• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Small world story time...

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
March 7, 2014
McCain, Manafort, and The Ukraine
By Mark Musser

In October of 2008, Sarah Palin was mocked as being too far-fetched by foreign policy media elites for predicting that if Obama won the presidency, Putin’s Russia’s might indeed invade Ukraine. "Saturday Night Live" had fun with Palin by lampooning her statement when she said one could see Russia from Alaska.

Yet late last week, Palin got the last laugh when Putin invaded the Ukrainian Crimea, “Yes, I could see this one from Alaska. I'm usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate prediction being derided as ‘an extremely far-fetched scenario’ by the ‘high-brow’ Foreign Policy magazine. Here’s what this ‘stupid’ ‘insipid woman’ predicted back in 2008: "After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next."

On Tuesday this week, quick to capture some political capital that Palin earned over the weekend, John McCain gave a 20-minute sermon on the Senate floor about President Obama’s feckless foreign policy actions with regard to the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. McCain preached that Obama is ignorant of who Putin really is, “He does not understand his ambitions. He does not understand that Vladimir Putin is an old KGB colonel bent on restoration of the Soviet empire.” McCain also complained that Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney during the 2012 presidential campaign for claiming that Russia was America’s biggest geopolitical foe.

McCain further reminded his Senate audience that even during his own presidential campaign in 2008 he prophesied of a future crisis in Ukraine with Russia. In August of 2008, Russia and Georgia fought a five-day war in which the Kremlin ‘defended’ and gave autonomy to the pro-Russian areas of Ossetia and Abkhazia that were supposed to be under Georgian control. On the heels of the crisis, McCain therefore warned that the Russified enclave of the Ukrainian Crimea might become the next target on Putin’s list. McCain’s statements came in September 2008, before Palin made her comments in October.

While McCain’s campaign prophecy has since come true in dramatic fashion, there is a very soft underbelly to this entire story that leaves the senator’s slam-dunk prediction completely compromised. All the while that McCain was talking up Ukraine as being a potential future hot spot on the Russian geopolitical horizon, Republican insider and political strategist Paul Manafort was deeply entrenched in Kiev. He was advising a Soviet apparatchik with strong Ukrainian-Russian mafia ties by the name of Victor Yanukovych; the very man who would become Ukraine’s president in 2010, the very same man whom Ukrainians sent packing out of the country in 2014 through an incredible three-month long protest against his authoritarianism and corruption.

Before 2008, Yanukovych’s political party, called the Party of Regions, worked closely with a lobbying firm called Davis Manafort (out of Delaware) comprising of Rick Davis and Paul Manafort. In 2008 Rick Davis became McCain’s presidential campaign manager. Paul Manafort worked closely with Rick Davis for years as they own a lobbying firm together called Davis Manafort and Freedman (out of Arlington, Virginia). Back home in the U.S., Manafort himself wanted to chair the 2008 Republican Convention, but was rejected because of his heavyweight lobbyist reputation as a Washington insider. Manafort ran Bob Dole’s Republican Convention back in 1996. While Manafort still did provide some political advice to the McCain campaign, he returned to Kiev to devote himself more fully to Yanukovych.

With no small thanks to what was described as Manafort’s maniacal efforts, Yanukovych was elected president of Ukraine in 2010. One of Manafort’s former colleagues went so far to say, “Yanukovych came to power through a series of elections and would never have won without Manafort’s counsel.” Indeed, Yanukovych had to overcome the Orange Revolution of 2004 which he himself provoked by trying to steal the election from Victor Yuschenko. With Manafort at the helm, Yanukovych’s political fortunes quickly recovered so that he was able to make a breathtaking comeback all the way to the highest office in the land in Ukraine.

However, in the end, the Orange Revolution came back to negate Manafort’s accomplishments. The sentiments that created the Orange Revolution in 2004 did not disappear, but came roaring back with a vengeance when Ukrainians took to the streets of Kiev with massive protests.

Instead of the more peaceful Orange Revolution, this time, more than 100 people were killed and hundreds more injured -- capped off with Russia’s invasion of the Crimea. Not surprisingly, Rick Davis is currently distancing himself from Manafort. He claims he has not worked with Manafort in years.

That may be, but the connections between Yanukovych and Republican campaign insiders does not end at Manafort’s doorstep. Vin Weber, Mitt Romney’s foreign policy advisor in 2012, also lobbied for Yanukovych through the European Center for Modern Ukraine. For the year 2013, Vin Weber reported that he received $280,000 from the ECMF for his services. The ECMF was launched in January of 2012, designed to ‘progressively’ help Yanukovych’s falling political image. The president of the ECMU, Leonid Kozhara, belongs to Yanukovich’s political party. The ECMF is funded by the Party of Regons.

