Carl H. Lindner Jr. is a businessman who recently co-hosted a big dollar fundraiser for John McCain. He also oversaw the payment of about $1.7 million to a terrorist organization. But that's okay because (a) the terrorists were Latin American rather than Arab, (b) the terrorists were right-wing Latin Americans rather than leftists, and (c) McCain is a straight-talker and the candidate of honor so it's not actually possible for any number of sleazy associations to taint him.
« Alinea | Main | Obama's Service Plans »
Friends of Mac
02 Jul 2008 09:30 am
Comments (24)
John McCain's ethical blindness continues...
boz is correct, and as the article points out, McCain has described FARC as "one of the worst terrorist organizations", and has tried to argue Obama is somehow soft on FARC because of his differences on Columbian trade issues.
So if this isn't a big issue among the media, it is really because of (C), not (A) or (B).
Not because of A?
I find that it a little disingenuous. The media has bashed us over the head between the association of only Arabs with the word terrorist, that Latin groups are largely referred to as guerrilla groups or rogue militias and hardly as terrorists. Lets not delude ourselves.
Sid,
I don't know if you were responding to me, but as I noted McCain himself has specifically described FARC as a terrorist organization, and they have been designated as such by the State Department.
Now if the media ignores those facts in covering this story, maybe it will be because the media is pushing the terrorist=Arabs idea. But the more likely explanation, I think, would be that the media is pushing the McCain=straighttalkingbadass idea. Indeed, I think if you turned this around and McCain was attacking Obama for indirect links to FARC, the media would have no problem identifying FARC as a terrorist organization.
See! The Republicans don't think all brown people are terrorists. Just THOSE brown people.
If McCain does not reject the man and his money, he's a whore. I don't give a f*** what he did in the military.
In the category of its a mad, mad world...I met Carl Lindner when I lived in Cincinnati and was doing fundraising for a small arts organization (a children's theatre). The Lindners funded the organization. I had no use for his political views, which were well known in Cincy -- it's possible I even knew about this paramilitary funding thing, which has made the news before (I at least knew he was pretty much a wingnut). Yet here was Lindner and his wife giving us scads of money and actually attending rehearsals. You could see how much pure enjoyment they got out of it -- as a non-profit fundraiser you develop a sense for when a gift actually means something to the giver.
It's such a shame Lindner can't extend that sort of caring to this other, sordid, aspect of his life.
Of course, Bin Laden isn't exactly a leftist, either, except in the more fanciful imaginings of the terminal wingnuts.
Now you're just piling on with the italics to annoy us. Stop it, Matt. Excessive emphasis is not only condescending, it's characteristic of lazy writing.
I look forward to seeing how McCain's doing favors for and taking money from a guy who funneled millions to terrorists gets the kind of coverage that Obama's tenuous connection to a guy in his neighborhood who was part of a radical group more than 40 years ago, who's been a perfectly decent member of society since, and who not only never killed anybody but was never convicted of anything.
Oh, wait, that's stupid to expect. Banana Republicans get an automatic exemption from having to justify their support of terrorists.
rufustfyrfly,
Of course Bin Laden is a Lefty. I mean it is not like back in the day Bin Laden was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan or something.
Those were our terrorists, you know, the ones the CIA was running out of Bush 41's offices not so long ago.
So if this isn't a big issue among the media, it is really because of (C), not (A) or (B).
Then he should walk the walk rather than just talk the talk.
It seems there's a distinction between paying ransoms/protection money and funding terrorists because you like the terrorists.
Does this sort of he said-she said/he did-she did stuff actually do anything to further political discourse? Yes, corporations often do shady things in the conduct of their business, especially in shady places. And, yes, politicians often take money from individuals involved with those corporations. Welcome to international business. Welcome to politics.
This insinuation, that John McCain gets a pass where a Democrat would not, is neither here nor there. A pass from Fox News… from The National Review? Sure, but so what. I look forward to the day when the partisan media holds their ideological allies to the same, or even higher, standards than they do their opponents. I will not, however, be holding my breath.
Does this sort of he said-she said/he did-she did stuff actually do anything to further political discourse? Yes, corporations often do shady things in the conduct of their business, especially in shady places. And, yes, politicians often take money from individuals involved with those corporations. Welcome to international business. Welcome to politics.
This insinuation, that John McCain gets a pass where a Democrat would not, is neither here nor there. A pass from Fox News… from The National Review? Sure, but so what. I look forward to the day when the partisan media holds their ideological allies to the same, or even higher, standards than they do their opponents. I will not, however, be holding my breath.
SamChevre,
Um, sure, but no one is accusing Lindner (or McCain) of actually supporting FARC et al. But in a political campaign where even talking to Iran would make you a damn dirty appeaser, I'd say actually paying off terrorist organizations should be a no-no, wouldn't you?
jrleonard,
How about we see if McCain also gets a pass from CNN, the NYT, the Washington Post, and so on?
By the way, I think the most serious point is not that McCain and the GOP are being hypocritical on these guilt-by-association issues, although of course they are. Rather, the more serious point is that McCain really is just a political creation of the likes of Lindner, as in fact was Dubya. So, swapping McCain for Dubya would just be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, because in truth the same people would still be piloting the ship.
"It seems there's a distinction between paying ransoms/protection money and funding terrorists because you like the terrorists.
Posted by SamChevre | July 2, 2008 10:46 AM"
Which is why Chiquita got fined $25 million by the US government for these payments. The Bush Administration has been rather lenient with businesses conducting such shady practices, such as the American oil company that got sued by Burmese workers for using slave labor to lay down an oil pipeline. The fact that they would actually go out of their way to fine a famously right-wing company with long-time connections to GOP elders and their allies says something.
Yes, corporations often do shady things in the conduct of their business, especially in shady places. And, yes, politicians often take money from individuals involved with those corporations. Welcome to international business. Welcome to politics.
You're right, just because people do shady things in conducting international business doesn't mean it should be pointed out, or they should be shunned. After all, the business world, and the political world, are completely separate from the real world. The poor CEO can't help that the corporation he works for demands things be done that some may find immoral or illegal. It is not like the CEO is the one being immoral, he is only acting as an agent of the corporation, fulfilling the corporation's wishes. Do you blame the steak knife for stabbing someone?
Ohio's a must-win for McCain. Big Banana is based in Cincinnati.
Anyone remember the case of Mike Gallagher?
Yes, corporations often do shady things in the conduct of their business, especially in shady places
We are, however, talking about United fucking Fruit here, the people who put the 'banana' in banana republic. They're into their second century of shitting over Latin America.
I find that it a little disingenuous. The media has bashed us over the head between the association of only Arabs with the word terrorist, that Latin groups are largely referred to as guerrilla groups or rogue militias and hardly as terrorists. Lets not delude ourselves.
This is true. Further evidence can be seen by the fact that the JDL, for instance, operates with impunity, despite its terrorist nature.
The imperialist spirit of UFC lives on!
Somewhere in hell, the Dulles brothers are laughing.
Ohio's a must-win for McCain. Big Banana is based in Cincinnati.
So was Charles Keating!
Comments closed July 16, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Just to clarify, the terrorists were both "right-wing" and "left-wing." Chiquita paid protection money to the AUC, FARC and ELN over the course of Linder's being CEO. They basically paid whichever terrorist organization controlled the banana territory at that moment.
Posted by boz | July 2, 2008 9:42 AM