John McCain, Liar (Sexy-Time Edition)

Is it news anymore that John McCain is floating bald-faced lies? I suppose not, especially since he's doubled down on mendacity with Sarah Palin.

But even so, this seems like a bit much:



I mean, come on! "Comprehensive" sex ed for kindergarteners? This isn't news, number one. But more... um, I don't know, logically, ... you're talking about an entire legislative body that passed this law, not just Barack Obama alone. If the law was as McCain says it was, does anyone really think that the law would have passed?

McCain's contempt for the intellect and common sense of the American people is staggering.

The Obama campaign's response:

"It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls - a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn't define what honor was. Now we know why,"

My response to McCain personally:

Fuck you, asshole.

The Jed Report on John McCain, -er, defending sexual predators:

In fact, the vote in question was actually about (among other things) providing school districts educational tools to protect young children from sexual predators. Moreover, there was no requirement that school districts use those tools. The legislation merely required that if a school destrict chose to offer such a program, the program could not be mandatory.

This guy McCain is a total joke. Only a guy with his complete disregard for the truth would be willing to attack his political opponent for supporting a law designed to protect youngsters from sexual predators.

Update (4:50PM): I should note that McCain's ad doesn't outrage me as much as it amuses me. I mean the truth is, John McCain is starting to make Elmer Fudd look dignified.

Don't Make Me LOL.

Video from Talking Points Memo.

Maverick???

The Sarah Palin Files, Pt. 8

Whoa! The surprises just keep on coming!

The McCain / Palin campaign has announced that Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant. In a twist of irony, this announcement was made to put to rest rumors that Palin's four-month old son, Trig, was actually Bristol's.

To no one's surprise, the McCain people are chastizing the "liberal media" and Barack Obama for looking into and reporting on this (even though, of course, the Obama campaign has not touched this with a ten foot pole). Meanwhile, evangelicals - who would calling for Bristol Palin to be burned at the stake if she were the daughter of Democrat - are twisting logic to find virtue in it all. From Focus on the Family headm James Dobson's statement:

We have always encouraged the parents to love and support their children and always advised the girls to see their pregnancies through, even though there will of course be challenges along the way. That is what the Palins are doing, and they should be commended once again for not just talking about their pro-life and pro-family values, but living them out even in the midst of trying circumstances.

For his part, Barack Obama has come out forcefully and unequivocally against making Bristol Palin's admitted pregnancy or the question of who is Trig's real mother a campaign issue:

"And so I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories," he said. "You know my mother had me when she was 18, and how a family deals with issues and, you know, teenage children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that's off limits."

I have scanned some of the comments to the various news stories reporting this - from CNN to the Cincinnati Enquirer to ABC news, as well as some liberal blogs. I note that there is an element out there that seems to believe that there really is something to the "Bristol Palin is Trig's Real Mother" rumor. It reminds me of how there is a segment of America that stubbornly refuses to let go of the belief that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Right-wingers have spent the last several months either pushing these rumors or staying quiet and letting them take on a life of their own. To me, all of the rumors and baggage Sarah Palin brings to the table is the Right's just desserts.

Unless there is some gamechanging news on this topic between now and the election that is relevant, this will be the Hot Rod's last post on this topic.

I'm just going to sit back, smile, and sniff the stench of hypocracy blowing out of Alaska.

The Sarah Palin Files, Pt. 6

Troopergate.

To me, second to Palin's complete lack of qualifications, this is the most stunning part of her selection - that she is currently embroiled in an abuse of power type of scandal. There are a number of reasons whyit surprises me that this did not take her out of the consideration. Here are the two most obvious:

1. Her "holier than thou" attitude toward government corruption. Part of her biography includes how Palin exposed graft and corruption in Alaska state government. Republicans love this of course, but their shouts turn to mumbles when it comes time to mention that it was corrupt Republican politicians that she turned on. But more to the point, if you are making your case based on your status as a "reformer" who has taken down corrupt politicians, it's more than a little hypocritical to be doing so as you're investigated for using the power of your office to enforce a personal vendetta against a family enemy.

