LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

See through the lies spread by the GOP

George W. Shiroky, Las Vegas

Saturday, Oct. 11, 2008 | 2:04 a.m.

Sen. John McCain and Sarah Palin, “Have you no shame?”

That question was asked of another Republican, Sen. Joseph McCarthy, several decades back, when he too used innuendo, false charges and lies in character assassination.

This is really not new conduct for a party of such stalwart politicians as Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon, Jeb Magruder, Chuck Colson, Ronald Reagan, Oliver North, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.

Should we be incensed? Maybe you aren’t, but I am.

America is really much better than this. We need to educate ourselves about the issues and candidates, then step up and vote to prove it.

Discussion: 21 comments so far…

By neiman1

10/11/08 at 5:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Obama tries to convince the Iraq government NOT to agree to a withdrawl agreement with Pres. Bush so he can look like he did it. He did this in June, as soon as he won sewed up the nomination. He did it again on his trip overseas this summer. This was front page in the Washington Times yesterday. This is not just corrupt but it is called treason.
By JohnF

10/11/08 at 6:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yeah, right Neiman. George Bush really wants to take our troops out of Iraq, but can't because the Iraqi government - at the direction of Barack Obama - won't let him. Because George Bush put al Maliki in charge of our troops. And the Washington Times - which is owned by Sun Myung Moon - is a reliable news source. And Obama is a traitor.

You guys are getting desperate. Twenty-four days, baby. Twenty-four days.
By tokaloshe

10/11/08 at 7:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Thanks for the stalwart list, you mentioned some great americans in there that did a lot for you and me, whether you realize it or not.
JohnF, you are saying the same thing Obama is,
24 days, 24 days, baby. can't come fast enough,
he does not want Rezko to blab, or people to start realizing his relationship with ayers is more than a guy who lived down the street not to mention wright (his preacher for 20 years)(have you ever check out a sermon from this guy?, he hates america) and his ideology, wait i did mention it. oops.
If Obama gets in, it will be one soap opera scandal after another, america will be the last thing on the agenda.
By Gordon

10/11/08 at 7:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Republicans need to listen to McCain and learn to be respectful. McCain realizes that the baseless lies being thrown at Obama are hurting his campaign.

John McCain said Obama is a "decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

McCain later said of Obama "He's a decent, family man, [a] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."

McCain answering another baseless attach on Obama "If you want a fight, we will fight. But we will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments."

Watch McCain stand up to the vile lies coming from his supporters here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfF...
By gmag39

10/11/08 at 8:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

You silly republicans. Such lame attacks!
Even if he's FRIENDS with Ayers, WHO CARES.
His Reverend? Again, WHO CARES.
Treason? Obama, not BUSH? Alrighty then.
You folks just sound silly. At least make something up that sounds plausible.
By Cannon_Asesrb

10/11/08 at 9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Quoteth Gordon:

"Republicans need to listen to McCain and learn to be respectful. McCain realizes that the baseless lies being thrown at Obama are hurting his campaign."

***

Right Gordo old boy. Right after Obama, Uncle Harry, Aunt Nancy, Uncle Durbin, et al start reigning in BDS sufferers from ranting that Bush needs to be hung as a war criminal. For the past eight years you all have given free reign to your kooks, so you know what... our side is going to match you for respect.

Just curious True Believers (tm) of The Messiah (tm), if I use your term of Presidential respect and call BO President Ochimpy (as an example) or point out his big ears will the Truth Squads (tm) bring me up on charge of racism? (After all that has been the proper term of Presidential respect over the past seven years, correct? Or will it be justified mocking 2001 - 2008 and beyond the pale 2009 - 2012.) Or if I create cartoons implying the assassination of a President BO will that be a "virtual lynching" instead of the AOK scribblings of a Ted Rall (again as an example)? Inquiring minds want to know.

It is the BO True Believers who have shown us the way over the past eight years; we are going to become that. After all Hooked of Hatred worked for you to get your candidate elected, it will work for us.
By Cannon_Asesrb

10/11/08 at 10:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Actually before you leftists get your panties in a bunch. The comment above that would have been termed a "virtual lynching" was not a threat against a President BO (stink that he will).

