Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
>>>He's funny, smart, and he has great guests.<<<
That contemptuous laughter at everything and everyone he disagrees with doesn't bother you? Maybe it's just my allergy to arrogance that keeps intensifying as we work our way through the second Bush term......
>>>McCain likens himself to Winston Churchill. So does Bush.<<<
Iraq Vet: U.S. Can't Afford McCain Victory
Army Ranger Blasts GOP Candidate's Iraq War Stance, Says McCain Would Ignore Other Threats
(AP) Speaking on behalf of the Democratic Party, an Iraq combat veteran said Saturday that apparent GOP nominee John McCain should not win the presidential election because he would continue the war in Iraq.
Roger Martinez, who served as an Army ranger in Afghanistan and Iraq, noted in the Democrats' weekly radio address that President Bush endorsed McCain this week. Bush said McCain "won't flinch in the face of danger" and McCain strongly supports the U.S. efforts in Iraq. Electing a leader who would continue Bush's policies in Iraq would be a mistake, Martinez said.
"Our country and our armed services cannot afford another leader like President Bush who would keep our overstretched military in Iraq for 100 years while ignoring the other threats our country faces both at home and around the world." McCain has said that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for many years if those troops were no longer being injured or killed.
"I honor and thank John McCain for his years of military service to our country," said Martinez, who is studying at the University of Texas at San Antonio. "But I don't think he offers the right leadership on Iraq or understands how to reinvigorate our economy here at home."
Martinez said U.S. troops are fighting bravely, "but no matter what they do they cannot solve the political problems in Iraq." The next commander in chief needs to promise to make the fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan a greater priority than the war in Iraq, Martinez said.
McCain has acknowledged that he must convince voters of the wisdom of defense of the Iraq war, and the increase of troops that has improved conditions there.
The Arizona senator has said that both leading Democrats in the presidential race want to abandon Iraq to al Qaeda.
Martinez said McCain also is out of touch with families like his own.
"He says the economy is strong but how can he not see that families like mine are struggling to pay for out-of-control health care costs, home heating bills, gasoline and college tuition," Martinez said.
McCain, who has said economics isn't his strong suit, said Friday tax cuts and job training are needed to lift an economy that is either in recession or is headed toward one. He was responding to a report showing widespread job losses amid the housing and credit crisis.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/08/politics/main3919479.shtml
>>>And you believe them?<<<
Isn't a better question....."are they completely off base?" The out of control budget deficit and the collapsing dollar has nothing to do with it and the CIC bears no responsibility?
The dollar is in a clear free-fall, down versus every major and emerging-market currency,'' Jan Loeys, head of global- market strategy at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in London, wrote in a note to clients.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=atz8jGDhfJ64&refer=home
..analysts noted that oil inventories are at historic highs. Meanwhile, demand for gasoline is falling, and several forecasters have cut their oil demand growth predictions for this year.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/oil-prices-jump-101-barrel-opec-news_506601_44.html
Interest rate cuts tend to weaken the dollar, and crude futures offer a hedge against a falling dollar. Also, oil futures bought and sold in dollars are more attractive to foreign investors when the greenback is falling.
"I really think that this is oil being viewed as ... a financial instrument," said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago.
"(Fundamentals) have no relationship to price right now," Flynn said. If prices were responding to supply and demand, fundamentals, they would be falling, he said. Several recent forecasters have lowered oil demand growth predictions for this year due to the slowing economy, and domestic oil inventories have been growing.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4361309
What's YOUR point? That OPEC should stop picking on Bush and start pumping more oil?
OPEC: Blame Bush for $104 crude
(CBS/AP) OPEC on Wednesday accused the U.S. of economic "mismanagement" it said is pushing oil prices to new record highs, rebuffing calls to boost output and laying the blame at the feet of the Bush administration.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/05/business/main3907823.shtml
Bush about to sanction more torture
March 2, 2008
Editorial
Horrifying and Unnecessary
In the next few days President Bush is expected to again claim the right to order mistreatment of prisoners that any civilized person would regard as torture.
Mr. Bush is planning to veto a law that would require the C.I.A. and all the intelligence services to abide by the restrictions on holding and interrogating prisoners contained in the United States Army Field Manual. Mr. Bush says the Army rules are too restrictive.
What are these burdens? In addition to a blanket prohibition of torture, the manual specifically bans:
¶ Forcing a prisoner to be naked, perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner.
¶ Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a prisoner, and using duct tape over the eyes.
¶ Applying beatings, electric shocks, burns or other forms of physical pain.
¶ Waterboarding.
¶ Using military working dogs.
¶ Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
¶ Conducting mock executions.
¶ Depriving a prisoner of necessary food, water or medical care.
Such practices have long been prohibited by American laws and international treaties respected by Republican and Democratic presidents. Mr. Bush, however, declared that he was unbound by the laws of civilization in responding to the barbarism of Sept. 11, 2001. And reports soon surfaced about the abuse of prisoners at detention centers in Afghanistan, the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and secret Central Intelligence Agency prisons.
Finally, in 2006, a compliant, Republican-controlled Congress outlawed the kinds of abuse and torture that Mr. Bush’s lawyers had turned into government policy. Unfortunately, Congress applied the prohibitions only to the military, and Mr. Bush immediately made clear that he would issue whatever orders he wanted to the intelligence agencies. In response, Congress approved an amendment to the intelligence budget bill this year that binds those agencies to the same rules as the military.
