Posted on 09/02/2008 9:42:52 AM PDT by davidosborne
I am a strong conservative who believes very strongly in a TWO-PARTY system of National Government -- MAJORITY/MINORITY -- One party leans to the left (liberal) and the other leans to the right (conservative) ---
Having said that...... I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN ! -- I AM A CONSERVATIVE .. sorry for yelling.. but so many folks just don't get it... The Republican party has selected John McCain as it's nominnee for President in 2008.. For this I am DEEPLY saddened.. John McCain is one of the most LEFT LEANING Republicans in the party.. which basicly means that the Republican Party has taken a HUGE step to left..
My analysis of the situation is simply this.. During the Primary election the conservatives in the Republican Party split their vote between several REAL conservatives who were running.. and for that we got STUCK with McCain who was able to capture the vote of the middle/left leaning Republicans...
Now having said that I am pleased to see that Sarah Palin has agreed to join the McCain ticket, and I can now vote for HER knowing that I will get McCain as a "package deal".. Which will allow the Republican Party to regroup in 2012.
I have a lot more to say but I will save it for another post if you are interested in continuing this discussion.
David Tallahassee, Florida (850) 933-8511
Funny thing about Sarah Palin is the fact that if she ran on her own she would be considered one of us crazy fringe far righters. (whatever the hell that means)
Among the things important to this crazy far right fringe nut are things like immigration. The fact that we continue to deal with China even though we know they’re supplying weapons to our enemies and stealing our technology (which aint hard because they make the damned parts)
Until Governor Palin came onto the ticket, I was not sure I could press the lever for McCain. Choosing her was a strategic stroke of genius, as well as an answer to many prayers.
If McCain realizes that she brings the victory for him; that he had better take her views into serious consideration for she represents a mandate, he can assure himself of a second term. If not, watch out!
Which is why the only hope McCain ever had or will have of winning is to run against a threat. Obama is a threat.
(disclosure, this is not to imply that McCain himself is not a threat)
I’m still writing in. I don’ respond to threats.
Which is why the only hope McCain ever had or will have of winning is to run against a threat. Obama is a threat.
(disclosure, this is not to imply that McCain himself is not a threat)
I’m still writing in. I don’t respond to threats.
McCain can win my vote if he outnumbers himself by picking a cabinet of people like Sarah Palin.
Hunter for secretary of Defense is a great place to start.
I have 3 words for that. Dolores Apodaca Alfond.
Let me say that you’re the one being “arrogant”.
Voting for a third party IS STUPID. And I’m QUITE familiar with the Founders’ various writings. I’ve read all of it, over and over.
I’m not demeaning anyone - but if you are too ignorant to see the facts in front of your face, then well, that shows your lack of education on the subject.
I really don’t care one wit about your opinion either for that matter, since obviously you didn’t read what I said and took my statements to imply something I did not.
I’ve been saying the same thing for months.
I don’t LIKE McCain. I Sure as hell don’t like Obama and wouldn’t vote for him on a bet. Nor Clinton. And Biden is a joke.
YOU and others who “pulled away” from the Republican party “because it left you” as the remark goes are wrong on several levels. Yes, IT DID go left.
NO you don’t leave your party, you CORRECT IT’S COURSE.
That’s the ignorance of your personal attack on me.
Shut the hell up
Sorry, but I have been very ill all summer, and it has affected my eyesight. Too hard to read black on blue. Could you provide a summation please? Thank you.
Have to run, can’t summarize it. (this is in retort to the thoughts that McCain can be influenced by someone or on an issue to make himself look good when he is in disagreement) I’ll just past here:
Dolores Apodaca Alfond, chairwoman of the National Alliance of Families, all-volunteer MIA organization
Confrontation with witness
http://www.aiipowmia.com/sea/schanberg_mccain.html
One such witness was Dolores Apodaca Alfond, chairwoman of the National Alliance of Families, an all-volunteer MIA organization. Her pilot brother, Capt. Victor J. Apodaca, out of the Air Force Academy, was shot down over Dong Hoi, North Vietnam, in the early evening of June 8, 1967. At least one person in the two-man plane survived. Beeper signals from a pilot’s distress radio were picked up by overhead helicopters, but the cloud cover was too heavy to go in. Hanoi has recently turned over some bone fragments that are supposed to be Apodaca’s. The Pentagon first declared the fragments to be animal bones. But now it is telling the family — verbally — that they came from the pilot. But the Pentagon, for unexplained reasons, will not put this in writing, which means Apodaca is still unaccounted for. Also the Pentagon refuses to give Alfond a sample of the fragments so she can have testing done by an independent laboratory.
