Please check the facts before to propagate swift-boats.
“The only hard facts that have come out so far are the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board”
You are linking to a blog post from February of this year, this ad didn’t start running until this week.
Lots more information has come out about Ayers since then.
The ad itself provides footnotes on every accusation in the footage. Call it Swift Boating all you want, but facts are facts. How does Senator Obama still say he has just met Ayers on a couple of occasions when the facts prove he was very close to him going back to the mid nineties?
Ayers is a marxist and a former terrorist, but appears to be a long time friend and supporter of Obama.
The Main Stream Media failed to vet this candidate, now it’s time for somebody do that work. If you don’t believe me, ask Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat, what he thinks of the MSM’s vetting of Senator Obama.
30 Reasons for Obama Fans to Re-Consider
With evidence, logic, and references
the best summary of Obama’s politics on the web
Of course you realize George Bush was once friends with a known communist. Not only was he a known communist, HE ONCE TRIED TO STEAL CLASSIFIED INFORMATION THAT BUSH HAD DIRECT ACCESS TO.
Sounds pretty stupid, doesn’t it? The (former, acknowledged) friend is Vladimir Putin.
And the guy who is funding this swift boat ad against Obama? He was once a known drug kingpin. He used the proceeds from his drug pushing to invest heavily in oil and gas, which would explain his animus toward Obama (or Nobama if you prefer).
Unbelievable, huh? Especially since he also bankrolled the swift boat ads against Mr. Heinz, er, Kerry. Surely, the democrats would have been smart enough to uncover his sordid past.
Actually, it’s all quite innocent. He started a drug store chain, which he sold to Eckerds for $$$$$. Before that he was a bank examiner. And then he listened to T. Boone.
The above is simply an exercise to demonstrate how – if one is low and skanky enough – you can take facts about pretty much anyone, distort them, and bring them to an absurd conclusion.
If you are willing to use any means, foul or fair, to see your candidate elected, that’s your business. But, please, don’t insult your intelligence and mine by telling me you believe that Barack Obama condones terrorism.
This crap is intended for the stupidest people on the face of the earth, those people who are still “undecided” after eight years of George Bush and knowing full well that Barack Obama is as liberal as they come. It will work on them, and you can be satisfied by that without making yourself look as stupid as they do.
If John McCain can’t beat Barack Obama on the issues, then you have to wonder about John McCain. Oops, sorry, you’re not allowed to wonder about John McCain, because he was a POW, and that fact insulates him for all time from any questions about the rest of his life.
One reason for McCain “fans” to reconsider John McCain. John McCain.
The evidence against McCain is his own words, he wouldn’t know logic if it bit him in the —, and his frame of reference is the Iraq/Pakistan border.
Oh, and I forgot my biggest problem with him. It goes ‘bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran…
Monty, I don’t want to bomb Iran. Not even once much less 4 times. Neither did the “Snows” and “Holmeses” of 1939 want to even arm the United States. That’s how we lost 3000 civilians and service personnel at Pear Harbor and spent 2 years arming ourselves while millions were being bombed and killed in Europe. We could hardly come to their aid until almost too late.
Maybe we should have found somebody to bomb before we lost 3000 more folks in 2001. If not Iraq, then Iran or Saudi or whomever. Or maybe all of them. I’m not schooled in foreign intelligence. I flat out don’t know. But I do know beyond any doubt that if we’re going to continue with these United States of America in this nuclear age we better get plenty tough with people who not only want us dead but have practiced it many times. I have no confidence in Obama or any other national figure in the Democratic Party doing that. The tolerance level was exceeded in my book when the first muslim terrorist killed the first American citizen.
The real stupidity is to continue to ignore the problem.
I know better than most that war heroes do not necessarily great leaders make. But the odds are sure better than 1/3 term senator lawyers. And there is only one individual besides Obama running for Commander-in-Chief with any chance of success.
My vote is precious. For whom should I cast it? You tell me.
Please, no offense intended. It’s a hot button issue.
Yea verily, Mr. Holmes!!!
Mr. Holmes, I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions.
If your concern is terrorism, then bombing countries does not solve the problem, because terrorists don’t have countries or governments. They operate across borders, but with the exception of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan prior to our attack on the Taliban, the countries themselves generally do not condone terrorism.
