Morning Mash-Up: From the Intriguing to the Illegal and Back Again

McCain said Al Qaeda got aid from Iran YET AGAIN last month.

How long is the media going to let this guy get away with this crap?

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/20/mccain-asserted-iranal-qaeda-ties-last-month/

I would guess at least until November 4th...2012

Ana,
Why do you even bother?

You have made another breakthrough, Ana.

I propose that we immediately establish "satellite" accounts for important measures of Swampland community health:

1. The BBQ index, tracking "social" events attended by Time writers to improve their ability to comprehend complex political stories.

2. The Joe Klein public stupidity gauge, to track Joe's output of self-confessed "stupid, stupid, stupid" statements, vital to the strength of his brand.

3. The KT unconnected dots counter, which tallies all the missed conclusions, lost opportunites, and strangely absent insights that are the hallmark of KT's political stories.

4. The Wonkette airy persiflage measure, which tallies how often AMC vanishes from a substantive discussion in a cloud of "whatever" smoke.

With these powerful new metrics, we can do a much better job of managing the health of this vibrant community. I look forward to the gathering and publication of these statistics.

That Threat Level link was gruesome.

Glenn Greenwald is at it again on McCain's serial "slips of the tongue" / "brain farts" and his special relationship with his base:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/20/mccain/index.html

HH: That's actually kind of brilliant. (And, honestly, the Wonkette idea should be implemented punditocracy wide!) Can we come up with some commenter satellite measures as well?

The "QH Time Differential" (Σ), to gauge the duration of substantive discussion before it gets hijacked into all-cap juvenalia.

The "Paul Complexity" (Φ), tracking when the various points made by various "Pauls" converge.

The "Glennstrum" (Γ), which calculates the outrage of Mr. Greenwald as divided by the opacity of the post he deconstructs, multiplied by the increase in traffic he generates.

And, if I may be so bold as to offer the "AMC2," an equation to help commenters determine the exact moment when I will decide that my mass must move along the space-time continuum, away from my computer, before I get sucked into a comment vortex.

I welcome other suggestions to improve this important new method of community diagnostics.

Has anybody asked Pops McCain how he feels about using taxpayer dollars to fund his campaign stops in Iraq, the U.K. etc?

Mr. Earmark sure doesn't mind using my dough to drag Holy Joe and Sen. Graham on a "CODEL" so that he can demonstrate his mastery of the various branches of Islam.

The Huckabee comment that Sullivan quotes is quite eloquently and clear phrased. (You might think the guy did some extemporaneous public speaking in his day.)

But it carries the implication that things like being told to sit in the back of the bus are behind us.

They are not. Petty, frequent, if not daily humiliations, are still part of being black. Having cabs whiz by. Stopped by cops for driving while black. Treated as a potential thief in a high end retail establishment.

ana-

You said yesterday that McCain is good with the "deets" (not a confidence-inspiring way to say that, btw). Is there some example you can use, because I've never seen him exhibit any deep grasp of any policy issue. I've seen Hagel do that, Lugar, but never McCain.

Second, you've spent a lot of time with McCain. Are there any elements of this description that are accurate:

Now we have candidate who seems to lose emotional control and has a very bad problem with misspeaking, and not a small problem with remembering things. He's of an age when we would be within our rights to ask if he is just sloppy or has a fundamental problem with memory....In fact, given that he is considered a hero because of enduring torture, it is within our rights to have a serious debate about the long term psychological effects of torture, in general, and whether Mr. McCain has resolved all of them, in particular. Torture causes deep underlying clinical depression with an overlay of any combination of the 16 different PTSD manifestations. He may well be quite over any after effects.

This is, of course, an issue when we think about Reagan's last term of office.

The "base" has already created its narrative for St. John McCain and nothing, (including reality) will get in the way of it's narrative.

In 2000, they told us that GW Bush was a down-to- earth, straight talking regular guy and Al Gore was a pompous serial liar. (We all know how well that narrative worked out.)

On the "deets", Alter apparently disagrees:

Jonathan Alter saying that McCain "doesn't like to get down into the muck of these issues like Clinton and Obama"?

From the interview yesterday when Alter joined the press chorus saying that it doesn't matter if McCain says things that are flatly false, repeatedly, because we in the media know he has foreign policy chops.

Cookie Puss--

And what is up with the Lindsay-Johnnie travel team? They seem to be inseparable. He seems to spend more time with Lindsay than with Cindy.

