I’ve got two responses to the right clutching their pearls and fainting because a few people think that while honorable, John McCain’s military service isn’t the end-all and be-all of why he should be commander-in-chief.
KTHXBI.
» Breaking News
Lindsay Lohan, Samantha Ronson Fight At Dubai Hotel
Russian Billionaire Sergei Rodionov Publishes Book Of Nudes… Of His Wife Olga
Alexis Tyler: Breaking Beauty
Kristin Chenoweth @ Four Christmases Premiere
Obama Has Plan For 2.5 Million Jobs
So, are you saying that everybody does it and it’s not okay? Or are you saying that everyone does it and it IS okay? It’s kind of hard to tell.
Not to mention, your description does not account for John Aravosis’ post, which actually calls McCain “disloyal.”
How many times did McCain crash a jet? Google suggests 5, but I’d like to see more evidence.
Also, what was his class ranking? Was it really 894th out of a class of 899?
And how rich was the brewery heiress he cheated on his first wife? Did she really have $32 million and seven houses?
So you guys agree with what John Aravosis wrote?
Jay - John writes a lot of stuff. Most of us don’t read wingnut blogs and so don’t know what y’all have decided to focus on as the unforgivable heresy of the day. Could you be more specific and maybe, like, provide a link?
I agree with John 100%.
He used the word ‘The’, and that is a word I agree with.
Or were you talking about something else?
Jay, could you clear up to me whether John McCain cheated on his first wife with the heiress because she was a) too crippled; or b) too poor. I understand that it’s one of the two, but Google’s not helping.
Nicely done, Dr. Handjob. Very nicely done.
This from the same group of goons who supported the guy who changed his middle name to “Served in Vietnam”?
“So you guys agree with what John Aravosis wrote?”
I don’t necessarily agree it’s appropriate to accuse McCain of “disloyalty” because he was coerced into making pro-Vietcong propaganda statements. I do, however, think it’s a shame that McCain who was such a strong voice against torture has softened his position on the matter. I think that reveals a certain degree of political opportunism on his part which contradicts his image as a “mavericky” man of principles.
Aravosis’ larger point that McCain’s military service, in and of itself, does not necessarily qualify him to be president or give him an edge in leadership over Obama is not only accurate but not very controversy. Military service is all fine and good on a candidate’s, or anyone’s resume, but it doesn’t automatically make one a good or even competent leader.
Well Rheinhard, I figured you would have merely followed the link that Oliver provided as I did, but I’ll make it easier for you:
A lot of people don’t know, however, that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity. Putting that bit of disloyalty aside
Let’s see where that ‘disloyalty’ came from:
He was flying his twenty-third bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi. McCain fractured both arms and a leg, and then nearly drowned, when he parachuted into Trúc Bạch Lake in Hanoi. After he regained consciousness, a crowd attacked him, crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt, and bayoneted him; he was then transported to Hanoi’s main Hoa Lo Prison, nicknamed the “Hanoi Hilton”.
In August of 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain. McCain was subjected to repeated beatings and rope bindings, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery. After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda “confession”.
The ‘disloyal’ bastard!
Legitimate questions about McCain’s service are fair game, but for the left to try and tag McCain as a traitor is absurd as is trying to label him a war criminal.
Oh and the ‘We did it by watching you’ nonsense doesn’t fly. Either you’re opposed to such tactics or you’re not.
“So you guys agree with what John Aravosis wrote?”
Personally, I have no opinion. But if you’re shopping around for people who agree with Avarosis on this, I suggest you check with staffers from the Bush 2000 primary campaign.
Here you go.
emphasis mine.
the problem the Oliver Willis ‘republicans are bad, so democrats are allowed to be bad’ argument is that john mccain specifically spoke out against the swift boat ads in 2004 [ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5612836/ ].
to lump McCain in seems prejudicial.
and can oliver willis cite someone who believes john mccain’s military service IS the end-all and be-all of why he should be commander-in-chief.
i support mccain because he holds positions which i believe would be better for america.
Every time I see a picture of that fat sow with Purple Heart sticker, I remember what I’m fighting for….and against.
“Legitimate questions about McCain’s service are fair game, but for the left to try and tag McCain as a traitor is absurd as is trying to label him a war criminal … Either you’re opposed to such tactics or you’re not.”
And where exactly do you stand on the tactic, Jay?
“I suggest you check with staffers from the Bush 2000 primary campaign.”
indeed. I remember quite clearly when reports about McCain’s “fitness for office” first made the mainstream media: It was during the Republican primary just after McCain stomped Bush in New Hampshire. Soon thereafter the media was reporting on McCain’s temper, his simmering rage at the Vietnamese and possible signs of post traumatic stress disorder. The same rumors started back up again during the primaries this year on talk radio when the hard right was backing Romney.
This does not make Avorosis’ comments okay. It does, however, suggest, Jay, that you might want to spend more time concern trolling at conservative blogs.
Nitish Singh:
I suppose it will be a surprise for you to know that one of those guys that Swift Boat-ed Kerry(Bud Day), showed up with McCain today in PA.
