McCain’s Khalidi Smear

Various places have been commenting on this video of McCain’s sleazy spokesperson, Michael Goldfarb, in which Goldfarb tries to save Florida for McCain by creating the impression that Obama is a scary guy who pals around with terrorists and anti-Semites:

There have been two main responses to Goldfarb’s comments: First, there was ridicule at how Goldfarb tried to raise Jeremiah Wright without actually naming him (since McCain has said that Wright is off the table). But since then, there has been even more pushback regarding the smear of Rashid Khalidi, which CNN anchor Rick Sanchez apparently accepted as factual.

Lindsey Beyerstein is one of many people who are outraged by that, in The McCain spokesman and the phantom antisemite:

The McCain campaign is attacking an innocent academic in a way that can only be described as racist.

The man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Yes, he’s pro-Palestinian. That doesn’t make him a terrorist. Yes, he has been critical of Israel’s human rights record in Palestine. That doesn’t make him an antisemite.

If John McCain is too ignorant or too bigoted to see the difference between an academic critic of of the Israeli occupation and a terrorist, he’s even less fit to be president than I thought.

More likely, McCain knows perfectly well that Khalidi is neither a terrorist nor Jew-hater. McCain’s own institute, which is dedicated to promoting democracy and human rights, funded Khalidi’s work in Gaza for many years. McCain appeared on television opposite Khalidi in 1991, which I doubt he would have done if he really thought Khalidi was a terrorist.

44 Responses to “McCain’s Khalidi Smear”

  1. Craig Says:

    I’m personally more interested in that recording of the event in Khalidi’s honor, which Obama attended. Its very curious why someone would give such a recording to a media outlet, but tell them not to air it (and apparently not to even give a transcript?).

    Maybe the point was for the Times to have hard evidence to report off of, in case a story came out about a supposed pro-Palestintinian event that Obama attended?

    My own take on this recording is that , yes there were likely some speakers who made some anti-Israel/Jewish remarks (not Khalidi). But I believe the Times’s characterization of Obama’s remarks as being along the line of finding common ground between the sides. Worse case scenario, that Barrack made a comment or two that, if taken out of the context of his speech, could look bad.

    Obama is simply too nuanced and calculating to step into such a large trap that would backfire on his ambitions for the coming years.

  2. knarlyknight Says:

    That was astonishingly repugnant.

    Does Karl Rove approve?

  3. knarlyknight Says:

    My comments were about the smears by Goldman & the McCain campain. Craig’s post was not up when I started to write my comment.

  4. enkidu Says:

    What irritates me about this video is the end: well great to have you on! yes, wonderful to be here! great stuff! yes, great indeed! really appreciate it! tata!

    When did journalism get to be just rolling the cameras on whatever nonsense a partisan hack wants to spin and then thanking them for giving their distorted views a free block of airtime?

    If that host had a real spine, he’d have said something like. “All right enough of this bullshit, this idiot is just blowing smoke. Come back when you have some facts, jack. Cut his mike, we’ll just do it live. **** it! We’ll do it live!” ;-)

    So any criticism of Israel and its treatment of Palestinians is now anti-Semitism?

    It has come to this–the red baiting and the nastiness of the McCain/Palin campaign, in desperation to get Jewish support, is now baiting and bad-mouthing a notable Palestinian-American historian, Rashid Khalidi, for his and his wife’s friendship with Obama. The Khalidi’s know Obama from their time in Hyde Park, when Rashid was a professor at the University of Chicago.

    Now at Columbia University, he is someone who has always reached out to all sides in the debate about the future of Israel and Palestine. He has been outspoken in his arguments against Arafat’s ways of governing and terrorism and when he was at U of C, he was close to Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, one of the most important American Jewish figures of our time. For the Republicans to go after him is pure vial–they think that the Jewish vote is so stupid and racist that they will turn away from the Democrats solely on this type of slander. For someone like Daniel Pipes, quoted in today’s New York Times story, to call him ‘marginal,’ is a joke. It’s time to move the Center back to the Center–let’s hope that happens as of November 5–for the sake of America, the sake of Israel and the sake of Palestine.

