Woops: McCain Funded Rashid Khalidi

GamerGal, you do realize what politics is?

One party will tend to use everything at their disposal to discredit the opposition. The fact that the Obama campaign makes no attempt at returning these frequent and asinine remarks, refusing to play the game so to speak, says a lot about its dignity. If the purpose of this topic is to burden us with this undeniable truth, then you have succeeded. Now we can move on.

Once, a long time ago in a land far far away, I voted for Bill Clinton and even sent a donation of $10 to his campaign.......( I am so ashamed!)
I was young and dumb then, misinformed, ill informed, and I was even in the military. Now that I've grown up and started paying attention, I regret that vote and that donation, because using the logic of the OP, I've supported Obama with that action so long ago!

Despite what some people believe, a bird farting on one side of the world does not develop to a hurricane on the other side of the world.

one question

whats the real diffrence between bush and mc cain?

Originally posted by GamerGal

Originally posted by nyk537
You're missing the point by a long shot. McCain is "palling around" with any of these people,

SO you admit, he is palling around with them. And once again you say it is not a big deal because when Rashid is in the same room as McCain he's a Great American Hero. But when Obama walks into the same room as him he morphs into a terrorist.

Read her posts everyone and THIS is what you have to think like to be an Obamanoid. Gamergirl you are voting for Obama and you don't know a thing about the guy but what worries me more is that even if you DID know all the issues surrounding Obama that would give any Constitution loving red white and blue American, reason to find him unqualified, inexperienced, un-tested and undeserving of the Job, you'd vote for him anyway.

Originally posted by Viral
[
Here is a serious question GamerGal: If it is conceded, despite the facts, that McCain deliberately funded a known terrorist, what then does that say about Obama, who associated with Rashid after he became more transparent in his beliefs? If McCain is found guilty, so is Obama. Or is there a double standard at play here?


[edit on 30-10-2008 by Viral]

And that is my point! If the guy is a terrorist then McCain funded a terrorist AND Obama palled around with a terrorist. But you can't claim McCain didn't fund a terrorist because he didn't become a terrorist until he met Obama. Much like Ayers. When he's working with Republicans and close friends of RR he was more of a Hero then Superman and Captain America put together. Then when he met Obama he morphed in to a terrorist. It's BS. I say McCain DID NOT fund a terrorist AND Obama is not palling around with terrorists. But the GOP on here are debating that the man is a terrorist and McCain did fund a terrorist.

Originally posted by dbates
The point is that if you hide something you're usually admitting guilt else why would you hide your actions. We know what McCain did. Now let's see the video that the L.A. times has with Obama in it. Until that surfaces we can only assume the worst (as is human nature).

Trust me. If there was nothing of note in the video it would have already been released.

So your solution would be to throw out the freedom of the press, and their right to protect confidential sources?

As I understand it, the LA Times had a confidential source who informed them of the dinner and its happenings. In the vetting of this source's claims the source provided them with video evidence under the condition that the video itself would not be made public. The LA Times reported the vetted story several months ago, and kept their word to protect their source's identity by not releasing the video itself.

Using Occam's razor, it could easily be said that the camera perspective would have revealed the identity of the confidential source (something of note) to the attendees of the dinner. Thus, what they're "hiding" is the identity of their confidential source since they did report, in April, on Obama and Khalidi attending said dinner, and of Obamas kind words. The McCain camp made no issue of it when the story broke months ago, yet they are drawing it out now out of what appears to be desperation.

As for "guilt", yes, the confidential source was, and is, guilty of violating the confidence of his/her associates; however, he/she still felt that the public had a right to know such information while at the same time protecting his/her identity.

According to FOX News:

Source
The Los Angeles Times is refusing to release a videotape that it says shows Barack Obama praising a Chicago professor who was an alleged mouthpiece for the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was a designated terrorist group in the 1970s and '80s.

According an LA Times article written by Peter Wallsten in April, Obama was a "friend and frequent dinner companion" of Rashid Khalidi, who from 1976 to 1982 was reportedly a director of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA, which was operating in exile from Beirut with the PLO.

If Khalidi is supposedly a "terrorist" because of his actions from 1976 to 1982, then McCain should be held accountable for who he, as IRI chairman, was funding in the '90s. This is especially true if we are expected to believe that Obama is somehow culpable for Ayers's actions which occurred when Obama was merely eight years old. As it stands Khalidi's "terrorist ties" are not a case of "later actions" (post IRI funding) like some here would like to believe.

Again from the same article:

The newspaper [LA Times] reported Tuesday evening in a story on its Web site that the tape was from a confidential source.

"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," the Times' editor, Russ Stanton, said. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."

How do we expect to get any further information, on anything of a sensative nature, if the press loses their right to protect their sources? Are you honestly supporting that the U.S. abandon our freedom of press?

[edit on 10/31/08 by redmage]

reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius


If this guy that obama had dinner with was such a bad guy, why was he let in the contry, why was he not in jail? Was a warrant for his arrest ever serverd? Was he even wanted by the police or secrete service? Did the police get involved, how about the media, they squawk like chickens all the time. Never heard of it, because back then it was not an issue you republican sissys. Stop whining.

