Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWes Clark stood by his criticism of John McCain in a television interview last night, stressing that while he would "never, never dis someone's service," it is legitimate to discuss what types of military experience are relevant to being commander in chief. Republicans have been twisting Clark's mundane observation that McCain's experience "getting shot down" in a fighter plane is not a "qualification to be president." Clark made the point in response to a question from CBS' Bob Schieffer on Sunday, while noting that he "honor[ed]" McCain's service and considered him a "hero."
Of course, the Republican "outrage" to Clark is both hypocritical, as The Nation's Ari Berman noted, and illogical, since McCain's war experience is laudatory but different than running the country. Professor Sandy Levinson explains:
One might say ... that John McCain displayed literally incredible valor in responding to many years of torture in Vietnam; I would also add my admiration for McCain's refusing to bear grudges against those who had been anti-War during the 1960s. But why would any person believe that "getting shot down" (which is precisely what happened to McCain) and then being tortured has anything to do with qualifying one to be President of the United States as against, say, receiving an award for displaying incredible grace under maximum pressure? ... Isn't it worth thinking about the fact that the three senators who in fact saw ground combat in Vietnam--James Webb, Chuck Hagel, and John Kerry--are all dedicated opponents of the Iraq War?
Webb has even made this exact observation regarding McCain -- comparing facts about their service experience, not ranking their valor:
John McCain was a prisoner of war; I respect what he had to go through... He did not see the ground environment, how difficult things really are on the ground. He did not really see how bad this country was torn apart by the war, for the unfortunate reason that he was in prison. ...Chuck Hagel and I both intrinsically understand how difficult it is in an infantry environment to carry out some of these goals and we both experienced what it was like to come back to a pretty hostile peer group.
Webb did not draw any Republican "outrage" for that analysis, offered last February, because there was no presidential campaign at the time. This would all seem unremarkable, if the mainstream and self-declared "objective" political press could see through the charade and report the facts. But today's Times opens an article about "patriotism and service" by falsely alleging that Clark "diminished Senator John McCain's service as a naval aviator in Vietnam." There's just no way to read Clark's logical observation, offered with "honor" for McCain as a "hero," as diminishing the service. Or as the Columbia Journalism Review's Campaign Desk explained yesterday:
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. [Handling this basic idea] is not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it's one the press isn't capable of clearing.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
Agreed. Valid observation. A good example of how the MSM is NOT "liberal." Republican candidates generally get a "pass," on any stumbles, while Democratic candidates have to walk on eggshells. Clark was not even an integral part of the CLINTON campaign, much less the Obama organization, yet the MSM treats his commments as "Official" Democratic positions. Yesterday, Barak Obama went to great pains to honor McCain and to declare that his campaign would NEVER question anyone's patriotism. Later in the day, when reporters asked McCain if he would take the same pledge and not question Obama's comittment to this country, he mumbled, stumbled, hemmed, hawed, and with a "nod and a wink" never really answered the question. In other words, "Hell YES, I'll question Obama's patriotism! I know you MSM fools won't call me on it!"
Posted by Hamiltonian at 07/01/2008 @ 10:35am
Every one of these so-called smears from Democrats have been prefaced with a lengthy tribute to McCain's bravery. How dare anyone ever question anything millitary in our world of millitary adoration. To do so is tantamount to treason, and they should be shot, hanged, and have their genitals sliced and dipped in Tabasco sauce(but not necessarily in that order)!
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 11:05am
the candidates spend so much money on TV ads, it makes you wonder what that money could be spent for somewhere else. They still need to get good vice presidents, though, and there is a non-biased weekly poll at http://www.votenic.com . The results are worth looking at.
Posted by votenic at 07/01/2008 @ 11:18am
In 2000 and 2004 the GOP did not believe that military service mattered and they still don't believe that it matters.What we need is for republicans to stop their hypocrisy and try to support McCain based on his beliefs.Tell us how he is a military genius who thought that we could win war on the cheap quickly.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 11:22am
Sorry, but from a purely strategic outlook....
it's a mistake.
Posted by Maskbeta at 07/01/2008 @ 10:54am | ignore this person | warn this person
Well....at least a couple of "big wigs" don't agree. It may not sway voters, but it will cause voters to question the notion that McCain has a monopoly on patriotism and national security because he spent time at the Hanoi Hilton.
Kudos to Clark and Webb for putting it in play. I think it's a good move. McCain would like nothing more than to see this move on in the news cycle. Begs the question....if the man and his backers are so proud of his military service, why the paranoid pushback? Whats the old saying...the more thou protests the more thou looks guilty?
McCain opened the door with the assertion that being a prisoner of war will make him a good commander in chief. Lets hope that some of us have the courage to challenge that assertion. As Webb points out....a fly over is to be distinquished from boots on ground.
Posted by OneVote at 07/01/2008 @ 11:37am
Sorry, but from a purely strategic outlook....
it's a mistake.
Posted by Maskbeta at 07/01/2008 @ 10:54am | ignore this person | warn this person
Your observation that Clark's point is impolitic, while potentially valid, though not definitely so, is the exact object of criticism from the excellent CJR piece cited above. Please check it out. Specifically, the article speaks to the fact that there has been no assessment of the truth content of Clark's statement by the MSM, only summarized misreadings of it ("Clark is diminishing McCain's service record") and commentary on its effects from what you call a purely strategic outlook.
Clark is obviously right when he says that getting shot down per se does not a Commander in Chief make. Yet nobody seems capable of mustering the backbone to point that out.
Posted by jlister at 07/01/2008 @ 11:45am
I would take clark's argument further. Not only does being shot down and a POW have nothing to do with qualifying one for the Presidency, they have nothing to do with being a hero. Being a hero neccesitates a concious action. Which of his actions qualify him as a hero? Did he risk his life to pull someone out of a burning tank? NO! he got shot down, was captured, and later released. He certainly deserves a lot of respect and gratitude for what he endured, but that does not make hin a hero. I'm sure some will respond with a statment about how at one point he refused his freedom unless all the other POWs in his camp were also released so let me just save you some time. By that point the Vietnamse knew that McCain's daddy was an adminral and had started treating him completely differently form other POWs. He was pretty much off limits. As evidence is their offer of freedom. No one else got that offer. He must have figured that staying was the only way to save face and a possible future navy or political career, after having willingly participated in anti-US propaganda. Accordingly, it is intersting that he has done everything he could as a senator to not force the vietnamese to relase prisoner records from the war. Interestingly, he also doesn't want to release records about his navy carrer in general. What does he have to hide if he is such a hero with an exemplary service in the navy??? He should be ashamed of himself for using what happened to him as propaganda for his politcal motivations. It is an insult to every POW of war and to those real heros who conciously risked their lives to save others.
