Now McCain is a War Criminal and Traitor! Sheeesh!

#26
#26
TennNC said:
Well, that wasn't what I was getting at. More specifically, did Ferraro's comments about Obama affect Clinton the way that Clark's comments about McCain will affect Obama? And did both statements (which were answers to questions from the show moderators) actually have some truth in them but were very inappropriate and not smart?
Click to expand...

I think Clark had been working this angle prior to the CBS show. Also, he has not backed away from the comments (nor did Ferraro).

It appears to be an effort to remove McCain's military experience edge. The fact that it is being done by linking him to war crimes and being a traitor is supremely ironic given the left's outcry about the Swiftboat stuff.
 
#27
#27
volinbham said:
I saw the conservative comment but not sure who it is other than the POW/MIA group referenced in the article.

Not sure exactly what you are asking me but I think Clark is working a message that has been trotted out and tried by several Obama supporters. That message appears to be gaining some momentum among the left.
Click to expand...

see my comment above (#22).
 
#28
#28
volinbham said:
I saw the conservative comment but not sure who it is other than the POW/MIA group referenced in the article.

Not sure exactly what you are asking me but I think Clark is working a message that has been trotted out and tried by several Obama supporters. That message appears to be gaining some momentum among the left.
Click to expand...


First, Clark said last night he absolutely was not speaking for the Obama campaign when he made his remarks over the weekend.

Second, Obama himself has said nothing remotely close to that.

Third, Obama has repeatedly commended McCain and talked about how much respect he has for McCain's service.

What you are doing -- implying that Obama himself (or at least high-ups in his campaign) are behind or are promoting this nonsense is a complete bastardization of the facts.

If I go find someone who says he is voting for McCain and not for Obama because Obama is a (insert racial word here), does that mean that by extension McCain is a racist, too? Of course not.

You want to criticize Obama for lack of experience? Fine. You want to criticize Obama for being too liberal on social policy? I can see that. You want to criticize Obama for not taking a harsher stand on Rev. Wright? I would agree with you.

But quit trying to put words into Obama's mouth and drop the Limbaugh/Hannity spin express.
 
#29
#29
while it's true that being shot down over Vietnam doesn't qualify you to be President (the Constitution is clear on the qualifications), it's what happened afterwards that Clark, the rabid left, and others don't seem to want to acknowledge. McCain was the ranking officer in the prison camp. He was given chances to leave, but refused to leave without all of the men under his command.
 
#30
#30
MG1968 said:
while it's true that being shot down over Vietnam doesn't qualify you to be President (the Constitution is clear on the qualifications), it's what happened afterwards that Clark, the rabid left, and others don't seem to want to acknowledge. McCain was the ranking officer in the prison camp. He was given chances to leave, but refused to leave without all of the men under his command.
Click to expand...

Everyone should think about this choice and ask themselves if they would do the same. That is true character there. I cannot imagine a more difficult decision to make.
 
#31
#31
lawgator1 said:
First, Clark said last night he absolutely was not speaking for the Obama campaign when he made his remarks over the weekend.

Second, Obama himself has said nothing remotely close to that.

Third, Obama has repeatedly commended McCain and talked about how much respect he has for McCain's service.

What you are doing -- implying that Obama himself (or at least high-ups in his campaign) are behind or are promoting this nonsense is a complete bastardization of the facts.

If I go find someone who says he is voting for McCain and not for Obama because Obama is a (insert racial word here), does that mean that by extension McCain is a racist, too? Of course not.

You want to criticize Obama for lack of experience? Fine. You want to criticize Obama for being too liberal on social policy? I can see that. You want to criticize Obama for not taking a harsher stand on Rev. Wright? I would agree with you.

But quit trying to put words into Obama's mouth and drop the Limbaugh/Hannity spin express.
Click to expand...

Several Obama supporters does not equal Obama.
 
#32
#32
MG1968 said:
while it's true that being shot down over Vietnam doesn't qualify you to be President (the Constitution is clear on the qualifications), it's what happened afterwards that Clark, the rabid left, and others don't seem to want to acknowledge. McCain was the ranking officer in the prison camp. He was given chances to leave, but refused to leave without all of the men under his command.
Click to expand...

It was a selfless act. He suffered to protect his men. And I have absolutely no earthly idea what it was like for him and will never try to imply that I understand what he went through.

What should Clark et al. have said? Not trying to be an a$$ - their point is that they appreciate his service but that doesn't mean McCain will be a great president. Does the fact that he refused to leave without all of the men under his command mean he will be a great president?
 
#33
#33
TennNC said:
It was a selfless act. He suffered to protect his men. And I have absolutely no earthly idea what it was like for him and will never try to imply that I understand what he went through.

What should Clark et al. have said? Not trying to be an a$$ - their point is that they appreciate his service but that doesn't mean McCain will be a great president. Does the fact that he refused to leave without all of the men under his command mean he will be a great president?
Click to expand...

the fact that they are holding Obama up as a better potential President because of his "judgement" and character. Wes Clark's comment about being shot down was a deflection from Schieffer's point about Obama's resume being so thin it's transparent.
 
