Page 1 of 2

The "Straight Talk Express" has derailed!!

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 12:03 pm
by steelincotton
Watch the whole clip.

If this guy gets elected, we can surely expect more lies (in his own words) and deceit. He really is John McBush.

It gets worse folks (funny, and cool guitar licks) ....

Re: The "Straight Talk Express" has derailed!!

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 12:47 pm
by Darth Rock&Roll
McCain won't get elected on the age issue alone.
he's simply too old to serve out a term and is riddled with all sorts of physical problems.

His medical records, as recently released accounted for the last 8 years only and were 1200 pages of stuff!

I'm about 45 yrs old. My complete medical records to birth and forward are less than 50 pages!

the dude is jerry rigged together and for sure he's hopped up on meds. I'll bet he takes a handful o'pills a day.

you can't have someone like that controlling all yer nukes and your war machine. It's just wrong.
Get someone who is fit and able.

Re: The "Straight Talk Express" has derailed!!

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:15 pm
by steelincotton
I hope you're right Darth.

But, if Hillary steals the nomination, I honestly believe that she will NOT get most of the african american vote (the dems can not win without their votes), and she will also lose most of the college/youth vote, as well as a lot of the independents who are anti-Hillary, and finally, the left leaning liberals like myself, which in the end means McCain would be our next president. Scary. We can blame Hell-ary if that happens, not that it will do any good, but basically that would be the end of the democratic party. Like I said before, it's time for a revolution in that case.

Re: The "Straight Talk Express" has derailed!!

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:01 pm
by Mike Strong
That's what you want isn't it steelincotton ?

A violent revolution !

That's what you want.

You fucking little weakling.

Re: The "Straight Talk Express" has derailed!!

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:48 pm
by Darth Rock&Roll
I don't know if revolution is necessary, just the will of the people needs to be strongly exercised to ensure the gov gets the message that america has had it.

had an impeachment process started for the shenanigans at teh white house, it may have been a step towards that, but now, with even keel and voice, the votes have to go in.

you can have who you like as pres, but that pres has to understand who's boss. he ain't the decider, you people are and don't you forget it.


Re: The "Straight Talk Express" has derailed!!

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 7:06 pm
by Ben
Mike Strong wrote:A violent revolution !

I'll take one of those... :-\

Re: The "Straight Talk Express" has derailed!!

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 9:12 pm
by Chanchu
Our country is in very serious trouble- I am well over 1/2 century old and I have never seen it so bad...
Lack of wise, ethical and selfless leadership, Lack of understanding of the world, Moral corruption, Hypocritical Pruitisum, Disregard of the constitution, Worship of the 'elites', Different standards of justice for different castes, and so on and so on and so on...


Can't vote this time unless I can vote for independant candidate on the ballot or write in..

None of the major party candidates are worth a nickle..

Democracy only works if the people are educated, sensible, give a damn, and care about the overall good of the country.

Revolution ha ha ha right.... no chance of that- only chance is if young people start to wake up educate themselves and relearn some type of public service ethic,

Our country is still great best in the world IMO would NOT want to live anywhere else....
But we need to demand good leadership and ethical wise political leaders now before we slip further....

Re: The "Straight Talk Express" has derailed!!

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 8:17 am
by Darthwing Teorist
Ben wrote:
Mike Strong wrote:A violent revolution !

I'll take one of those... :-\

Can I order some extra blood and guts?

Re: The "Straight Talk Express" has derailed!!

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:23 pm
by steelincotton
Mike Strong wrote:That's what you want isn't it steelincotton?

A violent revolution !

That's what you want.

You fucking little weakling.

Fucking little Weakling? ......... Uhm, did you miss your meds today big fella? :)

Lighten up guy, life's too short, and you must learn to play better with others who don't think like you do. Also, try working on your reading comprehension. I don't "want" a revolution, I said, it may need to take place someday if things keep going the way they have been (in other words, when the middle/poor classes get squeezed too much), or at least that's what I was implying. Either way, McCain/McSame/McBush is still a douchebag no matter how you cut it! :)

Have a beautiful day Sunshine!

Re: The "Straight Talk Express" has derailed!!