Opponents of Mr. Bush’s policies on prisoners have long argued that it is immoral, dangerous and counterproductive to abuse and torture prisoners. We do not hold out much hope that the president will heed our last, urgent plea not to veto this bill.
We urge him to read the Army Field Manual, which says: “Use of torture by U.S. personnel would bring discredit upon the U.S. and its armed forces while undermining domestic and international support for the war effort. It could also place U.S. and allied personnel in enemy hands at greater risk of abuse.”
He could listen to 43 retired generals or a bipartisan coalition of 18 former members of Congress, secretaries of state and national security officials who all supported the anti-torture amendment.
He could check the testimony of Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who told Congress last week that waterboarding violated the Geneva Conventions.
Or he could read the letter that Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, wrote to his troops.
“Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy,” General Petraeus wrote. “They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/opinion/02sun1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
>>>The country is divided more than it has been in a century...Thanks to the media<<<
Or thanks to Karl Rove who figured the country would forever be in republican hands if he could pit 51% of Bush republicans against the rest of the country. It worked.....for just over 4 years and look what we have now.
Tell us again with a straight face you blame the country's division squarely on the "media" after one party has had complete control for more than 7 years? You're suggesting the Bush/Rove team frantically tried to unite the country but the media just wouldn't cooperate?
"Rove -- a powerful political operative who once envisioned "permanent" Republican control in Washington -- had overrelied on the most conservative voters and ignored voters with more moderate views who can swing an election.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/14/rove_exit_could_launch_new_political_strategy/
>>>Politics is not an easy profession. Perhaps, I expect too much. I expect honesty where it may, in fact, be a disqualifying character trait for a successful politician<<<
That's about right I think. Partly because some 95% of the population is automatically disqualified from running for high office since they're not millionaires. So with much of those in high office having essentially bought their seats, how much honesty is to be expected? Worst part about it though is that the working stiffs who keep electing these scumbags are the ones getting screwed the most. Just look at all the posters here who still think GW Bush cares about them.
>>>but you're deluding yourself if you think that the dems are getting more approval<<<
Did I say they were? Clearly you missed the entire point of the post which you do more often than not by focusing on partisan politics instead of substance. Rove got you exactly where he wanted you. Us against them above all else.
>>>But will they jump to the next conclusion that the Republicans have put us in this mess that I don't see a bright side too?<<<
They won't. Republicans have been in complete control of the country for 7 1/2 years.......presidency, both houses of congress and the courts. As a result, 70% think America is going to hell in a handbasket, Bush has a 19% approval rating (same for republicans in congress of which McCain is a member) and about every other voter is still ready put McCain in charge. Not sure if this speaks more of the stupidity of voters or of the alternatives to McCain.
>>>Bottom line, who will they vote for?? They have no choice<<<
I'm in rare agreement with you here. He's got the conservatives on election day except those with real principles which represents such a small number it's statistically insignificant. Independents are not onboard though and neither candidate can win without them. How many independents do you think broke in favor of McCain after hearing Cunningham's rant?
>>>If McCain is not going to attack Obama, the election is already over. If the choice is simply between two nice, civil gentlemen, who just want us all to get along in the future, most of us are going to vote for the new, articulate, young rock star<<<
Ridiculous. Tell us what you meant to say was that if McCain can't figure out a way of attacking Obama other than suggesting he might be a stealth islamofascist, the election is over. Or he can prove it and the election is over just the same...
>>>How is calling Barrack Hussein Obama by his actual name, any worse?<<<
Well....can't be because he shares his name with a brutal, muslim dictator, so let me think....
>>>The comments by Bill Cunningham the other day, were tame.<<<
How about tame by talk radio standards and stupid by presidential campaign standards. McCain needs independents to win and trotting out hysterical, RW talk hosts on his behalf only panders to those who'd vote for him anyway.
McCain's troubles
Loans Could Paint McCain Into Corner
Feb. 27, 2008
(WASHINGTONPOST.COM) This story was written by Matthew Mosk.
Sen. John McCain's campaign and a Bethesda bank strongly defended $4 million in loans yesterday, as Democrats questioned their legality and said that the way they were secured requires the Arizona Republican to abide by federal spending restrictions.
Trevor Potter, a former Federal Election Commission chairman who is McCain's lawyer, wrote in a letter to the nation's top election official yesterday that the loans were proper and that they should not prevent McCain from withdrawing from the presidential public financing system.
On Monday, the Democratic National Committee filed a complaint with the FEC arguing that the way the loans were structured -- by using the promise of federal matching funds as collateral -- requires McCain to remain in the system. McCain "secured a $4 million line of credit to keep his campaign afloat by using public financing as collateral. He should follow the law," said Howard Dean, the DNC chairman.
The dispute centers on some of the most esoteric aspects of campaign finance law, but the implications for McCain's presidential bid are potentially serious. McCain applied for public financing last year, when his campaign was faltering. In February, when his campaign had turned around, he wrote the FEC seeking to exit the system. But to do so, McCain needed to show he had not yet received any federal funds and had not used the promise of those funds as collateral to borrow money.
