AP repeated McCain campaign's false claim that Obama "failed to tell the truth" about Ayers, ignored own reporting on Palin's "palling" claim
SUMMARY: The AP uncritically repeated the McCain campaign's false assertion that Sen. Barack Obama "failed to tell the truth" about his association with William Ayers and uncritically reported Gov. Sarah Palin's claim that Obama "pall[ed] around with terrorists."
Despite numerous independent fact checks to the contrary, in an October 14 article, The Associated Press uncritically repeated the McCain campaign's false claim that Sen. Barack Obama "failed to tell the truth about his relationship with 1960s radical William Ayers." The suggestion that Obama wasn't truthful about his association with Ayers is false, and the attack echoes a McCain campaign ad that asserts: "When convenient, he worked with terrorist Bill Ayers. When discovered, he lied." However, independent fact checks of the McCain campaign's claim that Obama "lied" about his relationship with Ayers have found the claim to be false. In an October 10 "Fact Checker" article, The Washington Post asserted of the ad: "The McCain campaign is distorting the Obama-Ayers relationship, and exaggerating their closeness. There is no evidence that Obama has 'lied' about his dealings with Ayers." Additionally, a FactCheck.org article found "McCain's accusation that Obama 'lied' to be groundless."
Moreover, ignoring its own reporting, the AP uncritically reported that Gov. Sarah Palin "has accused Obama of 'palling around with terrorists,' meaning Ayers." However, on October 5, the AP reported that "there is no evidence that they [Obama and Ayers] ever palled around. And it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts." As the AP noted on October 5, in accusing Obama of "pall[ing] around with terrorists," Palin cited a New York Times article that in the AP's words "detailed Obama's relationship with Ayers." But the Times article that Palin cited does not support her accusation; rather, as the AP noted in the October 5 article, the Times reported that "the two men do not appear to have been close."
From the AP article:
McCain and running mate Sarah Palin have said Obama failed to tell the truth about his relationship with 1960s radical William Ayers, and Palin has accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists," meaning Ayers.
Ayers was a founder of the Weather Underground, a radical, Vietnam War-era group that claimed responsibility for a series of bombings, including nonfatal explosions at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol.
Ayers also hosted a reception for Obama in 1995, when Obama was beginning his political career. The two also have worked with the same nonprofit organizations in Chicago. McCain's campaign has tried to exploit those ties, even while saying it disagreed with Frederick.
All we hear from McSame/Failin' on this alleged issue is that Obama is "not telling the truth."
Well, if that's the case, McCain must know the truth, right?
Why doesn't McCain just come right out and say it instead of dancing around it?
Obama was dead on to talk trash about McCain not saying it to his face.
Did you see that mccain actually suggested Obama should apologize to him about this whole sordid affair and just move on? Now if anyone wants to see context of how to properly apply the term "uppity", this would be it...
This is getting jaw-droppingly ridiculous, Snoop. Have you seen the outrage from Grampy's camp re: Lewis mention of George Wallaces name? It's like a variation on Godwin's Law, where people on websites act progressively Nazi-er, until somebody finally calls them a Nazi. Then they claim some sort of imagined victory because the other person mentioned the Nazis.
After all of the fear-mongering and lowballs McCain and his crew have been throwing, the comparison to the mood encouraged by Wallace isn't really a stretch. I think it was described as "a character attack that was beyond the pale". I thought it was pretty generous.
It's like watching Bugs Bunny vs. Elmer Fudd...
Why doesn't McCain just come right out and say it instead of dancing around it?
I'm beginning to think John McCain is dancing around with dementia.
Well, well, well. Let's have a little discussion about McCain's terrorist ties, shall we?
McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam In Lobbying Effort
William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.
The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government.
During the same period beginning in 1992, Timmons worked closely with the two lobbyists, Samir Vincent and Tongsun Park, on a previously unreported prospective deal with the Iraqis in which they hoped to be awarded a contract to purchase and resell Iraqi oil. Timmons, Vincent, and Park stood to share at least $45 million if the business deal went through.
