The Swiftboating of John McCain - Page 3

She says "my baby's daddy". So what?

So Faux News refers to her as "Obama's Baby Momma". So what?

Are you always this intentionally obtuse?

We've derailed the thread.

I've been waiting for an entire day for someone, ANYONE, to please explain to me why Clark's statements are so offensive?

And because no one can answer that question it only confirms what I suspect. This is all phony.

If McCain's going to get this bent-out-of-shape or absolutely nothing how can you not draw the conclusion that this roughly translate to...GET OFF MY LAWN!

There's nothing obtuse about pointing out where the alleged linguistic victim used the same terms in referring to herself or her husband. I'm sorry, Northgate, but you made it sound like Faux News came up with that "slur." They didn't. They took Michelle's lead. Bueno?

You guys go for it re: McCain. Just don't pretend that you have some moral high ground afterwards, K? You're defending the very thing that you were outraged about when it happened to Kerry.

Shoe, other foot. Other foot, shoe... political expedience rules the day in the value-less and unprincipled times we live in.

How is it the same? Northgate is right, no one has come forward to explain how this is the case.

why were Clark's statements are so offensive?
How did Clark's statements attack McCain's military service?

Thank you. Funny how these folks think Clark now equates Swift Boat Veterans. LOL!

1. SBVT: John Kerry is a fucking liar, a cheat, opportunist and he only used his service in Vietnam as a catapult for the presidency because he idolized Kennedy.

2. Clark: Being a veteran doesn't necessarily qualify you to be president.

Yup. EXACTLY the same.

The best part is... what, exactly, does Obama have to point to WRT anything that Clark critiqued about McCain? Zip. Zero. Nada.

Clark:
Um, does Obama have more or less experience in these decisions than McCain, Gen. Clark?

Wes, baby, you're an idiot for bringing this up. It reveals a wee little problem with your candidate.

What? I love how you dance around the point without ever really addressing the actual question.

Personally I'd never vote for someone who suffers from PTSD after several years of incarceration and torture. There's no way that person is not damaged goods.

The point is that downplaying someone's military record used to be taboo. Before it benefitted Obama. But hey, however you can justify it to yourself will definitely work for you. Overall, the veterans I know were rather put-off by the whole thing.


Yea, I know how that goes. I'd never vote for someone who has lived in California. There is no way that someone who has lived there is not damaged goods.

Clark said something like getting shot down is not a qualification to be President.

He didn't say McCain never got shot down, or he got shot down because of pilot error, or that he only got boo-boos when in prison. Tell me you understand the goddamn difference.

Yeah..... and thanks to Cowboy Bush, it will be a looooooooooong time before another Texan makes his way to the White House.

"I don't WANT to understand the difference - and you can't MAKE me!"

How did Clark downplay McCain's military record? Please explain this to me.

We're like 10 posts into this and you're still unwilling/unable to explain.

Well, I guess it depends on what you believe.

To "downplay" something means to make it less important than it really is. If you believe getting shot down is a qualification to be President, Clark downplayed that part of McCain's military record. So the narrow question is whether it is or not. Most of us here, including Nick of all people, agree with Clark. Further, for Jube to imply that the swiftboaters merely "downplayed" Kerry's military record is the understatement of the century.

"Spot of tea, perchance?"

This post is one of the most grotesquely indefensible things I've seen here, and that's saying something.

Top to bottom. Jesus. Maybe "value-less and unprincipled times" have something to do with certain elements of the citizenry being willing to shovel ignorance and bullshit like it was something to be proud of?

Certain elements? That's the wanna-be "moral high ground" I was referring to.

And BTW... it takes a special kind of ignorance of the consequences of socialism, as well as a politician willing to bullshit about programs we cannot afford, to come up with this current breed of Democratic populism.

As far as McCain goes, Clark is correct on a purely factual basis. Airspeed velocity, or lack thereof, is not a blanket qualification for POTUS. I just think it's funny that all of you that screamed about "you can't talk about people's military service" are now on the other side of the issue. It was sacred before, worthy of outrage. No longer. You can scream "it's different" all day. The same "it's different" that is applied to every double standard.