Jay, given the way the comment you seem to have decided we need to be outraged about is written, then I don’t see anything much to object to, no. By saying “putting that bit of disloyalty aside”, he is saying (through the magic of irony) “I’m not going to dwell on this, in the way that we all know the right would if anything remotely similar had occurred with any Democratic candidate, but let’s instead address the valid question of what exactly is McCain’s military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief?”. I think it would have been better if he had put “disloyalty” in apologetic quotes, to emphasize this point though.
And before you get all up in my grill, you’ll note that he indeed DOES NOT make any further references or demands based on this propaganda video situation, as he well could have done (and I firmly believe most wingnut bloggers would have), such as “If he was so noble to shun early release while other prisoners were held, why didn’t he resist this, huh? Huh? Is he a ‘Manchurian Candidate’?” He goes on from there to make the, I think, quite reasonable assertion that if he is going to run mainly on the basis of his “I was imprisoned so I deserve it more” meme, then it must be fair to examine that. Let’s not forget that the first Vietnam fighter ace was none other than Duke Cunningham, who is sitting in jail now for gross corruption in office. Certainly under the rules YOU GUYS SET with Kerry and with Obama, that “nothing should be beyond scrutiny” up to and including mocking of Purple Hearts, then I fail to see how an offhand ironic inference which is explicitly NOT pursued in John’s post is worthy of the spluttering ire you feel we should be directing at it.
The comments about “disloyalty aside” aside, I see nothing wrong with his position.
Of course Obama wants to put an end to Patriotism as an issue, because Obama is the one who’s patriotism is in question! He conveniently condems questioning patiotism, but where was he when his hatchet men came up with General Betray Us??? Also, why isn’t Iraq, or Afganistan on Obama’s upcoming itinery? Obama knows he can’t compete with McCain on the issue of patriotism, so he’s trying to make it a non issue. Obama has no experience, except to listen to God Damn America for 20 years!
Gina, STFU. Seriously. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Wasn’t the MCCain campaign trying to inflate his record by making the unsubstantiated claim that McCain was about to be made an admiral when he left the Navy? A claim only recently supported by a member of McCain’s campaign staff?
I guess the question is what about McCain’s military record makes him commander in chief material? His recent judgement has been horrible. He heaped praise on Rumsfeld and Bush’s Iraq war for years until the writing was on the wall and McCain’s praise turned to “harsh criticism”.
On the other hand, perhaps “getting shot down” is part of Mr. McCain’s strategy for resolving critical problems facing America. If so, he’s got valuable experience.
“Legitimate questions about McCain’s service are fair game…”
I doubt you believe that.
“…but for the left to try and tag McCain as a traitor is absurd as is trying to label him a war criminal.”
Would that be infringing on the intellectual property of the right? Could Anne Coulter sue us?
Ok, how about did McCain kill 132 of his crew mates with his screwing around?
midderpidge: Ok, how about did McCain kill 132 of his crew mates with his screwing around?
No, no, no, no, no, midder. No. Misstate the facts and do so in the form of a question. That’s the GOP tactic. “But what about Obama’s refusal to say the Pledge of Allegiance as shown by his refusal to ever wear a lapel pin?” You do NOT have to go there. There are enough other legitimate criticisms to level at McCain regarding his use of his war record.
Um,
How about:
But what about when the Vietcong tried to release McCain early so he could go back to destroying US fighter jets and blowing up aircraft carriers?
When conservatives claim that McCain is being swiftboated, does it mean they think the swiftboaters against Kerry in 2004 were truthful, or liars?
despite all the lofty rhetoric of ‘hope and change’ and a ‘new kind of politics’, obama and his supporters (as evidenced on this thread) subscribe to the ‘if they pull a knife, you pull a gun’ [even though the constitutional scholar thinks it's ok to ban guns] / ‘anything you can do, i can do better…no YOU can’t…yes WE can!’ tactics of typical politicians.
so obama has to accept the rules he appears to have set for opponents and drop the victimology (i left the church because of media scrutiny, not the person i’ve known…)
He goes on from there to make the, I think, quite reasonable assertion that if he is going to run mainly on the basis of his “I was imprisoned so I deserve it more” meme,
Here’s the problem with that Rheinhard. McCain has not run on that issue. The fact that is part of his biography is that he was a POW for 5 years is merely a fact. And guess what? The fact that he was in the military, the fact that he was an officer, the fact that he was a fighter pilot and the fact that he did fight in a war gives him…..oh, I don’t know…..a TON more experience in that regard than Barack Obama.
It just seems a little funny as well that the same people who swooned when John Kerry said, “Reporting for duty” and saluted during his acceptance speech in 2004 is getting up in arms that McCain actually has a story to tell about his military service.
Max Cleland.