2. The "Stop Me if You've Heard This One Before" factor. The Valarie Plame incident is in the nation's rearview mirror, but it isn't out of sight. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said that there was a "cloud over the vice president" because Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby had obstructed justice. Only hard core right-wingers think that this kind of retaliation against one's political enemies is okay (of course, they'd be calling for impeachment had the shoe been on the other foot). For the rest of the nation, Palin's behavior in troopergate - and in particular her denials until evidence came to light that forced her to change her story - is going to be eerily reminiscent of the current occupants of the country's two highest offices. With Dubya's approval rating still in the low 30's (last I checked), why would you tap someone with Bush/Cheney-like tendencies to be your VP pick?

Anyway...

Thank god for Talking Points Memo. Here is a good summary of Troopergate. This saved me a lot of research and typing. This and this too. Check it out.

And furthermore, this appears that it is a pattern of behavior.

The Sarah Palin Files, Pt. 1

God, I have so much work to do. So I'm going to first warm up by picking some of the low-hanging fruit.

Let's debunk the myth that Sarah Palin has always opposed the infamous "bridge to nowhere." This is the lie (really, let's call it what it is) she told as she was introduced as John McCain's VP.

Let's look at what John McCain hates - the facts.

On October 22, 2006, in response to a question about whether she supported said bridge Gubernatorial candidate Palin told the Anchorage Daily News,

Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

As The New Republic Reports,

By that point, the project was endangered for reasons that had nothing to do with Palin—the bridge had become a national laughingstock, Congress had stripped away the offending earmark, shifting the money back to the state's general fund, and future federal support seemed unlikely. True, after Palin was sworn into office that fall, her first budget didn't allocate any money for the bridge. But when the Daily News asked on December 16, 2006, if she now opposed the project, Palin demurred and said she was just trying to figure out where the bridge fit on the state's list of transportation priorities, given the lack of support from Congress.

Emphasis mine. So, the facts show that twice before taking office, Palin was given the opportunity to announce her opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere. The results?

1. Yes, I'm absolutely for it.
2. Still for it - just trying to figure out how to fund it.

Unless I have suddenly lost my ability to comprehend English, I'd say that neither time constitutes "opposition."

The New Republic piece linked to above puts Palin's next statement on the bridge project at September 19, 2007, when she took the first step in what could be described as being against the bridge - directing state funds away from it and to other projects. Great, but here was her statement at the time:

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer,” said Governor Palin. “Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Governor Palin added. “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.”

Palin, in her speech, stated, "I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks' on the bridge to nowhere."

Huh? I'm sorry, but I don't see any way to reconcile her account yesterday of her position, with her statement in September. Quite to the contrary, those pesky facts show that there was nothing from Congress for Palin to say "no thanks" to.

I will again quote The New Republic article, mainly because I can't put it any better:

Maybe I've missed something, but it sure looks like she was fine with the bridge in principle, never had a problem with the earmarks, bristled at all the mockery, and only gave up on the project when it was clear that federal support wasn't forthcoming.

Here are my two main thoughts, for whatever they're worth.

1. As a liar, she's a perfect match for John McCain. As has been widely reported, John McCain had only met Palin once and spoken with her on the phone on another occasion before picking her as his VP. He must have seen how reality-challenged she was and recognized a kindred spirit.

2. One can only assume she knew her prior statements. Why on earth would she come out and say that she has been opposed to the Bridge to Nowhere? This, to me, shows that Palin is just not ready for prime time. Maybe you can say something blatantly false and get away with it in a town of less than 8500 people, but this is the proverbial "big leagues." Does she not realize this?

I'll end on a comedic video created by The Jed Report (you decide what John McCain was looking at over and over):

Political Miscellany

1. In a previous post about Cindy McCain (a/k/a the Plastered Trollop), I posed the following question about her consistant characterization of herself as an only child:

the question remains: why would Cindy McCain continue to lie and deny the existence of her half-sister?

I mean, really - to what end?

That sister, it appears, is an Obama supporter.

Mystery solved.