    This is video clip is a bullshit false equivalence. There is no 4th estate if you can’t separate fact from fiction, bullshit from discourse.

    epic fail

  5. knarlyknight Says:


  6. shcb Says:

    I just don’t understand the problem here, Obama is who he is and he associates with who he associates with, terrorists and America haters. I understand why the far left doesn’t care, they share the same feelings as Obama’s friends. There is no question Ayers is a terrorist, he has admitted as much, and wishes he had done more. This IBD article from April ties it all together

    Ayers served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago and in 2001 donated $200 to the “Friends Of Barack Obama.”…The Woods Fund in 2001 gave a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), a group co-founded by anti-Israel Columbia University professor Rhashid Khalidi. The fund gave AAAN a second grant of $35,000 in 2002. One of AAAN’s projects was a Palestinian art exhibit on what Palestinians call the “Nakba,” or the “catastrophe,” of Israel’s founding in 1948.
    Khalidi, according to WND, was a director of the official press agency for the Palestine Liberation Organization, WAFA, in Beirut, Lebanon, while the PLO was conducting terrorist attacks and called a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.
    Khalidi has called Israel a “racist” state and an “apartheid state in creation.” He has voiced support for Palestinian terror, saying suicide bombings for which Hamas is famous are a legitimate response to “Israeli aggression.”
    Obama’s association with Khalidi was more than just a passing acquaintance. Khalidi lectured at the University of Chicago at the same time Obama taught law there. He held a fundraiser for Obama’s failed congressional bid in 2000. Khalidi has praised Obama as “the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause” and praised him for “saying he supports talks with Iran.”
    Obama seems to have a propensity of associating with terrorists or those who support them and want us to talk with them. His pastor of two decades, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, counted our “state terrorism against the Palestinians” as one of America’s chickens coming home to roost on 9/11.

    If the rest of the country wants to elect him, oh well but I see nothing wrong with letting people know who they are getting, the press certainly isn’t going to tell them. Obama says he attended something like 500 services at Wright’s church and never once heard his vitriolic tirades and the press takes it at face value. Oh well.

  7. knarlyknight Says:


    You forgot to include this bit:

    “John McCain served as chairman of the International Republican Institute during the 1990s which provided grants worth $500,000 to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies which Khalidi co-founded.”

    Do you realize how much you are adding to the “mealy-mouthed train wreck” that used to be known as McCain’s “straight talk express”?

    Your terms: “terrorists and America haters” is more aptly applied to those on the right who continually seek to usurp civil liberties, free speech other freedoms in their attempts to promote the politics of fear and domination through warfare.

  8. ymatt Says:

    I love how you’ve gone from…

    “From what I’ve seen Obama’s a good man, we could do worse. I think he may need one more term to get a little more experience, but he will get there I think.”


    “Obama is who he is and he associates with who he associates with, terrorists and America haters”

    I guess it was okay to like him when he wasn’t a perceived threat to your football team, er, party.

  9. ymatt Says:

    Oh, sorry, I forgot that we were just now getting to know the “real” Obama.

  10. shcb Says:

    In the first place I made that comment on Dec 4 and the whole Wright mess didn’t surface for a month or two after that. That aside, I still stand by that remark, I think Obama is a good man, as far as that goes, I just don’t want a president that hangs out with those kind of people and I think the American people should know who they are getting. We could do worse, Cynthia McKinney or Nance Peloci come to mind.

  11. shcb Says:


    That’s good, get all that information out there and let people make up there minds. The difference is Obama has a whole string of these ties in his past, going all through his career, there is a pattern there, not an isolated incident.

  12. enkidu Says:

    forgive me for pointing this out, shcb, but do you vet every single person you ever meet or work with? Do you exhaustively research their every position (ever) their nuances and then declare whether they are a fit opponent for your razor like wit? (clearly I am joking here, for you have proven yourself to be dumber than half a sack of hammers over and over again)

    And the answer is no, you don’t. No one does. Certainly McBush didn’t vet Palin very well (I suspect she did a bit of lying to smooth over the whole secessionist/witch hunter thing going on in her family).

    and after reading the wiki article on Khalidi, I have no problems with Obama teaching at the same school years ago. Nor do I have a problem with John McCain serving as chairman of the International Republican Institute during the 1990s which provided grants worth $500,000 to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies which Khalidi co-founded. So now are you going to disown McCain?

    Israel is an apartheid state.

    McCain consorts with a known (and more importantly convicted) terrorist and felon G Gordon Liddy. Oh wait, he’s a rightwing trrrrrst, so that is ok by you. And rev Wright seems absolutely normal, even a bit tame compared to Palin’s witch-hunter pastor (why hasn’t she spoken in tongues yet on youtube? I can’t wait to see that!) My old pastor used to say things like “damn us all for our sins” Indeed, god damn America, god damn us all for our sins, and forgive us for the same. If we cannot recognize our errors we are doomed to repeat them.