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:39 pm
by DeusTrismegistus
You know thats sad. McCain was the speaker at my college graduation and I really liked the speech he gave. This double talking is such crap. The last 3 elections including this one have been sad displays IMO. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have any faith in being an honest human being. McCain will get my vote if Ron Paul doesn't get on the ballot simply because of the gun control issue. Thats really sad when everyone I talk to that bothers to educate themselves about the candidates views all the majpr party ones as bad. Democrats messed up in '04 with Kerry, he wasn't as electable as Edwards IMO. I think Hillary has only made it this far because she is a woman and Obama because he is black. Edwards ran again and he is much better qualified than either of the current candidates, but he isn't as newsworthy as a black or woman president.

Re: The "Straight Talk Express" has derailed!!

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:00 pm
by steelincotton
I'm sorry, but John McCain is a Crook. We don't need a guy like this as our president. This is the kind of stuff we are trying to get away from.

In early 1987, at the beginning of his first Senate term, McCain attended two meetings with federal banking regulators to discuss an investigation into Lincoln Savings and Loan, an Irvine, Calif., thrift owned by Arizona developer Charles Keating. Federal auditors were investigating Keating's banking practices, and Keating, fearful that the government would seize his S&L, sought intervention from a number of U.S. senators.

At Keating's behest, four senators--McCain and Democrats Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Alan Cranston of California, and John Glenn of Ohio--met with Ed Gray, chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, on April 2. Those four senators and Sen. Don Riegle, D-Mich., attended a second meeting at Keating's behest on April 9 with bank regulators in San Francisco.

Regulators did not seize Lincoln Savings and Loan until two years later. The Lincoln bailout cost taxpayers $2.6 billion, making it the biggest of the S&L scandals. In addition, 17,000 Lincoln investors lost $190 million.

In November 1990, the Senate Ethics Committee launched an investigation into the meetings between the senators and the regulators. McCain, Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, and Riegle became known as the Keating Five.

(Keating himself was convicted in January 1993 of 73 counts of wire and bankruptcy fraud and served more than four years in prison before his conviction was overturned. Last year, he pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud and was sentenced to time served.)

McCain defended his attendance at the meetings by saying Keating was a constituent and that Keating's development company, American Continental Corporation, was a major Arizona employer. McCain said he wanted to know only whether Keating was being treated fairly and that he had not tried to influence the regulators. At the second meeting, McCain told the regulators, "I wouldn't want any special favors for them," and "I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper."

But Keating was more than a constituent to McCain--he was a longtime friend and associate. McCain met Keating in 1981 at a Navy League dinner in Arizona where McCain was the speaker. Keating was a former naval aviator himself, and the two men became friends. Keating raised money for McCain's two congressional campaigns in 1982 and 1984, and for McCain's 1986 Senate bid. By 1987, McCain campaigns had received $112,000 from Keating, his relatives, and his employees--the most received by any of the Keating Five. (Keating raised a total of $300,000 for the five senators.)
After McCain's election to the House in 1982, he and his family made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, three of which were to Keating's Bahamas retreat. McCain did not disclose the trips (as he was required to under House rules) until the scandal broke in 1989. At that point, he paid Keating $13,433 for the flights.

And in April 1986, one year before the meeting with the regulators, McCain's wife, Cindy, and her father invested $359,100 in a Keating strip mall.

The Senate Ethics Committee probe of the Keating Five began in November 1990, and committee Special Counsel Robert Bennett recommended that McCain and Glenn be dropped from the investigation. They were not. McCain believes Democrats on the committee blocked Bennett's recommendation because he was the lone Keating Five Republican.

Re: The "Straight Talk Express" has derailed!!

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:37 pm
by DeusTrismegistus
steelincotton wrote:I'm sorry, but John McCain is a Crook. We don't need a guy like this as our president. This is the kind of stuff we are trying to get away from.

They are ALL crooks. That is the problem. America's politcal system has degraded to the point that there isn't a good choice for president. When I look at the candidates I think about what rights I am more ok losing, gun rights are the ones I fear losing the most.

Re: The "Straight Talk Express" has derailed!!

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:55 pm
by Ben
Darthwing Teorist wrote:
Ben wrote:
Mike Strong wrote:A violent revolution !