2. Obamanomics: this article is long and therefore a time-killer, but very, very interesting.

3. Find out how much of a tax cut you will get under Obama's plan, here.

4. Hey John McCain: this isn't a celebrity endorsement you can believe in!! What? Paris and Britneeeey not returning your calls anymore, Johnny?

As the young people say: "LOL."

As the young people further say: "OMG!"

After all, Daddy Yankee (whoever the fuck he is) first sought to endorse Barack Obama. Due to his assault charge and racy lyrics, Obama turned him down. So he runs into the open arms of John McCain, who never met a political gimmick he didn't love.

Why was I speaking in text messages a paragraph ago? Because it's all so, what's the word ...... the word that characterizes John McShameless's whole campaign?

Juvenile.

It's like being in high school again. It's like going out with your sworn enemy's ex-girlfriend to whom you otherwise wouldn't give the time of day, just to piss him off.

Frankly, I'd like to say, "Daddy Yankee, you got played," but damn it, I know it's the other way around. This schmuck just got put on the map.

John McSame

Now I get it.

I used to think John McSame meant John McCain has the same policies as George W. Bush.

But what I think it really means is, regardless of the question, the answer is the SAME: "prisoner of war."

Watch the "artful dodger" totally side-step the question of why he was more qualified than Mitt Romney to manage the economy.

Hat Tip to the Jed Report, which sums up McCain's answer to a question about the economy as follows:

* Say nothing about the economy
* Say he was more patriotic than Mitt Romney
* Cite his experience as a POW
* Argue that "radical Islamic extremism" is a more important issue
* Criticize a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq
* Did I mention, say nothing about the economy?

John McCain, Liar

Pretty soon, the John McCain, Liar blog series is going to be a full blown movement.

And with good reason. I really didn't think he would stoop this low.

Lying about your dealings with Mother Teresa??? Don't you burn in hell for that?

Quote from the linked article:

This is the pattern:

A story that shows the McCains' genuine compassion and faith is embellished over the years to make the story a little more perfect, a little more salient, a little better as a narrative. It's especially important to add these embellishments when your goal is to appeal to a fundamentalist base, when your own prickly, personal and private faith isn't very marketable. And when your adopted daughter is Bangladeshi, and when that fact has been disgracefully used against you by the Bush machine in 2000, and when some fringes of your base get queasy about multi-racial families, what better way to describe the adoption than as something Mother Teresa herself "implored" you to do?

UPDATE: apparently, McCain's Mother Teresa canard is of relatively recent vintage ... and easily discoverable. But hey, we shouldn't question a POW. Beaten for five-and-a-half years after all.....

The Plastered Trollop, Liar

Interesting story coming out about how the Plastered Trollop, Cindy McCain, characterizes herself as an "only child." Well, as with so many things in John McLiar's world, that's not exactly true. She may well have been the only heir to her father's beer distributorship fortune, but she wasn't her father's only daughter.

Seems to be a recurring pattern in the Plastered Trollop's life: her father left behind his first family to take up with and later marry a second woman (the Plastered Trollop's mother). Sounds exactly how she met John McSlime while he was still married, had an affiar with him, and got married to him about a month after his divorce was final. [side note: John McCain, what a good, wholesome, Christian man!]

And while this sad, pathetic story of the late Jim Hensley's treatment of his first daughter definitely says more about his character than that of the Plastered Trollop or her 5'6" husband (other than the obvious "birds-of-a-feather" / judging a man's character "by the company he keeps," or in this case, the company he marries, association), the question remains: why would Cindy McCain continue to lie and deny the existence of her half-sister?

I mean, really - to what end?

Apparently, truth is a fairly flexible concept to the McCains. What a pair of despicable human beings (I'm being charitable here).

Olbermann on McCain

Apparently, Keith Olbermann has been reading the "John McCain, Liar" series here on the Triple-T.

John McCain, Liar (yet another report necessitated by brazen liar John McCain)

McCain: "Gotcha, Suckers!"