Please address this.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803190012?f=h_latest

It looks like all your friends are actually falsifying evidence to cover for your friend.

I don't know where that stands in your book but I'd call it fraud.

Considering the stakes, it strikes me as important.

If I want one thing from a CIC its an ability to coreectly identify our mortal enemies.

And you know, Paul D, that "quickly corrected himself" comes straight out of McCain campaign press release.

If I want one thing from a CIC its an ability to coreectly identify our mortal enemies.

You ask too much of the office, Paul.

After all, the conflation of Saddam and Al-Qaeda to the point of insinuating that Saddam was really behind 9/11 was just an HONEST MISTAKE! I mean, anyone could have made it, why criticize our CiC for it?!

Ana,

Slow down and allow the mere groundlings to admire your work. We are talking about simple mischief counters and you have already made the leap to entirely new equations and a whole new physics of blog punditry.

Bravely into the future!

Cox.

McCain is no orator, but he does articulate a vision for American foreign policy that is dramatically different than Obama's. -Posted by Ana Marie Cox | March 19, 2008 4:28 PM

I'm interested in your understanding of what that vision is. No snark here.

"he does articulate a vision for American foreign policy that is dramatically different than Obama's"

McCain's vision:

Kill anyone who stands in the way of the American Empire.

This is what McCain did in Vietnam, and it is what he supports today. We would still be in Vietnam if John McCain had been in Nixon's chair.

I'd settle for a link to that articulate foreign policy, myself.

No, seriously. I'm interested in Cox's non-snark take on this. She has spent a lot of time with him, and appears to have an understanding of where he's at.

I am so changing my name to "Paul Complexity (Φ)."

I'd like that too, James. It's a tall order.

It is a tall order. Give me some time to think about how I want to -- or can -- respond.

Tap. Tap. Tap. (checks watch. whistles Dixie.) Tap. Tap. (cracks knuckles.) (cough.)

I don't know, Cox. Is that a little bogus? You said he articulates a vision, so I thought you were pretty clear on it. You were pretty clear on why he voted in favor of water torture, twice. And explained it exquisitely, which is why I am asking again, about this.

Due respect, Ana: maybe you shouldn't write such declarative statements if you're not sure if you "want to -- or can" back them up.

That being said, I am not trying to pile on, and I want to create the space for you to talk about your thought process (as hippy-dippy as that sounds). I don't want to simplistically conclude that you and other journalists are "in the tank" for McCain just because you ate his ribs. At the same time, I hope you can understand how it sure looks that way to we groundlings.

As Stuart Z. says much more politely than I do most times, Ana: thank you for responding.

James, Los Angeles:
"You were pretty clear on why he voted in favor of water torture, twice."

What was the second time he voted in favor of torture? Or are you saying Ana was clear on it twice?

MCA was the first time.

Cox said:

The short version is that McCain doesn't believe he's reversed himself, because he believes that the legislation he passed makes torture illegal in itself -- that to apply the Army Field manual to the CIA would be superfluous. You can disagree with him on any single point on the issue, but, again, he would say he hasn't reversed himself. I invite you to frame a question about it that would carry the conversation beyond his conviction that waterboarding is and remain illegal, regardless of the CIA not being held to the Army Field Manual. I haven't been able to. Please post it if you do and I will try to get an answer.

What do I think? I think he should have signed the bill to apply the Field Manual; but he is loath to betray promises made during the negotiations that led to the MCA. He thinks that having given the CIA his word then, he should stick to it now -- especially since, again, he thinks that the MCA did all you need to do to keep the CIA from torturing people.

It seems that the onus is on you, Ms Cox, to provide factual basis for your affirmative statement, " McCain is no orator, but he does articulate a vision for American foreign policy that is dramatically different than Obama's".

Upon what evidence do you base this claim? Can you (or perhaps I should say, would you), provide citations and/or links to this putative "articulate foreign policy vision"?

If you won't, why not? If you can't, you should retract this statement. Either way, your credibility, such as it is, has taken a huge hit.

I'll tell you what I know about John McCain (BBQ-AZ) and foreign policy:

Let's stay in Iraq 100 years, or a million

Iran is training al-queda. Or not. Or they're training extremists, or something. We should just bomb,bomb,bomb them because we don't like them "meddling" in Iraq, or because they're scary brown foreigners, or whatever the reason du jour is.

The best way to ensure national security is by making sure we have the biggest, baddest, best equipped military in the world -- and then using them early and often. McCain's campaign site

Iran is obviously pursuing nuclear weapons Read any good NIEs lately, Johnny-boy?