Even though Weber was the past chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy, an organization that grants money to NGOs for the sake of promoting democracy across the world, his record in Ukraine demonstrates a forked tongue. Yanukovych’s party was supported by many of those on the far left in Ukraine, including many communists. Yanukovych himself is both very autocratic and pro-Russian, and was considered by many to be a stooge of the Kremlin. More than likely, the ECMF was the brainchild of Manafort

Thus, when McCain recently boasted he and Romney were right about the Russians regarding Ukraine, his assertion rang hollow. The very political advisors who were involved in their own respective presidential campaigns were also lobbying for Victor Yanukovych – the same man whose autocratic style and massive corruption aided and abetted a blowup in the Crimea.

McCain should have perhaps left the glory to Sarah Palin last Friday about her accurate prediction. By wanting to get a piece of the action, McCain has just exposed himself and Romney to the political misdeeds of the very crony campaign insiders who are at the heart of perhaps the biggest international crisis to hit the 21st century to date. Worse, once again, conservatives like Sarah Palin are compromised by Republican insiders ‘expert’ political strategies where surefire touchdowns become devastating interceptions so that even when they win they lose again.

http://www.americanthinker.com/assets/3rd_party/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/mccain_manafort_and_the_ukraine.html[/quote]


MCain also traveled to Ukraine this year, to visit with the protesters...

 
A

Anonymous

Guest
McCain is bought and paid for by the Military Industrial Complex that has to keep stirring up wars around the nation for us to finance or fight so they can keep making their Billions $ out of a defense budget almost 8 times that of any other nation...
Comically that next nation is China- where we have to borrow the funds to finance the nearly Trillion $ a year defense/military expense money from... :roll:
 

mrj

Well-known member
I've heard accusations of the evils of that "military industrial complex since my high school days back in the mid-'50's.

Whomever it may have 'enriched', and I've seen no verification of that as fact, our military have kept us relatively free people, they work reasonably hard, from what I've seen of quite a number of folks who had careers there.

Contrast that with your liberal Democrat voting block carefully crafted by political leaders who realized that in under-educated, DEPENDENT class of people would be reliable voters for that party: quite willing to live on 'benefits' to which they are taught to feel entitled, pump out new little voters, and keep their benefactors in power.

I'll take the military any day!

mrj
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
MRJ

The thing about the military is that it can be observed by the public, there is some amount of constraint, in that sense.

Which I am all for.

The meddling is a different story. And by meddling I mean the clandestine/covert type of ops that these NGOs carry out. Toppling governments by pitting one "faction" against another is irresponsible IMO.

In every Country that this administration has attempted to "bring Democracy" to...the Country has been left in shambles. In many cases the "shambles" results in military intervention being needed to clean up the mess.

I don't believe the military intervention has been the initial goal, so the MIC can profit, but in most cases, the meddling has resulted in the MIC being able to take advantage of the situation, with the odd nudge towards military intervention.

chicken/egg, I guess

911 can be used as an example, but after the last few days, I have learned that such topics can not be brought up, without some thinking that you believe every article you post, every conspiracy theories is fact and that you are unAmerica, or tarnishing a whole Nation by doing so.

Many times things are brought up so a discussion can be had and hopefully piece together the puzzle behind a situation and analyze which "coincidences", if you want to call them that, were preventable from a voter point of view, as much as possible.

Just my 2 cents...
 

Steve

Well-known member
911 can be used as an example, but after the last few days, I have learned that such topics can not be brought up, without some thinking that you believe every article you post, every conspiracy theories is fact and that you are unAmerica, or tarnishing a whole Nation by doing so.

BULLCRAP

you can post what you want.. you just do not have the courage to stand by your beliefs..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve said:
911 can be used as an example, but after the last few days, I have learned that such topics can not be brought up, without some thinking that you believe every article you post, every conspiracy theories is fact and that you are unAmerica, or tarnishing a whole Nation by doing so.

BULLCRAP

you can post what you want.. you just do not have the courage to stand by your beliefs..

Besides being a Conservative, you have no idea what my beliefs are, unless I express them. And I will post views, from both sides of the issue, or from only one side of an issue and that is for different reasons.


Some would call that a lack of courage to stand up for my beliefs, assume they know my beliefs and attack personally...others see it as providing information, so others can make up their own minds, or my own mind. Are you correct, or are they?

I'm not here to force my beliefs on others, and for the most part, that's why you do not know what I believe.

I have posted conspiracy theory, and debunked conspiracy theories both on this board.

But in regards to one issue, where you believe it was conspiracy theory, you brought up my assumed belief in another, in an attempt to discredit me.

I have to ask...why did you pick 911 and not the birth certificate conspiracy theory? Would that have discredited you, with some on this board?

