Originally posted by Clovis
The issue being talked about is his military experience as a soldier in a war, you'll get no argument from me that his experience as a high level officer is of value in administrative and executive affairs.
Apparently, Kerry's Vietnam service was of little to no value in the last election against the air guard dodging GWB. It would be nice if everyone could remain consistent on that.
Not only consistent, but how about making a meager ing attempt at avoiding irony?:
quote:
Following the lead of Barack Obama’s campaign, John McCain is establishing his own Truth Squad – an effort to “respond to unfair attacks” on his military record. One of the members of McCain’s new Truth Squad — Bud Day — was a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and appeared in an attack ad for the group in 2004. (See the ads here.) Day said of John Kerry’s military service: “My view is he basically will go down in history sometime as the Benedict Arnold of 1971.”
.....
On a conference call arranged by McCain’s campaign, Bud Day said, “The Swift Boat attacks were simply a revelation of the truth.” Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) called on McCain to condemn those remarks and “cut ties with the Colonel and anyone else connected to SBVT.”
Yeah, so hire one of the biggest lying sack of s on your "truth squad" team. Oh the freakin' irony.
(incidentally, our little billionare Texas tycoon, T. Boone Pickens, has chickened out of his own bet to disprove accusations made by the Smear Boaters against Kerry: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...-says-no-deal/. Kerry himself mailed him a 54 page document including 42 pages with evidence of his military record, and little Boone not only hedged his own bet, but refuses to meet with Kerry. Shocking, I know).
MisterOpus1
It would be ironic to see that attacking a Democratic candidate's war record is perfectly okay but certainly not attacking Republican candidate's war record, because It's always Okay If You're a Republican (IOIYR), not to mention seeing how our darn librul media seemingly loves playing the role of a bullhorn for the Right with those charges towards a Democrat in '04 and seemingly fiercely defending a Republican now in 2008. That would indeed be a bit ironic if that were the case.
The problem, however, is that it simply isn't the case - and a ing child who can read will be able to decifer the simple difference between attacking someone's record and attacking someone's executive experience. I think the media and the Wingnut blowhards see this, of course, but as in all things with politics they also see an opportunity to exploit the stupidity of people (which unfortunately appears pretty easy to do - ask those 51% folks who voted for the idiot in office again).
This article sums my feelings up well:
quote:
“Attacking” McCain’s Military Record
What Wesley Clark really said; how the press missed it
By Zachary Roth Mon 30 Jun 2008 03:54 PM
So: The latest round of mock outrage—in a presidential race that has turned the tactic into an art form—now comes in response to comments made by General Wesley Clark. Appearing as a surrogate for Barack Obama on CBS’s “Face the Nation”, Clark, in reference to John McCain, said:
quote:
I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war…But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded—that wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall.
When moderator Bob Schieffer interjected that “Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down”, Clark responded: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”
The McCain camp, sensing an opportunity, complained that Clark had “attacked John McCain’s military service record.” Of course, Clark had done nothing of the kind. He had questioned the relevance of McCain’s combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you’d expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp.
But many in the press have been unable to. ABC News senior political reporter Rick Klein led the outrage, writing in a blog post on ABCNews.com:
quote:
Find me a single Democrat who thinks it’s good politics to call into question the military credentials of a man who spent five-and-a-half years as a prisoner of war.
This is the perfect embodiment of the press’s unbelievably destructive habit of assessing every piece of campaign rhetoric for its political acuity, rather than for its validity and accuracy. Clark’s comments may (or may not) have been impolitic. But that has no bearing on their validity or lack thereof—which is how the news media should be evaluating them.
To be fair, Klein does get to that, eventually. Later in the post, he writes:
quote:
Clark’s comments seem to miss a vital point about the McCain campaign: Yes, his military service is part of his stock campaign biography, but McCain is not running on that record nearly as much as he’s running on his service in Congress.
Clark is right that “getting shot down” isn’t a qualification to be president, but McCain isn’t saying that it is.
Ads like this (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITIC...tml#cnnSTCVideo) just slipped through, I guess. Even if McCain weren’t running on his military record, it’s undoubtedly something that could convince many voters, rightly or wrongly, that he has the experience to be commander in chief. Why should it be out of bounds for Democrats to argue that McCain’s particular military experience has done little to prepare him for the decisions he’ll have to make as president?
Wait, what? You mean to say that asking about a person's background experience and how that will supposedly prepare them as President is now off limits?
Huh, someone should have told Hillary. Or McCain. Or Rove. Or Rush. Or Hannity. Or Levin. Or............
quote:
Klein wasn’t alone, of course. NBC’s First Read, written by Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro, noted that “American politics can’t quite get beyond this question: Just how big a military hero were you?” before summarizing Clark’s comments—as if Clark was questioning McCain’s claim to military heroism, rather than pointing out that that heroism isn’t a qualification for president. Like Klein, the NBC team couldn’t resist playing political consultants, pronouncing that Clark’s comments “weren’t helpful at all to the Obama campaign,” without bothering to consider whether Clark’s argument might make sense.
Gerald Seib and Sara Murray of The Wall Street Journal arguably do even worse. They write: “The one certainty of the 2008 campaign, it might have seemed, was that Sen. John McCain would be acknowledged all around as a war hero for his service in Vietnam—but apparently not.” Did Seib and Murray even read what Clark said? Where did Clark say anything about McCain not being a war hero?