Should the FEC or a federal court force him to remain within the system, he would have to abide by a $54 million spending cap until September, when the primary season ends. His campaign had spent $49 million as of Jan. 31, reports show.
Potter gave the FEC a letter from the lawyers for Bethesda-based Fidelity & Trust Bank that said both parties were careful to avoid using the federal matching money as collateral. Barry C. Watkins, the bank's president, said in an interview yesterday that the loan was secured instead with McCain's promise to raise more money in the future.
"McCain has been raising money for a long period of time," Watkins said. "It was that long history that meant there was little risk."
Still, questions about the legality of the deal have turned the fine print of McCain's borrowing into a source of intense scrutiny among leading campaign lawyers. Several suggested McCain has landed in a legal bind: If McCain used the promise of public financing to secure the loan -- as Democrats suggest -- he faces strict spending limits. If public funds were not involved -- as Potter argues -- that poses other problems.
Potter said the campaign offered as collateral its assets, including McCain's massive fundraising lists and his willingness to keep raising from them. But that may not satisfy the FEC, which requires that politicians borrow using only terms that assure repayment.
"If the bank is saying they lent him money on the basis of future receipts, well, in presidential campaigns, their future receipts can be zero or millions," said Marc Elias, an election lawyer who arranged a loan in 2003 for the presidential bid of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "The idea that this would be a dependable source of collateral is preposterous."
Another question, Elias said, is whether McCain received special treatment in obtaining the loan. Watkins said McCain did not. But he noted that Fidelity's bankers had prior relationships with several top McCain advisers, including lobbyist Charles R. Black Jr. and campaign manager Rick Davis. Davis's consulting firm borrowed money from Fidelity bankers in the mid-1990s when they worked at Franklin National Bank, according to Watkins and public records. (Franklin National later merged with BB&T.)
Lawrence M. Noble, a former FEC general counsel, said he believes the commission, which currently lacks a quorum to consider the matter, would want to study the loans when they are at full strength.
"This is a very unusual loan, and at the very least it does look like they were trying to use loopholes to make it work," Noble said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/27/politics/washingtonpost/main3882071.shtml
>>>We are at war against violent radical Islamists IN Iraq and Afghanistan not against those country's. The United States has been liberating those people not atacking them!<<<
One in five Iraqis have been displaced.
According to the UN Refugee Agency and the International Organization for Migration in 2007, almost 5 million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003.
Iraqis who are unable to flee the country are now in a queue, waiting their turn to die," is how one Iraqi journalist summarized conditions in Iraq. Refugees International has met with dozens of Iraqis who have fled the violence and sought refuge in neighboring countries. All of them, whether Sunni, Shi’a, Christian or Palestinian, had been directly victimized by armed actors. People are targeted because of religious affiliation, economic status, and profession – many, such as doctors, teachers, and even hairdressers, are viewed as being “anti-Islamic.” All of them fled Iraq because they had genuine and credible fear for their lives and the lives of their loved ones.
Iraqi refugees are overwhelming the basic infrastructure of Iraq’s neighbors, in particular Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, raising concerns over further destabilization of the region.
http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/9679
Your idea of a "liberated" country?
>>>Their innuendo about a romantic relationship has no proof at all<<<
You keep repeating that even when I haven't argued that point. I agree with you. Understand? One more time:
BTW.......the story is not so much about sex and romance as it is about McCain being no different than the average DC politician no matter how much he brags about being above all the rest.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27006061
>>>HE was acquitted in the kEating affair<<<
Well, sort of.
McCain was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising "poor judgment" in intervening with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.[114] On his Keating Five experience, McCain said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."
McCain survived the political scandal by, in part, becoming friendly with the political press
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
>>>By any standards, this was a partisan hatchet job, and you moonbats are only too willing to blindly believe the trash they printed<<<
Neither you, nor I know if it's trash or not. But we can both speculate based on what we do know. You of course try to whitewash by default since a conservative is involved. Me....I'm asking: Would 4 veteran NYT reporters and the NYT editor - already labeled liberal partisans - risk their careers by running a totally bogus story about a republican presidential candidate just as he's about to secure the party's nomination? You think they would and think it's possible but not probable.
BTW.......the story is not so much about sex and romance as it is about McCain being no different than the average DC politician no matter how much he brags about being above all the rest.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27006061
>>>McCain has said that meeting and warning never happened.
Unless the Times has evidence, this story never should have been printed<<<
In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=26980269
See that? "The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.
What more do you want? Video tape?
Actually I think the story helps McCain. Is there better public relations for a conservative than being trashed by the NYT, especially if they paint the picture of a sleazebag who takes money for favors? Exactly what conservatives have criticized him for being against. And if the NYT really wanted to hurt him politically, why didn't they run the story prior to the NH primary when everyone thought he was finished anyway? They had the story already......just decided to sit on it.
>>>It isnt about McCain. It's about the power and control the parasitical media tries to wield over the dumbed down Amerikan public.<<<
There's more to this story that the alleged romance. It's about McCain the hypocrit - the self anointed champion of campaign finance reform and guardian against Washington corruption who still surrounds himself with lobbyists, still holds lobbyists fundraisers and accepts free rides on corporate jets belonging to clients of lobbyists he has close ties to.
You see this reporting as nothing but liberal propaganda?