Posted by danconstan at 07/01/2008 @ 11:51am
Posted by OneVote at 07/01/2008 @ 11:37am
The only problem is that McCain's been so lionized in the press with his legendary POW story. If guys like Webb and Clark, military guys, can accurately make the distinction to the public between calling into question his patriotism or service with the relevance of his limited experience to the duties of the president, then success is theirs in that they've taken McCain's main asset and turned it into a liability. Of course it's the GOP's duty to maintain that any criticism uttered with "millitary" and "McCain" in the same breath is a question of the heroic man and his unfortunate experience as a POW.
Seem the GOP has the advantage in that it's the McCain-friendly press that will filter the story and make of it whatever they want.
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 11:53am
NEWSFLASH!!!
In a (not very) surprise move, Arizona Senator John Mccain has announced he will choose Illinois Senator Barack Obama has his running mate for the November election. "We're hopeful he'll bring some unity to our campaign", said Sen. Mccain.
Showing obvious displeasure with the announcement, an Obama spokesthing declared, "It will be impossible for Senator Obama to run on the Mccain ticket as we are in negotiations with the Arizona Senator to have him run for VP on ours."
Stay Distracted For Fewer Details at 11:00......
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/01/2008 @ 12:00pm
McCain is not the nominee because republicans honor his service record.He is the nominee because Romney is a Mormon.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 12:16pm
McCain is not the nominee because republicans honor his service record.He is the nominee because Romney is a Mormon.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 12:16pm
and he may be president because that other guy has a funny name and once was seen near a Muslim.
This is the "electorate" and "press"we are dealing with. the fact that ANY of this crapola makes it onto paper or on air is simply disgusting. Any reporter that continues this nonsense should be covering Brittneys latest hairdo.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 12:24pm
MASKabeta
what got you (re-)booted from the blogosphere?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 12:26pm
Any reporter that continues this nonsense should be covering Brittneys latest hairdo.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 12:24pm
Fox News is YOUR Brittany headquarters!!
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 12:31pm
Stay Distracted For Fewer Details at 11:00......
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/01/2008 @ 12:00pm
Rumor has it that McCain, who was once a prisoner of war in Vietnam for years and was tortured (not waterboarded or stuffed in a sleeping bag tied with wire or had feces thrown on him or stacked with other pilots in naked pyramids or attacked with dogs, but really tortured) and is the son of an Admiral coming from a longline of proud servicemen and volunteered for Vietnam and was a pilot who was then shot down and tortured for years...... breath....
Is going to pick Romney.
Is he trying to torture his Party? I can see the American Taliban squirming from here. "ahrrgghhh, it burns! the gold plates burn my fingers!!"
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 12:34pm
Romney wants to "double Guantanamo".
He may be a mormon but those republicans love that shit!
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 12:41pm
I is more nationalistic than the Other Guy (plus, he is mixed race and has a funny name)!!!
I wear my lapel pin!
Vote for I!
The sad thing is, Obama is running TV spots that fall right into the RNC campaign guide: "faith, family, values, nationalism, blah blah blah".
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 12:41pm
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 12:34pm
McCain graduated at the very bottom of his class and was promoted in the military because of his admiral father's connections.
He was shot down in Vietnam because of his own lack of skill and recklessness, and cracked under pressure as a POW. His father was ashamed at his cracking under pressure, but somehow this is now misconstrued as "heroism".
McCain is a FRAUD!
McCain can't claim the mantle of "honor" while interfering with a federal investigation of his fraudster pal, Charles Keating, as part of the Keating 5!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/01/2008 @ 12:42pm
Damn. Republicans lately sure sound like a bunch of crybabies, making moutains out of molehills.
Yet another distraction from the real issues at play in this election -- and the real differences between the candidates. Of course, Republicans want to talk about ANYTHING (Rev. Wright, then Michelle Obama, now Wes Clark) other than the issues.
Because on the issues it is quite clear . . .
They lose.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/01/2008 @ 12:44pm
Mattman-But they dislike Mormons more than they like the idea of doubling Gitmo.It was bigotry and not love of veterans that got McCain the nomination.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 12:44pm
Romney wants to "double Guantanamo".
He may be a mormon but those republicans love that shit!
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 12:41pm
so, he wants to kidnap 1500 people, haul them to Cuba, turn 1100 of them loose, hold the rest with no charges, then claim that he kept 1500 "terrorists" of the streets of Salt Lake City?
cute. It must be a prophecy.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 12:44pm
FrankGrits-So this is all part of the plot by Hillary supporters to ruin America in order to give Hillary a shot in 2012?That certainly shows love of country.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 12:48pm
Because on the issues it is quite clear . . .
They lose.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/01/2008 @ 12:44pm
no, no, no...
victory is just around the corner!!
economy; looking great! stock mkt is down 2000 on the year, good time to buy in
Energy costs doubling: that is good for "the base", good for donations to McCain.
Iraq: well, victory is just around the corner
Afghanistan: Taliban resurgence is just in time for the US presidential election. As they gain more control it shows how effective the past policies have been, just think how bad the Taliban would be is the US were NOT there!
food prices up: Hey, America needs to lose 2,000,000,000 pounds anyway.
It's all good.
Heck-uva job chimpy!
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 12:49pm
Frank-What military experience does Hillary have?Besides helping Bill screw the military.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 12:49pm
Look for more undercutting of Obama by Hillary's surrogates as the campaign progresses. On the face of it, she's all for Obama while under the surface, her people will be doing, in subtle ways, all they can to see that Obama loses. As I've said, McCain will be neutered by an overwhelming Congress.
That's politics.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/01/2008 @ 12:46pm
So, Hillaries experience tells her to fuck the country so that she can be POTUS in 2012?
Great candidate you got there, Franky.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 12:52pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/01/2008 @ 12:51pm
which party has fought CONSERVAtion for 30 years?
Supply/ DEMAND
why is that you guys only view 1/2 the equation? Why is it that you think adding 5% more supply will cut energy costs in 1/2? Voodoo economics?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 12:54pm
The last thing I'd want to see now is for democrats to get down and dirty . . .