#34
#34
TennNC said:
It was a selfless act. He suffered to protect his men. And I have absolutely no earthly idea what it was like for him and will never try to imply that I understand what he went through.

What should Clark et al. have said? Not trying to be an a$$ - their point is that they appreciate his service but that doesn't mean McCain will be a great president. Does the fact that he refused to leave without all of the men under his command mean he will be a great president?
Click to expand...

It shows that he can be a selfless leader. I get your point though and agree that his service in the military is not assurance that he will be a great president. I will say this though, between his military service and his service in our government he is experienced and is enough for me to vote in his favor.
 
#35
#35
If McCain was a traitor, what was Jane Fonda? Half the current Democratic party leadership was probably protesting and waving NV flags around at the same time McCain was a POW.
 
#36
#36
lawgator1 said:
What you are doing -- implying that Obama himself (or at least high-ups in his campaign) are behind or are promoting this nonsense is a complete bastardization of the facts.

But quit trying to put words into Obama's mouth and drop the Limbaugh/Hannity spin express.
Click to expand...

It is not I who is suggesting it. Analysts on both sides of the political spectrum are suggesting this.

The Swiftboat effort was attributed to Bush & Co. However, was there ever any direct link? No but the perception was there. What do you think? Was Bush Co. connected in any way?

There is a subtle but clear distinction being made by the Dems (Clark, Harkin, Rockerfeller, Kerry) who are trotting these comments out. They are not saying his service isn't commendable but they are trying to minimize it from a qualification point. To do so, they have to minimize his war experience then back away from criticizing it.

Do you believe it is concidental that there has been this string of commentary along this line from Obama supporters?
 
#37
#37
Plano Vol said:
If McCain was a traitor, what was Jane Fonda? Half the current Democratic party leadership was probably protesting and waving NV flags around at the same time McCain was a POW.
Click to expand...

I would love to see McCain slap her across the face!
 
#39
#39
TennNC said:
What should Clark et al. have said? Not trying to be an a$$ - their point is that they appreciate his service but that doesn't mean McCain will be a great president. Does the fact that he refused to leave without all of the men under his command mean he will be a great president?
Click to expand...

It certainly shows character and leadership. It shows a deep understand of the consequences of military action, of the workings of the military, etc. At a minimum, it is certainly a higher level of qualification on these issues than Obama has. However, the message being sent is that these things are essentially irrelevant and being a community organizer and being against the Iraq war are better indicators of qualification.

The Dems are playing a cynical game here - they are trying to say these things while admirable (wink wink) are not relevant in being the president. By doing so, they are completely minimizing McCain's experiences and experience.

To me, it's pretty classless.
 
#40
#40
Some more from the Dem side - this time, an informal Obama advisor:

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Molly Hunter Report: While Barack Obama was urging supporters not to devalue the military service of rival John McCain, an informal Obama adviser argued Monday that the former POW's isolation during the Vietnam War has hobbled the Arizona senator's capacity as a war-time leader.
Click to expand...

Political Radar: Dem Guru: McCain 'Limited' by POW Years

Oh goody, another coincidence.
 
#41
#41
KB5252 said:
It shows that he can be a selfless leader. I get your point though and agree that his service in the military is not assurance that he will be a great president. I will say this though, between his military service and his service in our government he is experienced and is enough for me to vote in his favor.
Click to expand...

Okay. Fair point. You and MG1968 both.

And I think that Obama's prescience in October 2002 is what originally caught my eye about him and leads me to vote in favor of him:

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."
 
#43
#43
volinbham said:
It is not I who is suggesting it. Analysts on both sides of the political spectrum are suggesting this.

The Swiftboat effort was attributed to Bush & Co. However, was there ever any direct link? No but the perception was there. What do you think? Was Bush Co. connected in any way?

There is a subtle but clear distinction being made by the Dems (Clark, Harkin, Rockerfeller, Kerry) who are trotting these comments out. They are not saying his service isn't commendable but they are trying to minimize it from a qualification point. To do so, they have to minimize his war experience then back away from criticizing it.

Do you believe it is concidental that there has been this string of commentary along this line from Obama supporters?
Click to expand...


As to your first point, nobody said that Bush himself was behind Swiftboat. I think there was some suspicion that Rove might have at least been in the loop on it. But I believe the criticism of that episode is firts that some 517 outfit that was anti-Kery did that, and second that Kerry's early response was lame.

As to your second, this is exactly the kind of subtle manipulation of fact by you (and Rush and Hannity) that is so frustrating to people who are trying to be intellectually honest, whether they are liberal or conservative. You ask whether it is coincidence that there has been a "string of commentary..." Please.

As far as I know its two, maybe three comments, and displaced considerably by both time and context. When you use the phrase "string of commnetary," you imply that the message is contrived, repeated frequently, and related (like one piece of string).

You are an intelligent person, clearly. Please don't stoop to the Limbaugh level of manipulating fact by changing the words around a bit just to suit your purpose.