Mr. McCain made loosening the grip of special interests the central cause of his 2000 presidential campaign, inviting scrutiny of his own ethics. His Republican rival, George W. Bush, accused him of “double talk” for soliciting campaign contributions from companies with interests that came before the powerful Senate commerce committee, of which Mr. McCain was chairman. Mr. Bush’s allies called Mr. McCain “sanctimonious.”
At one point, his campaign invited scores of lobbyists to a fund-raiser at the Willard Hotel in Washington. While Bush supporters stood mocking outside, the McCain team tried to defend his integrity by handing the lobbyists buttons reading “ McCain voted against my bill.” Mr. McCain himself skipped the event, an act he later called “cowardly.”
By 2002, he had succeeded in passing the McCain-Feingold Act, which transformed American politics by banning “soft money,” the unlimited donations from corporations, unions and the rich that were funneled through the two political parties to get around previous laws.
One of his efforts, though, seemed self-contradictory. In 2001, he helped found the nonprofit Reform Institute to promote his cause and, in the process, his career. It collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in unlimited donations from companies that lobbied the Senate commerce committee. Mr. McCain initially said he saw no problems with the financing, but he severed his ties to the institute in 2005, complaining of “bad publicity” after news reports of the arrangement.
Like other presidential candidates, he has relied on lobbyists to run his campaigns. Since a cash crunch last summer, several of them — including his campaign manager, Rick Davis, who represented companies before Mr. McCain’s Senate panel — have been working without pay, a gift that could be worth tens of thousands of dollars.
In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has hired another lobbyist, Mark Buse, to run his Senate office. In his case, it was a round trip through the revolving door: Mr. Buse had directed Mr. McCain’s committee staff for seven years before leaving in 2001 to lobby for telecommunications companies.
Mr. McCain’s friends dismiss questions about his ties to lobbyists, arguing that he has too much integrity to let such personal connections influence him.
“Unless he gives you special treatment or takes legislative action against his own views, I don’t think his personal and social relationships matter,” said Charles Black, a friend and campaign adviser who has previously lobbied the senator for aviation, broadcasting and tobacco concerns.
Concerns in a Campaign
Mr. McCain’s confidence in his ability to distinguish personal friendships from compromising connections was at the center of questions advisers raised about Ms. Iseman.
The lobbyist, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain’s commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns.
Mr. Black said Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman were friends and nothing more. But in 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, “Why is she always around?”
That February, Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
>>>he's putting words into the mix..<<<
he always does until he runs out of misrepresentations and goes on to a new topic.
But your point is well taken. They were described as disillusioned (disappointed) doing what they thought was the right thing as opposed to disgruntled which would suggest they were in payback mode.
>>>So, 2 self described disgruntled employees say that nothing actually happened??<<<
"In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Why were they disgruntled? Because McCain behaved inappropriately?
>>>The NEW YORK TIMES is carrying a story on their web site (broke 20min ago) about Senator John McCain<<<
February 21, 2008
The Long Run
For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk
By JIM RUTENBERG, MARILYN W. THOMPSON, DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and STEPHEN LABATON
WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.
Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.
It had been just a decade since an official favor for a friend with regulatory problems had nearly ended Mr. McCain’s political career by ensnaring him in the Keating Five scandal. In the years that followed, he reinvented himself as the scourge of special interests, a crusader for stricter ethics and campaign finance rules, a man of honor chastened by a brush with shame.
But the concerns about Mr. McCain’s relationship with Ms. Iseman underscored an enduring paradox of his post-Keating career. Even as he has vowed to hold himself to the highest ethical standards, his confidence in his own integrity has sometimes seemed to blind him to potentially embarrassing conflicts of interest.
Mr. McCain promised, for example, never to fly directly from Washington to Phoenix, his hometown, to avoid the impression of self-interest because he sponsored a law that opened the route nearly a decade ago. But like other lawmakers, he often flew on the corporate jets of business executives seeking his support, including the media moguls Rupert Murdoch, Michael R. Bloomberg and Lowell W. Paxson, Ms. Iseman’s client. (Last year he voted to end the practice.)
Mr. McCain helped found a nonprofit group to promote his personal battle for tighter campaign finance rules. But he later resigned as its chairman after news reports disclosed that the group was tapping the same kinds of unlimited corporate contributions he opposed, including those from companies seeking his favor. He has criticized the cozy ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, but is relying on corporate lobbyists to donate their time running his presidential race and recently hired a lobbyist to run his Senate office.
“He is essentially an honorable person,” said William P. Cheshire, a friend of Mr. McCain who as editorial page editor of The Arizona Republic defended him during the Keating Five scandal. “But he can be imprudent.”
Mr. Cheshire added, “That imprudence or recklessness may be part of why he was not more astute about the risks he was running with this shady operator,” Charles Keating, whose ties to Mr. McCain and four other lawmakers tainted their reputations in the savings and loan debacle.
During his current campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr. McCain has played down his attacks on the corrupting power of money in politics, aware that the stricter regulations he championed are unpopular in his party. When the Senate overhauled lobbying and ethics rules last year, Mr. McCain stayed in the background.
With his nomination this year all but certain, though, he is reminding voters again of his record of reform. His campaign has already begun comparing his credentials with those of Senator Barack Obama, a Democratic contender who has made lobbying and ethics rules a centerpiece of his own pitch to voters.