    America has much to answer for. But you just keep spouting the same narrowminded racist crap and we’ll beat McCain on Tuesday. Pathetic.

  13. shcb Says:


    To your first point, if they are going to work for me, yes, I interview them, I run police reports, credit reports, I see if their personality is going to jive with the people they are going to be working with etc. As a small business owner I’m sure you do the same. I know that’s not what you meant, you meant Obama couldn’t have checked out all these people. That thought might hold up for the first fundraiser at Ayers’ house, it might hold up for the first Wright sermon even the fifth, but 500? He never read Trinity’s newsletter, or his wife didn’t tell him what she had read in that newsletter?

    I read about a third of one of Rashid’s books yesterday (yes the dummy can read, can’t spell but he can read) he definitely doesn’t approve of America’s handling of the Mid East but he isn’t over the top Ward Churchill “kill the American pigs” either, at least from what I read. But if the IBD article is right he certainly has closer ties to a terrorist organization than just a history writer. Not only a terrorist organization, but one that originally had the destruction of Israel in its published mission statement. What sort of world do we live in where terrorist organizations have “mission statements” oh well.

    How is G Gordon Liddy a terrorist?

    This is about a pattern, no one is saying Obama is a terrorist, he just hangs out with a long line of folks that aren’t pro-America, putting it kindly, he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, even to the left of Ted Kennedy. It was a huge scandal when George Bush made one speech at Bob Jones University, the press hounded him for months, if McCain called the president of the John Birch Society a mentor and had been attending meetings every couple weeks for 20 years, it would be a story. Now I don’t think it would be illegal to attend those meetings, but the press would do everything in it’s power to make sure no one voted for him because in their minds that would be repulsive. But a preacher saying “God Damn America” isn’t repulsive to them, or you. So you will vote for the man and folks like me won’t.

  14. enkidu Says:

    The logical fallacies, outright lies and downright intentionally ignorant displays of party-first partisanship is both saddening and sickening.

    Let us start small, shall we? Obama didn’t hire Khalidi. They were both professors at a large University. You seem intent to smear both Khalidi and Wright because of a few instances of rhetoric which you consider to be over the line. So what? You wwnjs say outrageous stuff all the time. Pastors often say outrageous things to get people to think. I can see how thinking might be beyond your reflexive jackbooted conservatism. Khalidi (if you had bothered to actually read that wiki link) has worked harder for ME peace than most people.

    He is a member of the National Advisory Committee of the U.S. Interreligious Committee for Peace in the Middle East, which describes itself as “a national organization of Jews, Christians and Muslims dedicated to dialogue, education and advocacy for peace based on the deepest teachings of the three religious traditions.”

    But he does hold some views that not everyone agrees with. I certainly don’t agree with him (mostly because I don’t know much about him) but it sounds like he is a decent Palestinian American who has done more for peace than dumbya and your worldview (kill-em-all!) John the Plumber just keeps pumping out more slime, no facts, no plan, no leadership. Just more lies about the other guy.

    Another item that just defies reality is your “no one is saying Obama is a terrorist”. Excuse me for insisting on a reality based discussion here, but they are screaming things like “terrorist” “traitor” “kill him” and now “n*****” at Rethuglican rallies. If I send you youtube links for each of these, you still won’t believe in reality.

    Obama isn’t the most liberal Senator, not by a long shot. Reality

    This isn’t about the media being mean to poor ol Johnny Mac. Its about reality being one thing and the swill and slime you folks are dishing out is repugnant to 2/3s of America. Reality.

    And yes Liddy is a convicted terrorist, felon and good friend of McCain.

    At the Committee to Re-elect the President, Liddy concocted several plots, some far-fetched, intended to embarrass the Democratic opposition. These included firebombing the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. (where classified documents leaked by Daniel Ellsberg were being stored), kidnapping anti-war protest organizers”

    So plotting to firebomb buildings isn’t terrorism? Stating on your radio show: “Liddy is noted for controversial advice to his radio audience, including on one occasion in 1994, after the federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, Liddy advised his listeners: “Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they’re going to be wearing bulletproof vests. … Kill the sons of bitches.”

    Evidently advising wwnjs to shoot Federal agents in the head is AOK with you. But a guy’s preacher saying (amongst roughly 2000 different sermons) the dread phrase “god damn America for her sins” is just so over the top that you don’t need to listen to more than that 30 second sound bite.

    Reality just doesn’t match up with wwnj bufoonery.