Alfond’s testimony, at a hearing of the POW/MIA committee Nov. 11, 1992, was revealing. She pleaded with the committee not to shut down in two months, as scheduled, because so much of its work was unfinished. Also, she was critical of the committee, and in particular Kerry and McCain, for having “discredited the overhead satellite symbol pictures, arguing there is no way to be sure that the [distress] symbols were made by U.S. POWs.” She also criticized them for similarly discounting data from special sensors, shaped like a large spike with an electronic pod and an antenna, that were airdropped to stick in the ground along the Ho Chi Minh trail.
These devices served as motion detectors, picking up passing convoys and other military movements, but they also had rescue capabilities. Specifically, someone on the ground — a downed airman or a prisoner on a labor detail — could manually enter data into the sensor pods. Alfond said the data from the sensor spikes, which was regularly gathered by Air Force jets flying overhead, had showed that a person or persons on the ground had manually entered into the sensors — as U.S. pilots had been trained to do — “no less than 20 authenticator numbers that corresponded exactly to the classified authenticator numbers of 20 U.S. POWs who were lost in Laos.”
Other than the panel’s second co-chairman, Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., not a single committee member attended this public hearing. But McCain, having been advised of Alfond’s testimony, suddenly rushed into the room to confront her. His face angry and his voice very loud, he accused her of making “allegations ... that are patently and totally false and deceptive.” Making a fist, he shook his index finger at her and said she had insulted an emissary to Vietnam sent by President Bush. He said she had insulted other MIA families with her remarks. And then he said, through clenched teeth: “And I am sick and tired of you insulting mine and other people’s [patriotism] who happen to have different views than yours.”
Brought to tears
By this time, tears were running down Alfond’s cheeks. She reached into her handbag for a handkerchief. She tried to speak: “The family members have been waiting for years — years! And now you’re shutting down.” He kept interrupting her. She tried to say, through tears, that she had issued no insults. He kept talking over her words. He said she was accusing him and others of “some conspiracy without proof, and some cover-up.” She said she was merely seeking “some answers. That is what I am asking.” He ripped into her for using the word “fiasco.” She replied: “The fiasco was the people that stepped out and said we have written the end, the final chapter to Vietnam.” “No one said that,” he shouted. “No one said what you are saying they said, Ms. Alfond.” And then, his face flaming pink, he stalked out of the room, to shouts of disfavor from members of the audience.
www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/mccreary.html
John F. McCreary, is/was high level Defense Intelligence Agency analyst assigned to the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs.
May 3, 1992
Memorandum for: Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Prisoners of War and Missing in Action
From: John F. McCreary
Subject: Possible Violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, by the Select Committee and Possible Ethical Misconduct by Staff Attorneys.
1. Continuing analysis of relevant laws and further review of the events between 8 April and 16 April 1992 connected with the destruction of the Investigators’ Intelligence Briefing Text strongly indicate that the order to destroy all copies of that briefing text on 9 April and the actual destruction of copies of the briefing texts plus the purging of computer files might constitute violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, which imposes criminal penalties for unlawful document destruction. Even absent a finding of criminal misconduct, statements, actions, and failures to act by the senior Staff attorneys following the 9 April briefing might constitute serious breaches of ethical standards of conduct for attorneys, in addition to violations of Senate and Select Committee rules. The potential consequences of these possible misdeeds are such that they should be brought to the attention of all members of the Select Committee, plus all Designees and Staff members who were present at the 9 April briefing.