Same article: No negotiation with Hamas (that's why we have that big, bad-ass military, amirite?), and If Hamas/Hezbollah succeed here, they're coming to the US next. O rly?

Finally, note that on McCain's campaign website, there is NO section devoted to Foreign Policy, or Foreign Affairs. How peculiar.

Of course, the MCA does not keep the CIA from torturing people. But that's beside the point. The point is Cox's clear explanation of her understanding of his position, which had not been articulated anywhere.

I assume (perhaps wrongly) that she has as clear an understanding of McCain's foreign policy vision, given her statement yesterday:

"McCain is no orator, but he does articulate a vision for American foreign policy that is dramatically different than Obama's. I think it will be good for us, good for democracy, to see a real, vigorous, and educated debate on the issue -- one that we've been deprived of, at the national level, for far too long."

I was hoping we could start here.

No hold on, soylent. This isn't to bash Cox. No one has ever articulated McCain's foreign policy vision. Not McCain, not his campaign staff, not the DC journos who cover his campaign and write about his foreign policy credentials. I really want to read McCain's articulated vision of foreign policy. It isn't available anywhere. Please don't start bashing Cox about this.

I'm just hoping that she isn't consulting McCain's campaign staff to come up with her answer. Because that would be dishonest.

Why shouldn't Cox get bashed for this? As you, yourself, said, "No one has ever articulated McCain's foreign policy vision." Cox, however, flat-out states as fact that "...[McCain] does articulate a vision for American foreign policy...". Either she has information that no one else has, or she's just pulling it out of her a**. If it's the former, she should be happy to be able to share -- as you said, it's not something that anyone else has elucidated, and it would be somewhat in the nature of a scoop as a result, non? If it's the latter, then she's engaging in what we in the reality-based community call "lying", and she should be bashed for that.

You say she shouldn't consult with McCain's staff for clarification on this. With whom, then, SHOULD she consult? If no one know anything about McCain's foreign policy vision, the people closest to him (no, not the press, his campaign staff, although they ARE often hard to tell apart) would probably be the place to start, in my opinion.

Cox has been a pretty big cheerleader for St John; she "likes the guy". But, she also contends that this friendship has no bearing on her ability, or willingness, to report objectively on the facts. Here's her chance to prove it. Either show us the facts of McCain's "articulate" foreign policy vision (and explain how we have been "deprived" of a debate on this -- only to be rescued by, who else? John McCain, of course!!), or admit that she doesn't have any. It's pretty simple.

I suspect we've heard the last of Cox on this issue. I'd really like to be proven wrong, however.

I am assuming that she is on the Obama conference call.

You know, James, such a thing should be a post, not a comment. And I think it's reasonable for it to take a day or so to put together, especially because it will be read with a gimlet eye.

But, soylentgreen reminds me that I should have a Foreign Affairs issue with his FP position written out. That doesn't necessarily mean it makes sense; you shoulda read Giuliani's. But there should be one. Let me poke around.

Soylent,
I'm pretty sure you have misunderstood me. As I quoted above regarding McCain's position on approving water torture, Cox had a clear understanding of what his position was when she wrote that comment. She didn't need to consult with his campaign staff, because she was very clear on what his thinking was as a result of having spent much time with him on the bus. (Obviously, she didn't *agree* with it, that's beside the point.)

So when she wrote that McCain had articulated a clear foreign policy vision, I assumed she had heard and understood that vision, and was prepared to expound on it. Because nobody to my knowledge, including McCain, has articulated his clear foreign policy vision. I'd like to understand exactly what his clear foreign policy vision is. It's a good place to start on this needed national debate.

Well jay. Many times Cox's comments are much better than her posts. Her posts are full of other people's talking points, links, snark and so on, whereas her comments are often clear and straight-on relevant to what the discussion is. That's what I'm after.

Gentlemen, after all this time, have you not grasped the essence of personal demeanor politics? Because McCain acts like a guy who has a solid, coherent foreign policy, nothing further is required to make that claim.

Dick Cheney acts like a rough, tough, competent CEO. The fact that he almost bankrupted Halliburton and doesn't have clue one regarding US foreign policy is irrelevant. He has the DEMEANOR of someone who knows what he is doing. That's how he invariably intimidates journalists and interviewers. It's all an act for these guys, because that's all TV needs: the superficial characteristics of the desired personality type.

AMC grew up in a generation that makes no distinction between surface and substance. That is why she believes McCain has a coherent foreign policy: because he acts like a guy who has one.