  15. shcb Says:

    Well, I think actually bombing a federal building is more of a terrorist act than talking on a radio show. Remember Ayers actually exploded bombs, said he did, and wishes he had done more.

    And yes Liddy is a convicted terrorist, felon

    he was convicted of burglary, not terrorism.

    Let me rephrase, no one of any credibility is saying Obama is a terrorist.

    I certainly don’t agree with him (mostly because I don’t know much about him)

    Then why do you disagree with him if you don‘t know much about him? I’m basing my assessment on a IBD editorial in April and reading a good chunk of one of his books, you’re basing yours on a Wiki article, neither of us an expert but I think we both agree with our limited knowledge what he is and isn’t, he is certainly not as bad a man as Ayers, but we are talking about what type of person our next president is going to be and you can determine a lot of what a person believes by who the associate with. From what I have seen Obama will be more sympathetic to people that don’t have the best interest of Americans in mind than someone like McCain or Palin, I don’t like that, you don’t seem to mind or the rest of his agenda outweighs those faults, or you see them as attributes. I just want the American people to know what they are buying into.

  16. knarlyknight Says:

    “associates with” sounds like something you’d say patronizingly to your teenager.

    Framing the debate like that doesn’t work anymore because the sleaziness of the republicans is just becoming ever the more transparent the harder they try. If Rove was a turdblossom, Golfarb is a fart.

    Barack is an intelligent man with an incredibly large social circle and a near infinite number of people, both honorable and otherwise, who fit the definition of what the republicans call “associates”.

    It’s clear people trust Obama to listen to both what the politically correct people have to say AND to what the not politically correct people say and then pave a path that is in the best interests of America in keeping with the vision he has so clearly shown us all.

  17. knarlyknight Says:


  18. shcb Says:

    then the people will get what they get, it will be interesting to see their reaction a year from now. Who knows, maybe I’m wrong, maybe he was just using these far lefties as a stepping stone into into the Soros wing of the Democratic party’s hearts. In reality maybe he is a one tough son of a bitch capitalist pig.

  19. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    I’m going to offer a general two cents on this. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Doing a bit of checking, McCain sat on the US Council for World Freedom for years in the 80s with a white supremacist eugenics researcher and a registered foreign agent of the arthied government of South Africa. In 1993 McCain went to a fundraiser for an anti-gay group featuring a speech praising a woman who had shot a doctor (and former navy flight surgeon) because he performed legal abortions and McCain said ‘she’s a fine lady.’

    You’ve also got Sarah Palin and those Alaskan secessionists.

    The issue to me seems to be that in both of our major parties, you have this spectrum of people and groups that run from the ‘normal’ to the very very far. It seems that in order to have a viable political career, you have to spend some time with everyone. I take Palin as a good example of that. I don’t think she really has an sympathy with the guys that want Alaska to secede but they’re the third biggest party in her state and thus, she has to be nice to them.

    I don’t really think McCain supports white supremacy either, but you know, strange bedfellows, right?

    Unless you know, I’m wrong and both of these guys do have a real dark side. Still I very much doubt it. The problem is these associations become hammers to hit the other side over the head with, and if you are on the other side you experience the cognitive dissonance thing (i posted as an actual article).

  20. shcb Says:

    I agree with you Jason, but those are isolated incidents for one thing, but even they show a pattern, the anti abortion faction is part of the Republican coalition just like the radical bomb throwing Ayres types are part of the Democratic coalition. This is what I have been trying to get across. The question is a matter of degree, and how much that degree matters to a voter. Does making one speech to a questionable group and praising a questionable woman (remember, I’m sure you got that quote from a group with an axe to grind) does that invalidate a candidate?

    I can look past Obama being at a fundraiser at Ayers house as a young politician, I can look past going to a church like Trinity with a pastor like Wright for a year or two. Where it crosses the line for me is that we are talking about twenty years, in Ayres case the troubling part for me is that they have served on the same boards for years that promote this notion that education should be used to produce little revolutionaries. It shows a long pattern, decades long. Is that what the American people want? Maybe it is.

    When Bill Clinton became president I felt the press did everything in their power to get him elected, emphasizing the faults of his opponents and downplaying Clinton’s faults. In doing so they gave us one of the worst men to be president, not the worst president but the worst man. In this case I feel they are going to help elect one of the worst presidents, not the worst man.

  21. NorthernLite Says:

    Palin got punked by the ‘Masked Avengers’ (a comic duo from Montreal, they’re work is legendary up here).