See what I'm saying?

And I will admit, in some threads you will notice my opinion change. You might call that "changing my story", and personally attack...others will recognize that is the purpose of discussion and that beliefs are sometimes developed as new information comes available, others' opinions are presented, or working through a set of facts and circumstances brings up something they didn't think of.

So continue to assume you know my beliefs...it doesn't hurt my feelings at all
 

Steve

Well-known member
I have to ask...why did you pick 911 and not the birth certificate conspiracy theory? Would that have discredited you, with some on this board?

I have no actual proof where Obama was born,.. who his father is..

same with all his grades ect. and with all that there has been alot of doubt published to what is forged and what is not. but there is not any real facts.

so how could I criticize what you said? all we have are theories.





but I know for a fact two planes flew into the world trade center, one crashed in a field in Pennsylvanian and another flew into the pentagon..
I know the fuel tanks and the cantilevered engineering design caused Building seven to collapse. these are FACTS

and I have only had two people who argued so adamantly for their position. and refused to accept those few facts and the many others that made up that tragedy.

and you were one of those two.. no matter what proof was presented you wouldn't accept it,.







I don't know what you believe in your heart..

there are two choices...
you either believe what you posted on Sept 11th.. then while I disagree I can accept your position.
or that we are siding with neo nazi's in the Ukraine like Russia wants the world to believe.
and if you believe the Russian propaganda is true.. then while I disagree I can accept your position.



but the second choice


well if a person can argue so adamantly about Sept 11th and the Ukraine. knowing what a tragedy Sept 11th was and or could ignore the plight of these and so adamantly argue for five days his position

five days.. and still you don't relent.
12 years after Sept 11th you still haven't given up..

if after twelve years you are STILL bothered by the event and it's circumstances.

and after five days of arguing your point about US supporting neo nazis



and you don't believe it

think about that let it sink in



No matter how many times someone explained the facts.. 12 years later you still want to debate Sept 11

and after five days of my saying that much of what is being said about the Ukraine is Russian propaganda and you arguing adamantly for five days.

and still have not relented. and you don't believe and support your position


Please think about that.. let it sink in..


I argued with you over Sept 11 the because I agreed with my position
while not every miniscule fact was proven.. I know for the most part 19 terrorist flew 4 planes into buildings and a field.
I have nothing left to debate.. you believe what you want and I will believe what I want.

over the last five days.. you haven't conceded a single point. and you have probably left another comment in one of the threads as I type this. you can't seem to let it go..

I already threw in the hat yesterday.. I believe I am right.. but I know I will not change your position on the issue.. so there is no real point defending some miniscule fact I over looked.

I believe my positions .. and can accept if you believe yours

try to let that sink in.. Please think about it.









but if you still after 12 years want to debate Sept 11th and you do [n]not[/n] believe or support your position..

and after five days I can't convince you that it is Russian propaganda and a minority of the country.. then I know I am not going to change your mind.. I still have some debate point I would like to make and go over..
but really five days.. so if you do not believe your position and argued over the last five days and still want to go over it then,...


again please read what I said



if you do NOT believe your position on those two issues and you debated as adamantly as you did ,.. Then you have a serious problem..



if I were you I would think real careful before you respond.. and look real careful at what I said

cause you could lose all credibility and respect along with many people thinking you are a bit unstable ...


That is why I used Sept 11th.



BTW if you don't respond many will realize you are a nut and you will have lost credibility anyways..
 

Steve

Well-known member
edited to clarify said:
and I have only had two people who argued so adamantly for their position. and refused to accept those few facts and the many others (fact) that made up that tragedy.

maybe I should have put in fact again.. but instead went with others.

"accept those few facts and the many others?.. (IE more facts)



nice job at finding four words you could distort and take COMPLETELY out of context to avoid answering..


either way.. I knew you wouldn't answer..

that is the problem with people who believe conspiracy theories.

they always want you to prove your point.. but will NEVER concede or answer basic easy questions.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve said:
edited to clarify said:
and I have only had two people who argued so adamantly for their position. and refused to accept those few facts and the many others (fact) that made up that tragedy.

maybe I should have put in fact again.. but instead went with others.

"accept those few facts and the many others?.. (IE more facts)



nice job at finding four words you could distort and take COMPLETELY out of context to avoid answering..


either way.. I knew you wouldn't answer..

that is the problem with people who believe conspiracy theories.

they always want you to prove your point.. but will NEVER concede or answer basic easy questions.

avoid answering what? ...as I said, I quit reading after that statement.

Was there a non rhetorical question before that?


Steve said:
I have to ask...why did you pick 911 and not the birth certificate conspiracy theory? Would that have discredited you, with some on this board?

