Another message beamed in from the not-Right alternate universe where what “I believe” trumps all of the evidence to the contrary. Clark honored McCain’s military service and personal heroism. Obama defended his own patriotism and did not question McCain’s. These are the facts. This is the truth. Not that you care.</p>
<p>If the title of the thread were “Obama Surrogate Questions Value of McCain’s Military Service,” it might have a shred of integrity. But the current title is simply untrue, and is part of a desperate attempt to shield McCain from any criticism.</p>
<p>Linking web sites and campaign propaganda and biased journalism does nothing to support the argument that Obama challenged McCain’s patriotism.</p>
<p>You can find just as many anti-McCain sites that question his “relationships”, his temper, etc. You can find news articles that challenge the integrity of both candidates. You can find many left wing sites that denounce McCain, and many right wing sites that denounce Obama.</p>
<p>Google the candidates name, and something negative you want to believe about a candidate and you can find it! </p>
<p>1sok - Just in case your post was addressed to me for adding those links to my last post - those links were posted to dispute the claim that BarristerDad made in post 107 that the Republicans are trying to distract the voters b/c we have no ideas or vision for the future (not directly in regard to the OP).</p>
<p>I actually agree w/ Hunt’s assertion in post 123 that the title of this thread could’ve been worded differently in order to be more “true”. Perhaps the OP was just trying to grab everyone’s attention. Or perhaps he really felt that Clark was speaking for Obama & his statements were an effort to diminish McCain’s ability to claim that his service has prepared him for the job of POTUS. </p>
<p>One could certainly question if this was, in fact, a roundabout way of attacking, surreptitiously, McCain’s strongest advantage over McCain. On the surface, no it was not, but campaigns are quite the chess game, so who knows - it’s open for conjecture on both sides.</p>
<p>Clark was not challenging McCain’s contended advantage over Obama roundaboutly or surreptitiously - he was doing so directly. One is welcome to contest his opinion, but not by completely misrepresenting what he said, and then, bizarrely, attributing this falsification to others. The title of the thread cannot be worded to be more “true” since it is not remotely true at all.</p>
<p>drb- would it not have been more “true” to title the thread thusly:</p>
<p>General Clark Says McCain has No Executive Experience
or: Clark Says McCain not Ready to Be POTUS
or: Obama Surrogate Says McCain Lacks Executive Experience
or: Obama Surrogate Questions McCain’s Military Experience</p>
<p>Now if you think that surrogates “speak” for the candidate, you can see how Obama’s name gets brought into all this.</p>
<p>And then, if you equate Miltary Service w/ Patriotism, well…</p>
<p>Way to go, drb - you just made me prove the opposite of my original statement, which was that the thread title was erroneous - now I’m starting to wonder.</p>
<p>You did not prove squat, except for the bizarre rationalization process of the not-Right, which conflates a statement questioning whether McCain’s military service included executive experience relevant to being CinC to one that disparages his patriotism. Way to go, bz - distort the actual facts with your “beliefs” and create your own reality.</p>
<p>Only someone “altered” out of his gourd would make a statement like that. Who “creates their own reality”? Facts are facts; opinion is opinion. I’m perfectly capable in distinguishing between the two - are you?</p>
<p>Furthermore, I find it laughable that I was agreeing w/ the idea that the title of this thread was “inartful”, but your reply prompted a response which supports the opposite. You lost your own argument, so give it up.</p>
<p>If facts are facts, why are you having such difficulty accepting the fact that no one no where questioned McCain’s patriotism. This is the fact - if you dispute this, show us otherwise, without your belief filter superimposed (e.g. “if you equate Miltary Service w/ Patriotism”). Furthermore, the title of the thread was not “inartful”, it was an outright lie. Suggesting it could be more “true” implies it was true at all, which it was not.</p>
<p>I heard Clark interviewed yesterday on NPR, I thought the only convincing case he made was that his own military record gave him better experience that McCain’s. Yes, Obama showed good judgment being against the war early on, but after all the nay-sayers on the first Gulf War were pilloried for their no votes, I understand exactly why there was such overwhelming support for the second war. Obama wasn’t in the same position at all. </p>
<p>I’ll vote for Obama anyway, but only because I’m counting on him to get good advice.</p>
<p>Hanna - I agree.
Would you accept the following to be true?</p>
<p>A. All those in the Military are Patriots.