Well, Saddam wasn't a terrorist... He was worse. Does McCain's campaign do vetting of any sort and or type? I mean, at all?
"Why doesn't McCain just come right out and say it instead of dancing around it?"
For the same reason he hasn't told the Bush administration how to catch Bin Laden.
I think it's becoming more and more obvious to the non-liberal crowd (such as myself) that the conservatives are becoming more and more desperate, if not becoming more and more in denial ("Desperate" and "denial"). The conservatives know they're losing on all fronts (desperate) and yet they're still trying to convince people that McCain is either right behind Obama or right next to Obama (denial). Heck, even Jeff Christie admitted that the conservatives are going to have to drag him across the finish line not too long ago.
Neither candidate has really emphasized the issues, which partially plays to Obama thanks to a successful marketing effort by the Democrats by attributing everything in this country to President Bush and the Republican Party. As such, all Obama has to do is recite "Change" and "Failed Bush Policies" in the same sentence and allow that to dictate his presidential policies. And McCain has been too busy (along with people like Sean Hannity) introducing every last skeleton that sits in Obama's closets. As such, neither has really emphasized what they're going to do once their campaigns are over and they become inagurated in January.
Besides the economy (where it's Bush vs. Marx), what issues have placed in the forefront of this election? The only thing we hear in terms of terrorism is "Barack Obama is a terrorist!". There is very little mention about the War on Terror, capturing (or killing) Osama Bin Laden, stabilizing Iraq, reducing the threat from Iran, and then bringing our troops home victorious. We hear very little on the issue of illegal immigration, securing our borders (all of them) from unauthorized (and possibly unwanted) individuals that may possibly pose a threat to the safety of the American people. We hear very little on the subject of abortion, and what will be done to preserve the sanctity of human life. I don't think we've heard anything on the subject of individual freedom, preserving the American Dream, and protecting the American way of life.
No, instead, we hear the McCain campaign running attack ads (which contradicts his stand on attack ads ["honorable campaign" "attack ads = no platform"] - not to mention interesting because people like Jeff Christie and others were willing to do it for him [Operation Chaos, anyone?]), and Obama is leading on the defensive, trying to dispel every accusation made against him, along with running attack ads of his own (which contradicts his stand on attack ads [he once said that "the days of that kind of politics is over" {IIRC}]), not to mention frequently trying to remind people of policies that are bound to change no matter what candidate wins next month.
I believe you are mistaken about Obama not emphasizing the issues. His whole second debate was all about discussing the economy, his stump speeches are about the economy, jobs, and the solving the financial mess, and you think that isn't emphasizing the issues? Methinks you may not be paying enough attention or are letting the media drown out his message.
McCain, I'll definitely agree. He hasn't presented anything close to a plan for anything yet.
As Snoop pointed out, Obama has only been talking about the issues. OK, not only, but he has been talking about them extensively during his campaign speeches. His stump speech is all about issues. Methinks that you should pull your head from your butt, and listen to what Obama is actually saying.
McCain on the other hand is doing nothing but character assassination. Bear in mind, a recent study found that recently 100% of all McCain ads were, yes, negative. 100%. Nothing of substance to be found at all.
The only time I ever hear Obama NOT talking about the issues is when he is forced to pause for a moment and answer the latest absurd media meme put forth by McCain's DoubleTalk Express.
Obama is all about issues. His stump speeches and debate performance are proof.
McCain is all about smears. His and Palin's stump speeches, TV ads, and debate performance are proof.
I'm definitely voting for "that one."
This is bizarre. At least eight news organizations have reportedly investigated Barack Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, spoken to people who would know, and concluded that there is no evidence to suggest that Obama and Ayers were either close or that Ayers had any influence over Obama. McCain appears to be saying that the investigation of each news organization is unreliable and that any denial by Obama is further proof of lying. But, specifically, what independent evidence is there that Obama has not been truthful about his relationship with Ayers? McCain's campaign has devolved into an ugly exercise in unsupported, nasty innuendo.
that the investigation of each news organization is unreliable and that any denial by Obama is further proof of lying. But, specifically, what independent evidence is there that Obama has not been truthful about his relationship with Ayers?