It is the "why" he's saying what he's saying that matters. Clark knows that McCain pwns BHO on the experience and military issue, so THAT is why he's going after it. He is, quite clumsily IMHO, attacking a perceived strength of McCain, while forgetting that BHO has zero to point to in the areas of experience and military issues.

If there is nothing wrong with it, why did Obama attempt to distance himself from the comments?

No one is denigrating McCain's military service. No one is making *any* disparaging comments or criticism about the facts underlying his service to this country. Clark's point is just that getting shot down isn't a qualification for President whether it's McCain or anyone else. How that is the "same" as challenging the facts underlying Kerry's service is completely freaking bonkers.

Apparently. And now in paperback!

You guys just don't get it.

YOU CANNOT TALK ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN'S MILITARY EXPERIENCE. IT IS OFF LIMITS. AND IF YOU DO, HIS CAMPAIGN WILL WHINE.

A LOT.

Do what now? Are there socialists in the room with you? Are they taking your stuff?


Let me just quote Northgate right quick:


Your response? A bizarre recasting of the objections to calling Kerry a fucking liar, cheat and opportunist as nothing more than "you can't talk about military service" because it's "sacred", and, hey, look! That's what McCain's people are saying, so, the same!

Which is either shameless or very, very sad, depending on whether it arises out of profound cynicism or lethal stupidity. Or, to be charitable, a cognitive disorder of some sort. And please don't tell me that saying so makes me all arrogant and elitist and shit; what you've said here is completely nonsensical, by any reasonable standard. If we have to pretend otherwise, the terrorists win.


You only need the "why" to matter because the "what" is so fucking benign.


Again, as has been asked dozens of times, HOW IN THE NAME OF FUCK IS WHAT CLARK SAID EVEN REMOTELY AN ATTACK? You can't just keep rattling on like Clark's remarks were an easily misconstrued rumor and we have to take your word for it. We've all seen the video. We've all seen just how mild a passing reference it was. We are all starting to suspect that you are insane.


Because he is a politician watching in astonishment as the national media have a collective orgasm at the opportunity to give the echo chamber full voice.

But let's keep it simple: you tell us. What, specifically, is "wrong" about remarking that military service doesn't necessarily qualify one for the presidency? Are you saying that that's untrue?
That military service, does, in fact, bestow presidential credentials?

Is it also true, then, that no military service disqualifies a candidate? Should we write that into the Constitution?

Help me out here, because it appears you want the campaign to be a Seinfeld episode: about nothing.

Somewhere out there, mydo is bored.

If we assume that military service unto itself prepares someone for the White House, then every single veteran qualifies for the job.

Several million of them.

Many of these people volunteered, many were at points drafted, and the wars changed them, forever. Our country asked them to do hideous things, to suffer unimaginable things and then to come home and be normal human beings again (and often to suffer again because of lack of support). Many can, some can't.

Over the years, I have known many people who have served in the military, some with distinction and some of high rank, but that doesn't make me feel they are particularly qualified to lead the country.

A 16-year-old student asked me today: "Why do Americans love war so much that this is even an issue? If this were an election in another country, wouldn't many American politicians express reservations about the candidate's service record, simply because he was on the other side during such and such war and could possibly be a war-monger? I mean, come on, Mandela was on America's terrorist watch list?"

So Jub, I take it you still are unwilling/unable to produce a response to my post quoted below. Are you not even going to attempt to jump this hurdle?

Come one, give it a whirl. It'll be fun.

And before you attempt to claim it, no, you have not answered the question in any way, shape or form as of yet. That's why about a bunch of people have asked it 20 times or so.

Things I do not want:
Off-topic rants about socialists
Off-topic rants about Obama
Off-topic rants about Kerry
Any of the other off-topic rants you've gone on that presume that what Clark said was some sort of horrific attack / downplay. That's all we've managed to get out of you so far. None of theses address the damn question at issue.

What was bad / out of bounds about what Clark said?

Simple
Fucking
Question

Please answer it.

Oh come on that's just stupid and you know it. It's a total straw man.

College prepares someone to be president therefor every college grad is eligible. 10s of millions of them.

Potty training prepares someone to be president therefor every adult that doesn't poop their pants is eligible. 100s of millions of them.

