<p>b&P;</p>
<p>You don’t need to lecture me about the First Amendment. What people have the right to say and what they SHOULD say (or not say) are two very different things. Please show where Obama says that others have NO RIGHT under the Constitution to speak their minds. He has taught Constitutional Law, after all.</p>
<p>I’m a devotee of Voltaire, by the way.</p>
<p>Interesting how this thread has quickly gone from a bogus claim that Obama questioned McCain’s patriotism, to a much easier to support counterclaim that it’s Obama’s patriotism that is continually being questioned (though not, I believe, by McCain), to a discussion that Obama has given reason for this questioning, and that others have a right to, as if not only is Obama in fact unpatriotic, but that Constitutional rights are being taken away from “real” citizens who question it.</p>
<p>It seems pretty clear to me that the whole point of the thread was actually to, once again, question the patriotism of someone with a furrin’ sounding name who doesn’t drape himself in enough flags.</p>
<p>Read the article…now time to poke holes in it</p>
<p>
Again re-iterates my point that he just didn’t walk away 1 week after. When you hand in your papers, you can pull them back, but the ball starts rolling the minute they are submitted, thus he knew he was leaving.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is left out is it due to his inability to lead or his medical disqualifications…1 stars with wings typically command a flying position, maybe he didn’t want to be an Admiral in charge of a non-flying billet! You can’t fly a jet if you are medically disqualified from ejection seats. This is of course the reason he had to go into props, b/c they do not have ejection seats!</p>
<p>
<br>
A lesson about the Service Academies, even the anchor (graduated as the lowest) can get a flying slot. Bullet’s cousin who was put on academic probation 3X, and had to meet the review board got a pilot slot…no family connections, just the son of a stay at home Mom and Pepsi distributor in Queens NY.</p>
<p>
This is the most disgusting comment of the entire article.<br>
Here is the real facts:
</p>
<p>If that is special treatment, please give me the regular treatment, which I think would be put a gun to my head and kill me now.</p>
<p>What the article doesn’t address is how he chose to stay…he went through horrible physical pain and yet he said to them if you are going to swap a prisoner…than take the guy before me. He knew he was propaganda for the VietCong, but he refused to let them use him, he stood by his brethren and said I am not going to use my connections to get the heck out of here before the guy who got here before me.</p>
<p>You obviously don’t know much about release of military records. If he wants them released, all he has to do is sign Standard Form 180 (as Kerry did, though too late). </p>
<p>What’s he got to hide? I suspect it will be relatively simple. He served his country well, and wasn’t considered “leadership material”. But if he wants to put that to rest, simple to do.</p>
<p>As for what happened in Vietnam, I’m not qualified to say. There are folks on the “military Right” who seem prepared to weigh in:</p>
<p>What the military “Right” is posting about McCain:</p>
<p>The first comes from nine years ago:
[John</a> McCain, the Admiral’s Son](<a href=“Elite Dating in UK | everything unveiled…”>Elite Dating in UK | everything unveiled…)</p>
<p>The second is from yesterday:
[Protecting</a> McCain’s Image](<a href=“Elite Dating in UK | everything unveiled…”>Elite Dating in UK | everything unveiled…)</p>
<p>I find them less than convincing. I find Clark’s comments right on point. If he wants to indicate the leadership capacities he exhibited that qualify him, all he has to do is release the records.</p>
<p>mini - you gotta stop getting your “news” from Huffington Post! That article does nothing to further your case against McCain. </p>
<p>First of all, the focus of the article is to dispute an article in the New York Times which neither McCain himself nor his campaign has/had anything to do with. Apparently, SecNav Lehmann stated that he told McCain that he shouldn’t retire b/c he’d make ADM. That’s what the Times reports, but McCain tells a different story & has never claimed otherwise. How is that a bad reflection on McCain?</p>
<p>The title of that Article: “McCain’s Secret, Questionable Record” is extremely misleading & sensationalistic. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that McCain’s military record is questionable, or “secret” beyond the fact that some pages have been redacted - probably b/c they contain classified info. McCain has released all allowable info & to suggest otherwise is just bad journalism & pretty devious.</p>
<p>I would hope that anyone who reads that article would see it as it is - a poor attempt to smear McCain w/out even enough proof to call it “flimsy”.</p>
<p>Marite, all I was saying is that freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. I do not in any shape, form or manner believe Obama is against it. I was not attacking Obama. All I was trying to say is Obama has the right to say whatever he wants and the same is true for McCain. </p>
<p>I agree with you that Obama’s patriotism is being questioned and the reason people are able to question it is because of that freedom. Let’s use Mini questioning McCains military background. Mini has every right and should use that right, b/c military members are defending it.</p>