Posted by frankgrits at 07/01/2008 @ 12:53pm
Yes, I would also hate to see something so down and dirty as to sabatoge Obama to make way for Hillary in 2012.
That would be very down and dirty on the part of people who call themsleves "Democrats," right FRANK?
Posted by Hman23 at 07/01/2008 @ 12:59pm
When someone is running for president based on his experience as a POW (It's not based on his military experience which by the way is nothing out of the ordinary. He would have failed the naval academy if his father and grandfather weren't admirals, and he has decided to NOT make public his military record) it is OPEN season to question him about it just like anything else. If he wouldn't have been a POW and if he would not have been the son and grandson of Navy admirals, John McCain would probably be a commercial airline pilot right now getting laid off because of high gas prices due to the war in Iraq and failed Iran policy, both of which John McCain supports.
Posted by danconstan at 07/01/2008 @ 1:05pm
Posted by frankgrits at 07/01/2008 @ 1:05pm
And if it means screwing the country for at least four more years, so be it.
Great attitude. You are really winning people over here FRANK.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/01/2008 @ 1:08pm
What the hell happened to you?
Posted by Hman23 at 07/01/2008 @ 1:08pm
I expect the Clinton's to be true citizens and do what is best for our nation, as opposed for what is best for the Clintons.
That too much to ask from someone who wants to be President?
Posted by Hman23 at 07/01/2008 @ 1:10pm
Frankhypocrite-You have taken the low road when it comes to McCain and put him down..
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 1:11pm
Happy wrote: "As far as I'm concerned, anyone who has endured that and come out years later as not only a multi-term Senator but today, the presumptive GOP Nominee, is a hero!"
Hmmm...As far as I'm concered, anyone who is willing to desecrate his experience as a POW and those of others, by using it to get a free ride in life is a joke!
Posted by danconstan at 07/01/2008 @ 1:17pm
FrankGrits-Hillary and her supporters are hoping that McCain, the republican,fails so that Hillary,the democrat,can win in 2012.You guys know that if McCain,the republican, is a good POTUS then that means that Hillary,the democrat, loses,again.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 1:18pm
Some incredibly stupid posts today.
Posted by jlister at 07/01/2008 @ 1:28pm
Frank-You never admit it when you're wrong nor do you care if someone puts down veterans since you have done that yourself.Stop running away from posts that expose your hypocrisy and man up.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 1:31pm
frankgrits-McCain does not need welfare.He made his money the old fashioned way.He married it.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 1:32pm
John McCain never made any implications regarding his getting shot down and subsequent imprisonment as a qualifer for seeking the presidency. So, unfortunately, society is forced to engage in every aspect of rhetoric that they do not completely understand.
By any means necessary, the MSM and rags like the Nation continually,
Unburden us with rhetoric
Distracts us with rhetoric
Enlarges the rhetoric
Give labels to the rhetoric
Empower themselves to the rhetoric
And, spread the rhetoric over time
All of which will either associate or disassociate ideas in order to expand their viewpoints on to us. This is their siren song to us.
Posted by ACook at 07/01/2008 @ 1:33pm
Frank-You are lying,again.You can't stand McCain and are hoping that he wins,screws up,so that will give Hillary a shot at 2012.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 1:35pm
FrankGrits-I see ads on my tv where McCain is blowing his own horn.Why would anyone want to dream about what it's like to be a POW?Was Hillary a POW or does she have to dream about it,too?
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 1:42pm
Frank-If you believe that our service people are treasures then why did you put down McCain in the past?
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 1:44pm
Frank-You are a candy ass and a coward.Hopefully,you never were in the military.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 1:46pm
I've always put Hillary first, mccain second and Obama third in order of my preference for President. I think I've been crystal clear about it.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/01/2008 @ 1:33pm
OK FRANK. Here is something I would LOVE for you to undertake, because I really want to understand the logic of your rankings. Examine the following issues, the candidates' positions on each, and explain how you justify your ranking - given where each candidate stands in relattion to each other:
Health care; fiscal policy; the economy; education; foreign policy; the war in Iraq; Supreme Court nominees; civil rights; seniors and social security; the environment and energy policy; and poverty in America.
Good luck.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/01/2008 @ 1:49pm
Frank runs away from the hard questions because he can't answer them which should make him think,but it doesn't.He is too angry to think and pouting people never think straight.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 1:54pm
....he'll b.s. about how "the Democratic Congress will force McCain to compromise" on all those issues....
Posted by Maskbeta at 07/01/2008 @ 1:53pm
THAT would be a real knee-slapper . . . because, of course, the current Democratic Congress will have all that experience of being SO forceful with Bush during the past two years.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/01/2008 @ 1:58pm
although i generally agree with MASK (aka BETAMASK) and at first i winced at clark's remarks...
after actually hearing what he said...i disagree.
first of all its another example of overhyped repugnant victimism. this effort to turn mccain into some kind of "saint john of hanoi hilton" will ultimately backfire, making mccain look like a weakling who can't take a little criticism. again i think the conventional wisdom pundits are stuck in 4 years ago land. things have changed with schmuk nation and fixednews no longer controls the minds and opinions of a critical mass of the voting public's opinion.
the kneejerk "rally around anyone who wraps themselves in the flag" response we could have indeed expected a few years back has melted away in the mi9nds of the american public.
beware, barry o - let your attack dogs do some attacking without righteously, fearfully (fearing the no longer monolithic republican lying and smearing machine) jumping in and henpecking anyone who offers well thought out, sensible criticism of the autonomic military hero worship if mccain.
after what those bastards did to kerry in 04, a few less than worshipful HONEST observations on flippy mac and his seargent york heroism are perfectly appropriate and in no way the moral equivilent of the sickening lies pandered by the right concerning not only kerry, but several other now fallen democrats who REALLY REALLY REALLY did earn their medals.
this sickens me, this double standard. the rightwing slanders and character assasinates DEM war heroes and clark politely, honestly, makes a few observations about the relevence of flippy mac's situation...and this stupid bullshit results!
as far as i'm concerned this is the first real mistake the o train has made, hectoring clark or anyone else who questions the sacred canon of mccain war heroism. clark maded a legit point that many others share...
mccain is your ENEMY, barack...you MUST attack him. i know you WANT to run the high ground race, but gen. clark's observation made perfect sense, served your purpose, and in no way aped the 2004 lying repugnant character assasinations of several democratic "war heroes". the latter was based on baldfaced lies while gen. clark's analysis was based on facts and his (reasonable imo) well thought out opinion.
shove that dagger in, barry o and don't wince at the blood. at least let others shove it in without henpecking them...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 2:05pm
HAPPY, what can YOU do to reduce your energy consumption by 10% this year, 10% next year with an end goal of reducing your consumption by 25% within 3 years?
think if the whole country did that!!!!