...

You obviously didn't finish reading my post and selectively quoted one piece of it... just like what has happened to the Clark interview.

"If" and "unto itself" are rather telling phrases... as is "that doesn't make me feel they are particularly qualified to lead the country".

I agree completely with Clark on this one. Combat experience, having been a POW, etc., have no special weight when it comes to deciding the president.

The GOP is trying to fall in line behind their guy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020303242.html

What was that phrase? Flip-flop?

That McCain has a history of outbursts, however, is troubling to me. What if, in the middle of tense negotiations with a foreign power, he suddenly curses at their leader?

You have in the article GOP senators suggesting McCain has not worked up much goodwill, even with members of his own party, not to mention "everybody has got a McCain story." Doesn't sound like someone fit to lead a country which happens to be one of many nations.

What exactly distinguishes McSame's military career over the millions of others? That he was a captain? That he was a POW? That he suffers from PTSD?

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

I'm not talking about McCain. I'm talking about Bergermeister rhetorical device.

I stepped over it. About post #96.


I really could give a shit about what Flounder wants, honestly.


Read. My Fucking. Post.

It's not the same as what happened to Kerry. However you'd like it to be the same.

Wee is right! Really nothing.

No, you haven't.


That does not address the substance of the question in any way, because the question (once again) still stands.

How did Clark "go after" McCain's military experience? He praised it!

You either won't formulate a response, or you know that you can't.

Coward.

I love how the brakes screeched for trumptman when I posted that Media Matters link. He's gone. Never to be seen again.

Seems that Jub's painted himself into a corner. Thing is, it's not his undoing. Seems that when I posted this he vanished too.

Hard to deal with reality isn't it? Hey, it's just a forum. A tiny one at that. Thing is, when a certain FACT comes along, it changes everything. I am not trying to change the world here. I just know that overall that this topic is really, really dead. It's become personal now. I won't go any farther with it. You shouldn't defend yourself with this feeble, old war whore.

We all should be discussing the FACT that this gang of idiots in the White House (ALL OF THEM) have game planned the next world war. It's on the table. It's set.

Thread over, please.

Apparently in addition to not being a goggle slave, you don't read the links provided by those of us who do provide them.


Now I've conceded that getting shot down isn't a qualification for president or proof of leadership. I've even said that being in the military isn't necessarily a leadership qualification. However Clark went further than that and said McCain had never in his 71 years been tested or tried on matters of leadership. That is not credible. McCain did hold leadership positions within the Navy by commanding a squadron. Clark claims it wasn't during wartime and thus... what being a captain suddenly doesn't count? As the author from the link notes, not only is the claim ridiculous, it is self-discrediting.Clark served from 1966-2000. Do only the years when he was commanding pilots to drop bombs on Serbians count as being tested and tried?

McCain served for eight years beyond the end of the Vietnam war. According to Clark those years don't count. It is nonsense.


Hey Adda, I'm still waiting for the links of where you are publicizing your views. I'm begging you... please!

First I posted the links that noted according to you that Hillary Clinton and her whole campaign must have been "Republican party hacks." She was the one who answered ambivalently about whether Obama was a Muslim. Her campaign released the photo of him in native dress, etc. It was her campaign that kept noting Obama's problems with whites and did so very loudly.

I addressed the military bit above, I hope you can read. You can enjoy answering your own loaded questions.

You contend that rounding up 200 guys against Kerry isn't rocket science. Then again, I've said bring it on, do the same to McCain. I've begged for it. It isn't rocket science Adda so get to stepping and find them.

Nice ad-hom at the end. How typical of you Adda.


If they wanted to hammer the point home they would note what was asked, the quote from Clark claiming McCain was "untested and untried." Additionally they would note that Clark undermines his own authority and service by claiming that lack of wartime service somehow means you haven't gained leadership.

However think about that reasoning for a moment. Clark sounds like a warmonger himself. You know the only time you truly are tried and tested is when you are firing a bullet or dropping a bomb. The rest of the time you are just a wimp. Is that really a line of reasoning you and the Democrats want to endorse?