That's it. John McShameless has officially jumped the shark. Wikipedia defines Jumping the Shark as follows:

Jumping the shark is a colloquialism used by U.S. TV critics and fans to denote that point in a TV show or movie series' history where the plot veers off into ridiculous story lines or out-of-the-ordinary characterizations, undergoing too many changes to retain the original appeal of the series. Shows that have "jumped the shark" are typically deemed to have passed their peak as after this point critical fans can point to a noticeable decline in the show's overall quality.

The term is an allusion to a scene in a 1977 episode of the TV series Happy Days when the popular character Arthur "Fonzie" Fonzarelli literally jumps over a shark while water skiing. The scene was considered so preposterous that many believed it to be an attempt at reviving the declining ratings of the flagging show. Indeed, not only was Happy Days reflecting the superstardom of real-life shark-jumper Evel Knievel in the episode, but the series was wildly successful in 1977. Happy Days was the second most popular show on television in that year, behind its spin-off, Laverne & Shirley.

Jump-the-shark moments may be scenes like the one described above that finally convince viewers that the show has fundamentally and permanently strayed from its original premise. In those cases they are viewed as a desperate and futile attempt to keep a series fresh in the face of declining ratings. In other cases the departure or replacement of a main cast member or character or a significant change in setting changes a critical dynamic of the show. These changes are often attempts to attract their fans' waning attention with over-the-top statements or increasingly overt appeals to sex or violence.

The term has also evolved to describe other areas of pop culture including movie series, musicians, actors or authors for whom a drastic change was seen as the beginning of the end or marking the moment the subject is "past its peak." When referring to celebrities, the related term jumping the couch is often used if the moment is a personal act of "going off the deep end".

How else do we explain the latest lie from McPander's lips? In this one, McSwine steals a "cross in the dirt" story originally told by Alexander Solzhenitsyn based on his time as a prisoner of the Soviet Union.

I know what you're thinking: "Hot Rod, aren't you discounting the very real possibility that John McCain installed a flux capacitor into a DeLorean and traveled back in time to visit a Soviet Gulag and tell the story to Solzhenitsyn, immediately after which point the following exchange took place:

Solzhenitsyn: Wow, really?

McCain: Yep, that's exactly how it happened.

Solzhenitsyn: That's really good shit man. Say, on the off-chance that I can ever get together a story about my time in this Gulag, would you mind if I kind of adapted your experience to my own, so as to give my narrative a pivotal, transformational moment. Because I gotta tell you, there ain't shit happening here that could compare to that "cross in the dirt" story.

McCain: Well, I don't see why not. It's not like anybody would call me out for ripping the story off from you. But if anyone did, I'll just tell them about that DeLorean parked over there. The media will buy it - they love me. War hero and all. Beaten for five-and-a-half years, you know....

Think about it Hot Rod!"

Touche! You got me there. In making the mistake of getting all caught up in facts and reality, I had not thought of that possible explanation, which the mainstream media would buy hook, line, and sinker.

But on the factual side of the ledger is the following, from the Jed Report:

For starters, here's precedent for McCain distorting his history as a POW and for plagiarizing material.

1. During a June visit to Pittsburgh, he retold a POW story involving what he said was his favorite football team, but swapped out the Packers in favor of the hometown favorite Steelers.
2. He recently defended his preference for ABBA's "Dancing Queen" by citing his POW experience, saying that he has not been interested in music published since then. Dancing Queen wasn't published until two years after he returned from Vietnam.
3. In a recent speech on Georgia, McCain plagiarized at least three passages from Wikipedia's history of the country.

As for the story itself, the details of McCain's version of Solzhenitsyn's "Cross in the Dirt" story don't add up. Specifically:

1. As first reported by kos diarist rickrocket, McCain's story is nearly identical to a story told by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn.
2. In McCain's version of the story, a guard who had befriended him later drew the cross in the ground.
3. According to McCain's 1973 retelling of his experience, there was only one guard who he considered human, and that guard befriended him in 1969. (kos diarist Calouste made this connection, which extends into the next two points.)
4. This means that McCain's Christmas story would have taken place in 1969.
Between when he met that guard and Christmas of 1969, McCain changed prisons. Unless the guard followed him to the new prison, McCain's story is not true.

