McPandering to AIPAC

McCain's AIPAC speech was likely the rhetorical template for the rest of his presidential bid: he demonized Iran, made up facts and promised things he can't deliver. Full Story »

Posted by Randy Morrow
Tags Help
Subjects: U.S., Politics
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Randy Morrow - Jun 6, 2008 - 11:43 PM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Deborah Plummer
4.6
by Deborah Plummer - Oct. 1, 2008

This article is very well-written, well-sourced/referenced and a clear-eyed vision of McCain and his mistakes and his vision of war-like America for the next 4-8 years and his undying devotion to Israel (althou, Obama did a pretty good job at devoting himself to Israel, too). Included, too, is McCain's plan for the destruction of Iran's Revolutionary Guard and it's, since proven as a lie, build-up of nuclear weapons. Reading about McCain's plans is like re-living (or continuing to live in) Bush's world .... you know they're lying, but they keep on saying what they're saying and people keep on acting as if they're believing them .... and no one is doing anything .... like .... impeaching them. Bad trip .... but very accurate.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Randy Morrow
4.1
by Randy Morrow - Oct. 1, 2008

Biting review and commentary on McCain's appearance before the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Jeff Clark
4.5
by Jeff Clark - Oct. 1, 2008

"As likely as pigs pooping pineapples" isn't a metaphor you're likely to see on an MSM op-ed page, but nor are you going to find this sort of straight-talking analysis of McCain's Iran rant. Huber pretty much has his facts straight except one: as articles in the Asia Times have pointed out, economic sanctions on Iran have been effective, even on companies not "subject to US law." Debunking McC's Iran lies is an important topic; this is a good start.

See Full Review » (10 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.5

Good
from 4 reviews (40% confidence)
Quality
4.5
Facts
4.5
Fairness
3.5
Information
4.2
Sourcing
4.5
Style
4.7
Accuracy
4.5
Balance
3.7
Context
4.8
Popularity
4.2
Recommendation
4.5
Credibility
4.2
# Reviews
2.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!