HOPE, at last!

Obama: One Voice

Finally, hope, that’s all we ask!

POW/MIA Families Alleged McCain Assault: Senate Ethics Committee Failed to Investigate

by elliot cohen

On June 20, 1996, Senator John McCain allegedly assaulted a family member of a Vietnam War prisoner of war (POW) who was missing in action (MIA), as a group of about 15 family members of POW/MIAs watched in astonishment. Within about one month, five ethics complaints had been filed with the Senate Ethics Committee by five eyewitnesses. But the Senate Ethics Committee refused to investigate the matter.

According to eyewitness Carol Hrdlicka, wife of Vietnam War POW/MIA air force pilot Col. David Hrdlicka, the group had been waiting in the hall of the Russell Office Building in Washington, D.C. for McCain to come out of an office in order to hand deliver letters asking him to forego an amendment to the Missing Service Personnel Act (MSPA) of 2005. The MSPA had been signed into law in February 1996 as part of the Defense Authorization Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-106). This law, which updated a 1942 law, had been a major victory for the families of POW/MIAs who worked tirelessly to get it through Congress.

The MSPA required the Pentagon to beef up its resources to find and rescue missing service personnel in a timely manner. For instance, it required the filing of reports on missing persons within 48 hours. Among other substantive provisions, it also criminalized withholding information from the families of POWs by broadly stipulating that “any person who knowingly and willfully withholds from the personnel file of a missing person any information relating to the disappearance or whereabouts and status of a missing person shall be fined as provided in title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” McCain’s amendment eviscerated these new changes. For instance, it increased the reporting time to 10 days, and it deleted entirely the stated provision penalizing the withholding of information.

These family members of POW/MIAs had come to speak with McCain to try to convince him to leave the law alone. Mrs. Hrdlicka gives the following description of what happened:

When he [McCain] realized who we were, his face turned red and he became enraged. He would not accept the letters we had brought, he burst through our group assaulting the niece of Jane Duke Gaylor, mother of a MIA. I followed Senator McCain down the hall asking that he leave the legislation alone and all the while he is denying that he knew anything about the Missing Personnel Act. …As we reached the elevator he said to me that I didn’t know what he had been through … I then stated I understood what he had been through and David Hrdlicka was still going through it. I had the capture picture of my husband and tried to show the picture to him but he would not look at it. …The elevator arrived and Senator McCain quickly jumped in — that ended our conversation. After this incident we went to the Capitol Police and filed a report. We also sent complaints to the ethics committee on the Senator’s behavior.

“He went from a smiling, congenial, happy face to a beet red, totally enraged face in an instant,” she said. “I have never seen a senator act in this way. We were all dumbfounded how this happened. He threw his arm up, and she goes flying and Jane [who was in a wheelchair] gets pushed aside as he brushes by her. All I see is people flying and I’m behind him [McCain]… This was assault.”

According to Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edition) assault and battery consists of “any unlawful touching of another which is without justification or excuse. … battery requires physical contact of some sort (bodily injury or offensive touching), whereas assault is committed without physical contact….” Given Mrs. Hrdlicka’s description of what happened (which was generally consistent with that given by other eyewitnesses), it would appear that McCain engaged in “offensive touching” of another “without justification or excuse.” Yet neither the Capitol Police nor the Senate Ethics Committee investigated the incident.

An August 2, 1996 letter to Hrdlicka from the Senate Ethics Committee stated, “To the extent that your complaint appears to relate to alleged physical acts, it would appear that appropriate action has been taken by informing the Capitol Police of the alleged incident. Thus, based upon the information which you have provided, no further action is intended with respect to this matter.” The Committee therefore claimed to have rested its decision not to take any action regarding the “alleged physical acts” entirely on the fact that these acts were reported to the Capitol Police. However, the fact that a case is reported to the Capitol Police does not in and of itself constitute an adequate disposition of an ethics problem.

