there of their own free will."


Sure it starts that way, but often times in small town America people are left with no choice but to go to Walmart, especially with gas being so exspensive.
I dont go because I hate the atmosphere in Walmart. My wife likes it. C'est La Vie!
45

Sandi,

San Diego 18/05/2008 23:40:45
"Dont believe the race hype"

The "race hype" is coming from Obama. Hillary Clinton's supporters don't believe it, it's the Obama excuse for losing in a huge way at the end of a primary season where he considers himself to be the "presumptive nominee".
46

Henry II,

North Shore 18/05/2008 23:58:59
38 Regina,USA

I for one am not interested in Wally's sexual orientation. Who cares and what does his minority view in that department have to do with the topic at hand? Do you have anything worthwhile to contribute?
47

Oregon Scot,

Salem 18/05/2008 23:59:31
"Dont believe the race hype"

The "race hype" is coming from Obama. Hillary Clinton's supporters don't believe it, it's the Obama excuse for losing in a huge way at the end of a primary season where he considers himself to be the "presumptive nominee"."

I dont really support either one, but as far as I can make out from the media, it is Hillary or some of her backers and McCain's camp that have been "hypeing" the race issue. I havent seen Obama doing this yet.
And losing in West Virginia isn't losing "in a huge way", no disrespect to the great State of West Virginia.
It looks like Obama will take Oregon .
48

Let's have the truth,

Queensland 19/05/2008 00:24:16
#31

"LHTT...you should change your name to Appeaser and Apologiser"

Lynne, your opinions are clouded by your blind support of the Zionist state of Israel.

My opinions are not influenced by such things. I am able to form my views based on a "Big picture" viewpoint that has no such malignant influences.

If an appeaser and apologist means someone who can think rationally rather than let one's emotions take over, then I would gladly change my name.
49

,

19/05/2008 01:38:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
50

American,

19/05/2008 01:41:52
#36-wally- "Mccain did crack". I think you also cracked, or are on crack.
51

American,

19/05/2008 01:52:50
what can obama actually talk about with the 4 rogue nation leaders?? dont destroy israel (he's never suggest that, he's too anti-semitic) and stop supporting terrorists & in return we'll give you ...? And chavez, dont be a dictator and stop supporting the drug cartel and we'll give you ...? You can see how well talks & negotiations are going with north korea. All our tax dollars are going to feed kim ills army, not his starving citizens. Also, how well talks and negotiations are going in pakistan with musharaf and tribal leaders. pakistan will soon be more dangerous than iraq and afghanistan put together. I just cant see what there is to talk about.
52

Oregon Scot,

Salem 19/05/2008 07:03:31
If anyone really thinks Clinton has a chance in oregon see this
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_051808_politics_obama_oregon.60db48e.html

75,000 turned out to see Obama speak.
53

Let's have the truth,

Queensland 19/05/2008 12:03:54
#51 - American

"I just cant see what there is to talk about".

....That's why you would be a bad choice to do the talking.

54

mike - across the pond,

19/05/2008 16:27:01
ahhh the more it changes....the more it stays the same

saying that the world is a different place, so appeasing the nutters is OK today... is plainly ignorant of history...

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF... maybe not with flint axes... or chariots.... elephants.... picts with pole-arms... welsh bowmen... stone fortresses... seige guns... or trench warfare...

but the patterns of history repeat themselves... and those who refuse to learn from history ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT....

appeasing the lunatics has lead to ONE result... defeat at the hands of the lunatics...

please name ONE time in history that appeasing a lunatic has not cost MORE lives than were saved by appeasing? I'll name 5 to counter you...
55

Richardinho,

19/05/2008 18:22:50
#54 60 million people died in world war two. That was the price for 'not appeasing hitler'.
56

Silence of the Yams,

19/05/2008 20:39:14
As far as I'm concerned Hussein is the master deceiver and Mohammed (i.e Satan) is his prophet.
57

John Blackley,

Florida 19/05/2008 20:40:41
Of course you shouldn't talk - without preconditions - to the leaders of terrorist states.

Because Bush's alternative is working so well.

/sarcasm off
58

Let's have the truth,

Queensland 20/05/2008 05:07:41
Certain posters should read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/opinion/18friedman.html?em&ex=1211428800&en=6d0a4e1874cbb980&ei=5087%0A
59

American,

20/05/2008 21:09:34
#53-truth??-And who is capable of negotiating with iran in getting them to stop supporting terrorists groups like hezbollah (who is causing trouble in lebanon)and who is going to get iran & their terrorist groups to stop threatening israel?? And who is capable of convincing these nations that their human rights policy is nill? AND, if a bargain is struck, do you really think these rogue nations will keep to their agreement?? Negotiations and talks sure arent working in pakistan and north korea (we should just cut off all aid to them).
60

American,

20/05/2008 21:11:52
#56-silence - I agree. I think barack "hussein" obama is the master deceiver also.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Who would make the best Democratic challenger for President?
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.