I'll take one of those... :-\

Can I order some extra blood and guts?

Not from me personally but I'm sure you could find someone willing to fill the order.

Re: The "Straight Talk Express" has derailed!!

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:57 pm
by DeusTrismegistus
Here is a past Scandal with Hillary.

Videos about it

url- ... ovember-b/

AIM Report: The Scandal that Could Sink Hillary - November B

AIM Report | November 22, 2005

Consider the contrasting coverage of DeLay with that of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Virtually every detail of alleged DeLay transgressions gets reported and in very great detail. But scant coverage has been given to equally serious allegations against the junior senator from New York.

By Paul M. Rodriguez

Recent polls among American readers (and viewers) of the press continue to show a reluctance to trust the once vaunted U.S. mainstream media. And the recent brouhaha at the New York Times over the Judith Miller fiasco only further muddies the public's trust, not only on how reporters and editors report but also on what they choose to publish (or broadcast).

For example, there have been whole forests cut down to provide enough paper for stories about Rep. Tom DeLay, the Texas Republican indicted recently on allegations of money laundering through state political action committees that helped the GOP secure a majority of U.S. congressional seats from the Lone Star state.

DeLay Vs. Hillary

The coverage has been relentless, not only of late but so too going back a number of years as a result of DeLay's hard-charging tactics on Capitol Hill and run-ins with the House ethics committee, formally called the Committee on Standards.

DeLay, much like some predecessors from both political parties, makes for an easy target of erstwhile newsmen in search of good copy. And with so many high-profile lawmakers, even opposition party members don't need to do much to bring about negative coverage.

Media Targets

But a question needs asking: What are the standards used by the press to determine who gets caught in the cross-hairs? And does this standard get applied evenly or does it (like so many in the public believe) vary from target to target?

Consider the contrasting coverage of DeLay with that of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Virtually every detail of alleged DeLay transgressions gets reported and in very great detail. But scant coverage has been given to equally serious allegations against the junior senator from New York.

There have been no front-page stories in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald or any other so-called major daily with respect to serious allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Hillary Clinton and her Senate election campaign committee.

While tens of thousands of inches (and scores of hours on broadcast and cable TV) have been used up to discuss allegations that DeLay "laundered" about $190,000 from corporate donors in Texas through the Republican National Committee and then back to GOP candidates in Texas races, there's been virtually nothing mentioned about accusations that Hillary Clinton and senior Democrats "laundered" nearly $2 million of improper or illegal gift-giving during the summer of 2000 when she began her run for the Senate.

Whether one is for or against Hillary or Tom DeLay is irrelevant when it comes to a simple truth that generally is taught in journalism schools, or even at home. Apply a single standard and stick with it. But in the cases of Clinton and DeLay that's far from daily practice.

For example, one would have thought that it'd be big news that the California Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that both Hillary Clinton and her husband could be sued in a civil case filed by Peter Franklin Paul involving serious allegations of wrongdoing. But virtually nothing has been mentioned.


Then there's the example of press outlets initially hammering some congressional Republicans for not properly filling out their annual disclosure statements both with congressional authorities and the Federal Election Commission, or FEC. Though the press began to expand coverage, e.g., that Democrats also fail to always fill out forms correctly, there's been no mention of Clinton to speak of involving an ethics complaint filed in the Senate and one still pending at the FEC.

There's also been virtually no mention of serious allegations of wrongdoing contained in FBI 302 statements unsealed during a recent trial of David Rosen, Hillary Clinton's former national campaign finance director. Nor of prosecutor memos to a federal judge in a separate case involving Paul in which FBI allegations of improper campaign fundraising schemes were detailed.

As Tim Russert might say, let's go to the tape:

Peter Paul organized, hosted and funded a handful of high-society events during the spring and summer of 2000 for both Hillary and Bill Clinton. In all, he spent about $1.7 million and arranged for hundreds of thousands of dollars of other in-kind contributions for both the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton. Such expenses are supposed to be reported to the FEC in a timely manner. But they were not.

Mystery Money

The funds that Paul tapped into were, according to federal prosecutors, ill-gotten gains from margined accounts of Stan Lee Media stocks that Paul obtained as a founder of the now-defunct Internet media company co-founded with legendary comic book creator Stan Lee.