The Washington Post...

McCain's Idiot Wind
www.washingtonpost.com...

It's fair to question why Mr. Obama felt as comfortable as he apparently did during his Chicago days in the company of men whose views diverge sharply from what the presidential candidate espouses. Our sense is that Mr. Obama is a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a smart, if militant, advocate for the Palestinians without compromising his own position. To suggest, as Mr. McCain has, that there is something reprehensible about associating with Mr. Khalidi is itself condemnable -- especially during a campaign in which Arab ancestry has been the subject of insults. To further argue that the Times, which obtained the tape from a source in exchange for a promise not to publicly release it, is trying to hide something is simply ludicrous, as Mr. McCain surely knows.

Which reminds us: We did ask Mr. Khalidi whether he wanted to respond to the campaign charges against him. He answered, via e-mail, that "I will stick to my policy of letting this idiot wind blow over." That's good advice for anyone still listening to the McCain campaign's increasingly reckless ad hominem attacks. Sadly, that wind is likely to keep blowing for four more days.

reply to post by CreeWolf


Neo-Con farts however leave the world shrouded within a deathcloud.

reply to post by GamerGal


I am surprised that so many people pay attention to the Khalidi issue when all I can think of concerning McCains questionable ties would be Pinochet. McCain had warm fuzzy feelings for one of the most brutal dictators in history during a little visit to Chile in 1985. But then we are in the season of the terrorist. www.huffingtonpost.com...

A little information on Pinochet members.tripod.com...

This CRACKED ME UP...McCain's National Spokesman Caught in his own BS concerning Khalidi..

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 31-10-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 31-10-2008 by maybereal11]

reply to post by maybereal11




That video is a snapshot of this whole campaign. One accusation after another of "ties" to people Obama "pals around with".....without thinking people are smart enough to actually LOOK into what they are saying.

I think Obama wins the election BECAUSE of the fact that he took the high road and didn't play into this type of politics. The only time he did was the Keating response to the Ayres attacks...and I thought even that was unnecessary.

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by GamerGal

 

I am surprised that so many people pay attention to the Khalidi issue when all I can think of concerning McCains questionable ties would be Pinochet. McCain had warm fuzzy feelings for one of the most brutal dictators in history during a little visit to Chile in 1985. But then we are in the season of the terrorist. www.huffingtonpost.com...

A little information on Pinochet members.tripod.com...

Look,, Khalidi didn't get a dime of McCains money the think tank got a grant and Khalidi happens to be a member on the board. The project was to gather information to find out peacefull posibilities between the PLO and ISRAEL. To McCain at the time if that was sincerly what this think tank was about he thought it best to help in the accord of the two sides showing good faith and to trust them. Gamergirl's assertion that is giving money to a terrorist might have some weight to it had this thiink tank been used in a terrorist capacity but it hasn't been.

Their is OBVIOUSLY something dangerous to the Obama Campaign on that tape else they wouldn't have a problem with it. To say the LA tImes has a right to keep its sources confidential behind the guise of demonstrating their integrity is just plane ludicrous however. The times is in Bed with Obama just like 90% of the rest of the media. I don't need any more information to know where Obama's head is at, their are so many issues he is already guilty of and so many lies he has already said in addition to his whacked out views on Guns, Born Alive Babies of Abortion, Voter Fraud, Registration Fraud, going back on his word on a myriad of issues. etc.

Now you are going to say McCain has "ties" to pinochet? BuWHA HA HA HA HA HA H A! Get REAL man

At the time of the meeting, in the late afternoon of December 30, the U.S. Justice Department was seeking the extradition of two close Pinochet associates for an act of terrorism in Washington DC, the 1976 assassination of former ambassador to the U.S. and former Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier. The car bombing on Sheridan Circle in the U.S. capital was widely described at the time as the most egregious act of international terrorism perpetrated on U.S. soil by a foreign power.

At the time of McCain's meeting with Pinochet, Chile's democratic opposition was desperately seeking support from democratic leaders around the world in an attempt to pressure Pinochet to allow a return to democracy and force a peaceful end to the dictatorship, already in its 12th year. Other U.S. congressional leaders who visited Chile made public statements against the dictatorship and in support of a return to democracy, at times becoming the target of violent pro-Pinochet demonstrations.

Sounds to me like he was in the execution of his duties as a Senator not like he was campaigning for the guy Like Obama did for Odinga in Kenya.

It's not like he has taken money from pinochet like Obama does by accepting money from KNOWN Chicago Mobsters and Radical anti white Rev and Terrorists like Ayers where everytime he gets caught he gives back the money and we find he only gave back a portion but still aceepted more. Obama was so instrumental in the economy going bust not listening to McCain back in 2005 cost all of us now but you want to believe that guy is going to fix it? HE'S THE ONE THAT MESSED IT UP !

Obama has a real problem with areas of self disclosure the LA Times tape not withstanding their are more pressing items we have yet to have been able to see but this one I doubt it will matter one way or the other. Most of us know what Obama's is about.

he is about Obama.

reply to post by MAINTAL

Look,, Khalidi didn't get a dime of McCains money the think tank got a grant and Khalidi happens to be a member on the board.