Now, we bombed Afghanistan in 2001, because at the time, the Afghan government (the Taliban) directly supported and shielded Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. THAT was the country we should have attacked, and we did. They attacked us first. Barack Obama agrees with what George Bush did then.
What he disagrees with, as do I, was attacking Iraq. No terrorists from Iraq bombed the United States. In fact there were few terrorists in Iraq until we attacked it. Once we did, the terrorists came from all over the middle east to kill Americans. The net result? In addition to the 3000 Americans lost on 9/11, we have lost 4000 MORE American lives and many more maimed and wounded soldiers in Iraq, and what did that accomplish?
For one thing, it removed a very nasty dictator from Iraq. Not even the Iraqis agree that was a good thing, as evidenced by the fact that they are still blowing each other to bits over it. But whether or not they think removing Saddam Hussein was a good thing, doing it was THEIR problem, not ours. But we took it on ourselves to do it and it’s a done deal.
Maybe it was worth it to somebody, but it did nothing for the United States, and it was not worth the tremendous loss of both American and Iraqi lives, not to mention the $10 billion dollars a month we have spent there. I can tell you in no uncertain terms, I would resent George Bush for the rest of my life if I had lost my son’s life in exchange for what happened in Iraq. Ironically, Saddam Hussein is the same dictator we backed when we thought it was in our best interest to do so in the 1980s, even though we knew at the time that he was a tyrant to his own people.
The problem is, we diverted so many of our resources to defeat a country that did not attack us, that we did not have enough troops in Afghanistan, which is where the terrorists and their allies, the Taliban, are.
Consequently, the Taliban has become stronger and is now threatening the government that we installed there, and they are still providing sanctuary to Al Qaeda. By diverting troops to Iraq, we have now delayed for five years what we originally set out to do, which is to capture or kill bin Laden.
Barack Obama wants to end the war in Iraq so that he can reinforce our troops in Afghanistan and finish what we started there five years ago. George Bush and John McCain both resisted Barack Obama’s timetable for ending the war. However, a funny thing happened. The Iraqi government agreed with Obama’s general timetable. Once that happened, the Bush administration was embarrassed into negotiating a withdrawal timetable that is very close to what Obama has been calling for.
Now, as you can see, with respect to terrorists it’s not a matter of bombing or not bombing them, it’s about bombing them where you know they are, not where you know they’re not.
It’s a matter of analyzing all the options and not rushing to judgment. The entire world tried to warn us not to attack Iraq, but we wouldn’t listen, and it cost us more lives than 9/11 did. 4000 Americans are dead, and Osama bin Laden is still alive, free, and plotting more attacks on the United States.
Do you see something wrong with that picture?
In the process we have alienated most of the world, and our credibility is at an all time low. We think of ourselves as “the” superpower, but no country is more powerful than the rest of the world. Germany and Japan found that out the hard way in WWII. By the way, it was two DEMOCRATS who drove the point home to them in no uncertain terms.
We must remain strong militarily. Barack Obama believes that, as does John McCain. But, regardless of how we view ourselves, if we continue to attack countries that have not attacked us, the rest of the world will see us as a threat. That did not serve Germany and Japan well, and it will not serve us well either.
I don’t agree that we should bomb Muslim countries simply because Muslims live there. In fact the only person I have heard say that is an atheist who has authored a number of books in recent years. He believes all religions are basically evil and because he considers Islam responsible for 9/11, he believes exterminating all Muslims is a good thing.
Whether or not you agree with that extreme position, it is not possible to bomb away a religion, as misguided as you may think it is. However, it is very possible to start a nuclear war in the attempt.
We may be forced to bomb Iran eventually, because we – nor the rest of the world for that matter – cannot tolerate the risk of another nuclear country in the middle east. But it is in our best interests for that dire move to be the absolutely last one used, only after every attempt to resolve the issue diplomatically has been exhausted. While simply bombing the country might seem beforehand to be the easy solution, it becomes far more complex in actual practice. (See Iraq)
Equally important to our security is freeing ourselves from dependence on mideast oil. We didn’t attack Iraq because we feared Saddam Hussein was going to attack us with terrorists or otherwise. We did it because we were afraid Hussein might try to gain control over all the oil in the middle east and hold us economic hostages with it. Unfortunately, losing access to mideast oil is in fact a dire security issue for the United States.