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 2:07pm
BTW, I don't ALWAYS do anything except for defend our servicemen and women. They are national treasures.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/01/2008 @ 1:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
who's attacking service people? does a stint in the military in a combat zone forever innoculate one from anyone ever questioning anything about them in regard to their military service? sure didn't seem to for the repugnants in 04 when they blatantly lied about the service records of several top democrats without an iota of scruples nor regret.
but the dems can't even make fact based observations about a repugnant's military record, all the while complimenting him on his heroism, without some whiney hypocritical rightwing bullshitting bastard boohooing and obama knejerking on national TV and henpecking his own for excercising their rights to free speech - and responsible, sensible free speech at that.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 2:26pm
Is there anyone to the right of Obama that the far leftists here don't hate?
All it takes to bring out the most vitriolic commentary is to actually be someone who engages in debate or public office and you are not a leftist loon. Even a more traditional liberal Democrat like HRC has been treated with contempt and vile by our leftwing bloggers here.
I sometimes wonder if these people even enter out into the daylight or just stay with the cockroaches?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/01/2008 @ 2:31pm
ibb-Frank has put down McCain in the past and stated that his stay as a POW affected his brain in a bad way,but is,now,contradicting his previous view and is trying to be Mr military.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 2:32pm
lvliberty-Your post made no sense.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 2:35pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 2:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
ah yankeegrits...our very own two bit, tinpot traitorous lieberman. guess it takes all types to make a world.
so his son comes home and his candidate loses and he takes his ball and little red wagon and harrumphs his way home to mccainia...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 2:38pm
lvliberty-The Bible says that Hillary is not supposed to be POTUS so you should be happy that she won't be.That would be as bad as having a gay POTUS.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 2:43pm
I'm starting to think Ol Francis sercretly enjoys the "pile on" he gets here daily.
It reminds me of oppositional/defiant kids in a group-home I used to work at, who grew up institutionalized, devoid of much physical human contact.
The only way to synthesize a connection with others was to lash out...
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 2:45pm
Is there anyone to the right of Obama that the far leftists here don't hate-Luvvy
I {heart} U!
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2008 @ 2:47pm
That would be as bad as having a gay POTUS.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 2:43pm
Any you know then it's just a slippery slope... what next?? An ANIMAL POTUS?? A 3some, hermaphroditic POTUS?? A MORMON???
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 2:48pm
From today's Think Progress:
"Clark's argument that military service is not sufficient alone to be president is an argument that has been made by McCain himself:
- During an interview with National Journal, John McCain was asked if "military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief." McCain said, "Absolutely not…I absolutely don't believe that it's necessary." [National Journal, 2/15/2003]
- I believe that military service is the most honorable endeavor an American may undertake. But I've never believed that lack of military service disqualifies one from occupying positions of political leadership or as Commander and Chief. In America, the people are sovereign, and they decide who is and is not qualified to lead us. [American Legion Speech, 9/7/1999]
- Earlier this year at Washington's Gridiron Club, where humor is the required fare, McCain lay bare what underlies his candidacy. Wearing a jacket outlandishly festooned with dozens of fake military medals, McCain said, "The question I ask myself every morning while shaving in front of the mirror is: OK, John, you're an incredible war hero, an inspiration to all Americans. But what qualifies you to be president of the United States?" [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 11/7/1999]"
Anyone who saw the interviews in question, or read the transcripts and still believes that Clark or Webb were demeaning John McCain's military service is an idiot, plain and simple.
Posted by drhammer at 07/01/2008 @ 2:48pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 2:05pm
Ibble, where have you been? How's the family?
I got news for you, so brace yourself: my son volunteered to go to Afghanistan, he's leaving in two weeks. He finally got the orders to deploy with his unit 6 weeks ago, but waited to tell us until last week. So, my husband and I are flying out to see him before he leaves. I'm a jumble of emotions and nerves right now (that's why I'm not at work today). While he's away, I won't be posting much at the Nation. Instead, I'll be reading his email letters and watching his videos.... :-)
I'll try to pop in every now and again to see how you, Mask (I mean Maskbeta), Crabby, FrankGrits and the others are doing and give updates.
Respectfully, Anna
Posted by ACook at 07/01/2008 @ 2:52pm
Among "the issues" that is red hot now, is the matter of increase the supply of oil........particularly domestic oil. Which party is closely, very closely, identified w/No Drilling? Which party is forcing Americans to send tens of billions abroad to buy something we have lots of?
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/01/2008 @ 12:51pm
How long do you think it will take before any drilling actually starts? Wait, I get it. Don't you personally have a financial stake in Big Oil?
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 2:53pm
I have three simple words Post Traumatic Stress. That is what makes a person who was tortured by the enemy unqualified to be President. I think it is part of the reason McCain didn't want his medical records to be released. That is also why he only released bits and pieces and didn't allow the full report to be released. He also covered up a lot of his psychological report in the process. I respect his service but we need a stable mentally and physically healthy President.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/01/2008 @ 2:58pm
All it takes to bring out the most vitriolic commentary is to actually be someone who engages in debate or public office and you are not a leftist loon. Even a more traditional liberal Democrat like HRC has been treated with contempt and vile by our leftwing bloggers here
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/01/2008 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
first of all i find it hilarious how you righties get so hurt when someone attacks your candidate and does so without lying. clark's opining was mild in the extreme compared to your lying heroes' swiftboating in 04 of kerry and several other highly decorated war veterans, and whats more, CLARK DID NOT LIE AND IN FACT RECITED THE OBLIGATORY "MCCAIN'S A HERO" MANTRA while making a legitimate point.
secondly, after the poisonous allegations of TREASON for anyone who dared question their holy war vomitted forth by the rightwing for the first six years of this trainwreck of a stolen presidency...i'd expect the left to be a hell of a lot more vitriolic than they are.
i remember walking through the mall and seeing that fascist evil prominently displayed in the front of the bookstores and wondering to myself if everything had gone in regard to the country i once knew, wondering if someone might be watching me online and making notes about my "TREASONOUS" doubts concerning the judgement and competance of my satano-aynrando fake christian godly leaders.