First, as the Senate Ethics Manual explicitly acknowledges, findings of law and findings of ethics are not necessarily the same. Even in cases where a senator may not have violated a specific law, he or she may still have acted unethically or in a manner unbefitting a member of the Senate. For example, when Senator Larry Craig was arrested by police for disorderly conduct in a police sex sting at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport, the Senate Ethics Committee eventually sent Craig a letter of admonition. The letter did not merely admonish Craig for unlawful activity (he had originally pleaded guilty but then attempted to withdraw his guilty plea) but for bringing discredit to the Senate. Citing the Senate Ethics Manual, the Committee stated that Senate Resolution 338 (S. Res. 338) “gives the Committee the authority to investigate Members who engage in “improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate,” regardless of whether such conduct violates a specific statute, Senate Rule, or regulation.” And it added, “the Committee has stated that the Senate “may discipline a Member for any misconduct, including conduct or activity which does not directly relate to official duties, when such conduct unfavorably reflects on the institution as a whole.”

Craig had allegedly tapped his fingers under an adjacent toilet stall occupied by a police officer. But McCain had allegedly assaulted and battered a woman who came to speak to him about a matter of State. In its August 2, 1996 letter to Hrdlicka, the Committee also cited S. Res. 338 as giving it the authority to “receive and investigate allegations of improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate.” Yet, in McCain’s case, the Ethics Committee did not perceive the need to investigate this serious complaint, nor to take issue with McCain’s conduct.

Second, according to Hrdlicka and two other complainants, Capitol Police did not investigate the matter after the incident was reported. On this assumption, there appears to be no evidentiary basis for the Senate Ethics Committee to have concluded that the matter was appropriately resolved. If the Ethics Committee wished to rest its conclusion on the fact that a report was filed with the Capitol Police, then it needed at least to order an investigation. The mere filing of a report does not itself dispose of a complaint.

Hrdlicka’s burning question regarding McCain has been a resounding “Why?” Why did the Senator deny that he knew anything about the Missing Personnel Act? “That,” she said, “was a lie,” because “at that moment he was working behind the scenes to gut the legislation.”

And she queried, “Why does he get so angry at the families? The only thing the families are trying to do is get the truth. He of all senators ought to understand and ought to try and help us because he knows what it is to be a POW. We fought for his rights when he was in captivity.” As late as 1992, Hrdlicka said she had received documented reports of live sightings of her husband. So, after three decades of living with the uncertainty of whether she would ever see her husband alive again, it was reasonable for her to expect a compassionate hearing from the Senator known to be an ardent supporter of the rights of POW/MIAs and their families.

The callous, hostile reception Hrdlicka described was anything but compassionate: physical assault on a family member of a POW/MIA; a concerted effort to eviscerate law that protects POW/MIAs and their families; refusal to speak candidly to those who have suffered for decades; lying about knowledge of the MSPA while all along working to dismantle it — all of these allegations, viewed in relation to one another, paint a coherent, unsettling picture that belies basic tenets of human decency such as doing for others what you would have others do for you. This portrays John McCain in a way that an Ethics Committee with jurisdiction over “improper conduct” of senators sworn to uphold a sacred public trust should not ignore, especially when this profile include allegations of assault and battery.

Hrdlicka finds it hard to palate the possibility that John McCain, the man she says assaulted a family member of a POW/MIA right before her eyes, could be the next Commander in Chief of the United States. Contemplating what a McCain Presidency might portend, Hrdlicka asks, “If he [McCain] will not support the family members of our MIAs, what makes anyone think he will show compassion to any of the people he will be sending off to get maimed?”

So it is understandable why she would see the need to speak out now about the 1996 incident. Viewed in the context of the upcoming Presidential election, the failure of the Senate Ethics Committee to pursue these allegations back in 1996 underscores the present urgency to bring the matter into public view. The court of public opinion may now be the only court left through which a sound verdict might be reached.

---

Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D. is a political
analyst and media critic. His most recent book is The Last Days of
Democracy: How Big Media and Power-Hungry Government are turning
America into a Dictatorship. He is the first prize winner of the 2007
Project Censored Award.