And in a piece headlined “Clark Hits McCain’s Military Credentials”, Josh Kraushaar of The Politico says that Clark “invoked McCain’s military service against him….” Huh? By this bizarre standard, if Clark were to point out that my record of writing for Columbia Journalism Review is not a qualification to be president, he would have invoked my writing for CJR against me.
This is the kicker:
quote:
It’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.
That’s not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it’s one the press isn’t capable of clearing.
Regardless, the fact that the McCain camp has to resort to this little opportunity to obfuscate things and allow his media loving hounds to lap it up is actually a little humorous. Having to resort to these tactics when someone attacks your executive experience looks a might bit desperate to me. There's a lot of time between now and November, but McCain moving so quickly on the defensive when someone calls out his record of experience to be President is interesting, to say the least.
Clovis
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Not only consistent, but how about making a meager ing attempt at avoiding irony?:
Keep in mind what McCain thought of the Swift Boaters back in 2004:
Yeah, so hire one of the biggest lying sack of s on your "truth squad" team. Oh the freakin' irony.
(incidentally, our little billionare Texas tycoon, T. Boone Pickens, has chickened out of his own bet to disprove accusations made by the Smear Boaters against Kerry: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...-says-no-deal/. Kerry himself mailed him a 54 page document including 42 pages with evidence of his military record, and little Boone not only hedged his own bet, but refuses to meet with Kerry. Shocking, I know).
That is ing hilarious :stongue: :stongue:
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Clovis
The issue being talked about is his military experience as a soldier in a war,
sure i guess, but it's already demonstrated how shallow an assesment that it is. everyone here is, again, pretty much in agreement on how military service war time or otherwise is not the ultimate qualifier...unless youre running against a guy that has very little qualifiers to begin with:D
quote:
Apparently, Kerry's Vietnam service was of little to no value in the last election against the air guard dodging GWB. It would be nice if everyone could remain consistent on that.
it was Kerry's decision to use his military service as a qualifier. to his detriment or not, it was his decision.
what your BDS is making you fail to see is that Buler, 4 years ago, had magnitudes more Executive experience than Kerry could have ever dreamed of.
Clovis
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
sure i guess, but it's already demonstrated how shallow an assesment that it is. everyone here is, again, pretty much in agreement on how military service war time or otherwise is not the ultimate qualifier...unless youre running against a guy that has very little qualifiers to begin with:D
So basically, what Clark said was no big deal really.
quote:
it was Kerry's decision to use his military service as a qualifier. to his detriment or not, it was his decision.
what your BDS is making you fail to see is that Buler, 4 years ago, had magnitudes more Executive experience than Kerry could have ever dreamed of.
I don't think Bush is anything anywhere close to Hitler so don't lump me in with those whackos :stongue:
And that is fantastic that he had a ton of executive experience, it has clearly done wonders for the country.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
The problem, however, is that it simply isn't the case - and a ing child who can read will be able to decifer the simple difference between attacking someone's record and attacking someone's executive experience.
really? then wtf are you going on about then Opus?
no one is attacking McCain's war story credibility or his patriotism.
one doth protest too much
Incidentally, this is what Wes Clark said about Kerry when Kery was his bor in 2004.
if Obama had had even been in the Coast Guard Wes Clark would beat McCain over the head with a shovel and not bat an eye.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Clovis
So basically, what Clark said was no big deal really.
no. just shallow and insulting...and for what? to make his man look good. f**kin great. thanx for your contribution Clark. see you in 2012:rolleyes:
quote:
And that is fantastic that he had a ton of executive experience, it has clearly done wonders for the country.
is it the war?
Clovis
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
no. just shallow and insulting...and for what? to make his man look good. f**kin great. thanx for your contribution Clark. see you in 2012:rolleyes:
I don't think so. Given the context it seems like a perfectly sane response to the statement by the interviewer. It doesn't make either look any better, it just levels the playing field. Talk about real experience, as we have said, that is relevant to being president, not the fact that he was a POW or shot down in a fighter plane. How is that shallow and/or insulting? Just above that he said
quote:
" I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world. "
quote:
is it the war?
Yes, among other things.
The fact that the only you guys can find on Obama are these half assed accusations of inexperience (when it is obvious that how much previous experience you have means all when you're in office) is hilarious. If thats the best you can do to bring him down in this election, I do feel sorry for you guys. at least knock his Iraq policy (which imo SUCKS).
Clovis
On a side note, I do much prefer arguing with people like Q5echo who can actually type sentences rather than these types of imbeciles:
quote:
Originally posted by LatinLover
btw Clovis main concern is that Mccain hugged bush :haha: Omg i must guess now that Mccain is a real bad man now. has no morale. how can mccain hug evil bush omg Armageddon is coming
BUT when his candidate wants to meet with chavez, castro and all the foreign dictators without pre conditioning; clovis dosent wine about it. oh thats right is that in clovis world bush is evil and all the foreign dictators are angels.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Clovis
If thats the best you can do to bring him down in this election, I do feel sorry for you guys.
i feel sorry for people that the only confidence they have in a man is hope.
Clovis
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
i feel sorry for people that the only confidence they have in a man is hope.
I like pretty much everything about Obama's plans except his Iraq policy.
Hope in a smart young black man is far more valuable to me (and a lot of Americans) than an old flip flopping senator with a spotty record and a high chance of doing little to change the mistakes of the past 8 years. Again, if all you have is the inexperience card, straws, keep grasping at them. You act like the guy is a window washer from Guatemala who just learned English. :stongue:
We're going to win the election anyway, and you're just going to have to deal with his terrible inexperience. It can't possibly be any worse than what us progressives have had to endure with Bush.