in hindsight sure, i now cringe that i was so paranoid, but based on their words and actions, i don't think my fear was THAT unfounded. god knows what would have happened if they had succeeded.
but thats a moot point because they were indeed wrong, wrongheaded, and ignorantly incompetant at anything beyond getting elected and manipulating a once ignorant public with fear and feelgood pride inflating bullshit.
the fact that with a few notable exceptions most on the left are content to do nothing more than set the record straight, get the country back on track, and in the best interest of the country are not interested in exacting revenge on their former tormentors suggests to me the very moral superiority of the left that A) makes the libzsuxers hate them even more and B) often results in the defeat and destruction of the left at the hands of their morally/ethically challenged rightwing sociopathic fellow countrymen.
so your whining about how mean some posters here are falls on deaf ears personally, unless you deign to condemn those of your side for the hate filled threats they have been screeching for years regarding anyone to the left of goldwater who dared question their wisdom or motivations regarding any point of policy or political philosophy.
thank god we do still have a constitution and more than a few non rightwingers who respect it because oppositional defiant evil lefties like me would have more than a few of the right hanging high for their murderous, treasonous, traitorous, fascist, self aggrandizing evil of the last few years.
have a nice day.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 3:00pm
John McCain served his country and exhibited courage in the face of capture, internment, and likely torture.
But every time I hear someone refer to him as a hero, I think of all those from the NYPD, PAPD, and FDNY who rushed into the towers to save the lives of their fellow citizens, and perished in the process.
And I call bullshit.
Posted by drhammer at 07/01/2008 @ 3:02pm
Respectfully, Anna
Posted by ACook at 07/01/2008 @ 2:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
hey! i've been quite busy lately. ma's in a home, i've been renovating the house and trying to juggle several other sticks in the fire.
i'll continue to include your son in my heathan buddhist prayers, dear, and hope he returns soon.
retrorespectfully, vic...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 3:03pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 3:00pm
(standing ovation)
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 3:07pm
Posted by ACook at 07/01/2008 @ 2:52pm
These must be hard days for you and your husband. I hope your son makes it home safely.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/01/2008 @ 3:21pm
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
lol...the only way to fight 'em is to fight 'em....
obama should let his unofficial partisans snipe at will. i think the mood of the country is amenable and the punditocracy is still opining the current ideological war on the terms of the public opinion millieu of the last ideological war.
something fundamental has changed in this country over the last few years and i don't think those reporting the current deal have figgered it out yet.
afterthought...
i love calling flippy mac a flipflopper, you know, turning their stupid talking point rhetoric against them...and indeed some do panderingly flipflop...
but if a candidate or anyone else cannot change their opinion based on reality isnt that a sign of stubborn stupidity? sort of like the current illegally installed junta of inflexible ideologues?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 3:22pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 3:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
"Well, when I get new information, I rethink my position. What, sir, do you do with new information?" --John Maynard Keynes
As it's often the case, I suppose it's all in the context.
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 3:36pm
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 3:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person
thats the quote i was trying to remember. here's another one mr. obama would be well advised to take to heart...
The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous. Niccolo Machiavelli
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 3:52pm
more machiavellian wisdom for mr. obama and any other dem in danger of being too good for their own and their country's good...
No enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed from the enemy until it is ripe for execution. Niccolo Machiavelli
Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared. Niccolo Machiavelli
Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil. Niccolo Machiavelli
I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it. Niccolo Machiavelli
It is double pleasure to deceive the deceiver. Niccolo Machiavelli
yup...there is much wisdom in certain philosphies of evil when the world as it is must be navigated. philosophies of evil are followed by the evil and unfortunately must be followed to a certain extent by those who oppose evil if they wish to avoid destruction. and destruction of the good regardless of their actions is more evil by far than the triumph of the good, even if such a victory is achieved by a stroll on the dark side.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 4:02pm
I gotta go to an app't, but read Mr. Feltstein!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/01/2008 @ 3:50pm
I'll check it out. So what of those who say the real immediate fix is to tap the Strategic petroleum reserve, and that anything obtained by granting permission to drill ANWR and/or more offshore spots will be insignificant, especially in contrast to the 80% of sites that haven't been explored? Or, that even if access was granted to these spots, that it would never happen for at least 10 years anyway?
Personally, I'm open to ANWR drilling, if it really could be shown to help drive down costs, and be done with absolutely minimal environmental impact. Anymore offshore drilling is too much; we've seen too much damage done to our ocean already.
It seems like the oil companies are merely using the gas price crisis opportunistically just to gain access to every last spot possible.
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 4:13pm
Two things: 1. McCain was on a bombing mission over North Vietnam when he was shot down. It was his 23rd bombing mission. Some of his targets were undoubtedly military in nature, but anyone with an understanding of the Vietnam War "Rolling Thunder" bombing campaign knows that most were likely to have been civilian, or partially civilian. There just were not that many bona fide military targets in North Vietnam.
It took courage to be a Navy pilot, but heroism is not a word we should be applying to people who bombed civilian populations in an unjust war.
2. I know those planes are known as fighter jets, but they are in fact bomber jets. While there were a few isolated instances of MIGs flown by North Vietnamese engaging U.S. pilots in the air, overwhelmingly, Navy pilots were not fighters, they were bombers.
Posted by petey333 at 07/01/2008 @ 4:19pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 4:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I'm sure adopting such a philosophy would yeild immediate results as it has for capitalists, gangsters, totalitarians, and others in quest of power...
But is this a philosophy that would benefit democracy in the long run? Who would we resemble if we all abided by such principles?
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 4:22pm
ever will polite society need hard men (and women, of course) willing to break heads, and ever will the righteous and decent need oppositionally defiant, moral sociopaths willing to plunge the dagger home with a firm, painful twist. justice is sadist.
nihilism, machiavellianism, objectivism...
indeed does god love the oppositionally defiant wicked who side with decency and turn viciously on their evil masters. the virtuous nihilist, machiavellian, objectivist would-be demigod who works seen or unseen tirelessly to bring about a world safe from those who follow their own amoral vision is blessed and beloved indeed. there is little difference between the saintly enlightened and the soulless sociopath.
at the end of the roman empire, the part where the only folks left who dreamed of restoring it were its germanic conquerors, one cheifton-would-be-emperor whose name i forget was threatened by another who simply desired nothing more than plunder and rapine. the noble barbarian, much wearied and distracted by the incessant wars which stood in the way of the realization of his noble dream of civilization restored prepared himself and his army for the probably inevitable conflict to come, but at the same time sent a message to his enemy, inviting him to a conference to talk out the issue and perhaps come to some kind of evil appeasing deal if possible.
the aggressive barbarian agreed to come talk at the tent of the noble barbarian and did so. a yummy meal was prepared and served and a good time was had by all.
after the meal and while the guests were engaged in somewhat polite unofficial conversation the noble barbarian excused himself to go take a crap. carefully hidden near the exit was the noble barbarian's finely crafted broadsword, and as the king passed it he snatched it from its hiding place and with a mighty blow chopped the less noble barbarian in two from crest of head to sternum.
and there was no war...for a while at least...
god loves the righteous nihilist...
har har har!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 4:33pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 4:33pm
That was a cool story. You've made a compelling argument, I'll agree. Now it's just a question of whom to kill first....