“I would very much like to think that I have never been a man whose favor can be bought,” Mr. McCain wrote about his Keating experience in his 2002 memoir, “Worth the Fighting For.” “From my earliest youth, I would have considered such a reputation to be the most shameful ignominy imaginable. Yet that is exactly how millions of Americans viewed me for a time, a time that I will forever consider one of the worst experiences of my life.”
A drive to expunge the stain on his reputation in time turned into a zeal to cleanse Washington as well. The episode taught him that “questions of honor are raised as much by appearances as by reality in politics,” he wrote, “and because they incite public distrust they need to be addressed no less directly than we would address evidence of expressly illegal corruption.”
A Formative Scandal
Mr. McCain started his career like many other aspiring politicians, eagerly courting the wealthy and powerful. A Vietnam war hero and Senate liaison for the Navy, he arrived in Arizona in 1980 after his second marriage, to Cindy Hensley, the heiress to a beer fortune there. He quickly started looking for a Congressional district where he could run.
Mr. Keating, a Phoenix financier and real estate developer, became an early sponsor and, soon, a friend. He was a man of great confidence and daring, Mr. McCain recalled in his memoir. “People like that appeal to me,” he continued. “I have sometimes forgotten that wisdom and a strong sense of public responsibility are much more admirable qualities.”
During Mr. McCain’s four years in the House, Mr. Keating, his family and his business associates contributed heavily to his political campaigns. The banker gave Mr. McCain free rides on his private jet, a violation of Congressional ethics rules (he later said it was an oversight and paid for the trips). They vacationed together in the Bahamas. And in 1986, the year Mr. McCain was elected to the Senate, his wife joined Mr. Keating in investing in an Arizona shopping mall.
Mr. Keating had taken over the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association and used its federally insured deposits to gamble on risky real estate and other investments. He pressed Mr. McCain and other lawmakers to help hold back federal banking regulators.
For years, Mr. McCain complied. At Mr. Keating’s request, he wrote several letters to regulators, introduced legislation and helped secure the nomination of a Keating associate to a banking regulatory board.
By early 1987, though, the thrift was careering toward disaster. Mr. McCain agreed to join several senators, eventually known as the Keating Five, for two private meetings with regulators to urge them to ease up. “Why didn’t I fully grasp the unusual appearance of such a meeting?” Mr. McCain later lamented in his memoir.
When Lincoln went bankrupt in 1989 — one of the biggest collapses of the savings and loan crisis, costing taxpayers $3.4 billion — the Keating Five became infamous. The scandal sent Mr. Keating to prison and ended the careers of three senators, who were censured in 1991 for intervening. Mr. McCain, who had been a less aggressive advocate for Mr. Keating than the others, was reprimanded only for “poor judgment” and was re-elected the next year.
Some people involved think Mr. McCain got off too lightly. William Black, one of the banking regulators the senator met with, argued that Mrs. McCain’s investment with Mr. Keating created an obvious conflict of interest for her husband. (Mr. McCain had said a prenuptial agreement divided the couple’s assets.) He should not be able to “put this behind him,” Mr. Black said. “It sullied his integrity.”
Mr. McCain has since described the episode as a unique humiliation. “If I do not repress the memory, its recollection still provokes a vague but real feeling that I had lost something very important,” he wrote in his memoir. “I still wince thinking about it.”
A New Chosen Cause
After the Republican takeover of the Senate in 1994, Mr. McCain decided to try to put some of the lessons he had learned into law. He started by attacking earmarks, the pet projects that individual lawmakers could insert anonymously into the fine print of giant spending bills, a recipe for corruption. But he quickly moved on to other targets, most notably political fund-raising.
Mr. McCain earned the lasting animosity of many conservatives, who argue that his push for fund-raising restrictions trampled free speech, and of many of his Senate colleagues, who bristled that he was preaching to them so soon after his own repentance. In debates, his party’s leaders challenged him to name a single senator he considered corrupt (he refused).
“We used to joke that each of us was the only one eating alone in our caucus,” said Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, who became Mr. McCain’s partner on campaign finance efforts.
Mr. McCain appeared motivated less by the usual ideas about good governance than by a more visceral disapproval of the gifts, meals and money that influence seekers shower on lawmakers, Mr. Feingold said. “It had to do with his sense of honor,” he said. “He saw this stuff as cheating.”
Mr. McCain made loosening the grip of special interests the central cause of his 2000 presidential campaign, inviting scrutiny of his own ethics. His Republican rival, George W. Bush, accused him of “double talk” for soliciting campaign contributions from companies with interests that came before the powerful Senate commerce committee, of which Mr. McCain was chairman. Mr. Bush’s allies called Mr. McCain “sanctimonious.”
At one point, his campaign invited scores of lobbyists to a fund-raiser at the Willard Hotel in Washington. While Bush supporters stood mocking outside, the McCain team tried to defend his integrity by handing the lobbyists buttons reading “ McCain voted against my bill.” Mr. McCain himself skipped the event, an act he later called “cowardly.”
By 2002, he had succeeded in passing the McCain-Feingold Act, which transformed American politics by banning “soft money,” the unlimited donations from corporations, unions and the rich that were funneled through the two political parties to get around previous laws.