None, has all been exageraged by McCain
The word "exaggerated" implies that there was something small there in the first place that could be expanded into a larger issue.
I think "invented" is the word you're looking for.
"McCain's campaign has devolved into an ugly exercise in unsupported, nasty innuendo."
Or to word it differently: into "guilty until proven innocent" - except they will not acknowledge ANY evident that even indicates innocence. So they can continue shouting "guilty, guilty, guilty" - with not even a shred of shame.
The other shoe would be, just what horrible behavior/agenda Bill sucessfully indoctrinated/programed into the impressionable Mr. Obama.
Its that formless horror that works so well, allowing the listener to fill in the details for proper imaging/response.
They're playing the cons like an Atari keyboard, heavy on the its ok to hate end. The response has been pretty frightening.
And I think I've figured out what the right wing/McCain fall-back position is:
They will say that even if there is no evidence that Obama and Ayers were close, Obama should have punched Ayers lights out anyway for his past behavior, as any red-blooded, flag-waving, patriotic American should. Ignore the fact that Ayers was considered a respected member of society and in 1997 was honored by the City of Chicago as its Citizen of the Year.
Even the (Republican) prosecutor who tried to nail Ayers in the 70's thinks it's ridiculous.
link
Interesting that they would dwell on this alleged "Lie" while Palintwit continues to lie at every campaign event, even after those lies have been exposed. Her most recent whopper is her claim that she was absolved of any wrongdoing in the "Troopergate" scandal. The woman is pathological.
Palin is lying about not having breast implants, too. It's not an issue of breasts...it's about truthfulness. ;>)
http://www.freewebs.com/writingindependence/ScrippsMurdock10-14-08.pdf
Pattern of gunmen duo's in period's Hi-Fi torture murders...Muhamad and Malvo...
Ayers and Dohrn had carte blanche status under an umbrella of brushed off FBI and local law enforcement, and were well funded, supplied and positioned, trotted off the Cuba to get that dirt on them, then quoted in a 9-11 published interview they had no remourse for blowing up buildings--typical alibi manufacture for the pryotech demo of 9-11.
Relavence?
Are you from Earth?
These Ayers attacks are baffling. However, I just realized what it reminds me of: The Salem Witch Trials. In Salem, you simply accused someone of being a witch and then tortured the accused until they admitted the crime, at which point they were forgiven. If they didn't admit the crime, then they were executed.
That's what the right is trying to do to Obama. They are trying to get him to admit to something that they have no evidence for, and use his further denials as de facto evidence of guilt. They are trying (unsuccesfully) to create an lose-lose scenario for him. If he says that he and Ayers were BFFs, then they'll call him deceitful. If he sticks to the truth, that their relationship was casual, then they will say he's not coming clean to the American people.
Thank goodness the American people aren't biting. Obama will not be swift-boated.
Back when this whole election push began, I picked Obama as the standout. One of the main reasons was his willingness to fight smears against him and to stand up proudly for the progressive tradition. Other Democrats in the past have apologized for liberal values as if they somehow believed their detractors. Voters can smell weakness and this wishy-washy attitude is largely responsible for their defeat, in my estimation. Obama is showing that he's the right person at the right time to forge a new Democratic majority that can be competitive for decades.
Ruh-Roh. Don't look now, but it appears that the man heading up Grampy's transition team was a lobbyist for Saddam Hussein.
Do the Troglodytes really want to play this "Associations" game?
Here's the article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/mccain-transition-chief-a_n_134595.html
This is the best. I hope, and I really really hope for this, that if McCain dares to bring up Ayers this evening, he throws this, and other things right back in McCain's face. Also, I thought that good Christians believed in redemption? Has Ayers been redeemed? Hasn't he made something good of his life after doing despicable things? I can't defend William Ayers of 1968, but I would defend Ayers of 2008. The 2 men are world's apart.