Paul was indicted as part of an investigation into why the Stan Lee Media company collapsed, allegedly as a direct result of Paul's manipulation of stock shares he and others caused to be inflated. In all, according to prosecutors, Paul et al were responsible for a loss to banks, trading companies and SLM to the tune of $25 million.

The press in early spring and summer of 2001 reported some on the criminal aspects following unsealing of indictments and an attempt by Paul to cast light on his allegations that 1) he was innocent and 2) that the Clintons and DNC were hiding illegally obtained campaign funds, both direct and indirect.

Spotty Coverage

In the intervening four years there has been some news coverage of the continuing saga of Peter Paul's criminal case and civil complaints he's filed in California and at the FEC. For example, the Los Angeles Times and Vanity Fair magazine, along with Insight Magazine and some East Coast papers have given some coverage. And some of it has been quite good if not spotty.

Perhaps one reason is Paul himself, a two-time convicted felon with some outlandish claims and currently a confessed securities violator on one count from the original indictments handed up in New York and California. (Paul is awaiting sentencing while being held on home detention.)

But as outlandish as much of Paul's claims appear to be, there is ample evidence mustered up by federal prosecutors and agents that document the central charges of the former Hollywood mogul.

That is, that he provided tons of money to Hillary Clinton's campaign, that despite a public distancing by Hillary Clinton in late summer 2000 after Paul's criminal background was revealed in a gossip item, she and Bill Clinton continued to privately stay in touch with him and even orchestrated a tour of Air Force One for him and then-California Governor Grey Davis, and that Democrat bigwigs kept in touch for political donations.

Yet for all such documentation of wrongdoing, scant press attention has been paid to the allegations involving Hillary Clinton.

One has to ask why, if only because of the avalanche of coverage of DeLay of late and reports on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's alleged ethics and securities violations over insider stock sale deals.

Post Whitewash

Even a recent Washington Post Magazine cover story of roughly 8,000 words sidestepped the hard news at the center of its feature story on Hillary Clinton's former national finance director, a fellow named David Rosen. Rumor of the impending article had both Democrats and Republicans in Washington buzzing whether Hillary Clinton would get slammed or, at least, have her troubles with Peter Paul exposed in depth in a mainstream press outlet.

When it was finally published, however, it hit like a dud among both camps, one relieved that Hillary wasn't pilloried and one throwing up its hands for the same reason.

As Peter Paul himself said in a brief interview, "if this had been an exposé on Tom DeLay you could bet the farm that it would have skewered the guy and thrown up all sorts of mud and exposed allegations of wrongdoing going back years."


Yet none of that was contained in the Washington Post Magazine article despite ample evidence that could have been explored involving the junior senator from New York and, if political bets are accurate, the next presidential contender for the Democratic Party.

There was no mention of serious allegations of wrongdoing by her campaign in 2000 that was detailed in sworn affidavits from FBI agents and statements by prosecutors to federal judges, both in the Paul case and during the recent criminal trial of Rosen, who ultimately was acquitted by a jury that didn't believe the story woven by prosecutors that he violated FEC rules by not reporting the true costs of those Paul-backed fundraisers way back in 2000.

The Hillary Connection

The press covered Rosen's trial in some detail but certainly not with the same gusto as say, the DeLay travails of late. For example, despite the attempt of prosecutors in Rosen's trial to distance Hillary Clinton from the alleged wrongdoing, the press failed to ask some fundamental questions, especially after Rosen's acquittal.

For example: If Hillary Clinton didn't violate any laws and didn't conspire to hide the true costs of her political events then who did besides Rosen? How could it be possible that Hillary Clinton herself didn't know anything was wrong with those fundraising events and FEC forms given the fact that she's been fighting Peter Paul in civil courts for the last couple of years, has been dealing through surrogates with the FEC and, obviously, was aware of charges of campaign violations at the center of Rosen's trial.

But the impression from stories that have run on the Paul and Rosen cases paints a picture of a powerful U.S. senator who had no idea anything was amiss in her campaign or had any responsibility or oversight of finances for her Senate race. Believable?

It's as though a May 30, 2002, affidavit in support of a search warrant of a storage locker once rented by Peter Paul, by FBI special Agent Smith, didn't exist.