It is a reference to the joy you all experienced when the political cartoon was published about four years ago which showed President Bush in the role of a North Vietnamese spy to the democrats South Vietnamese Colonel Loan in a recreation of the famous picture from the Vietnam War. Many on your side said RIGHT ON!
By gmag39

10/11/08 at 12:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

cannon... you've lost your mind. go find it.
By Cannon_Asesrb

10/11/08 at 12:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Gmag, can you honestly say that there hasn't been a huge case McChimpy Chaneyburton derangement syndrome on the left since the "pResident was Selected" in 2000? Really?

Ok I guess it is swept under the rug as BO is set for taking is "Rightful" place and all the people who cling to "guns and religion" can just suck it. Hmmm the jackass... er donkey... er democrat party can be proud of Borking candidates, but if Republicans look at a person's ideology that is decisive. Democrats can have ACORN, but if we say, why can't people take responsibility for themselves we are heartless bastards. The left celebs cry out that a chill wind is blowing because they speak out and no one wants to buy their CDs or go to see their movies, but then speech codes are AOK (as long as they apply to prevent hurt feelings...)
By Gordon

10/11/08 at 1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cannon: Most democrats base their arguments/attacks on FACTS. The far right of the Republicans base their arguments/attacks on lies and fear mongering.

I can hear the Neocons now: What did McCain do; doesn't he understand our winning strategy of lies and fear mongering.

Political cartoons don't bother me, I'm sure the cartoons of Obama will portray large ears, big deal. Now if the cartoon is based on lies, then yes that would be wrong. Also, I'd say most Americans believe in the separation of church and state.

No doubt there are extremists on both sides, but I firmly believe the majority of 'extremists' are on the Republican side.
By Cannon_Asesrb

10/11/08 at 2:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Gordon, bull... BUSH LIED = PEOPLE DIED!!!! That is based on truth? Right. Despite 17 UNSC resolutions, despite Ex President Clinton saying the same thing, despite all intelligence services saying the same thing... It is factually true that Bush lied, eh?

Or better yet, the truth that Sen Durbin was privileged to, when he called our soldiers no better than Nazis. Or Sen Murtha who called our marines cold blooded killers, marines, who I might add, were cleared of any wrongdoing. Yep, the donkeys base their attacks on truth.

Or better yet, Sen Sheets Byrd who is viewed as a paragon of virtue now whereas Sen Thruman was vilified to the end.

If you want to talk about fear mongering, how about Rep Rangel (D-Nial) who keeps trying to push a return to the draft on the one hand and says "Those Repukes are trying to draft your children" on the other. Way to base your arguments on truth.
By LasVegasRocks

10/11/08 at 3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

You ask "Sen. John McCain and Sarah Palin, 'Have you no shame?'"

The answer is no. They have no shame, but they are the first candidates from the same party to have been accused of and found guilty of abusing the trust of the people and the power of the offices (McCain for the Keating Five debacle and Palin for the Troopergate mess).

They really are perfect republican candidates to replace the worst Presidential administration in our nation's history.
By JohnF

10/11/08 at 3:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Umm....

President Bush DID lie to us about the rationale for going to war in Iraq. As a result, people DID die.

President Bush first told us we were going to war in Iraq because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, despite the fact that the UN weapons inspector told him he could find no evidence to back that claim up. Joseph Wilson told the President the same thing. President Bush knew that no such weapons existed, but he insisted to us that they did. He knew that Iraq had not tried to obtain yellow cake uranium from Niger, but he stood before the nation in his state of the union address and told us they had. President Bush knew that Iraq had no ties to al Qaeda and had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11th, but he consistently led us to believe they did.

These were the lies on which the invasion was based. Many tens of thousands of people - both Iraqi and American - have died as a result of those lies. (Of course, after the WMD argument was exposed as a lie, the President devised alternate excuses, like taking down a despot or fighting for democracy. They were lies, too.) Neither the United States nor the rest of the world is more secure as a result. In fact, we are less secure. The good war the President fought - Afghanistan - is on the brink of failure because of the decision to invade Iraq. As a result, al Qaeda is reconstituted and as strong now a they were in 2001.