There is also a ton of circumstantial evidence raising doubts about McCain's story:

1. In McCain's early stories about his POW years, he made no mention of the story.
At a 1974 prayer breakfast arranged by Ronald Reagan, McCain did not tell the Solzhenitsyn story. He told a completely different one about a prisoner scratching a prayer into a wall. It is unimaginable that he would not have told the "Cross in the Dirt" story if it were true. (kos diarist TomP linked to another version of the prayer breakfast story, but the link was a dead link.)
2. There is no evidence McCain ever told this story before 1999.
McCain's story has shifted subtly over the years since he first told it in 1999.
3. McCain (or, more likely, his ghost writer Mark Salter) is a huge fan of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn.

Also, as pointed out here, McScam's 1973 account of his time as a POW contains no reference to this touching exchange with the guard.

In a later post today, Andrew Sullivan explores the topic more, and questions whether this remarkable event ever happened to anyone, or if it is part of some kind of right-wing mythology for rent. He concludes,

There is no way to know for sure what happened between two people in a prison camp in an incident to which no one else was a witness more than a quarter century ago. And it's perfectly possible that all of it is true, if muddled. But when a candidate tells a story that doesn't really add up with his previous accounts, and when he runs a campaign ad based on that story whose imagery is closer to someone else's account than his own, when a life changing moment is forgotten for a quarter of a century until a critical campaign when an appeal to conservative Christians was vital, the question is worth fleshing out - and I will gladly air any evidence that emerges in McCain's defense.

John McCain will literally say anything the circumstances call for. What a shitball.

John McCain, Liar (continued)

Huh???!!!

I'm sorry, Mr. McCain, could you say that again, and maybe a little slower this time? I'm sure I just misunderstood you, but I could have sworn you just said,

“in the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”

But, um. I thought that we, ....uh, you know, back in 2003 .... oh, how do I put this delicately? Um ...

Well, sir, see, it's just that, I was under the very distinct impression - based on news reports, White House press briefings, and Republican talking points - that we in fact invaded Iraq in 2003.

Oh shit! I get it: does this mean we are not a nation???

The Smell of Right-Wing Hypocracy

Sniff, sniff.... catch a whiff of this.

On the right-wing circle jerk known as the Hannity and Colmes show, conservative blow-hards were desperately trying to keep the John Edwards Affair alive ... to what end, I have no idea. As the Hot Rodette aptly pointed out Friday afternoon: "What does this matter? What is John Edwards even doing now?"

One thing he's not doing right now: running for President of the United States of America.

Oh, and pop quiz time: name one thing John McShame is doing right now. If you said, running for President of the United States of America, you're the big winner!

So Sean Hannity and company are blathering on and on about how Edwards' affair automatically disqualifies him to be president. This gives the Hot Rod a shiver down his spine, since he finds himself agreeing with this notion in the abstract - after all, if you can cheat and lie to your spouse and break those solemn vows, disregarding all of that "nonsense" about "upholding the Constitution and laws of the United States, blah, blah, blah ...." will likely be no problem. This creepy feeling of agreement with right-wing wack-jobs subsides as the Hot Rod thinks about the obvious fact that Edwards has dropped out of the race, thereby disqualifying himself, a fact which makes moot this entire discussion.

Then, in a moment of inspired, um, competence, Fuax News' token liberal, Alan Colmes, applies the logic being passed around to one John Sydney McCain. He asked, "if that’s true, you can’t trust somebody who had an affair, how can we trust John McCain to be president of the United States since he cheated, by his own admission, on his first wife? He didn’t keep his marital vows. He didn’t keep his pledge to his first family.” The conservative panel ran from that question with more speed, power, and agility than Minnesota Vikings' RB, Adrian Peterson.

Sean Hannity, unfazed, offered a vigorous defense of McCain - the explanation that justifies everything - that McCained had been beaten as a POW for five-and-a-half years in the Hanoi Hilton, and so, you know, cheating on and abandoning his first wife (who had been in a badly disfiguring car accident as McCained was taking his licks in Vietnam) for the eventual Plastered Trollop, a young, filthy rich, and erstwhile good-looking piece of ass, is understandable, acceptable, and (unlike the case of John Edwards) no cause to question the fitness of John McShame to be President.