However, as you can see, attacking a country first because of what we think it MIGHT do is not only morally wrong and un-American, it is an unnecessary waste of American lives. How embarrassing when Bush, responding to Russia’s war with Georgia, told Russia that in the 21st century, countries don’t attack other countries. If that is not the height of hypocrisy, I don’t know what is.
If Saddam Hussein had tried to cut off access to oil, the entire world would have banded together to defeat him, because the oil market is global, and it would have hurt other countries as much or more than it would have hurt us.
If I have done nothing more, I hope I have demonstrated that our foreign policy problems are extremely complex and are intermingled with the problems of both our allies and our enemies. Sorting it out and addressing it in the best interests of the United States will require much more diplomatic skill and good judgment than we have witnessed from the Bush administration.
If you think John McCain is the person who has demonstrated the kind of balance and good judgment that I’m talking about, then by all means you should vote for him.
I don’t think so, but then that’s what elections are all about.
And be assured, Mr. Holmes, you did not offend me. You are a gentleman, as always.
Monty, one small item. Let’s not forget that prior to the invasion of Iraq we patrolled the NO-FLY zone and our aircraft were shot at every day.
Monty, would you please tell Rochelle that I didn’t have a bruise on either hand. She will understand.
I am pondering your response. It is certainly more intelligent and “fraught with thought” than that to which I have become unaccustomed. I thank you for and return your compliment.
I am concerned with terrorism. Not for my generation; we’ve had our three score and ten. My concern is for your generation and the children and grandchildren of us all. If there have been mistakes in Iraq, I believe they were honest ones. But the real tragedy is the dangerous complacency these mistakes may have caused for the leaders of your generation – such as yourself. In the nuclear age, the failure of diplomacy will be deadly.
You should be applauded for your attention to the past. Hindsight may not be the only way to develop foresight but it is certainly a necessary ingredient. But we must draw the proper conclusions. The U. S. Government of 1941 was complacent and diplomatic with our potential enemies. Millions died as a result. But a U. S. President of 1945 was neither complacent nor diplomatic. He issued an ultimatum that was ignored by Japan and so he made it good in a timely fashion. Tens of thousands of U. S. Servicemen were saved as a result.
In the past several years, I am not nearly so concerned with party affiliation as I once was. Our system requires that one choose one party or the other in order to participate in our process and vote in our primaries. There is no need to categorize one another because of that event. I wish there was a better system but I don’t know of one. To paraphrase Sir Churchill, ours is the worst system in the whole world except for all the rest.
Hopefully, in the final analysis, we are all Americans passionately interested in the well being and preservation of our country and our culture. The warnings and supposed alienation of the entire world is a concern for us but not an overriding concern. Americans are the most taken for granted people in all of history. We are expected to finance and protect, educate and heal, trade with and provide, and on and on all over the world. Meanwhile, we are blamed for all the ills of the world. Sure, some of this is our own fault. But now it’s time to stop, take a breath and take notice.
I did not suggest that we bomb Muslim countries. I said I did not know. That’s why we make the best presidential and congressional choices we can make from those who run. You and I agree on Iran and their nuclear threat. But let’s not use diplomacy as an excuse for dangerous procrastination. When they have the weapons to kill us on our own land, how much solace is there in the fact that we can also kill them back? On the playground of my youth, the one who won the fight was virtually always the one who swung first. If this be morally wrong and un-American, it’s still preferable to being dead which is how the Iranians have said they want us to be.
The nearest answer to Mideast oil dependency is to drill here. It still won’t be cheap but we can change the economies of the world in our favor if we just drill here. And build some modern refineries. We can recognize reasonable environmental concerns but not unreasonable environmental non-concerns. Simultaneously, we must develop alternative sources, especially natural gas. If this sounds like T. Boone’s plan that’s because it is. He’s right. Why fight it?
There’s more and I agree with you on lots of it. I hate war and it certainly should be a last resort. The challenge is to know which of the resorts is the last one. But since war is the dangerous potential that it is, I’m going with McCain. I’ll take my chances on the domestic issues. In most of those, government is the problem anyway.
Think these things over some more. Talk is cheap and Obama is the best at that. He’s a short term Senator and an elitist lawyer. I’m not a big McCain fan either. It’s just that the odds are so much better with him.