  22. NorthernLite Says:

    Palin got punked by the ‘Masked Avengers’ (a comic duo from Montreal, their work is legendary up here).

  23. shcb Says:

    See, now that is how you run a high brow campaign; send in the clowns. Why can’t we just talk about the issues :-)

  24. leftbehind Says:

    This whole idea that Obama is some kind of closet anti-semite is preposterous. William Ayers is a jew, and he and Obama are great friends.

  25. shcb Says:

    Who is saying Obama is an anti-semite? I hadn’t heard that one.

  26. leftbehind Says:

    The allegation being bandied about is that Obama spoke at a dinner honoring Rashid Khalidi, some buddy of bill Ayers’ who may or may not have been a spokeman for the PLO from 1976 and 1982. There is video of Obama speaking at a farewell dinner for Khalidi from a time when both were Professors at the University of Chicago. Certain pundits are trying to spin this video in such a way as to make Obama seem pro PLO.

  27. leftbehind Says:

    …or at least anti-Israel. Either stance adds up to anti-semitism in some reactionary circles.

  28. shcb Says:

    I see what you’re saying and I too share those concerns about Obama. But I don’t think Obama is anti Semitic, but his policies will (may) be. This is true of many of his other policies as well. I don’t think he wants Americans to loose jobs or for this economic downturn to be extended but his policies will cause those very things to happen.

    The libs here always hate it when I boil things down to you’re either with us or again us, but in many cases that is simply what it boils down to. I’m not aware of anything Ayers has said that is anti Semitic but Wright certainly has. Khalidi is of course pro Palestinian, almost by default makes him at least somewhat anti Semitic. So I think you can assume Obama’s policies will certainly be more pro Palestinian than others, but that doesn’t mean Obama hates or even dislikes Jews.

  29. knarlyknight Says:


  30. shcb Says:

    Since that tickled your funny bone let’s continue on with the frivolity. Here is another example; before the surge Obama and other Democrats most notably Dick Durban were calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, if we had done so at that time undoubtedly many thousands of Iraqis would have been murdered by other Arabs. Does that mean Obama and Durban hate Iraqis? No but their policy could have certainly been viewed as anti-Iraqi from the rim of the mass graves.

  31. knarlyknight Says:

    Surreal twilight zone brain-waves are once again floating across

    You know it’s another Alice in Wonderland discussion when Leftbehind sounds like the rational one.

    Here’s a suggested new topic for shcb to take to the poll with him:

    Why does McCain hate all semetic peoples except Jews?

  32. knarlyknight Says:

    errata: should be semite

  33. knarlyknight Says:

    or semitic

  34. leftbehind Says:

    Don’t you think it’s a bit much to say John McCain hates all semetic peoples except jews? Why, because his politics are pro Israel? Aren’t Barack Obama’s as well?

  35. knarlyknight Says:

    Yes, I think it is way over the top to suggest McCain hates all semetic peoples except Jews. My point is that that is just as ridiculous as shcb’s claims. McCain and Barack both have pro-Israel stances, which is fine, I am just uncomfortable that not enough thought has been given as to where the pro-Israel stance becomes an anti-semitic (other than Israel) stance. Thanks for being reasonable lefty.

  36. knarlyknight Says:


    The “surge” was a bandage applied to a torn artery. Adding 30,000 more troops to a prolonged (in the fifth year) occupation is not exactly brain surgery.

    The patient has been bleeding on the sidewalk for six years now while a bush-league Republican quack MD (the one who originally attempted brain surgery in an alley under a false pretence), with his team of street cleaners, stand around arrogantly boasting about how great a job they are doing controlling the pools of blood.

    What is needed is for the patient to get free of those clowns and get to an ICU unit for more fundamental treatment. Otherwise (i.e. under the simplistic Republican strategies), we can expect the bleeding to continue forever:;_ylt=At2APjdY2I8TvdSPwkpfAcOs0NUE

  37. shcb Says:


    Your post shows you don’t know any more about the tactics involved in the surge or the situation there before or after than Gibson knew of the Bush Doctrine in his interview with Palin. But that is irrelevant to this discussion. The point Obama was wrong, if he had been president he could have unilaterally made a decision that would have resulted in a bloodbath on a people he has no animosity for, does that make him an anti Iraqi, no, but his policies could be seen as anti Iraqi, now go back up to NL’s comment and see if it makes sense.

  38. knarlyknight Says:

    It was clear from the Gibson interview that Palin did not have clue about the Bush doctrine. Keep spinning your wheels though, it is funny.