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 4:54pm
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 4:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
my great hope and secret suspicion is that mr. obama is indeed just such a righteous nihilist. he realizes that he has several (stupid) strikes against him when it comes to what he can and can't say and do and still have a shot at getting the prize that will enable him to unleash his style of righteous, oppositional defiant brand of enlightened objectivism...
he's half black, his middle name is "hussein", and he is a democrat. everything he says or does is a potential suicide bomb ready to blow. so what he says in confidence to his supporters will not be known at all for decades and for certainty forever...
good. non-fascist america has needed just such a leader for decades now.
and if i'm wrong i'm wrong. if he's really too goody goody two shoes for his/his party's/his country's own good then so be it. incompetant goodness trumps incompetant wickedness almost every time. if on the other hand he's a true sociopathic genius and we end up with something not too different in substance than that with which we are all too accustomed...
wel...guess we'll find out, won't we? i certainly hope so...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 5:12pm
Frank, Your obsessive support of HC is sad. She would cut your throat and leave you in the desert if it promoted her self interest. Why do you deify her...? I don't get it. Is your worship of her more important to you than the health of the nation? What's in it for you if by some miracle sent from the lord, she is elected in 2012? eternal salvation? WTF!!??? Just a quick word of caution. If she ever starts a movement which requires you to move to a secluded compound, don't drink the Kool Aid.
Posted by ADHD at 07/01/2008 @ 5:46pm
The last thing I'd want to see now is for democrats to get down and dirty about Mccain's service. I know that would backfire to a decisive extent.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/01/2008 @ 12:53pm
"On Tuesday, the campaign hosted a conference call with reporters during which chief surrogate Sen. Lindsey Graham said that McCain was "the best-qualified person to be commander-in-chief" since a previous military-political figure: Dwight Eisenhower.
McCain himself has downplayed the role that military backgrounds play in election seasons. In February 2003, the Arizona Republican said "Absolutely not," when asked whether "military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief."
"Harry Truman was in the artillery in World War I, which was magnificent," he continued. "Ronald Reagan did most of his active duty in the studio lots in California. It might be a nice thing, but I absolutely don't believe that it's necessary."
A year later, McCain cast his ballot for George W. Bush, a national guard member, over fellow Vietnam veteran John Kerry.
But a more telling example may have come more recently, when McCain found himself campaigning against one of the few Iraq War veterans who was running for office. In 2006, the Senator appeared at a late-stage but crucial fundraiser for Illinois Rep. Pete Roskam, who was being challenged by Democrat Tammy Duckworth, a veteran who had lost both her legs in Iraq. The nail-biter campaign for the open seat, which was won by Roskam with 51 percent of the vote, was marked by heated rhetoric over service and war. Roskam, who won the endorsement of the organization Veterans of Foreign Wars, accused Duckworth of wanting to cut-and-run from Iraq. McCain held his fundraiser shortly thereafter."
http://tinyurl.com/5ks7qc
So McCave's campaign can use his vet cred's but no one can challenge their negligibility for any office except for habitually untruthful new con repub pervs that believe in dic'tator philosophy... Sad that anyone can still even give repubs the time of day except for people like FrGr which were always closet repubs anyway.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/01/2008 @ 6:19pm
I don't know FrGr, seems you're lock step with Limpaw and repubs that wanted Billary to get the nom per their neg's and now you're all for McCave per his lock step with the hsuB/cHeney admin and their lock step with the pervy new con MIC MAD GOP dic'tator philosophy.
If you weren't simply hiding it-- you're totally 'out' now.
So why does it matter so much to you that you've traded in your core beliefs or that you simply never had them?
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/01/2008 @ 6:36pm
ACOOK
I know little of you beyond our disparate politics.
And, obviously, I know even less of your son.
But I wish for nothing less than your continued strength and grace.
Posted by drhammer at 07/01/2008 @ 6:59pm
Posted by frankgrits at 07/01/2008 @ 5:52pm
Last I heard he only released a portion of his records. On top of that he didn't release them so much as he let a select few people take a short look at them but didn't let them photocopy them to show to anyone. Odd behavior for someone who has no health problems....
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/01/2008 @ 7:12pm
I wish to be corrected though Frank. So if you have a link to his medical records I would love to see it. I couldn't find one.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/01/2008 @ 7:15pm
Er, now is the time for McCave to start distancing himself from hsuB/cHeney BIG-TIME. McCave's vet record is just another distraction:
PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in national polls
Survey_Dates_Approve_Disapprove_Unsure_Dif
L.A. Times/Blmbrg_6/19-23/08__23__73__4__-50
CBS__________5/30 - 6/3/08__25__67__8__-42
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/01/2008 @ 7:39pm
The interesting thing about that poll is the unsure category. Not very many people have failed to form an opinion on the job Bush is doing.
Posted by Balrog at 07/01/2008 @ 7:46pm
Frank, before you pull that lever for Grandpa, I suggest you Google Uss Forrestal fire. Anyone not only that callous but irresponsible certainly doesn't deserve to be in charge of infinitely more destructive weapons than an A-4. Oh and that certainly didn't make it into the records released by the Navy, I wonder why?
Posted by yutsano at 07/01/2008 @ 9:07pm
lvliberty-The Bible says that Hillary is not supposed to be POTUS so you should be happy that she won't be.That would be as bad as having a gay POTUS.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/01/2008 @ 2:43pm
Another one of your misinformed and distorted posts. There is nothing in the Bible about what secular governments do in choosing rulers male or female. It should be noted as proof of your lie, Israel had Deborah, Esther, and in modern times, Golda Meir as female leaders.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/01/2008 @ 9:50pm
Posted by yutsano at 07/01/2008 @ 9:07pm
In all fairness, while McCain's history suggests that he could indeed have been the kind of cowboy to "wet start" his Skyhawk , the texts of all the reports I have read on the subject are nearly identical, indicating a common source. Additionally, I have read no corroborating accounts that could be attributed to his fellow seamen.