Say, what was that Jonah Goldberg quote I found yesterday about black holes of stupidity .....

Because if I follow Hannity's point, John McCrook gets out of jail free for, well, everything I guess. After all, five-and-a-half years...

You can just imagine a McCain presidency now, can't you? "So what if John McCain (fill-in-the-blank-with-the-misdeed-or-perhaps-even-impeachable-offense-of-your-choice-here), he was beaten for five-and-a-half years ...."

Oh, what am I saying?? If I have learned nothing else since January 2001, it is that presidential accountability absolutely ends at Inauguration.

Video below:

Score One for John McCrass

As everyone knows, I've been awfully hard on presumptive 5'6" Republican presidential nominee, John McSane-In-The-Membrane, but Goddamnit, he's deserved it, hasn't he?

I mean, really. If he keeps it up, I'm going to have to take a leave of absence from my real(?) job manufacturing LSD molecules so I can document his hypocracy and blatant lies (on energy policy, compare this to that - you fucking tell me, where's the so-called "Straight Talk Express"?).

So, John McFraud is a two-faced liar, but, God bless him, occasionally he will have a moment (usually a senior moment) where he gets back in The Hot Rod's good graces. Like today. when he was posing as a real man-of-the-people (one who is so "salt of the earth" that he was called out for wearing $520 loafers less than a week ago) at the famous motorcycle rally at Sturgis, South Dakota, and told the crowd that he had encouraged the Plastered Trollop to enter the attendant beauty pageant, the Miss Buffalo Chip contest.

One problem: the Miss Buffalo Chip pageant is notoriously topless, and frequently bottomless. (That link is rated PG, despite the implication).

I'm going to suspend my disbelief and labor under the notion that John McClueless is not senile, misinformed, or thoughtless, and act as though he was leading a reality-based existance at the moment he made that remark.

In that spirit, I say: Smooth, Johnny Boy, smooth!

John McCain, Liar (the latest in a continuing series of reports)

John McCain to the Iraqis: "We're McStayin'"

As any astute observer of history knows, a flux capacitor is what makes time-travel possible. Simply build one into a De Lorean, set the controls for the time to which you wish to travel, accelerate to 88 mph, and voila!

Time Travel.

Well, apparently, the McCain campaign has put out the requisition orders for one, or perhaps multiple, flux capacitors and De Loreans to go back and revisit the end of 2006 / beginning of 2007 timeframe. Like Doc Brown and Marty McFly who (inadvertantly) set the world careening on a different trajectory with a misplaced sports almanac, John "We're McStayin'" wants to rewrite the history of the "Surge."

"Great Scott!"

This blog post gives the account. Money Quote:

Note to self: if I ever run for President and decide to stake everything on my understanding of one thing, I should familiarize myself with the basic facts about it. I should be especially careful to do this before I say something like this about someone who got it right: "I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened."

John McCain (quoting Huey Lewis): "Gotta Get Back. In. Time...."

UPDATE: Another excellent Dick Polman analysis, here. Quote:

McCain, naturally, wants the electorate to focus exclusively on the surge. And, yes, as it turns out, he was basically right about the surge (while overstating its prowess, as we shall see in a moment). But the surge, lest we forget, was basically a last-ditch tactic that was designed to mitigate a national security disaster, to get the conflagration under control. McCain was an early, unquestioning enabler of the invasion that sparked the conflagration. He helped set the whole house on fire (at a cost thus far of 4125 American lives and half a trillion dollars), yet now he wants to be reap political reward from the fact that he helped hose down some of the flames.

Nor does McCain talk much about some of the other factors, often cited by U.S. intelligence and military sources, that have contributed to the lessening of violence - such as the Shiite militia cease-fire, and the growing opposition, among Sunni tribal leaders, to the insurgents who fight in the name of al Qaeda. Indeed, the Sunni revolt against al Qaeda (commonly called "the awakening"), began in Iraq's Anbar province in autumn '06 - roughly four months before President Bush even announced his decision to hike the troop levels.