    You say:

    The point Obama was wrong, if he had been president he could have unilaterally made a decision that would have resulted in a bloodbath on a people

    …which is not necessarily wrong (except for the “unilaterally” part) and otherwise it is also a big silly assertion that is unprovable. If we change a couple of words, we can create a true statement verifiable by facts:

    The point is that Bush was wrong, there were no WMD’s, no threat of Iraqi terrorism to America as president he did make a decision that created and unleashed a continuing bloodbath on a people.

  39. shcb Says:

    Actually if you look at the Gibson interview you will see that her answer was correct and Gibson’s was pathetically uninformed, now Charlie covered it well with his smug condescending manner. She asked which aspect of the Bush doctorine, he didn’t answer because he only knew of one.

    President Obama could indeed pull the troops unilaterally, Congress can not commit troops, so if the president orders them to come home there is no way for congress to tell him to leave them, except for removal from office of course.

    The problem with your last paragraph is that the intelligence community including the UN said he had WMD, they also said this bloodbath would happen, common sense and history say it would happen, the terrorist said it would happen. It’s hard to ignore all that.

  40. enkidu Says:

    bush doctrine = preemptive invasion to remove potential threats

    CGibson Do you agree with the bush doctrine?
    SPalin (long pause) In what respect Charlie?

    she had no clue
    The biggest change to US foreign policy in the last 70 years and Palin has absolutely no idea. She backfills with some boilerplate but the damage is done. What is hilarious is all the R pundits who say with a straight face “bush doctrine?” who’s that? what’s that? the what? who? Um, reality to wwnutosphere: we invaded Iraq because we felt like it (the bush doctrine). You can watch that clip if you use the google and it is clear this is someone we should keep far far away from the halls of power (and the nookular football).

    And no, not everyone agreed Saddam had WMDs (Hans Blix ring a bell? Ritter? IAEA?) Far from it. But there you go again.

  41. knarlyknight Says:

    Wow. Just wow.

    First off, to repeat, Palin didn’t know what Gibson was talking about, not because the Bush doctrine is an intricate multifaceted set of policies (rather it is more like a putter, a 7 iron and a wood) but because she didn’t have a clue what the Bush doctrine might be. Watch the interview again as it’s clear she was stalling in order to figure out what the heck to say about something she was not familiar with. Like I said, keep spinning if you must, it just provides us with more entertainment.

    Second, Colin’s “performance” before the UN was the a low point in the Bush presidency, second ony to Rumsfeld’s assertions (lies) that they knew the locations of the WMD’s. There was widespread disagreement, (e.g. UN weapons inspectors for one said there was no evidence, and as for your “other intelligence agencies” yea sure, the Downing street memo speaks to that.) Look, the data data available evven to someone like me at the time was pretty clear that there were no WMD’s! But Bush Powel Cheney Rice and the rest kept asserting there was irrefutable proof (without providing it) and led your Congress and people to support them on blind faith. That was a pure betrayal of trust. A war crime – and you are their apologist.

    Third, you completely missed the point. Yes, the bloodbath was predicted, yet Bush proceeded without adequate measures to deal with it. He had no plans to deal with it. That’s not just irresponsible, it is the work of an imbecile. Unless the bloodbath and continued chaos was part of the desired outcome (i.e. $100 oil), which alarmingly makes more sense than believing he could be such a “moran”. If you beleive the conventional narrative, then his strategy was to wear rose coloured glasses, bully anyone who did not agree with his rosy view in telling everyone that the Iraqi’s will greet America as liberators like the French did in WW2.


    There is a promise of real change, tomorrow. Let’s just pray that it is not already too late.

  42. NorthernLite Says:

    Tomorrow will be a great for the history of the world.

    I can only hope the polls are right and Americans have rejected negative campaigns. For 8 months I have heard Obama talk about new ideas and new directions to meet new challenges.

    For those same 8 months I have watched McCain fall into the gutter, litterally offering nothing new and spending the whole time attacking his opponent, using gimmicks and props instead of sound policy ideas.

    Tomorrow we find out what kind of world America will lead into the new century, and how they will lead it.

    Godspeed, Democrats.

  43. enkidu Says:

    the first precinct results of election 08 have already been tabulated and reported: Dixville Notch, NH goes for Obama 15 to 6

    just for the record, it is a highly Republican county
    historical results:
    in 2004 it went 19 to 6 for w
    in 2000 it was 21 to 5 for w

    It last went for a D in 1968

  44. NorthernLite Says:

    Yes we can.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.