That's my fear HH. I am counting on Cox to enlighten me, and to start this much-needed national debate.

Good point James. Maybe the High Sheriffs make her nervous.

Bad news, Ana. Josh Marshall is throwing down the gauntlet over at TPM saying that McCain has no clue wrt foreign policy--that he's a shoot from the hip Navy pilot and not much more.

James:

I actually feel a bit sorry for AMC, since she seems to have an identity crisis under way on Swampland. You can't readily merge the persona of a political gossip columnist with that of a policy analyst. The sizzle is not the steak.

That's why AMC's claim that she was cozying up to Big John to get a better reading of what is going on in the great man's mind is not convincing. She has told us next to nothing of McCain's views. Either she is saving it up for a book, or he has duped her.

I salute your effort to get AMC to stand and deliver. You may have a long wait.

HH--

Please do recognize that she internalized and expressed very clearly the waterboarding thing. This is not easy.

Hi guys. I want to respond about McCain and foreign policy: Here's my dilemma: I don't think of myself as much of an expert, I just think I understand what his world view is... and, even so, I want to go back and review my notes and make sure I'm not screwing things up. "Foreign policy vision" is a grander subject than his specific thinking on the field manual implementation and I'd want to get it right. So, yeah, it might take a day or two... And, even then, I'm not sure I'm the right person to dissect the nuances and validity of his views, I just think I understand their basic outlines.

Thanks for having some faith in me, those of you that do.

If you take me to the next BBQ I'll save you the trouble and ask him myself. ;-)

I'm not sure I'm the right person to dissect the nuances and validity of his views.

We're not asking for to much. It's just that from where we're sitting it doesn't appear that his views even have any nuance OR validity. And we're not in a position to ask hom directly.

Note that it doesn't have to be you, but it currently seems that NO ONE is up to the task and your the only one answering the mail.

Oh, Cookie Puss, if you went to one of his barbecues, you'd be irredeemably corrupted and none of the Swampland commenters would believe what you said, anyway! His ribs are delicious, but will also magically render you unable to sustain your own judgment, tell good from evil, or lift your arms above your shoulders. It's like Persephone and the pomegranate seeds. But with more meat. But thanks for stepping forward in any case.

(I tease because I love.)

"it might take a day or two"

Game over, Ana. All that time on the bus and you can't give the elevator pitch on McCain's foreign policy? He played you for a fool, and now your folly is proven.

With your help, Americans are about to replace a cocky, incompetent, arrogant leader with another cocky, incompetent, arrogant leader. The improvement? This one fought in Vietnam, and does good BBQ.

We have learned nothing.

Cox.

Thanks for coming back. I'm not asking you to "dissect the nuances and validity of his views." Just state them straight out, as you understand them, so we can start this discussion. You said he has articulated a foreign policy view. Start there. Forget about dissecting them.

"It's like Persephone and the pomegranate seeds. But with more meat."

Does that make you Queen of the Underworld?

Tell Pops McCain I like my ribs rare.

Here's my dilemma: I don't think of myself as much of an expert, I just think I understand what his world view is... and, even so, I want to go back and review my notes and make sure I'm not screwing things up. "Foreign policy vision" is a grander subject than his specific thinking on the field manual implementation and I'd want to get it right. So, yeah, it might take a day or two... And, even then, I'm not sure I'm the right person to dissect the nuances and validity of his views, I just think I understand their basic outlines.

I'm not a reporter, but how about this:

1. Think about your initial reaction to a McCainism or something he does that warrants attention (i.e. the recent Iran/Al-Qaeda gaffe)

2. Take that McCainism and apply it to legitimate facts and logic as you learn them. (Iran can't be training Al-Qaida as they are run by Shiites and AQ Sunnis. That was like a half-assed Google. A foreign policy expert should know this or at least know how to remember what he Googled.)

3. Think about how these revelation(s) change your initial reaction and overall impression of the candidate.

A lot of people would kill to have the forum you do, why not invest it? You know that Bible parable, about the rich guy with the three slaves he makes investors? Not a religious guy but I love that story.

The first two get the investment, take risks, and make profit. Rich guy's happy, makes them millionaires. The third guy buries his money in the ground with the logic of "Hey, nothing gained, nothing lost". Rich guy's pissed, has him eaten by dogs or something. Don't be that third guy.