2. The relevant section of Title 18, U.S.C., states in pertinent part: Section 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795)
3. The facts as the undersigned and others present at the briefing recall them are presented in the attached Memorandum for the Record. A summary of those facts - and others that have been established since that Memorandum was written - follows.
a. On 8 April 1992, the Investigators’ Intelligence Briefing Text was presented to Senior Staff members and Designees for whom copies were available prior to beginning the briefing. Objections to the text by the Designees prompted the Staff Director to order all persons present to leave their copies of the briefing text in Room SRB078. Subsequent events indicated that two copies had been removed without authorization.
b. On 9 April 1992, at the beginning of the meeting of the Select Committee and prior to the scheduled investigators’ briefing, Senator McCain produced a copy of the intelligence briefing text, with whose contents he strongly disagreed. He charged that the briefing text had already been leaked to a POW/MIA activist, but was reassured by the Chairman that such was not the case. He replied that he was certain it would be leaked. Whereupon, the Chairman assured Senator McCain that there would be no leaks because all copies would be gathered and destroyed, and he gave orders to that effect. No senior staff member or attorney present cautioned against a possible violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, or of Senate or Select Committee Rules.
c. Following the briefing on 9 April, the Staff Director, Ms. Frances Zwenig, restated to the intelligence investigators the order to destroy the intelligence briefing text and took measures to ensure execution of the destruction order. (See paragraph 3 of the attachment.) During one telephone conversation with the undersigned, she stated that she was “acting under orders.”
d. The undersigned also was instructed to delete all computer files, which Mr. Barry Valentine witnessed on 9 April.
e. In a meeting on 15 April 1992, the Staff’s Chief Counsel, J. William Codinha, was advised by intelligence investigators of their concerns about the possibility that they had committed a crime by participating in the destruction of the briefing text. Mr. Codinha minimized the significance of the documents and of their destruction. He admonished the investigators for “making a mountain out of a molehill.”
f. When investigators repeated their concern that the order to destroy the documents might lead to criminal charges, Mr. Codinha replied “Who’s the injured party.” He was told, “The 2,494 families of the unaccounted for US Servicemen, among others.” Mr. Codinha then said, “Who’s gonna tell them. It’s classified.” At that point the meeting erupted. The undersigned stated that the measure of merit was the law and what’s right, not avoidance of getting caught. To which Mr. Codinha made no reply. At no time during the meeting did Mr. Codinha give any indication that any copies of the intelligence briefing text existed.
g. Investigators, thereupon, repeatedly requested actions by the Committee to clear them of any wrongdoing, such as provision of legal counsel. Mr. Codinha admitted that he was not familiar with the law and promised to look into it. He invited a memorandum from the investigators stating what they wanted. Given Mr. Codinha’s statements and reactions to the possibility of criminal liability, the investigators concluded they must request appointment of an independent counsel. A memorandum making such a request and signed by all six intelligence investigators was delivered to Mr. Codinha on 16 April.
h. At 2130 on 16 April, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, convened a meeting with the intelligence investigators, who told him personally of their concern that they might have committed a crime by participating in the destruction of the briefing texts at the order of the Staff Director. Senator Kerry stated that he gave the order to destroy the documents, not the Staff Director, and that none of the Senators present at the meeting had objected. He also stated that the issue of document destruction was “moot” because the original briefing text had been deposited with the Office of Senate Security “all along.” Both the Staff Director and the Chief Counsel supported this assertion by the Chairman.
i. Senator Kerry’s remarks prompted follow-up investigations (See paragraphs 4 through 9 of the attachment) and inquiries that established that a copy of the text was not deposited in the Office of Senate Security until the afternoon of 16 April. The Staff Director has admitted that on the afternoon of 16 April, after receiving a copy of a memorandum from Senator Bob Smith to Senator Kerry in which Senator Smith outlined his concerns about the destruction of documents, she obtained a copy of the intelligence briefing text from the office of Senator McCain and took it to the Office of Senate Security. Office of Senate Security personnel confirmed that the Staff Director gave them an envelope, marked “Eyes Only,” to be placed in her personal file. The Staff Director has admitted that the envelope contained the copy of the intelligence briefing text that she obtained from the office of Senator McCain.