So, while I think John McCain is dangerously ill-suited for the presidency, I'll have to pass on the "wet start" story unless and until I see something in the way of substantiation.
Posted by drhammer at 07/01/2008 @ 10:37pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 2:26pm
I read your comments on Nichols, live from unity thread. I have nothing to say to you.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/01/2008 @ 5:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2008 @ 2:38pm
EXCEPT.....
You haven't earned the right to get personal with me.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/01/2008 @ 5:43pm | ignore this person |
hey FRANK, what's up?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/02/2008 @ 02:03am
LvLiberty-Like most Christians,your knowledge of the Bible is quite limited.In the OT women are a mans property and have no rights.The NT,in more than one place,clearly states that a woman shall not have authority over men and it does not say anything about a secular government exception.It says that women are to serve men and keep silent and it does not give a secular government exception which is why you did not include Bible verses to back up your claim like you always do..
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/02/2008 @ 11:20am
LvLiberty-What in the world would Golda Meir have to do with this?She is Jewish and not bound by what Paul said and Israel rejects OT and Talmudic law in favor of a secular government.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/02/2008 @ 11:38am
Among "the issues" that is red hot now, is the matter of increase the supply of oil........particularly domestic oil. Which party is closely, very closely, identified w/No Drilling? Which party is forcing Americans to send tens of billions abroad to buy something we have lots of?
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/01/2008 @ 12:51pm |
and you said you knew a lot about energy.....
oh, well.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2008 @ 12:21pm
I'll check it out. So what of those who say the real immediate fix is to tap the Strategic petroleum reserve, and that anything obtained by granting permission to drill ANWR and/or more offshore spots will be insignificant, especially in contrast to the 80% of sites that haven't been explored? Or, that even if access was granted to these spots, that it would never happen for at least 10 years anyway?
Personally, I'm open to ANWR drilling, if it really could be shown to help drive down costs, and be done with absolutely minimal environmental impact. Anymore offshore drilling is too much; we've seen too much damage done to our ocean already.
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 4:13pm
foreign oil = domestic oil = oil.
the price IS the price.
the saudi's have already agreed to increase production more than anything that would be coming online from any of these places.
the price still went up.
high price = speculators + bad foreign policy + bad monetary policy + increased demand (which is still below world supply)
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2008 @ 12:27pm
HAPPY, what can YOU do to reduce your energy consumption by 10% this year, 10% next year with an end goal of reducing your consumption by 25% within 3 years?
think if the whole country did that!!!!
Posted by crabwalk
we've reduced electrical consumption by 40%! easy!
we just got 47mpg from the last tank of petrol from the honda pollution machine. easy!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2008 @ 12:31pm
I have no problem w/conservation undertaken in a gradualist way that doesn't IMPOSE! The 55 MPH slapped on by ol Jimmy was imposing!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/01/2008 @ 3:40pm
oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink! oink!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2008 @ 12:34pm
"I can't drive 55!" Sammy Vanhagar
Posted by Benchrest at 07/02/2008 @ 12:48pm
"I can't drive 55!" Sammy VanHagar
Posted by Benchrest at 07/02/2008 @ 12:51pm
LVLIBERTY, MBB and FRANK and the rest -
This whole Wes Clark dustup is a crock of shit and you know it - or should know better.
Go back and look at the entire clip of what Clark said.
He never disparaged McCain or his war record. He never belittled his time as a POW.
He simply pointed out that this alone does not qualify him to be President - something McCain has admitted to numerous times.
Of course, the supposedly liberal MSM is eating this up, trying to create a controversy. What a joke.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/02/2008 @ 1:04pm
All the time warps on these threads are a joke as well.
Nice platform The Nation has tuned this into.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/02/2008 @ 1:05pm
<i>Posted by i'm nobody at 07/02/2008 @ 11:20am</i>
I think this leap is pretty unwarranted. For one thing, it assumes that the only way any reasonable Christian could look at the Bible is through an absolutist lens, where every theological claim made in every book is understood as binding. If that were true, you would have a point...but it isn't.
The reason most Christians don't take the understanding you refer to is often not because of biblical illiteracy, but rather because of a more nuanced reading of the texts involved, factoring in both the context to which words were MEANT to be applied, and the extent to which particular writers were shaped by the mores of their own time. All of the verses you refer to above tend not to be applied today precisely for those reasons, not simply because people overlook the things they don't like.
<i>Posted by i'm nobody at 07/02/2008 @ 11:38am </i>
This is...partially true. It's a slightly trickier case than that, though. Israel is technically defined as a Jewish state (though, contrary to some assertions that have been made, it is not thereby hostile towards Muslim citizens), and some number of its laws specifically favor Orthodox Judaism. Given that, female leadership IS significant.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/02/2008 @ 1:13pm
Bush demonstrated his respect by other words and deeds instead of serving.
Posted by marybretbrad at 07/02/2008 @ 1:02pm
words like,
"go die in a fight for no-bid contracts!!!!"
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2008 @ 1:19pm
Thrawn-I'm aware that most Biblical rules applied to that time and place,but luvvy takes a literal view of the Bible and if one does that then you do not get to pick and choose what to go by and what to ignore.If you're going to go by what it says about gays then you have to go by what it says about women.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/02/2008 @ 1:30pm
thrawn-my response to you is at the top.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/02/2008 @ 1:30pm
McCave wants as much publicity on his war prison record as possible so that it overlays the enormous failure, the disaster of the corporate petty dic'tatorship that is the hsuB/cHeney admin and that McCave is marching lock step with.