One of his efforts, though, seemed self-contradictory. In 2001, he helped found the nonprofit Reform Institute to promote his cause and, in the process, his career. It collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in unlimited donations from companies that lobbied the Senate commerce committee. Mr. McCain initially said he saw no problems with the financing, but he severed his ties to the institute in 2005, complaining of “bad publicity” after news reports of the arrangement.
Like other presidential candidates, he has relied on lobbyists to run his campaigns. Since a cash crunch last summer, several of them — including his campaign manager, Rick Davis, who represented companies before Mr. McCain’s Senate panel — have been working without pay, a gift that could be worth tens of thousands of dollars.
In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has hired another lobbyist, Mark Buse, to run his Senate office. In his case, it was a round trip through the revolving door: Mr. Buse had directed Mr. McCain’s committee staff for seven years before leaving in 2001 to lobby for telecommunications companies.
Mr. McCain’s friends dismiss questions about his ties to lobbyists, arguing that he has too much integrity to let such personal connections influence him.
“Unless he gives you special treatment or takes legislative action against his own views, I don’t think his personal and social relationships matter,” said Charles Black, a friend and campaign adviser who has previously lobbied the senator for aviation, broadcasting and tobacco concerns.
Concerns in a Campaign
Mr. McCain’s confidence in his ability to distinguish personal friendships from compromising connections was at the center of questions advisers raised about Ms. Iseman.
The lobbyist, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain’s commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns.
Mr. Black said Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman were friends and nothing more. But in 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, “Why is she always around?”
That February, Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications. By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator’s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.
A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman’s access to his offices.
In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.
Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator. John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, said in an e-mail message that he arranged the meeting after “a discussion among the campaign leadership” about her.
“Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on the special interests and placing the nation’s interests before either personal or special interest,” Mr. Weaver continued. “Ms. Iseman’s involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort.”
Mr. Weaver added that the brief conversation was only about “her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us.” He declined to elaborate.
It is not clear what effect the warnings had; the associates said their concerns receded in the heat of the campaign.
Ms. Iseman acknowledged meeting with Mr. Weaver, but disputed his account.
“I never discussed with him alleged things I had ‘told people,’ that had made their way ‘back to’ him,” she wrote in an e-mail message. She said she never received special treatment from Mr. McCain’s office.
Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favoritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. “I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that,” he said. He made the statements in a call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, to complain about the paper’s inquiries.
The senator declined repeated interview requests, beginning in December. He also would not comment about the assertions that he had been confronted about Ms. Iseman, Mr. Black said Wednesday.
Mr. Davis and Mark Salter, Mr. McCain’s top strategists in both of his presidential campaigns, disputed accounts from the former associates and aides and said they did not discuss Ms. Iseman with the senator or colleagues.
“I never had any good reason to think that the relationship was anything other than professional, a friendly professional relationship,” Mr. Salter said in an interview.
He and Mr. Davis also said Mr. McCain had frequently denied requests from Ms. Iseman and the companies she represented. In 2006, Mr. McCain sought to break up cable subscription packages, which some of her clients opposed. And his proposals for satellite distribution of local television programs fell short of her clients’ hopes.
The McCain aides said the senator sided with Ms. Iseman’s clients only when their positions hewed to his principles
A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman’s clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.
In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.
Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron.
Mr. McCain’s aides released all of his letters to the F.C.C. to dispel accusations of favoritism, and aides said the campaign had properly accounted for four trips on the Paxson plane. But the campaign did not report the flight with Ms. Iseman. Mr. McCain’s advisers say he was not required to disclose the flight, but ethics lawyers dispute that.
Recalling the Paxson episode in his memoir, Mr. McCain said he was merely trying to push along a slow-moving bureaucracy, but added that he was not surprised by the criticism given his history.
“Any hint that I might have acted to reward a supporter,” he wrote, “would be taken as an egregious act of hypocrisy.”
Barclay Walsh and Kitty Bennett contributed research.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
>>>oh, oh, brain, -- Mac just stated "there has not been a day in my life that I was not proud to be an American"
osama has a problem, you think ??<<<
A problem that lasted about 12 hours or as long as the media thought it was a good headline. In case you haven't noticed, you and mac are the only ones still yakking about it so maybe there's a different "problem"....like an old goat who likes to scare people and talk about another 100 years of war in Iraq while 70% of voters want out....now.
So for you and "mac"......there's no good news. 2/3 of the country are sick of being told they'll be slaughtered by terrorists unless they vote republican so McCain for president feels pretty much like a third GW Bush term. Good luck...
>>>Just another misremembered recollection No Doubt<<<
No doubt....and no doubt a profitable misremembered recollection...
Where the Money Comes From
Although the word "Republican" does not appear in the ad, the group's financing is highly partisan. The source of the Swift Boat group's money wasn't known when it first surfaced, but a report filed July 15 with the Internal Revenue Services now shows its initial funding came mainly from a Houston home builder, Bob R. Perry, who has also given millions to the Republican party and Republican candidates, mostly in Texas, including President Bush and Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose district is near Houston
Perry gave $100,000 of the $158,750 received by the Swift Boat group through the end of June, according to its disclosure report.