B. All Patriots are not in the Military.</p>
<p>I can speak pretty well to the first statement - if not “all” those in the military are patriots, then it is pretty darn close. One just does not choose that life with all the risk & sacrifice that goes along with it, unless one has a pretty strong patriotic streak. In the military, one is constantly asking oneself, “Why am I doing this?”.</p>
<p>Yes, some do get into the military b/c of the educational or other perceived “benefits”, but once in, the patriotsm kicks in, esp.when one is being asked to do the “hard things” (which is all the time!). </p>
<p>It’s called “Service to Your Country” because it truly IS!</p>
<p>…and those “in the service” know it!</p>
<p>I hope that helps to prove that statement “A” above is in fact true.</p>
<p>drb- All I said was that there COULD’VE been a title to this thread which WAS true.</p>
<p>And I even gave some examples - do you dispute any of those four examples as “true” statements?</p>
<p>And for the record - I myself have not suggested that Clark questioned anything - I was just talking about the title of this thread being worded better.</p>
<p>I couldn’t care less what Wesley Clark says about anything. We lived in Europe under his command… and that’s all I’m going to say about it.</p>
Not exactly - you said it could’ve been “more true”. And it is specifically the “more” part to which I object. The first two of your title examples are perfectly valid. Had the OP chosen them instead of the deliberately inflammatory and false one that he did, this thread would have been alot shorter. The third is arguable, but not necessarily objectionable - it requires accepting the premise that Clark is an Obama surrogate. (It is notable how both campaigns have advisers making disparaging comments that the candidates can then righteously decry - after the damage has been done). The fourth example blurs the point Clark was making - he specifically honors McCain’s “military experience” but questions its relevance to that required to be Chief Executive.</p>
<p>I’m an Obama fan, and I would have been OK with calling Clark an Obama surrogate–that was essentially his role in the interview, and Lieberman was a McCain surrogate. The leap that I can’t make, and that I think is deceptive, is to suggest that anything Clark said reflects on McCain’s patriotism. Even saying that a military leader was the most incompetent and stupid commander in history wouldn’t be a reflection on his patriotism. Indeed, Clark called McCain a hero in the same interview.</p>
Since when did “accuracy” depend on the “purposes of this campaign”? Is this some sort of right wing “situational ethics?” As in, it’s OK to lie about people if they’re running for office and not Republicans? Considering that neither Obama nor Clark ever denigrated McCain or his military service or anything associated with it, and specifically, Clark did not do so in the interview cited, it’s not clear what the “wiggle room” is.</p>
<p>I expect tripe like the smoke blown out of the McCain campaign (by his “surrogates”) expressing phony outrage over anything they can take out of context and distort during a political campaign. But here on CC - with real (if anonymous) people, I expect better. Specifically, P2N - I expect better of you. You can read the transcript or watch the video of the Clark interview you referenced. If you really want to defend your own description of it: “Obama questions McCain’s patriotism” - you set the bar for your own credibility.</p>
<p>Ok, folks…this is a political campaign and everyone is entitled to their opinion, politely stated as a discussion among adults. ;)</p>
<p>I understand the dislike of my edgy and opinionated thread title, but I think it is entirely correct as Clark is a reliable Democrat (some would say toady) and gets interviewed often as such. Clark now is in the service of Obama, according to several different news outlets, not all of them right-wing. Note that any of many other retired General Officers could have been interviewed, but no - they wanted Clark. I suggest this is not an accident.</p>
<p>Further, I think it as well is correct to post when I think a campaign is trying to have it both ways - like Obama is currently doing - by personally saying he deplores such public criticism, yet allows it to happen anyway. He insults my intelligence (what little of it there is according to some posters :)) by such conduct. I dislike that, and it makes me want to post even more.</p>
<p>Let us contrast this behavior on the part of Obama with that of McCain. Has anyone connected McCain to similar attacks on Obama? Let them speak and provide links, please. McCain speaks for himself, as it should be. He certainly knows how to attack a political opponent.</p>
<p>You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Saying that Clark questioned McCain’s patriotism is, to put it as politely as I can, counterfactual.</p>
<p>“Indeed, Clark called McCain a hero in the same interview.”</p>
<p>That’s what I think was the major misstatement. I see him living through a very difficult situation - but I fail to see that he did anything heroic. Did he pull someone out of a burning building, lead troops away from an ambush to safety, risk his life so that others could go free, refuse to launch missiles or strafe civilian targets? All of these would be heroic acts - but I fail to see where McCain committed any one of them.</p>
<p>“McCain refused an opportunity to be released ahead of other POWs. In my opinion, that was heroic. In a sense, he did risk his life so others could go free.”</p>
<p>As posted already from the “military Right”, a lot of that is highly questionable (though I am clearly not in a position to judge.) Certainly there was no “quota” of releases. Nor was his life at risk (indeed, the Vietnamese saw they were so able to make good use of him, as they did, the impetus was to keep him alive and in good shape.)</p>