Jay - as is obvious from your 1st paragraph, McCain doesn’t have to EXPLICITLY come out and say “I was imprisoned so I deserve it more” because has has tons of surrogates all over the place, from bloggers like you all the way up to leading lights of the MSM (just look at Schieffer’s flustered stupefaction at Clark’s suggestion that McCain’s service, while respectable, doesn’t imply the kind of high level decision making required in a POTUS) who WILL SAY IT FOR HIM. So, I’m sorry, yes, he is very much running on the platform of “I was a POW vote for me” because all y’all are supplying it for him
It’s a little sad that the party which had representatives at its national convention in 2004 goofing around with FUCKING PURPLE HEART BAND-AIDS and which had media surrogates suggesting John Kerry’s war wounds were self-inflicted can whip itself into high dudgeon over an otherwise REPSECTFUL questioning of McCain’s capacity to run large scale policy based on a war experience that consists of getting shot down one time.
Oh, and, what michael said.
Hey Rheinhard, if Clark’s question was so ‘respectful’, pray tell: Why did the Obama camp distance themselves, say Obama “rejected” it and pretty much scratched Clark off their potential VP list?
Oh and what Michael said? What, the bogus “They questioned Max Cleland’s patriotism” nonsense? Please.
McCain has not run on that issue. The fact that is part of his biography is that he was a POW for 5 years is merely a fact. And guess what? The fact that he was in the military, the fact that he was an officer, the fact that he was a fighter pilot and the fact that he did fight in a war gives him…..oh, I don’t know…..a TON more experience in that regard than Barack Obama.
You’re correct here, Jay. Mr. McCain does have more time in the military, service as an officer, and combat experience.
Mr. Clark conceded this and even said this experience is noteworthy and praiseworthy. However, when it was put to him directly, Mr. Clark said that this experience does not translate into a qualification to run the country. Was Mr. Clark correct? I’ll take no position here. Instead, I’ll redirect your attention to the various reports that Mr. Clark somehow attacked or impugned Mr. McCain’s military service.
It simply isn’t so.
However, when it was put to him directly, Mr. Clark said that this experience does not translate into a qualification to run the country.
Actually, the SPECIFIC words Clark said were:
“Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”
Now, some have excused what Clark said because he was merely repeating the words that host Bob Schieffer said, but he decided to add the little verbal slap at the end. Clark may not think it is a qualification to be President, but somebody show me where John McCain said it is. Schieffer was merely asking about wartime experiences. Clark may not have questioned McCain’s service directly, but he most certainly did question the value of McCain’s war record as a qualification for the presidency.
but he decided to add the little verbal slap at the end.
Verbal slap? The “qualification to be President”? That was the topic under discussion, Jay.
Clark may not think it is a qualification to be President, but somebody show me where John McCain said it is.
You’re really straying from the point–or deliberately misdirecting. No one pretends Mr. Clark was refuting a claim by Mr. McCain. He was responding to Mr. Schieffer:
but he most certainly did question the value of McCain’s war record as a qualification for the presidency.
Baloney. Show me where.
(Actually, on that last bit, you’ve finally stated it correctly. Mr. Clark did question the value of McCain’s war record as a qualification for the Presidency. I was too quick on the trigger that time. I read what you wrote, but a completely different notion registered in my head. Apologies for that one.)
Jay - the Obama camp “distanced” themselves in what is probably a futile attempt to get the preening whiners of the McCain campaign and their media apologists (like you) to focus on like, the actual goddam campaign. Considering that today the McCain whiny ass titty babies are now complaining that Jim Webb is in on some campaign to disparage McCain’s vaunted war record, I’d say that plan failed (as anyone on this blog could have told them).
And guess what? The fact that he was in the military, the fact that he was an officer, the fact that he was a fighter pilot and the fact that he did fight in a war gives him…..oh, I don’t know…..a TON more experience in that regard than Barack Obama.
However, none of that is a prerequisite for becoming President.
However, none of that is a prerequisite for becoming President.
Nor even relevant, from where I’m standing. My experience of eating peanuts doesn’t make me a good CEO of Jiffy.
And guess what? The fact that he was in the military, the fact that he was an officer, the fact that he was a fighter pilot and the fact that he did fight in a war gives him…..oh, I don’t know…..a TON more experience in that regard than Barack Obama.
Duros: However, none of that is a prerequisite for becoming President.
Nor is it necessarily good training. A President has to have more than the military mindset, has to be able to consider other options (diplomacy, sanctions, etc etc) and appropriately weigh them.
Plus, what does military experience have to do with dealing with economic or social issues? What will military experience add to one’s ability to understand what should be done about gas prices, environmental issues, stem cells or any of the huge number of things the president has to make decisions on?
It’s funny that in the last election the same people pimping John McCain’s military record probably voted for the worst possible military commander in chief in the last election, over a guy with a distinguished military career. Bush has proven so unreliable in a crisis that they don’t even inform him of crises as they happen now. Imagine if they ran the ‘it’s three AM in the White House and a phone is ringing’ commercial in 2004. It would have been Bush’s daughters calling for a ride home from the bar.
“It’s funny that in the last two elections the same people pimping John McCain’s military record probably voted for the worst possible military commander in chief
in the last election,overaguys withadistinguished military careers.”Yeah, but it wasn’t as big of an issue in 2000.
Not an issue in 2000? Neither was “getting shot down.”