Like I said, there's plenty to criticize Obama about. I may not even vote for the guy. I don't like his posiiton on talking to some of these irrational leaders, I am worried about his taxation policies, I think he is naive in many respects, I do not think he was nearly tough enough on Wright (though I understand the politics of the rock and the hard place he was in), etc.

I just want honest criticism of him, just as I want honest criticism of McCain. I'm so tired of both sides manufacturing issues by taking things other people say, out of context, and trying to pin the reconstructed version to the candidate, then criticisng that. Its a ploy that is just so intellectually dishonest and it kills me that it works on the feeble-minded, both on the right and the left.
 
#44
#44
TennNC said:
Okay. Fair point. You and MG1968 both.

And I think that Obama's prescience in October 2002 is what originally caught my eye about him and leads me to vote in favor of him:

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."
Click to expand...
surely you don't think that he was the only one who saw this?

I guarantee you that the hawks who were the biggest proponents of the invasion saw exactly this scenario, but appreciated the strategic significance of the entire fight.

His trash about Al-Qaeda is just trash. The recruitment drivel is overblown and Al-Qaeda could massively increase its recruitment and not significantly alter its impact on the world. In fact, massive expansion of Al Qaeda would present an enormous risk to the organization.
 
#45
#45
TennNC said:
Okay. Fair point. You and MG1968 both.

And I think that Obama's prescience in October 2002 is what originally caught my eye about him and leads me to vote in favor of him:

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."
Click to expand...

I don't think you are alone. This issue is what helped him knock out Hillary and is propelling him past any criticisms of his other policies, experience level, etc. He is the anti-Iraq war candidate.

I won't ask you to continue to justify your decision - I'm sure that gets old.

As a rhetorical question, is this pre-war stance sufficient? I continually am baffled at his use of "I was against it" as an answer to what are you going to do now?
 
#46
#46
#47
#47
volinbham said:
Some more from the Dem side - this time, an informal Obama advisor:



Political Radar: Dem Guru: McCain 'Limited' by POW Years

Oh goody, another coincidence.
Click to expand...


Dude, you are killing me! Did you actually read the article!? All you do is quote the few sentences that manipulate the actual comments!

Whatg the guy said is that because McCain was in isolation over there in Vietnam for a large part of the war, he was not part of the controversy and debate going on at the same time here in the U.S. as to the wisdom of the war. Obviously, it is completely understandable and his "unavailability" is not something he is to be criticized for. But, it does mean that he does not have that same experience that others might have when it comes to tolerating and resolving similar future debates.

That is absolutely, factually, true.

You want what the real criticism should be in retort? Here: Obama was himself, what, like maybe 10 or 12 years old during Vietnam? Maybe 15? He is likewise unable to have much "perspective" on dealing with controvery here in the U.S. for an unpopular war.
 
#48
#48
volinbham said:
I don't think you are alone. This issue is what helped him knock out Hillary and is propelling him past any criticisms of his other policies, experience level, etc. He is the anti-Iraq war candidate.

I won't ask you to continue to justify your decision - I'm sure that gets old.

As a rhetorical question, is this pre-war stance sufficient? I continually am baffled at his use of "I was against it" as an answer to what are you going to do now?
Click to expand...

To your rhetorical question VBH, looks like the New Yorker has a commentary piece by George Packer on this very subject:

Obama’s Iraq Problem: Comment: The New Yorker

You should like the last line.

This quote sticks out to me:

"There will be no such thing as victory in Iraq, but the next President, if he remains nimble, may be able to keep the damage under control."
 
#49
#49
TennNC said:
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I give you mad props for putting your life on the line day in and day out. One night driving around with the police in downtown Durham was all it took for me to respect the he!! out of what you do (at least, the law-abiding police, that is). There are bad eggs everywhere, of course, but my gut tells me 99% of law enforcement are in it for the right reasons.
Click to expand...

No matter what you do in life you are going to have bad apples.

Six years back a female trooper was killed by her husband, who was a Columbus Police Officer, because he did not make it through the hiring process for the State Highway Patol.

There is no way around it, people are crazy.

I am stupid for taking the hard stance I take but in my experiences, those who lean extremely liberal, hate me and my family because of what I do. That gets really old....

The hating me part is easier for to me handle but when they hassle my family my blood tends to boil.
 
#50
#50
OrangeEmpire said:
No matter what you do in life you are going to have bad apples.

Six years back a female trooper was killed by her husband, who was a Columbus Police Officer, because he did not make it through the hiring process for the State Highway Patol.

There is no way around it, people are crazy.

I am stupid for taking the hard stance I take but in my experiences, those who lean extremely liberal, hate me and my family because of what I do. That gets really old....

The hating me part is easier for to me handle but when they hassle my family my blood tends to boil.
Click to expand...

I can't relate to your exact circumstance, but I've held grudges against certain types of people for the way a few of them treated me. I have a feeling (and hope) that your perspective will change over time too.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top