<p>I do believe Obama loves this country, nobody in their right mind would ever want this job unless it was to make the country better. I believe the flag lapel pin attacks are idiotic, along with the pledge attacks! I am not supporting McCain because Obama doesn’t wear a pin or Wrights views. I am supporting McCain because of McCain. I agree with his policies. I respect him for ticking off the repubs and going across the aisle when it is good for the country. I admired him back in 01 when he voted against the tax refund because other MOC’s put in riders and Bush did not tie it to reduction in spending. I gave him more respect when he started telling anyone who would listen that Rummy had to be fired. I believe he would never allow water torture an would have no problem firing anyone who did it behind his back. I love the fact that he wants a line item veto…a bridge to nowhere in Alaska that the residents don’t even want doesn’t deserve to be in the budget. This is a man who has never earmarked anything for his state, and they still seem to be surviving.</p>
<p>If McCain’s military records were sterling, we’d already have seen more of them. I very much doubt that there is anything too damning in them, because we would already have seen that too. Most likely, they show an undistinguished career, with one particular episode of sterling performance (his time as a POW).</p>
<p>mini - that first article is about two soldiers who were released form captivity THEN criticized the military ops in Vietnam - not the same as being tortured until you break. Can’t make any comparison to McCain’s experiences as a POW.</p>
<p>The 2nd article contains this quote:
</p>
<p>The author should follow his own advice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you just want to see his OPR (Officer Promotion Rec) to see if he was going to be promoted. Let me let you in on a little secret…to be in zone, which means on time, you are at the 21 -23 yr marker for O-6. To retire as a O-6 you must serve 2 yrs in that rank, it takes @ 1 yr to pin on from the time you are selected. Thus, he was a fast track and below zone since he would have been selected at 20 yrs.</p>
<p>Bullet has 21 yrs in and has yet to meet his in zone O-6 board. At this point in McCains career he was already pinned on.</p>
<p>I am in agreement with Hunt… accept I would like to emphasize that sterling period took more than many of us could ever give and so he deserved whatever position followed. Sitting in a crate for 5 yrs takes alot to endure, and doing it with broken bones takes even more, and then to have someone mess with your mind would make the most sane person insane.</p>
<p>I truly think that it is the dumbest political move ever to attack McCain on his record. All it did was inflame people, Clark forced Obama to get off message and address that he believes McCain is a worthy opponent. Let’s be real here, Obama was forced to defend McCain!</p>
<p>Hunt - that’s right. I agree w/ your post.</p>
<p>McCain has never claimed to be “God’s gift to the military”. He has always presented himself as a flawed person & I suspect he wouldn’t put his POW experience up on any pedestal compared to the others with whom he was in captivity.</p>
<p>Perhaps his miitary record IS undistinguished - it’s still more of a record than we can see for Obama.</p>
<p>However, McCain IS better suited to be Commander-In-Chief by virtue of his military service (over Obama who has NONE) and his judgement (ex. his calling for different strategy in Iraq & calling out Rumsfeld), and his experiences as one who has gone to battle & seen the truth about war. He also has sons on Active Duty which uniquely qualifies him as one who is directly involved in the results of his own decisions.</p>
<p>Here’s another person who served in the military (in a somewhat minor role) and later became president:</p>
<p>*Truman was born in Lamar, Missouri, in 1884. He grew up in Independence, and for 12 years prospered as a Missouri farmer.</p>
<p>He went to France during World War I as a captain in the Field Artillery. Returning, he married Elizabeth Virginia Wallace, and opened a haberdashery in Kansas City.</p>
<p>Active in the Democratic Party, Truman was elected a judge of the Jackson County Court (an administrative position) in 1922. He became a Senator in 1934. During World War II he headed the Senate war investigating committee, checking into waste and corruption and saving perhaps as much as 15 billion dollars.</p>
<p>As President, Truman made some of the most crucial decisions in history. Soon after V-E Day, the war against Japan had reached its final stage. An urgent plea to Japan to surrender was rejected. Truman, after consultations with his advisers, ordered atomic bombs dropped on cities devoted to war work. Two were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japanese surrender quickly followed. *</p>
<p>Advanced military grades apparently are not essential to being an effective president, but the willingness to serve is still remarkable.</p>
<p>Frankly, I see it as being much simpler than advanced rank. McCain could pull the trigger if needed; Obama’s ability to react appropriately is in doubt. While Bush can be faulted for any number of dozens of errors, few doubt his willingness to defend the United States.</p>
<p>It is amusing to hear Senator Obama say he’ll resolve policy differences with American enemy states via non-preconditioned negotiations. Kennedy tried this with Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis and was taken to school by the Russian.</p>