I have no actual proof where Obama was born,.. who his father is..

same with all his grades ect. and with all that there has been alot of doubt published to what is forged and what is not. but there is not any real facts.

so how could I criticize what you said? all we have are theories.





but I know for a fact two planes flew into the world trade center, one crashed in a field in Pennsylvanian and another flew into the pentagon..
I know the fuel tanks and the cantilevered engineering design caused Building seven to collapse. these are FACTS

and I have only had two people who argued so adamantly for their position. and refused to accept those few facts and the many others that made up that tragedy.




did you ask a question past that point, that I did not answer to your satisfaction? Maybe instead of telling me to "let it sink in", you have to beat your opinion into my head...








Steve said:
and you were one of those two.. no matter what proof was presented you wouldn't accept it,.







I don't know what you believe in your heart..

there are two choices...
you either believe what you posted on Sept 11th.. then while I disagree I can accept your position.
or that we are siding with neo nazi's in the Ukraine like Russia wants the world to believe.
and if you believe the Russian propaganda is true.. then while I disagree I can accept your position.



but the second choice


well if a person can argue so adamantly about Sept 11th and the Ukraine. knowing what a tragedy Sept 11th was and or could ignore the plight of these and so adamantly argue for five days his position

five days.. and still you don't relent.
12 years after Sept 11th you still haven't given up..

if after twelve years you are STILL bothered by the event and it's circumstances.

and after five days of arguing your point about US supporting neo nazis



and you don't believe it

think about that let it sink in



No matter how many times someone explained the facts.. 12 years later you still want to debate Sept 11

and after five days of my saying that much of what is being said about the Ukraine is Russian propaganda and you arguing adamantly for five days.

and still have not relented. and you don't believe and support your position


Please think about that.. let it sink in..


I argued with you over Sept 11 the because I agreed with my position
while not every miniscule fact was proven.. I know for the most part 19 terrorist flew 4 planes into buildings and a field.
I have nothing left to debate.. you believe what you want and I will believe what I want.

over the last five days.. you haven't conceded a single point. and you have probably left another comment in one of the threads as I type this. you can't seem to let it go..

I already threw in the hat yesterday.. I believe I am right.. but I know I will not change your position on the issue.. so there is no real point defending some miniscule fact I over looked.

I believe my positions .. and can accept if you believe yours

try to let that sink in.. Please think about it.









but if you still after 12 years want to debate Sept 11th and you do [n]not[/n] believe or support your position..

and after five days I can't convince you that it is Russian propaganda and a minority of the country.. then I know I am not going to change your mind.. I still have some debate point I would like to make and go over..
but really five days.. so if you do not believe your position and argued over the last five days and still want to go over it then,...


again please read what I said



if you do NOT believe your position on those two issues and you debated as adamantly as you did ,.. Then you have a serious problem..



if I were you I would think real careful before you respond.. and look real careful at what I said

cause you could lose all credibility and respect along with many people thinking you are a bit unstable ...


That is why I used Sept 11th.



BTW if you don't respond many will realize you are a nut and you will have lost credibility anyways..
 

Steve

Well-known member
there was no question... It is a Statement and an honest answer to your question.

I just put it up to create a discussion.



I knew would would not respond to what I wrote


I knew you would find ways to divert from the actual statement.

like taking several words out of context..

claiming to not read it.

not being able to drop it.

and]/b] even contradicting yourself.



have a nice evening,.. I made my point..

since you wont be able to acknowledge or concede I'll shorten it down to the point.

if you believe it is fine.. some people just can't accept facts that contradict their beliefs.

others think people are a game.. they claim to argue a point they don't believe in or they just elude the question. and say "you can't tell me what I believe" like you did.

fact is you either believe or you don't really after five days or twelve years there is no gray area,


but to argue adamantly for 5 days and still want to argue 12 years later , and not believe,. well then you have a problem.

most people would just give an honest response and let it go..

but not others they can't answer or concede a point.
and they either believe in Conspiracy theories a bit to much
or they have a problem..

your choice
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve said:
there was no question... It is a Statement and an honest answer to your question.

I just put it up to create a discussion.



I knew would would not respond to what I wrote


Great, you win...I didn't answer your non existent question...



Steve said:
either way.. I knew you wouldn't answer..

maybe you aren't hearing...the message being sent.

I've answered your questions, but you are not receiving the answer you want to hear, so you keep repeating the questions, 100s of times, hoping I will change my answers, so they match your beliefs.

It's an impossibility...

..but, let me "let it sink in", or you can beat it in, for a bit, maybe I will believe the same as you someday...
 

Steve

Well-known member
I did two things in this tread..

I answered your question

and I treated you like you treated me

I lost count of how many times I asked what was the question. or what was your point..

only for you to go in another circle.


so why all the snarky comments all over the board?
 
Top