Okay, slightly long elevator pitch/McCain in a nutshell: He's an unapologetic free-trader, pro-NAFTA and other policies that lower barriers to competition. He believes that "Radical Islamic jihad is the transcendent challenge of our time," and thus all possible safe havens must be, at a minimum, watched closely and with the willingness to intervene militarily. He thinks that the dangers of withdrawing from Iraq are two-fold: One, it will become a haven for terrorists -- even more than it is now, and, two, the people of Iraq will be trapped in a civil war that would likely descend into genocide.

He thinks "personal diplomacy" is overrated, and leads to instances like Bush declaring he'd seen into Putin's soul. But he also insists that going out and meeting leaders and seeing countries from the ground up is an important part of statescraft: His invocation of "I've met Musharaf, I've been to Waziristan" were frequent enough that they became part of the press retinue's list of "McCain Bingo" words.

He is for a muscular use of American power in human rights abuses (and, yeah, he has not always been clear on how that power should be expressed). He's a strong supporter of dissendent Burmese activist Aung Sun Suu Kyi, and has called for military intervention in Darfur (with some wavering on whether the US would be "on the ground," or just provide logistical and air support). The stonewalling of the Chinese in the UN on this issue and others has led him to champion something he calls "The League of Democracies," which, to be honest, sounds like solving bureaucracy by creating more of it. But McCain says that (quoting here from a speech I Googled -- he talks about this in town halls, but it doesn't come up that much):

the LoD "could act where the U.N. fails to act, to relieve human suffering in places like Darfur. It could join to fight the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa and fashion better policies to confront the crisis of our environment. It could bring concerted pressure to bear on tyrants in Burma or Zimbabwe, with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval. It could unite to impose sanctions on Iran and thwart its nuclear ambitions. It could provide support to struggling democracies in Ukraine and Serbia and help countries like Thailand back on the path to democracy."

He admires and would like to emulate the leadership styles of Churchill, Truman, TR.

So, er, that's off the top of my head, plus Google.

If that's not the kind of thing you were looking for, and you want something more detailed, then I will, seriously, either need more time or have to go back to grad school.

And I am less Queen of the Underworld than Princess of the Damned.

(I tease because I love.)

Kind of the same here. Except, you know, with disdain.

I keed!

In all seriousness, I am really interested in Ana's thought process. I hope she keeps writing in such an open manner... even if we don't like the answers, this is an important insight on how our media works. So I'm all for giving her credit for openness.

One Ana Marie Cox talking like this is worth a dozen Glenntards sniping at the media... so let's encourage her to keep talking like this.

OH, and vicious maniac, yes, "the parable of the talents"! I love that one. But it's not dogs that are the buried-talent-guy's problem, it's the so much more awesome punishment of being "cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

And I'm not gonna say much about the Time management style but let's just say I know from the outer darkness and the gnashing of teeth, my friends...

And thanks Paul, but, er, I don't think I'm representative as to "how our media works." I'm just a grad school dropout with a modem and a great deal of luck -- and a willingness to be as transparent as possible, with the hope that honesty leads to trust/understanding/andwhathaveyou.

Also, not being on the trail has given me a lot of free time.

Cox, thanks for that. Please don't take this as criticism of yourself. You've given us a series of standard talking points. There is no clear vision there.

"He admires and would like to emulate the leadership styles of Churchill, Truman, TR."

In what way?

That's why I find you interesting, Ana... or "Cox," if you will... you're sort of in this demi-monde between bloggery and journalism. I don't think you as "representative," per se... you're just inside enough to be exposed to what we call the "Villager" mindset, and outside enough to be at least somewhat objective about it.

Also, "a modem?" Are you blogging from, like, 1993?

James, I can't really go further than that without, as I said, more time and more energy. And while what I laid out may be less than a "vision," I do think it gives those who are inclined to look for one a sense of how McCain views the world and America's role in it -- which is what I meant by "vision."

If you want to know more, there is more -- he has six books to his name, most of which at least touch on foreign policy and there's the Foreign Affairs essay -- but if you really want Time to start pressing McCain on these things, you might start addressing your questions to Scherer, who has taken up the official McCain "beat."

And, please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not entirely sure that these exchanges in the comments section are the most fruitful avenues for progress (as you see it). I am the kind of writer I am: I'm interested in personality, narrative, conscience, absurdity, irony and change, in the context America's political landscape. I am not particularly interested in scoops or breaking news, I am definitely not an expert of any kind. I go out, I see stuff and talk to people, and then come back to write about it. Sometimes the "going out" is more metaphorical than others.