Arianna Huffington: McCain’s Campaign Funding Hypocrisy: Why Are the Media Looking the Other Way? – Politics on The Huffington Post

Arianna Huffington

(Well to answer Ms. Huffington question, which I’m sure she knows, is that all the major media in this country are owned by a conglomeration of corporations that have one agenda. Blood is money and money is the bottom line. For those of you who don’t know, first read the article then I will point out the facts, dave)

Last month, I wrote about the mainstream media’s ongoing membership in the John McCain Protection Society and its offshoot, the Swift Boat Media for McCain, and of how their highly motivated efforts are affecting the presidential race.

The MSM’s overheated response to Barack Obama’s decision to opt out of the public campaign finance system was a textbook example.

“Obama chose winning over his word” and “tarnished his carefully honed image as a different kind of politician,” said the AP’s Liz Sidoti.

“Your typical politician,” said Lou Dobbs.

“No wonder John McCain smelled a flip-flop,” said Dean Reynolds on the CBS Evening News.

“People in this country like to believe that people play on a level playing field and that a campaign will be about ideas and personality; if you start with that much more money, is it basically fair?” asked Charlie Gibson.

Isn’t it interesting how, after largely ignoring the issue for the last 30 years, during which the GOP consistently outfundraised and outspent Democrats in election after election, the media are suddenly all atwitter about whether the campaign finance system is “basically fair”? How dare Obama inspire 1.5 million donors, giving an average of $197 apiece, to help him raise more money than McCain?

“This is a big deal,” said McCain of Obama’s decision. “It’s a big deal. He has completely reversed himself and gone back not on his word to me, but the commitment that he made to the American people. That’s disturbing.”

What’s actually disturbing is the Swift Boat Media’s complete indifference to McCain’s bald-faced hypocrisy on the same issue. Amidst all the attacks on Obama’s “flip-flop,” how much have you read in the MSM about the fact that McCain has “completely reversed himself” on public financing — and is currently breaking the law on a daily basis, making a mockery out of a campaign finance system he helped create?

In the fall of 2007, McCain opted into the public financing system for the GOP primaries, which meant he’d later receive just over $5 million in public funds in exchange for agreeing to a fundraising limit of around $54 million for the entire primary process, which ends when he accepts the nomination at the Republican National Convention in September.

By late November, his campaign was practically broke, so McCain took out a pair of $1 million loans, using the public funds he would receive as collateral.

Cut to Super Tuesday, when McCain had the Republican nomination all but wrapped up. Suddenly, he didn’t want to be bound by that $54 million limit, so his campaign did a 180 and opted back out of the public financing system.

But as David Mason, the Republican-appointed chair of the FEC, has pointed out, you can’t just unilaterally opt out — especially after securing a loan based on having opted in. The response of the McCain campaign is quite simply to ignore Mason. And because the FEC currently lacks a quorum (thanks to stalling tactics by that human roadblock to reform, Mitch McConnell) that’s where things stand, pending a ruling on a lawsuit filed by the DNC.

Yet few in the Swift Boat Media saw fit to point out this glaring contradiction in McCain’s cries about broken commitments made to the American people. Indeed, as Media Matters points out, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the CBS Evening News, NBC’s Nightly News, Fox News’ Special Report, and CNN all dutifully reported McCain’s “Big deal” claim without mentioning McCain’s campaign finance chicanery.

One notable exception was CNN’s John Roberts. When McCain surrogate Nancy Pfotenhauer tried to contrast Obama opting out of public financing and McCain’s steadfast resolve in the face of torture at the Hanoi Hilton, Roberts, as noted by our Jason Linkins, firmly raised the question of whether McCain cheated the campaign financing system.

But that kind of pushback was rare, even as McCain adviser Sen. Lindsey Graham painted Obama’s decision as a dark day for America: “This is just really sad for the country. For somebody with this much ability, this much talent, to fall this far, this soon… This guy wants to win, he’ll do anything to win.”

Looking back on the journey McCain has taken, from tireless champion of campaign finance reform to presidential nominee abusing every campaign finance loophole possible, Graham’s words are actually a fitting epitaph for the loss of the Old John McCain of 2000. It is “just really sad for the country” that the man who once vowed “to have blood all over the floor of the Senate until we accede to the demands of the people” for meaningful reform has been replace by the John McCain of 2008.