That's the truth. No amount of finger pointing at Democrats - however well justified - is going to change that.
By jfnance32

10/11/08 at 4:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

If you believe that Bush lied then you must believe that Clinton lied too. Clinton said the same thing in his last year in office.

Here is Biden's reasons for authorizing Bush to attack Iraq.

It is an excellent argument for attacking Iraq.

Biden is Obama's expert that he is going to rely to help him in foreign policy.

"The point about whether or not there needs to be an imminent threat to justify the President taking action is what is at stake. I am of the school that suggests the President need not, if the underlying amendment passes, have to show there is an imminent threat. He is enforcing a peace agreement in effect. He is enforcing, not preempting. And he is not responding to imminent threat."

"What we have here, I argue, as the rationale for going after Saddam, is that he signed a cease-fire agreement. The condition for his continuing in power was the elimination of his weapons of mass destruction, and the permission to have inspectors in to make sure he had eliminated them. He expelled those inspectors. So he violated the cease-fire; ergo, we have authority--not under a doctrine of preemption. This will not be a preemptive strike, if we go with the rest of the world. It will be an enforcement strike."

"The reason I oppose the amendment of my friend from Michigan is because the basic premise upon which I began is consistent with where my friend from Connecticut began, and that is the threat need not be imminent for us to take action. That is because we would be enforcing Security Council resolutions. That is authority we are about to delegate to the President."

"The bottom line was, the Senator from Arizona and I felt strongly we had to go. We had to move. Were the Serbs an imminent threat to the United States of America? No. Was it a threat to our security interests? Yes. The stabilization of southeastern Europe. And so I think part of the thing that confuses people here--anyone listening to the debate, myself included, as part of the debate--is this notion of the place from which you began."
By car_1

10/11/08 at 5:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Mr. George W. Shiroky: What lies?

gmag:
I know character doesn't mean much to the left when choosing whom to befriend or more importantly elect, unless they have a little 'R' by their name, but whom you keep as friends and acquaintances speaks volumes as to who you are and what your beliefs are.

Think about the type of person you are for a moment. There is a good chance that you hang out with like minded people. Libs tend to hang with libs, Conservatives tend to hang with other conservatives, and racists and terrorists, like the Reverend Wright and Ayers, tend to hang out with other like minded racists and terrorists.

Hey, doesn't Obama hang with those people. Naaa, CNN or MSNBC would have told us so.......
By dbltrbl

10/12/08 at 3:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Any respect McCain may have been due for surviving his POW ordeal is now gone as far as I'm concerned. He needs psychological help as a text-book bi-polar, manic depressive. Yesterday he encourages screams of "Kill him!" and "Terrorist!" against Obama and today tells listeners to show respect for Obama! His anger and hate-filled vitriol has no place in our presidential election; certainly not in my White House. You can't expect any voter to know what such a candidate stands for, when McCain continues to verbalize misinformation that has been debunked by scholars in his own party. We all deserve so much better. Let's hope McCain's family and true friends have an intervention and get him some much-needed help.
By Cannon_Asesrb

10/12/08 at 7:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dbltrbl, spreading fear and hatred against McCain! How dare you! Have you no shame?!?

See this can be played both ways. Oh I get it criticism against The One, evil, racist, beyond the pale. Criticism against McCain, based in fact!

Face it dbl, John F, VegasRocks, and Gordo each and everyone one of you would agree with this statement. Republicans/conservatives are evil! (We view you as just not quite getting it.)

Your leaders say we all but murdered black people in New Orleans during Katrina. (We view it as how difficult is it to use hundreds of school buses to move those people out of harm's way, school buses which ended up being flooded because no one used them.)

Your leaders say we are trying to kill our seniors because we want some part of our social security required contributions to go to an account in our own name which we have control over. (The system is failing and can't survive in its current form.)