In any case, I try to be as honest with you all as I am with myself (make of that what you will). I am resigned to the fact that many of you think I'm a hack or a fool. That my writing has not illuminated -- or at least made you reconsider -- either my world view or McCain's, is, I know, my fault. So perhaps I should just recede into the background again and just keep transcribing conference calls.

Time for that martini.

We've tried with Scherer but Stengel got to him. He's nothing but a McCain cheerleader, and worthless at that. Thanks for trying Cox. No, comment sections aren't ideal, but what else do we peons have?

Yes, you are the kind of writer you are, but after all, you are the one who brought it up -- how McCain had some kind of grand foreign policy vision. Looks like he doesn't after all, but y'all want to believe he does, so you close your eyes and clap three times and voila! It is so!

I'm sorry about your troubles, but I'd guess it will turn out for the best Cox. I sincerely hope that I didn't contribute to that.

"He admires and would like to emulate the leadership styles of Churchill, Truman, TR."

Now we are getting somewhere. What you describe is a confrontational military adventurer of the LAST CENTURY. Note that these three leaders challenged other powers in symmetric struggles: states against states and armies against armies.

McCain is wearing the wrong costume to the party. We are in the era of heterogeneous popular movements challenging US hegemony, not adversary nation states. McCain is obviously the wrong guy for facing Islamic militants because he insists on dealing with them as one big undifferentiated glom (e.g., Sunni/Shia gaffe) Why is it not clear to you that this is a BIG MISTAKE?

Are Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea all part of some sinister aggregate that McCain is going to defeat? How stupid does McCain think Americans are? (Don't answer that.)

I know that Vietnam happened before you did, but you really should read up on that war, from which Americans learned absolutely nothing. The national liberation struggle in Vietnam was interpreted as part of a global Communist monolith. Yet a few years after we left Vietnam, Vietnam and China fought a fierce border war, and the Vietnamese deposed the barbaric Pol Pot regime in Cambodia.

McCain represents the same spirit of destructive simplification that got America into big trouble in Vietnam and now in Iraq. The world is not divided into two camps: THEM and US. How many times do we have to make the same bloody mistake?

"I am definitely not an expert of any kind."

Ana,

You think Chutzpah Joe Klein is an "expert?" It is to laugh. In this era, expertise, or at least detailed knowledge is usually just a few mouse clicks away. Your fluid role here will make you miserable if you don't turn it into an opportunity. You can do much more than be a local colorist and curio collector of campaign anecdotes.

The blogosphere is unexplored territory for legacy news organizations. You can build a new franchise for trust here, but only at the risk of abandoning the editorial shackles of Stengel & Co. What you call transparency is what most of us have wanted from news organizations for decades, and it has been in progressively shorter supply, as mass media became a star system completely isolated from news consumers.

If you persist in giving us accurate and useful information, you will build a personal career that will outlast the Time-Warner franchise. If you go native, you will be just another bozo on the bus (as it goes over the cliff).

In this matter, your harshest critics are your best friends.

AMC,
I appreciate your efforts and your honesty. Now here's my concern. It is well known that a major part of the sales effort behind the Iraq war involved repeatedly using Saddam Hussein and OBL's name (or Al Qaeda) in the same sentence so that the association was burned into the public awareness even though there were no statements you could point to where the connection was directly asserted and therefore could be pointed out as a lie.

You just used the phrase "He is for a muscular use of American power" which is sort of misleading because we all know that "muscular" in that context is a euphemism for "explosive".

So now we have the candidate repeatedly asserting that the Iranians are assisting Al Qaeda in Iraq knowing full well that A: Al Qaeda is just a brand name and the group in Iraq bears little connection to the terrorists who actually attacked us and B: They are NOT being aided by Iran.

Perhaps you can begin to appreciate my concern when the Candidate for CiC is using sloppy language in order to justify as you put it a "muscular" posture. We've already been down this road and the consesus opinion is that it sucks.

My other concern is that for McCain's sloppy language and deliberate conflation of different enemies to succeed, it is necessary that the public continue to be misled. This is where you come in. JK has already gone on record noting that McCain is being dishonest but the coverage surrounding the candidtae continues to be complicit in the effort to mislead.

Did I mention that Scherer just fell for the oldest trick in the book by diseminating a damaging video link accompanied by the public apology for the link.

The public needs to know the truth of what's happening in Iraq and you guys need to stop helping the Candidates lie about it.

And I mean that in the nicest way possible.....

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD , so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4