And by the way, take note of that accurate Sunni timeline - because McCain got his facts confused again late yesterday, when he mangled the timeline. (McCain has been factually confused a lot lately, as the Washington press corps is finally acknowledging.) According to the transcript of a CBS News interview, McCain credited the surge with sparking the awakening. In his words, "because of the surge, we were able to go out and protect (the Sunni shieks). And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history."

Maybe in his mind it is, but not in factual reality world. The U.S. military spoke publicly about Sunni leaders' revolt against the insurgents long before the surge. In a press briefing on Sept. 29, 2006, Col. Sean McFarland said that the insurgents had been doing well earlier in the year, but "this is a different phenomena that's going on right now...The tribal leaders are stepping forward and cooperating with the Iraqi security forces against al Qaeda, and it's had a very different result. I think al Qaeda has been pushed up against the ropes by this."

John McCain, Liar (Continued)

Seriously, WTF?

How can John McCain attack Barack Obama over a vote McCain claims he cast on the floor of the senate and that he claims Obama didn't vote on....... when in fact, McCain didn't vote on it either??

Either John McCain is the senile, impotent 72-year-old he looks to be, or he is L-Y-I-N-G, lying.

I think it is the latter. Forget shame - John McCain, have you no soul?

Story here.

That's Kind of Like, You Know.... Fuzzy McMath

Here's a good response to all of those "Barack-Obama-Is-Going-To-Raise-Your-Taxes-Until-We-Are-All-Poor-And-Until-He-Personally-Ruins-Your-Life" arguments making the rounds on the internets.

To those sending and/or reading those viral email smears, I give you: John McCain, Liar.

Money Quote:

So far, I have argued as though I thought McCain was actually serious about balancing the budget. I was taking him at his word, and giving him the benefit of the doubt. But I do not see how it's possible to even begin to work through his various proposals and think that he is. I suspect that he doesn't fully understand many of his proposals, and so might well be unaware of exactly how big a hole he's planning to blow in the deficit, ad how unlikely it is that he will be able to plug it by the means he's specified. But I don't think that even he can actually believe that he can make up $695 billion by cutting earmarks and "reforming" Social Security.

And how have those Republican-manufactured budget deficits been working out for us lately, anyway?

Policy Post: On Torture.....

I'm on a roll today...

But this post isn't going to have a punchline.

Today in the news, we learned that the "enhanced interrogation" techniques of our county at Guantanamo Bay and other like places derive from a 1957 memo outlining the then-current practices of the Communist Chinese government to coerce false confessions. The operative word there is, of course, "false," because the classic "ends-justify-the-means" morality of Republicans living in their own personal "24" fantasy world has been that we need to torture, -er, to use "enhanced interrogation" techniques, to get actionable intelligence to keep the United States safe from further terrorist attacks.

This blog post, sums it up well:

Is it not a rather fantastic historical irony that the torture techniques that the North Vietnamese used against McCain that forced him to offer a videotaped false confession ... are now the techniques the Bush administration is using to gain "intelligence" about terror networks.

How is it possible to know that everything John McCain once said on videotape for the enemy was false, because it was coerced, and yet assert that everything we torture out of terror suspects using exactly the same techniques, is true? In fact, McCain at least knew somewhere that his own government knew he existed, that there were procedures to eventually release him, that he was on someone's radar. The average prisoner at Gitmo or in the other parts of the detention program believes that no one will ever save him, that he could be disappeared for ever, that there are no procedures for his eventual release and no government to remember him. If McCain uttered lies on tape to stop the torture, why would an Islamist tell the truth?

Nothing more accurately exposes the classic moral error of the Bush administration and its enablers in war crimes. If the enemy tortures, it defines their moral evil and all intelligence gleaned from such coercion is self-evidently false propaganda. If we do it, it isn't wrong, and it leads to good intelligence.

Got that? And these people have the gall to describe their ideological opponents as moral relativists.

More Sure Signs of a Coming Apocalypse

Dubya not only engaging in, but also teaching, what those on the radical right call an "Obama terrorist fist-jab."

Kill me now.