Originally Posted by Northgate
Again. What is it exactly that Clark said that was so goddamn offensive?
Apparently in addition to not being a goggle slave, you don't read the links provided by those of us who do provide them.
Over the weekend, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said that McCain is untested and untried, and elaborated that, I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president. Clark, you may remember, ran for president in 2004 on his record as a career military officer, so his comment, which he has not retracted, was not just morally offensive but self-discrediting.
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.
Originally Posted by addabox
"Weep"? For that pathetic exercise in ludicrous equivalency? How about "snort derisively"?
Things like "Obama is a Muslim" doesn't count because the McCain camp can claim innocence while the party hacks fan the flames-- standard Republican operating procedure.
Meanwhile, simply asking if a military background means you are the better candidate apparently borders on depravity.
It's a fact that McCain is the candidate that seems most comfortable with military solutions to international problems (and by "most comfortable", I mean "appears to be champing at the bit").
It seems perfectly reasonable to then wonder if his military experience has actually made him loath to reach for that option, as he claims, or not.
Is it your contention, Nick, that wondering aloud about McCain's reluctance to exercise force is some kind of beyond the pale slur?
As far as Kerry goes, you must know by now that the idea that "200" guys who "served with" Kerry had direct, observational things to say about his performance is simply a stupid lie, yeah? That, given the animosity and bitterness that surrounded and surrounds the war in Viet Nam, rounding up 200 vets who were in Viet Nam at the same time as Kerry who would be willing to say mean things about him isn't exactly rocket science?
Oh yeah, you could care less what's true or not, you just like to spin your little webs on teh internets. Crow, cock man, crow!
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.
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman
Trumptman won't let his eyes view this revelation, so I'll post the whole thing anyway...What Gen. Clark Actually Said
But it's Media Matters, what the fuck do they know.
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?
Originally Posted by ShawnJ
Barack Obama's plan is to bring every combat brigade home within 16 months.
His plan squarely
aligns with what the American people want. Whatever McCain's plan is for bringing most of our troops home, it taint
anytime within two years.
Bringing most of our troops home from Iraq within 1-2 years isn't Utopian.
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.
Excuse my imprecise language:
"Supporter of this war" meaning supportive of a continued presence in Iraq of most of our troops, a position expressly opposite to the desires of the American people.
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.
Why are the only reliable poll questions those that assume ending the war is a bad idea?
Let's have a question that asks "would you end the war if the sky would rain freaking skittles?"
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.