Replace Khalidi.....

.....with Ayres...

And McCain with Obama.....

Imagine the possibilities!!! I thought that Ayres just sat on a board with Obama?

OH THE HYPOCRISY!!!

Originally posted by Grafilthy
reply to post by maybereal11

 

That video is a snapshot of this whole campaign. One accusation after another of "ties" to people Obama "pals around with".....without thinking people are smart enough to actually LOOK into what they are saying.

I think Obama wins the election BECAUSE of the fact that he took the high road and didn't play into this type of politics. The only time he did was the Keating response to the Ayres attacks...and I thought even that was unnecessary.

This Obama Ad was ran on TV today, it was the 1st time I had seen it, and YES Obama has taken the LOW road, you all just have not noticed.

"McCain's playing with audio tapes selectively editing Joe Bidens words" and that what Biden really said was, "They're gonna find out this guys got steel in his spine"

"They're gonna find out this guys got steel in his spine"

That is not what Joe Biden said. That is a LIE.
Here is the Obama Ad(Notice date on ad, October 19, 2008)
www.youtube.com...

Here is Biden at the Democratic fundraiser Seattle, Wa, October 19, 2008 He never said the above quote, "They're gonna find out this guys got steel in his spine" Biden said exactly what McCains ad stated.
www.youtube.com...

Full Transcript of Biden’s Remarks at the fundraiser
butasforme.com...
The only people editing tapes is Obama's people.
DO YOUR HOMEWORK PEOPLE!

reply to post by MissysWorld



You know how long it took the Russians to mess with Kennedy??? 87 days.

You know why...!?!?!?

To test him.

You know how long it took the attacks on NY to happen after the election??? 7 months. (It was supposed to be 2.) That was Bush. Were we "inviting an attack" then???

No.

Really I don't see the point of this. (and your video was posted by a NASCAR fan.... "NASCARTango"

Originally posted by Grafilthy
reply to post by MissysWorld

 

You know how long it took the Russians to mess with Kennedy??? 87 days.

You know why...!?!?!?

To test him.

You know how long it took the attacks on NY to happen after the election??? 7 months. (It was supposed to be 2.) That was Bush. Were we "inviting an attack" then???

No.

Really I don't see the point of this. (and your video was posted by a NASCAR fan....

"NASCARTango"

What??? Do you NOT read??? MY post was in response to your post which stated:

I think Obama wins the election BECAUSE of the fact that he took the high road and didn't play into this type of politics. The only time he did was the Keating response to the Ayres attacks...and I thought even that was unnecessary.

My POINT was that Obama has taken the LOW road. Who cares who posted the damn video???????????
When you can come back and address whats being posted, then I'll listen.

reply to post by MissysWorld

My POINT was that Obama has taken the LOW road. Who cares who posted the damn video???????????
When you can come back and address whats being posted, then I'll listen.

And my point was that no one care about the finger pointing that has been repeatedly flying out of the McCain campaign. Story after story.....Obama knew this guy......they had dinner together....sleepovers.....

Really....get a grip. All these notorious "connections".....don't you think if there was substance to them we would hear about them BEFORE the election??

What you are looking for is a

DISTRACTION

from a campaign that lacks the type of morality that American are looking for to restore our honor and good standing in the world. We want something different. A change. Not another:

"You are either with us, or against us" mentality.

Like I said......all the negative stuff Obama has put out have been responses to attacks or attack ads, and I find it unnecessary. He can win by ignoring McCain....who by the way, judging from the attacks is increasingly desperate.

reply to post by MissysWorld


Missy...Here is the best summary I can find of what you are referring to..
www.politifact.com...

Yes both McCain and Obama took qoutes out of context
And yes...Joe Biden gets carried away while speaking at times and says things without thinking about campaign strategy or how his remarks might be used.

But taking qoutes out of proper context is A FAR CRY FROM what the McCain Campaign has been doing ..Muslim, Terrorist, PLO, Marxist

EVEN THE REPUBLICANS have been calling McCains campaign LOW and RECKLESS....Do you want me to post a summary of links from REPUBLICANS DENOUNCING MCCAINS TACTICS?

I think it is a waste of my time...but if that is the way the discussion is going to go I'd be happy to.

Originally posted by MissysWorld

Originally posted by Grafilthy
reply to [My POINT was that Obama has taken the LOW road. Who cares who posted the damn video???????????
When you can come back and address whats being posted, then I'll listen.

He took the low road by pointing out that McCain LIED! Ha. He proved that what McCain edited was edited. That's not attacking or taking the low road. It's pointing out he lied, again. This reminds me a lot of the time I was arguing about General Grant. The southerners kept saying that Grant was nothing but a drunk. I got frsutrated and finally said "So you're saying General Lee and the south got their asses kicked by a drunk? Doesn't say a lot for Lee or the south." That shut them up. And this time its "So you're saying McCain funded a terrorist? Doesn't say much for his character that he funds terrorism."