The Affidavit

Outlining a then-ongoing secret probe of Clinton's campaign with regard to "allegations of violations of the federal campaign finance statutes, and of false statements to federal government agencies," Agent Smith said this: "In particular, on August 12, 2000, while the Democratic national Convention was underway in Los Angeles, [Peter] Paul was responsible for hosting a fundraising event known as 'THE HOLLYWOOD GALA SALUTE TO PRESIDENT WIL-LIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON' ("the event"). The event was a fundraiser for the benefit of New York Senate 2000, the campaign organization that supported the United States Senate Campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"The event's costs exceeded $1 million, but the required forms filed by New York Senate 2000 with the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") months after the event incorrectly disclosed that the cost of the event was only $523,000. It appears that the true cost of the event was deliberately understated in order to increase the amount of funds available to New York Senate 2000 for federal campaign activities."

This is one of the central claims Peter Paul has made for years but generally dismissed by the mainstream press even though memorialized in complaints in California courts and at the FEC, and even in a detailed and lengthy memo hand-delivered to Hillary Clinton prior to Paul's own indictments back in 2001.

Despite such direct connections to Clinton involving "documented" allegations of wrongdoing, few press outlets have followed, or followed up, such explosive charges involving a sitting U.S. senator. Or if they have, press reports simply report that Hillary Clinton denies any knowledge or wrongdoing. End of story.

The Media Pack

Yet for Tom DeLay there appears to be no end of those stories, stories that even his own detractors have said appear to be thin stuff based on what's known so far in the state prosecutor's case against the Texas Republican. No doubt DeLay and his supporters feel the press has been unkind to the former House majority leader but, frankly, the role of the press is to investigate allegations of wrongdoing and run to death every hint of evidence.

The result of not applying the same standard to far more serious charges of wrongdoing involving Hillary Clinton and various DNC operatives only makes starkly clear the differing standards at play, differing standards that the public believes the press applies when the mood suits it despite the claims of being fair, balanced and ethical.

If the California civil courts, which have overruled numerous attempts by Hillary Clinton's legal team (including her personal attorney David Kendal), think there's merit to Peter Paul's pursuit of claims that he was hoodwinked into giving nearly $2 million under false premises of future support for his now-failed company, shouldn't the press be digging into the background of the charges?

And where are the stories post David Rosen's acquittal concerning who at Hillary Clinton's campaign broke the law if not the former finance chairman? In reporting on the collapse of Enron, WorldCom and other financial debacles, such was the standard in exploring who, what, when, where and how was involved in each scandal.

Where are the stories about numerous leads contained in the Rosen trial transcripts and at the FEC that, to date has not brought any civil action against Hillary Clinton or her campaign?

Possible Leads

Ample leads to unsavory characters associated with the various Clinton fundraisers are well documented in the handful of stories the L.A. Times, Vanity Fair and Insight Magazine published, including a nifty scheme Rosen authorized on behalf of Hillary Clinton to divert money to a state-controlled political action committee in New York that later supported her Senate run.

Such end arounds in political fundraising have been going on for years but seldom brought to public light despite the good attempts by groups such as Common Cause.

When Tom DeLay does it, however, it's page-one news—but not so when Hillary Clinton does it?

No doubt many skeptics will suggest that allegations against Hillary Clinton are politically driven or that the country is tired of Clinton-related scandals. Maybe so. But it's not the job of the press to pick and choose which stories it pursues once the standard has been established about what types of stories should be reported. And such standards have been set down as recently as the DeLay mess.

Political scandals à la the Tom DeLay, Bill Frist and long ago former House Speaker Jim Wright and Dan Rostenkowski (just to name a few) should be the stuff of good investigative reporting regardless of which party is in power and regardless of who's ox is gored.

Whether Hillary Clinton did anything wrong criminally or civilly has yet to be determined either in courts of law or before regulatory authorities. But as so often is the case, such decisions are not made unless the press is relentless in its job of exploring, exposing and reporting allegations of wrongdoing.