3. The facts of the destruction of the intelligence briefing text would seem to fall inside the prescriptions of the Statute, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, so as to justify their referral for investigation to a competent law enforcement authority. The applicability of that Statute was debated in United States v. Poindexter, D.D.C. 1989, 725 F. Supp. 13, in connection with the Iran Contra investigation. The District Court ruled, inter alia, that the National Security Council is a public office within the meaning of the Statute and, thus, that its records and documents fell within the protection of the Statute. In light of that ruling, the Statute would seem to apply to this Senate Select Committee and its Staff. The continued existence of a “bootleg” copy of the intelligence briefing text - i.e., a copy that is not one of those made by the investigators for the purpose of briefing the Select Committee - would seem to be irrelevant to the issues of intent to destroy and willfulness; as well as to the issue of responsibility for the order to destroy all copies of the briefing text, for the attempt to carry out that order, and for the destruction that actually was accomplished in execution of that order.
4. As for the issue of misconduct by Staff attorneys, all member of the Bar swear to uphold the law. That oath may be violated by acts of omission and commission. Even without a violation of the Federal criminal statute, the actions and failures to act by senior Staff attorneys in the sequence of events connected with the destruction of the briefing text might constitute violations
of ethical standards for members of the Bar and of both Senate and Select Committee rules. The statements, actions and failures to act during and after the meeting on 15 April, when the investigators gave notice of their concern about possible criminal liability for document destruction, would seem to reflect disregard for the law and for the rules of the United States Senate.
John F. McCreary
I disagree for the most part. I agree that McCain hasn’t been the most reliably conservative senator, but he’s nowhere near the most liberal. I’ll just throw out the names Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter. Those three are infinitely more liberal than McCain. McCain has been rated as the Most Conservative senator as recently as 2006.
The problem with McCain is that on a few issues of HIGH importance to you (and to me, I might add), he has bucked the party and gone in another direction. He’s made me angry in the past about this too, but I’m okay with a guy who I occasionally disagree with as long as I know that (1) he makes decisions on what he truly feels is best for the country, (2) he listens to those who disagree with him, and (3) he surrounds himself with good people who will give him good advice, and (4) he accepts the responsibility for the making the ultimate decision. McCain meets those criteria. Even on point 3, I will give you that Lindsey Graham is not the best person to be taking advice from, but you can see in the choice of Palin that McCain went his own way with that choice, NOT the way that Lindsey was telling him to go (Lieberman). We simply can’t get a leader with whom we ALWAYS agree, as much as we’d like to. But we USUALLY agree with McCain, far more often than we disagree with him.
I could handle a “liberal Republican” Senator who toes the Party line on the BIG issues to defeat the FAR left, more than I can handle McCain who has “stabbed us in the back” far too many times...
NOPE... it really is MY Cell phone number.. I have unlimited minutes :) --- and to be honest I have only received ONE phone call from a guy saying he was a LIBERAL/Libertaria, and asking me if I thought it was a "conflict" that Sarah Palin's daughter was pregnant since her mom advocates "absitnence only" -- suggesting that if she knew about "birth control" she might not have this "problem" --- I handled it just fine IMHO..
FReegards,
David
I am pleased to see that Sarah Palin has agreed to join the McCain ticket,
Is that it? Your analysis is that McCain & Palin are on the ticket? Who wouda thunk it..............
Marine_Uncle,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree with you that there is a LOT at stake here.. and to be honest I never expected McCain to throw us a bone by getting Sarah Palin to even agree to be on the ticket with him... In fact, I am willing to REWARD McCain by pulling the lever for Sarah Palin, knowing that in doing so, we are stuck with McCain.... that is as far as I am willing to go.. no matter who wins, McCain or Obama...... conservatives will be fighting an UPHILL political battle for the next 4 years.. the problem is with McCain we have to watch our backs as we fight uphill.. at least with Obama we would not need to do that.. although the uphill battle with Obama would be a lot tougher.. do you not see it this way my FRiend?
If McCain had chosen a RINO as a running mate I would seriously considered choosing the tougher toe-toe fight [OBAMA} rather than support the one who was going to stab me in the back.. politically speaking of course.. THANK GOD !! I don’t have to do that.. I can enthusiasticly support Sarah Palin for VP -— this in no way is an endorsement for her in 2012... we will need to reassess the situation in 4 years
LOL.... read the entire post my FRiend,
..that would bring many people on board--believe it...
Hunter has everything a Sec of Def needs. A military background and years on the house armed services committe. Add the fact that his son has the strong military background to the fact that McCain and Palin have sons in the military.
Yes Picking Hunter for sec of def would lock my vote in.
Sounds about right to me, David.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.