Some advocates of public financing have found Obama’s decision a disappointment. Others side with Francis Wilkinson who, writing in the New York Times, deemed it “probably the most obvious and inevitable decision he’ll make all year — justified both politically and ethically.”

I’m torn. As a longtime supporter of public financing of campaigns, I’d certainly like to see a system where money no longer dominates the political process. But given the imperfections of the current system, including the powerful role independent 527s will likely play in the ‘08 race, Obama’s decision is the clearly right one.

What’s more, because of the revolutionary way his campaign has used the Internet, Obama, unlike candidates of the past, no longer needs to spend 2/3 of his time in fundraising dinners with fat cat donors. And wasn’t that the goal of campaign finance reform in the first place?

So while Obama’s decision is a subject open to debate, the mainstream media should not be allowed to get away with their continued refusal to accurately report on the fall of John McCain.

This is the very big deal.

Technorati Tags: mccain, financing, cried wolf, bush third term,

McCain taking steps to be Bush!

Say it ain’t so

By the way, for those of you who don’t know, Putnin is the President of Russia

A Memorial Piece I put together for Dad

My Father, Bernard L. Gregory passed May 30, 2008

Bernard L. Gregory was a military man for 22 year. He jumped in Normandy on “D-Day” June 6, 1944, Battle of the Bulge, and other theaters of war in Europe. He also fought in major battles during the Korean War. He was a member of the Screaming Eagles and jumped a total of 69 times. He often told how at the Battle of the Bulge, when the German Commander’s had ask for the Screaming Eagles surrender, their reserve was steeled by their commander’s response, NUTS! On his first jump he told how nervous he was and that he had grabbed a cigarette to smoke “em” before the jump, he placed it behind his ear, when the green light went off in the plane to commence jumping; he was on the ground before he realized that his cigarette was still behind his ear. In the Korean War he drove a tank and spoke of the night they were bivouac in a cold, freezing forest, the men were standing and sitting near the campfires it was intensely cold. It was the night that the Chinese invaded Korea, entering the war. The Chinese overran their encampment and most of the men didn’t make it back to their tanks. He was one of the lucky ones. He got his tank started and began to mow down the Chinese infantry. He received numerous medals and commendations, including the Bronze Star. He retired from the Army in 1964 at Fort Devens, MA, as a Staff/Sergeant.

He worked at the Vermont Marble Quarry, in Proctor, VT, General Electric in Rutland, VT and at Deem’s Cabinets in Homosassa, FL.

Mr. Gregory was born in Crown Point, New York, Dec. 19, 1922. His father Morgan Gregory, mother, Ida Mae (Bronson) Gregory, and the rest of the family moved to a tenant farm in Vermont soon afterwards. Bernard’s brothers were Leonard, Leon, and Robert. His sisters were Mildred and Retta. They all preceded him in death, along with a great granddaughter who died at birth, Brianna Nicole Shaw. His wife Rita (Bertrand) Gregory passed July 18, 2004, after 52 years of marriage. Bernard is survived by his daughter and son-in-law; Fern & Charles Danford, granddaughters Billie Jo Glover & Stephanie Potter, a great grandson , Jason B White all of Bolivia, NC and a grandson Bryan J Youngs of Hudson NY. He is also survived by his son and daughter in-law, David and Corl Gregory, grandchildren, James Gregory (his wife Jennifer), S/Sergeant, Zachary Scott Gregory, and Rebekah April (her husband, Joe Lloyd). His Great-Grandchildren; Mark (his wife Emily Bare Gregory), Nathan and Emily, Zachary II, Matasyn, Anzli, and baby, Harmony Lloyd, His beloved nephews Tom Gregory and Joe Bertrand were always on his mind.

Services will be held at Wilder’s Funeral Home in Homosassa, FL. Viewing, Wednesday, June 4, between 6 and 8 P.M. Service, Thursday, June 5, 12:00 P.M. and burial will be at the Florida National Cemetery, 6502 SW 102^nd Ave, Bushnell, FL 33513, PHONE (352) 793-7740.

A MUST WATCH-I’m voting republican

ARE YOU NUTS?