In order to get even close to being elected-- McCave would have to come out and literally denounce the hsuB/cHeney admin as a criminal corporate petty dic'tatorship that it it is. McCave lost that kind of honesty a long long time ago. Ergo any chance of being elected president of the USA.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/02/2008 @ 1:33pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2008 @ 12:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person
ya know...old jimmy made an honest effort to plan ahead for a future considerably farther along than "next election", in terms of energy. if we had followed his vision laid out 30 years ago...
lordy lordy! we might be three decades ahead of where we are now in terms of energy self sufficiency, clean and renewable alternative development and implementation...
but no. stupid old jimmy carter! as soon as mr. reagan took office that bad ole saddam hussein launched a war against iran that lasted 8 years, resulted in a buzillion goddam towelhead deaths, and forced iran and iraq, two of the heavy opec hitters, to undercut each other's oil prices the entire conflict.
so all of a sudden the standard bearer of the great grasshopper party did absolutely nothing and was hailed as a genius and hero for stewarding an economic recovery and boom based largely on a factor out of his control. a retarded gorilla could have presided over an economic boom with ever sliding enrgy prices and a genius would have problems dealing with super high energy prices...
but it just felt too good for most schmuks buying that cheapo never running out gasoline and puttering around in ever expanding pride/vanity/glutton mobiles fantasizing that the 50's had returned and reality had flown out the window...so neither reagan nor bush one nor bush two nor clinton...really did ANYTHING imaginative, long ranged about the coming crunch...
and it wasnt just "thuh politishuns" we have too blame. it was also all too many of our selves who allowed our ignorance, gluttony, vanity, and pride to block out reality and delude ourselves into thinking the glorius summer of artificially low oil prices would last for ever and ever and ever...
anybody in the market for a used suv or two? or thousands?
zoom zoom zoom! if ya cant afford the gas, just tank that baby up on some high grade humility buildup reducing 93 ethanol PRIDE! the power of PRIDE!!!!
hoooeeey!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/02/2008 @ 1:39pm
McCave is such a sellout to the new con hsuB/cHeney petty dic'tatorship philosophy:
"McCain sources say Schmidt, who ... was a top communications aide in Bush-Cheney '04, will coordinate the campaign's daily pro-McCain and anti-Obama message, but also will have an increased role in shaping most every facet of the organization including scheduling, policy, coalitions and surrogates."
http://tinyurl.com/58rlt8
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/02/2008 @ 1:45pm
"Elected to the U.S. House in 1972 and then to the Senate in 1978, Cochran, a consummate gentleman, measures his words and his actions carefully. But he said something that surprised many in a Boston Globe article in January about his longtime Senate colleague McCain.
"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran told the Globe. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/02/2008 @ 2:16pm
Among "the issues" that is red hot now, is the matter of increase the supply of oil........particularly domestic oil. Which party is closely, very closely, identified w/No Drilling? Which party is forcing Americans to send tens of billions abroad to buy something we have lots of?
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/01/2008 @ 12:51pm
You must not be paying attention Happy. Try doing some research on domestic drilling. You will quickly find out that the BEST estimate possible if we started drilling in every domestic reserve it would only increase the totaly domestic oil produce by at the VERY VERY VERY MOST, 10%. That is the best possible estimate in actuality it would probably be no more than 2-5%. It would make no more of a dent than a few cents at the most. Drilling would not even begin to solve the problem and the domestic oil reserves would last at most 5-10 years at the maximum drilling rate we could do.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2008 @ 2:28pm
Posted by OneVote at 07/01/2008 @ 11:37am
The only problem is that McCain's been so lionized in the press with his legendary POW story. If guys like Webb and Clark, military guys, can accurately make the distinction to the public between calling into question his patriotism or service with the relevance of his limited experience to the duties of the president, then success is theirs.....
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/01/2008 @ 11:53am | ignore this person | warn this person
Well, the hypocrisy of McCain using a nasty 527 that he once disparaged to go after military men who are trying to have an intellectual discussion in the political sphere is an added benefit. Another flip flop for our heroic John McCain. Anyone who doubts that this guy is seriously "trigger happy" ought to think again. Double Talk Express is right on time -- again.
Posted by OneVote at 07/02/2008 @ 2:33pm
time warp?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/02/2008 @ 2:39pm
I know all about it. The guy behind Mc cain accidently fired a missile into McCains plane and almost killed him. How is that McCains fault?
Posted by frankgrits at 07/01/2008 @ 10:24pm
"Surviving crewmen and those who investigated the Forrestal fire case reported that McCain deliberately 'wet-started' his A-4E Skyhawk to shake up the guy in the F-4 Phantom behind his plane."
I think that is why it is his fault. If he had never wet started his plane the pilot behind him would have never discharged the missile. Then McCain would never have dropped two bombs into the fire exacerbating the problem infinitely. The explosion you see him quickly escaping from wasn't the explosion of the missile going off it was the explosion of the two bombs he dropped onto deck. I think if he was the hero he was purported to be he would have driven his plane off the deck in order to save the 168 other people who died. By getting his payload our of the fuel fire caused by the rocket that hit his fuel tank because he wet started his plane in order to show off.
On top of that apparently he was responsible for the crashing of 5 different planes. All of this is of course covered up because he is supposed to be an American hero who's career we can't discuss.
He was amongst the first to be offloaded from the Forestall, with the wounded even though he was not wounded, because and this is a theory but some think the crew was out for blood because of the person who they saw start the chain of events with his stupid stunt of wet starting his plane.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2008 @ 2:51pm
"...HRC's plump bottom."
Eeeewwww.
Stop that.
Posted by drhammer at 07/03/2008 @ 06:37am
Keeping in mind my earlier post as a caveat, I will attempt to explain the "wet start" phenomenon.
Prior to activating the ignition on the Skyhawk, fuel is allowed to puddle in the turbine. Upon ignition, the puddle of fuel ignites violently, and shoots a huge flame out of the exhaust end of the engine. Hot dog pilots have been known to do this as a prank in an effort to freak out those behind the aircraft.
It is not clear as to whether the pilot behind McCain's Skyhawk was startled into releasing the Zuni rocket, or the resultant flame from the wet start dislodged it, but whatever the cause, it is a matter of record that the Zuni was launched into one of McCain's fuel tanks. This started a chain reaction which resulted in a horrible conflagration, aggravated by the fact that the Skyhawks, which were rated for 500lb. bombs, were armed with 1000lb. bombs that fateful day.
If the myth were true, (and I have seen nothing so far to convince me), the consequences of McCain's actions would hardly be analogous to a puke-related infant death caused by the careless disposal of a donut.
Two more things are a matter of record in the Forrestal catastrophe. One has been told and retold extensively; the other not so much.
McCain bravely made his way to the flaming Skyhawk behind him and extricated his fellow jet jockey.
And although he was not injured significantly, he was the first one airlifted off the Forrestal by helicopter.
Posted by drhammer at 07/03/2008 @ 1:40pm