Perry and his wife Doylene also gave more than $3 million to Texas Republicans during the 2002 elections, according to a database maintained by the Institute on Money in State Politics. The Perrys also were among the largest Republican donors in neighboring Louisiana, where they gave $200,000, and New Mexico, where they gave $183,000, according to the database
At the federal level the Perrys have given $359,825 since 1999, including $6,000 to Bush's campaigns and $27,325 to DeLay and his political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, according to a database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.
http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html
>>>You're using one person opinion to justify our position<<<
You got it exactly backwards......as usual. I'm using substantive data to arrive at a reasonable conclusion while YOU are using one source - the swift boat book - to justify your position. Have you asked any questions about this......like the bronze star story for example? James Rassman, the guy Kerry plucked out of the water and who recommended him for the star stands by the account:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Rassmann
Then...the Navy's own records:
"Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.
In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.
But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html
If the events were fabricated, why did Thurlow accept his star in the first place?
>>>I didn't think you'd be able to find an instance where the information the swift boat vets provided was false<<<
A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.
But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.
One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal, Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."
And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.
The Silver Star
Several of those who appear in the ad have signed brief affidavits, and we have posted some of them in the "supporting documents" section to the right for our visitors to evaluate for themselves.
One of those affidavits, signed by George Elliott, quickly became controversial. Elliott is the retired Navy captain who had recommended Kerry for his highest decoration for valor, the Silver Star, which was awarded for events of Feb. 28, 1969, when Kerry beached his boat in the face of an enemy ambush and then pursued and killed an enemy soldier on the shore.
Elliott, who had been Kerry's commanding officer, was quoted by the Boston Globe Aug 6 as saying he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry, in which Elliott suggested Kerry hadn't told him the truth about how he killed the enemy soldier. Later Elliott signed a second affidavit saying he still stands by the words in the TV ad. But Elliott also made what he called an "immaterial clarification" - saying he has no first-hand information that Kerry was less than forthright about what he did to win the Silver Star.
What Elliott said in the ad is that Kerry "has not been honest about what happened in Viet Nam." In his original affidavit Elliott said Kerry had not been "forthright" in Vietnam. The only example he offered of Kerry not being "honest" or "forthright" was this: "For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.
In the Globe story, Elliott is quoted as saying it was a "terrible mistake" to sign that statement:
George Elliott (Globe account): It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. . . . I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.
The Bronze Star
The most serious allegation in the ad is that Kerry received both the Bronze Star, his second-highest decoration, and his third purple heart, which allowed him to be sent home early, under false pretenses. But that account is flatly contradicted by Jim Rassmann, the former Army Lieutenant whom Kerry rescued that day.
Van O'Dell, a former Navy enlisted man who says he was the gunner on another Swift Boat, states in his affidavit that he was "a few yards away" from Kerry's boat on March 13, 1969 when Kerry pulled Rassman from the water. According to the official medal citations, Kerry's boat was under enemy fire at the time, and Kerry had been wounded when an enemy mine exploded near his own boat. O'Dell insists "there was no fire" at the time, adding: "I did not hear any shots, nor did any hostile fire hit any boats" other than his own, PCF-3.
Others in the ad back up that account. Jack Chenoweth, who was a Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding PCF-3, said Kerry's boat "fled the scene" after a mine blast disabled PCF-3, and returned only later "when it was apparent that there was no return fire." And Larry Thurlow, who says he commanded a third Swift Boat that day, says "Kerry fled while we stayed to fight," and returned only later "after no return fire occurred."
A serious discrepancy in the account of Kerry's accusers came to light Aug. 19, when the Washington Post reported that Navy records describe Thurlow himself as dodging enemy bullets during the same incident, for which Thurlow also was awarded the Bronze Star.
http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html
A bit lengthy I admit and it's just the beginning. So how about a different angle to this? Show us something these scumbags said that was true.
Sorry if I misunderstood. There's ambiguity in your message at times you know. So you agree that the original FISA law gives Bush all the tools he needs for terrorism surveillance and that all the noise he makes is for political reasons rather than national security concerns?
>>>yup he can. if he can identify everyone. thousands of them. so i guess the fisa court just got a lot bigger<<<
Complete and utter bs. Choose to remain ignorant or read on.
"The FISA court may be the biggest bunch of lapdogs in the federal government. The court approved almost every one of the 15,000 search warrant requests the feds submitted between 1978 and 2002, and it continues to approve more than 99 percent of requests.
FISA provides a judicial process only in the sense that the room where the political appointees convene is called a “court.” As national security expert James Bamford observed, “Like a modern Star Chamber, the FISA court meets behind a cipher-locked door in a windowless, bug-proof, vault-like room guarded 24 hours a day on the top floor of the Justice Department building. The eleven judges (increased from seven by the Patriot Act) hear only the government’s side.”
Federal agencies can submit retroactive search warrant requests up to 72 hours after they begin surveilling someone. In 2002, for instance, Attorney General John Ashcroft personally issued more than 170 emergency domestic spying warrants — permitting agents to carry out wiretaps and search homes and offices for as many as 72 hours before the feds requested a search warrant from the FISA court. He used such powers almost a 100 times as often as attorneys general did before 9/11."
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0601c.asp
See anything in the current law that prevents immediate, easy emergency or routine surveillance at the president's discretion?