The Jury Is Out

One beneficial unintended consequence of such zeal on the part of the press is that it provides the public with as clear a picture of whether a politician is guilty of wrongdoing, or not. In the case of Hillary Clinton, the junior senator from New York may be riding a wave of popularity and stardom few could muster—but should be tapped or cleared once and for all of any scandal.

The failure by the press to pursue the allegations raised by Peter Paul in his civil suit, for which depositions already are underway, is a crime unto itself.

Media Cover-Ups

Ditto for the failure of the press to link up Paul's allegations with the documentation and testimony presented in the Rosen case, where evidence appears undisputed that Hillary Clinton and her 2000 Senate campaign machine violated the law and perhaps broke some criminal statutes as well.

Sadly, the public may not ever get the chance to find out unless the press does its job and reports with equal treatment the case(s) against Hillary Clinton as fully as it seems determined to report on the case(s) against Tom DeLay. Given that Hillary Clinton appears headed to a presidential run, the public deserves to know before the heat of a White House battle what's been going on.

That's one reason the public so distrusts the press, bias aside. Too much gets dumped on them during political contests that smacks of political manipulations. Maybe if the press were to do its job evenly throughout each year then the public might feel better about an industry now seen as having an agenda. And, it seems, it's not the public's interest.

What You Can Do

Send the enclosed cards or cards and letters of your own choosing to Tim Russert and Robert McCormick of NBC News, and Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Paul M. Rodriguez, the former managing editor of Insight Magazine, is a media and public policy consultant in Washington, D.C.

by Cliff Kincaid


ELEANOR CLIFT OF NEWSWEEK IS SAYING THAT "THE NEXT LOGICAL step is impeachment" of President Bush. This follows, she says, polls showing a majority of people believe Bush misled us into war. Unfortunately, the White House has done little to address this false claim. When stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq after the invasion, some commentators came to the conclusion that they were never there, and that the intelligence was manipulated or fabricated. Let's remember that the burden was on Saddam to prove the weapons were not there. He never did. They could have been transferred out of the country.
What's more, the intelligence agencies of allied countries all agreed that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a threat because of its possession and development of WMD. The alternative was to rely on the Saddam Hussein regime and its official sources for information about the WMD. Was Baghdad Bob a reliable source?

ANOTHER PROBLEM FOR THE ADMINISTRATION IS THE INDICTMENT OF FORMER VICE presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby in the CIA leak case. Incredibly, however, Jim Hoagland wrote a November 3 column in the Washington Post that confirmed everything we suspected about this "scandal." Hoagland confirmed that the Joseph Wilson affair was a CIA plot against President Bush. Writing his column in the form of a letter to the President, Hoagland wrote that "The hidden management of the criminal justice process and the news media practiced by spooks in Wilson-Rove-Libbygate is nothing short of brilliant. So you were right to fear the agency." Think about that statement to the President—"you were right to fear the agency." Wilson was sent on a CIA mission at the recommendation of his wife, Valerie Plame, in order to embarrass the administration. Libby tried to inform the press about this fact.

HERE IS A COLUMNIST FOR A MAJOR PAPER SAYING THAT THE CIA HAS BEEN ACTING independently of the elected President of the U.S., and that Bush had reason to fear it. He said the CIA had engaged in "hidden management of the criminal justice system and the news media." In effect, he is saying that the CIA is pulling the strings behind the scenes, and that reporters following the Wilson/Plame storyline are CIA puppets. He went on to say that the CIA also "triggered the investigation" into the CIA leak about Valerie Wilson by itself leaking. That is, the CIA leaked to the press the fact that it had requested an investigation. Hoagland also declared, "One lesson available in this story is that amateurs are no match for the CIA in disinformation campaigns. The spies are far better at operating in the shadows than you politicians will ever be. They have a license to dissemble." Hoagland is saying that the CIA lied about the Wilson affair and used it to undermine the Bush Administration, and that the Bush Administration was no match for the liars at the CIA. Here was a major columnist acknowledging a CIA covert operation against Bush using lies and disinformation. This requires major congressional investigations.

THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE CIA LEAK INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN THROWN INTO DOUBT BY retired Major General Paul E. Vallely's statement that Joseph Wilson exposed his own wife as a CIA employee months before columnist Robert Novak published that information. Vallely, a Fox News military analyst, is being threatened with a lawsuit for saying that he was in the Fox News green room in 2002 and heard Wilson confirm her CIA status. Vallely tells Accuracy in Media that he is prepared if necessary to go to court to prove it. If the sensational charge is true, then Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald's investigation, which is based on the belief that Valerie Wilson's CIA affiliation was first disclosed publicly by Novak in July of 2003, was flawed from the start. It would also mean that the investigation was based on a false declaration from the CIA that her identity was a carefully guarded secret.

NBC'S TIM RUSSERT, WHOSE CREDIBILITY IS ON THE LINE IN THE CIA LEAK CASE, IS USING his NBC Meet the Press program to make it practically impossible for Lewis Libby to get a fair trial. Russert, who has in effect accused Libby of lying, will likely be a prosecution witness in the case. Russert and Libby disagree over whether Russert told Libby that Valerie Plame's CIA status was common knowledge among members of the press. The November 6 edition of Russert's Meet the Press show was designed to keep the public's attention not only on Libby but other White House officials as well, most notably press secretary Scott McClellan, and away from Russert. It is apparent that members of the press, including Russert, are trying to gin up a Watergate-style scandal. They are focusing endlessly on polls indicating Bush's popularity is declining, even though a recent Gallup Poll showed that the executive branch has more credibility than the media. We are asking you to send one of the enclosed postcards to Robert McCormick, the NBC News official in charge of broadcast standards, asking him to force Russert step down from reporting or commenting on this case. Another should go to Tim Russert.

THE U.S. IS AT WAR AND OUR MEDIA ARE HELPING THE OTHER SIDE. BUT IN ORDER TO understand how this works in practice, consider good versus bad leaks of information. The Lewis Libby indictment stems from an investigation into a "bad" leak—talking to the press about the activities of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, who played a role in arranging a covert operation against the Bush Administration using her husband. An example of a "good" leak is when anonymous CIA officials helped produce a November 2 Dana Priest article in the Washington Post about "secret prisons" holding Muslim terrorists. This leak is "good" because it undermines the administration's war on terror. Reporters like Priest want us to think they are just doing their job. In fact, they are making it more difficult to interrogate the Muslim terrorists being held in those locations in order to obtain information that might save American lives. Please send the enclosed postcard to Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, asking for an investigation of this leak.

ONE OF OUR READERS HAS WRITTEN TO US INQUIRING ABOUT A POSSIBLE LINK BETWEEN the media's reporting of anti-war demonstrations and the resulting deaths of our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's worth considering. October, for example, was reported to be the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Iraq since January. October followed heavy publicity given to a so-called anti-war march in Washington, D.C. on September 24. Are the terrorists motivated by what happens in our streets and in our media? If they think the anti-war movement is growing in power, does that convince them that they have a chance to defeat the U.S. and that they should, in fact, accelerate their battlefield operations? As we noted in our October B report, a leader of one of the organizations behind the event posted an article hailing the Iraqi terrorists. This showed that the "anti-war" protest has been unmasked by one of its own leaders as a pro-war organization that seeks to kill those struggling for freedom and democracy in Iraq and around the world. On the matter of the media war, the enemy has been very candid about the need to win the battle in the media. That is why our campaign to keep Al-Jazeera International off the air in the U.S. is so important. We need your help as we move forward.

For Accuracy in Media,
Cliff Kincaid

Some more interesting stuff but not very reliable.

More stuff on Clinton scandals in general.

Re: The "Straight Talk Express" has derailed!!

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 3:18 pm
by DeusTrismegistus
So I am fair.

Obama Plaigerism Scandal ... m-scandal/


Barack Obama is a genuine trend (or is he a fad?) without Americans knowing much of anything about him. He started his public career with an unusual move--- writing a book where he talks about using cocaine. It's unconventional, but damned if it doesn't look like it just might work.

No one's sure what stuff he ISN'T telling us though. If you have any tips, as always please email us.