His plan was also to accept public funding, to filibuster FISA, etc. I personally watched the debate where he and Hillary would not take a pledge to have those combat troops home by the end of their first term. Plans can change and Obama would not give his word. Additionally I've never read that he would bring them home instead of redeploying them throughout the Middle East. This is also what I personally heard him claim when asked this question at the same debate.


When the American people are given a choice between a positive (bringing troops home) or a negative (staying there) of course they are going to choose the positive. Who wouldn't?

The reality though is that in questioning that is non-utopian, we have to consider trade-offs when bringing the troops home, not just a list of "wants." If the entire region destabilizes, if terror attacks begin to reassert themselves, if certain countries now feel they can kick out inspector and go nuclear for example. Where is the questioning that considers the trade-offs of bringing the troops home? I gave examples of such questioning.


The war can end and we can go back to treating terrorism as a law enforcement solution. The reality with regard to that though is that terror attacks still continued when we were doing that.

There are a lot of points that can be debated with regard to Bush, his handing of terror and Iraq and what worked to what degree. What cannot be debated though is that trying terrorists as criminals did not stop the attacks. WTC attack one, U.S.S. Cole, etc. all the attacks are there for anyone with a memory or a google slave on retainer.

What exactly is there to be said about your post? Do you want me to comment on preferred methods of suicide? In a thread about the SCOTUS decision?

Welcome back trumptman. Good points. I am disaffected myself. On one hand you have John McCain, a PTSD asshole supreme who will send this country into the abyss with another crusade against "Islamic fascist extremists" or Barack Hussein Obama, an inexperienced African American with a "Please Shoot Me" target on his lapel that bent over and took it from the AIPAC douche bags like all the others.

If anything come out of this, it will be the same old shit. And I'm seriously thinking of leaving this overweight, stupid, ignorant country if it continues.

We've all been gamed, hoodwinked and bamboozled.

I love you libs.

You're demanding, in your characteristic style, that I "respond" in a way that you want. I've already responded, and pointed it out to you where I did. The issue is not the substance of what Clark said... the issue is twofold... I'll indulge you one last time so you'll get it:

1. You guys made a big deal about adding military service as a campaign talking point. The neo-cons crossed the line with SBVT, and we heard that questioning someone's fitness to lead vis-a-vis their military record is a big no-no. Until now.

2. The reason that Clark is saying all of this... he's doing Obama's bidding. Obama knows he has a problem with both the experience and the military issues. Clark and his ilk are going after a strength that McCain has on Obama, in an attempt to minimize it for political reasons. Got it?

I know you do. You just really are dying for me to hand you something you'd like to hear. No dice, Flounder. Go for the strawman, if you please.

Yep. You're right. \

Nonsense. I apologize for having a life and posting here once a day during that life. Here is what got in the way of replying to you yesterday....

1. Swimming for several hours.
2. BBQ'ing a ton of chicken breasts so children and adults could enjoy a ton of Mexican food.
3. Some damn good guacamole.
4. A few beers and Soco's.

It is a daily agenda I hope to repeat several more times. If you get ignored today, I suggest you adopt it as well.

So the substance of what Clark said isn't the issue. Yet what you apparently regard as the iusse ASSUMES what the substance of what Clark said is to go after McCain's military service.

That logic is completely unintelligible. You can't event get to what you're attempting to address until you establish the point that's up for debate. I'm not the one making shit up.

Oh please, it was about GUNS. You know, that penis extension that makes you feel "secure" in that "big, bad world" you live in.

But I will stand for it, because it's the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. "Pursuit of Happiness" and all that shit. Enjoy. Just don't get too depressed.

Sorry, I'm having a bad day today.

Regardless, the choice isn't between one candidate who pledged to get troops out of Iraq before the end of his first term and another candidate who did not make such a pledge. The choice is between one candidate who plans to stay in Iraq indefinitely and another who plans to remove all combat brigades within 16 months. If you're within the majority of the American public on this question, Obama's plan aligns best with what you want.


Bringing troops home isn't a Utopian goal.

And I think if you're going to demand poll questions that assume ending the war is a bad thing, you should balance those questions with poll questions that assume ending the war is a good thing. Whether the public wants to bring troops home is an entirely neutral question.