Looks like the swift boat production team is back to work. Not bad.
>>>"I believe waterboarding is illegal and should be banned."<<<
If he really believes that, why didn't he cast his vote accordingly? He has in the past:
"McCain had earlier sponsored the 2006 Detainee Treatment Act which included a ban on waterboarding, which President Bush invalidated by a signing statement giving himself the authority to ignore it."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/national/main3830691.shtml
>>>So, again, your and her characterization and stereotype doesn't hold true.<<<
Please. You bring up two half hearted efforts at breaking with Washington traditions but ignore the backpaddling and flips on a basket of others.
Jerry Falwell was an "agent of intolerance" until McCain for president started again and he had to dress up in full Liberty University clown suit and apologize to appease the base. Same theatrics with GW Bush....hugs and all and just the other day he betrayed himself when he caved in on torture. Seriously.....this guy is nuts. Anyone following politics even casually knows he wants to be president more than anyone else but it's also evident he's willing to make himself look like a lying moron getting there.
All that said......I used to like McCain and if you weren't so damn cheap you could search my posts and confirm it. The old goat's time has come and gone. Even some of his party colleges will attest to it.
"WASHINGTON - Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who has known Senator John McCain for more than three decades, on Wednesday endorsed Mitt Romney for president.
"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran said about McCain by phone. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/?page=1
>>>Peg's repeated use of the word old as a negative is no better than racism or sexism<<<
I disagree. She's only using it in the context of discussing Washington politicians who keep proving that the longer they stay and the older they get, the more corrupt they get and the more likely they are to end up disgraced. Either in jail, on their way to jail or busy making hallway deals with lobbyists in direct conflict with the best interest of their constituents. It's a sickness that seems to be directly proportional to the number of years served so "old" in terms of discrimination is something these scumbags have brought upon themselves. Where do come from defending this anyway...? You think they're on your side because you vote for them?
>>>Again, "old" thinking isn't restricted to "old" people<<<
Maybe not but people's opinions are often restricted to their perceptions. 80-year old men with 40 years in Washington politics represent new thinking to most people?
>>>So ,in your world it's OK to discount someone just because they are old"<<<
Guess you haven't noticed but there's extreme discontent with everything old in Washington. Old people, old policies, old corruption and old lies. D or R......no difference. So you gotta give McCain's strategists credit for amazing stupidity as they organized his speech yesterday. "Let's put some really old farts behind him. Some of the oldest, most notorious Washington geezers we can find.....to make our guy look good".
At least they're honest about what people should expect if he gets elected. Looks like a bridge to the 19th century.
>>>Sen Obama wins VA, per MSNBC - Nice going!!!
Apparently Obama received a HEAVY male vote...AND many moderate Repub votes.<<<
In landslide fashion no less. Meanwhile, Jim Webb disappoints again. Had high hopes for him but he's been slipping. This one is inexcusable imo:
"An attempt to strip lawsuit immunity for telecom firms which helped the government tap phone calls fell well short in the Senate, leaving liberal Democrats on the losing side of what they believe is a fundamental civil liberties debate.
Moderate Democrats like Jim Webb of Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska voted with Republicans on the amendment."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/12/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3821504.shtml
>>>i just have this feeling something unexpected is going to happen... dont know what.. just a feeling and its going to change the whole dynamics of the election...<<<
Agree, but not so much on how unexpected it will be. A lot of young voters who never bothered to get involved are all over this....in huge numbers. Mainly because they can't stand another day of what's been going on in Washington over the past decade. Bad news for Hillary and McCain.
>>>Soldiers on the battle field have also experienced and participated in torture. It is what needs to be done and it happens to be fun also.<<<
Things like you is what the ignore function was conceived for. Surprised you get as much feedback as you do on your baiting. What a waste of time....
>>>Bush said he hopes his successor will build upon what he considers to be his accomplishments in Iraq and on taxes and the judiciary. GAGGGGGG, BARF,<<<
While Cheney hopes his successor will build upon his accomplishments in torture chambers....
"Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking to a conference of conservative Republicans, said it was "a good thing" that President Bush authorized the use of waterboarding during the interrogation of detainees suspected of being al Qaeda members.
"I've been proud to stand by him, the decisions he made. And would I support those same decisions today? You're damn right I would," he said to enthusiastic applause at the Conservative Political Action Conference."
The United States has a historical record of regarding waterboarding as a crime, and has prosecuted individuals for the use of the practice in the past. In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Yukio Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor.[31] The charges of Violation of the Laws and Customs of War against Asano also included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."[74]
In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record,[75] and critics of waterboarding draw parallels between the two techniques, citing the similar usage of water on the subject. On September 6, 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The department adopted the manual amid widespread criticism of U.S. handling of prisoners in the War on Terrorism, and prohibits other practices in addition to waterboarding. The revised manual applies only to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA.[76] However, under international law, violators of the laws of war are criminally liable under the command responsibility, and could still be prosecuted for war crimes.[77]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
>>>Not everyone who believes in KILLING ALL TERRORISTS INCLUDING ILLEGAL ALIENS is a poor redneck.<<<
Maybe not and I didn't say they were. My reference was to your own confession of anticipating border mass murder on live TV with a bucket of popcorn. If you don't want to be viewed as a poor redneck, then don't act and sound like one.