"I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she's one of the most disciplined people I know. She's one of the toughest. She's got an extraordinary intelligence, and she's somebody who's in this stuff for the right reasons. She's passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children." -- Barack Obama

"It was a mistake to have been engaged with him [Antoin Rezko] at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor" -- Barack Obama

"There's no doubt that this was a mistake on my part. 'Boneheaded' would be accurate. There's no doubt I should have seen some red flags in terms of me purchasing a piece of property from him." - Barack Obama


Long before he ever ran for political office, Obama wrote a book about, well, himself, and his amazing his journey from messed up kid to, um, himself. It was quite an epic, considering he was 34 at the time.

In that book, called "Dreams From My Father", he writes that he used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow".) Oddly enough, he writes that he didn't try heroin because -- wait for it -- he didn't like the pusher who was selling it. (Weren't there any other reasons?) In a later interview, he added "Teenage boys are frequently confused."

Favors For (and From) A Shady Chicago Businessman

Barack Obama has been friends with Antoin ("Tony") Rezko since at least 1990. Barack interviewed with Rezko for a job in the early 1990s (offered, but declined), and has raised at least $150,000 for Obama's campaigns. Prosecutors charge that at least $10,000 of the money Rezko gave Obama was extorted in return for political favors by a different politician. In return, Barack arranged an internship in 2005 for John Aramanda, the son of a Rezko business associate (Joseph Aramanda, who himself gave Barack $11,500.)

There's more. In June, 2005, Obama bought a house in Chicago for $1.65 million ($300,000 below the asking price). The same day, Rezko bought (in his wife's name) the vacant lot next door for $625,000, the full price asked. Seven months later, Rezko sold Barack a slice (1/6th) of his lot so the Obamas could have a bigger yard. There's no evidence that Rezko bought the vacant land for any other reason than to do Obama a favor. The seller would only sell the house if he could sell the lot on the same day. And the lot is only accessible through Obama's yard. Rezko and his wife sold the lot last year to someone they owed moey to, and let that person keep the small profit he made.

Here's the real problem: among other problems, Rezko is on trial in a federal government corruption case for demanding kickbacks from companies wanting to do business with Illinois Governor Blagojevich, another politician that Rezko has befriended and donated to. (Rezko is also under indictment for shaking down a Hollywood producer for $1.5 million in campaign contributions for Blagojevich. The guy takes care of his political friends.) In fact, Joseph Aramanda is an unindicted co-conspirator in one of the kickback cases.

Obama has admitted that the land deal was a mistake, and donated money donated directly by Rezko to charity. His story has changed, though. When the land deal was first reported, Obama said his only contact with Rezko was asking him if it was a good deal. In February 2008, though, one of Obama's staffers admitted that the candidate walked around the house and lot with Rezko. Rezko has said he bought the lot to help the Obamas expand their backyard.

Educated in a Madrassa? Secretly Muslim? Won't salute the flag?

Fox News ran a story claiming that Obama had been educated in a madrassa school in Indonesia. If you're not familiar with that term, it's a type of fundamentalist Muslim school, often funded by the extremist Wahabi sect of Islam (with Saudi money) and often very anti-American.

There was only one problem with the story: it was completely false. Yes, Obama had gone to school in Indonesia as a kid; two schools in fact. One was Catholic, the other was a public school, with teachers and kids of various faiths.

The only scandal here is that Fox News ran the story with no facts or reporting backing it up. They simply repeated a story from a highly partisan website, with no effort to check out the school. It's there, still open, and easily visited. Reporters who did so found out that the story was false in minutes.

There have been several other stories about Obama floating around in emails -- that he refuses to put his hand over his heart when saying the pledge of allegiance, that he is secretly Muslim, etc. We print REAL scandals, not fake ones. If you want the facts on these lies, a great source is

"Barack Obama, asked about drug history, admits he inhaled", by Katherine Seelye, International Herald Tribune, October 25, 2006

"Dreams From My Father", by Barack Obama, 1995

"As Developer Heads to Trial, Questions Linger Over a Deal With Obama", By MIKE McINTIRE and CHRISTOPHER DREW, New York Times, March 2, 2008

"Internship also links Obama, Rezko", Chicago Sun-Times, December 24, 2006, by Frank Main

"Obama Says He Regrets Land Deal With Fundraiser", by Peter Slevin, Washington Post, December 16, 2006

Return To Top

Return To Skeleton Closet Main Page

Paid for by Real People For Real Change
and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Copyright 2008 Real People For Real Change