Your leaders constantly say we are trying to get rid of Roe V Wade. (Roe V Wade is bad law. Judicial fiat is a bad way to settle problematic questions. What is the flipping problem of sending abortion back to the states? If it abortion on demand is as fundamental a right as your side claims, then surely the states will decide similarly.) Let's also mention pro choice vs death penalty. Your side screams that its just a clump of tissue! It's her body! "I don't want my daughters punished with a baby." {a quote from His Oneness} And we are barbaric because we execute criminals. (We look at it as you want to support the rights of people, who through their actions have proven that they don't belong in society, yet you are unwilling to give that same chance to someone who has the potential to do great things. It may be her body, but she engaged in activities which resulted in consequences. The child is the innocent her. (In philosophy we call it the Veil of Ignorance, John Rawls, without knowing anything about you outcome outside of the Veil, would you choose condition X. Behind the Veil, we would inevitably choose to be born.))

Not only that, but a woman who does make her choice to, oh I don't know, carry a "lump of tissue" to term is instantly hated because she didn't abort, just because the child is born with Down's Syndrome. (Again see the VoI. The default condition is for life.)

The same left who Bork's judicial nominees and has held a collective temper tantrum these past years will suddenly agree that every nominee deserves an up or down vote.

(more on the next post showing the consequences of the past eight years.)
By Cannon_Asesrb

10/12/08 at 7:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

(a short continuance from the prior post)

Dbl, your side has never had respect for mine (after all we are evil dontcha know.) But you are blind to that fact. You view it as "right thinking". (as in any rationale human being agrees with your POV.) Heck that has even gone back to the 70s, a NYT reporter couldn't believe Nixon had won because he didn't know anyone who voted for him; therefore, how could he be elected. As a result you don't see the attacks that we have been under, the Impeach Bush, the Repukes are nothing by evil bastards, the Government killed 5,000 blacks in New Orleans! but we see that, every day. Guess what, it is apparent to us that line of argument has worked. The dKos/myDD wing of your party is in control. We have learned what the boundaries of proper respect are. Your side has shown us the way. Get used to it.

As a person BO once said he couldn't disown, but did a week later, once said. The Left's Chickens Have Come Home To ... ROOST. Goddamn the US of KKKA under an Obama Administration. (Oh actually it was America's Chickens have come home to rest, but the Goddamn the US of KKKA was correct.)
By Cannon_Asesrb

10/12/08 at 8:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

"Any respect McCain may have been due for surviving his POW ordeal is now gone as far as I'm concerned."

Nah Dbl, you never had respect for McCain. All the soldiers, airmen, marines, and seamen were nothing more than BABYKILLERS who deserved to be spat upon or worse when they returned to the states, right Dbl? (unless, of course, they threw their metals away and repented of their "sins" ala Kerry) Or the Man needed to have war brought upon his door steps brought to us by Mr Ayers and his merry band of righteous crusaders, correct?

The above was justified, correct? Our side pointing out that line of thought, beyond the pale/fearmongering, correct?
By DonSaf

10/12/08 at 1:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

This why people hate politics. This is why people do not vote.

Why not just stick to the issues? Its about Supply Side Economics vs. Demand Side Economics. About Right Moderate vs. Left Moderate. Its about how the world views the USA, and Lastly about the direction of the USA.

Both of the candidates have experience and love for their country. Each has something to offer.

They both have excellent character. Each also has weakness and strengths.

You vote based on how they may serve you. They are elected public servants. They are not elected to lead, but to lead as your servant.

When will Americans realize that they must choose based on issues?
By tokaloshe

10/12/08 at 9 p.m.

Suggest removal

america,
and what happened to the original 56 men who signed the declaration of independence?
5 were captured by the british and tortured to death.

12 had their homes burned.

9 fought and died from wounds or hardships from the revolutionary war.

I have some information on others that died poor, no possessions, what was interesting was when these men signed the declaration they new the penalty would be death if they were captured.

John McCain, whether you like him or not spent 5 years in a horrible prison in terrible conditions, he knows freedom is not free, but here is what i think is interesting about that,

Instead of being saluted when he walked onto the t.v. show "the view" he started to talk about the constitution and whoopie interrupted him and asked him if he was elected should she be worried about slavery. I could mention other people who have been rude too, but my point is that we have turned into such a rude society, it actually goes beyond rude it is dispicable.

He has given his entire life as a public servant and five years of it in prison and the only thing people are concerned about is "what about me".

Strangely enough it makes me think of how mean people can be I can understand from this very thought why people don't like each other very much.