<p>*But Kennedy’s one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one’s adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings - his Harvard thesis was titled “Appeasement at Munich” - he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the Cold War, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.</p>
<p>Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy’s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?”</p>
<p>But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.*</p>
<p>See: [Kennedy</a> talked, Khrushchev triumphed - International Herald Tribune](<a href=“http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/22/opinion/edthrall.php]Kennedy”>http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/22/opinion/edthrall.php)</p>
<p>I wish more people on the right had had such kind words for Kerry’s military service in the last election, but at least McCain did. The problem I see here is a double standard…if everything a candidate has ever done in his whole life is fair game (including Obama’s birth certificate, for cryin’ out loud), then the totality of McCain’s military service is fair game, too. If he was a lousy commander, or a disciplinary problem, those things are just as relevant as what Obama did as a teenager, if not more so. What’s more, if McCain’s sterling performance as a POW helps qualify him for president, it’s perfectly fair to point to more recent things (like his involvement with Keating) to show a lack of qualifications, even if they also happened a long time ago.</p>
<p>Will the real b&p please stand up:
Post 37:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Post 46:
</p>
<p>I’m glad that one of you recognizes the difference between “should” and “has the right to.” So now, can you point me to the area of disagreement?</p>
<p>The attacks on Senator Kerry came from age-old political adversaries who opposed him for decades. He knew they were there and Kerry’s run for POTUS gave them greater life and a national stage.</p>
<p>I want to add onto BZ</p>
<p>McCain, knows the price every family is paying for this war. He has 1 son who is enlisted in the Marines and serving/served in Afghanistan and another that will graduate from the USNA very soon. So when he orders a deployment, a strike, or any military action he is sending his children in harms way. From news articles he is very close to them…just traveled the entire Grand Canyon on foot back packing with Jack in 7 days, only a few months ago…I am 43 and wouldn’t want to that.</p>
<p>I am also a military officers wife of 20 yrs, I give him more credit as a parent than I do myself. Our DS will be entering the AFROTC program and commissioned in 12, if he came to us and said I am enlisting I would have problems on multiple levels, yet McCain who seldomly speaks about his children (all of them) booms from the rafters about his Marine. </p>
<p>Let’s also acknowledge his private life. His ex doesn’t blame him for the destruction of their marriage, she also states Cindy was not an interloper. His step-children, whom he adopted, are all on the trail with him, unlike Guiliani’s kids. In today’s world of blended families, don’t you think that is the highest compliment anyone could pay, when grown (the oldest is 47) children still consider him Dad, even though he was never their biological father, was a POW for 5 yrs, and they divorced 6 yrs after coming home. McCain makes no bones about the fact that he was a horrible husband when he returned, drinking and cavorting. Yet, his ex and adopted children have forgiven him and supported him in his bid…if they are okay with it, than everyone else should be! I think that is why the media doesn’t bring it up, there is no traction.</p>
<p>It is probably safe to say that the weakness perceived in Kennedy by the Soviets (in part due to the direct negotiations of June 1961) led directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis of October, 1962.</p>
<p>“it certainly appears that Clark wants him some of that reflected glory.”</p>
<p>Another very good reason to be skeptical about a news host quoting him as an “Obama insider” etc.</p>
<p>“McCain supporters aren’t worried, or at least I am not. I have stated over and over again that I believe the real power exists on the Hill. However, I am with McCain supporters who question Obama’s judgement to be associated so closely with these people. These associations alone mean nothing to me, but add in his belief that we should invite Ahlmindejad to the WH for a sit down or Chavez or Kim Il Jung, makes me question his judgement. I would love to live in Utopia where we all get along, but that is naive, and giving Wright the benefit of the doubt, or saying it was bonehead move inre to Rezko (sp?) does not make me feel warm and fuzzy, it actually makes me a little nervous.”
…
I have heard this before and these are definitely the talking points from Sean Hannity. It’s like a drumbeat every night.</p>
<p>“McCain makes no bones about the fact that he was a horrible husband when he returned, drinking and cavorting. Yet, his ex and adopted children have forgiven him and supported him in his bid…if they are okay with it, than everyone else should be!”</p>
<p>I’m sorry, I just don’t get this. Is it too much to ask for a candidate who hasn’t done anything like this to be forgiven for?</p>
<p>“I’m sorry, I just don’t get this. Is it too much to ask for a candidate who hasn’t done anything like this to be forgiven for?”</p>
<p>You’d have to go back to Carter for that.</p>