John McCain: The Real Story | YouTube Video

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree, the only reason people can't catch Obama flip-flopping is that you actually have to TAKE a position before you can change it. Everything he says has just enough of a hedge-factor to make it meaningless.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

How much more specific can one be; esp when faced with a war-crazed nation? When it counted the most, he made his position crystal clear. And he was absolutely correct.

 

[russ_watters]

How much more specific can one be; esp when faced with a war-crazed nation? When it counted the most, he made his position crystal clear. And he was absolutely correct.

I'll give him credit for saying we shouldn't go to war, but he was anything but "crystal clear". All of the consequences were "undetermined".

 

[WarPhalange]

I'll give him credit for saying we shouldn't go to war, but he was anything but "crystal clear". All of the consequences were "undetermined".

Right. So he said he doesn't want to go to war because the consequences are undetermined, and you are saying he sucks because he couldn't tell you the consequences.

Please tell me you are joking. For your own sake.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't hear anyone talking about McCain's military training, knowledge and experience.

Anyone can pull out of Iraq...walk away from all of the $ Billions (certainly wouldn't be the first time) and leave our companies and the new leadership to defend themselves...they should have been paying ($10 B/mos) for protection for the last year or 2 anyway. I'm sure they have contingency plans. They certainly have resources.

The biggest mistake in Iraq AND by far the stupidest thing I ever heard (really) was that our National Guard troops would be sent to Iraq on long deployments...IDIOTIC!

I think Bush's logic was that we needed peacekeepers...not warriors? People who would not shoot first...parents (not their 18 yr old children), professional people who are more even tempered...WE STAFFED A WAR ZONE WITH NON-COMBAT TROOPS and HEAD of HOUSEHOLD PROVIDERS. How many of the deaths in Iraq have been National Guard troops?

In the good old days people (Bush for one) joined the Guard to avoid having to go to war. In the back of my mind I've long thought Bush might be justifying/enhancing his own service...is that possible?

These good/hard working people SHOULD NEVER have been sent there. The National Guard has an important role...it's not overseas deployment...think Homeland Security.

Back to Iraq, we can always send special forces back to deal with isolated situations. Okay, I GET IT, Iraq can be solved...by either candidate.

But, moving forward...we need someone who has a solid framework of what to do (based on training) and will listen to the RIGHT advisers...someone who can't be BS'd about war (remember Johnson and Nixon re war management?). Not a good place to learn on the job...never good for our troops either.

McCain (the son and grandson of Admirals, Naval Academy, Vietnam) is experienced, HE IS NOT.>>>.BUSH (father had experience, but National Guard was his experience) and...(like Clinton) Obama has NO personal military experience.

The reality is the terrorist groups will NEVER give up (ask W. Europe)...THIS WILL NEVER END...Bush made sure of that...and forget about diplomacy.

Iran is a hot spot, Syria (who knows), Africa has open conflicts, Russia is re-establishing it's regional control, Korea is a concern, and Israel becomes more vulnerable to long range attack every year.

With all of that as a backdrop...we have troops in Afghanistan and border incidents with (politically unstable) Nuclear Pakistan (India next?). If I was a terrorist on the run...I'd cross into a neutral country for safety...then cross the border to attack and retreat to a safe place (remember Cambodia and Laos?). History tells us it's hard to defend without expanding the conflict.

Everyone seems to agree Afghanistan is the best front to fight Al Quaida, but remember Russia's experience there? Wasn't good...and let's not forget our "dabbling" in that conflict...they haven't forgotten. Last...look at a map...we're pretty close to China again too.

Our next President better have a very good handle on WAR. Talk is fine when you're selling a product/getting elected...but tough talk and inexperience will get you beat up publicly most every time.

The only way to slow global terrorist recruiting is to 1.) try not re-invigorate them/motivate/impassion them to a cause and, 2.) make the job of being a terrorist unattractive - not something they can see themselves doing...at least not when it involves us, and 3.) give them a reason to want/need to do something else.

Anarchy doesn't work...for most people.

I like to use images...you don't see domestic street gangs (the street terrorists - drug dealers who shoot each other in drive-by's) now expanding into armed robberies of banks and WalMarts.

Why?

Probably because it would drastically change the rules of our engagement with them. They know their limits and operate safely within the comfort of our legal system. Armed bank robberies often result in shootouts and death...the public doesn't usually care if the Police shoot an armed bank robber.

It used to be a mistake for terrorists to target American soil. They started with soft targets around the world...then followed our domestic terrorists lead and tried to blow up the WTC...failed and made sure the next attempt wouldn't. That tells me the next attempt will be a real WMD.

I personally want the best military leaders we can find...on the job. McCain is the best choice for this reason...everything else is opinion and talk.

 

[phoenixy]

I don't hear anyone talking about McCain's military training, knowledge and experience.

You don't want to hear about it. McCain was the bottom 5th of his class and made it out with some strings pull. McCain crashed more air craft then George Bush by margin of 5-0. Those weren't John's brightest days.

McCain would likely to run any war into ground, the way he is doing with his campaign. If he can't his manage his own staffs, he is not fit to lead the country.

It's also fun to watch Biden, the senate foreign relation chair, schools him on the difference between tactic and strategy after the first debate. It would had been a bloodbath if these two have a debate on foreign policy.

 

[LowlyPion]

You don't want to hear about it. McCain was the bottom 5th of his class and made it out with some strings pull. McCain crashed more air craft then George Bush by margin of 5-0. Those weren't John's brightest days.

To be fair, he probably flew 10 times as many flights as Bush in his mysterious National Guard days.

Also to be fair, those weren't Bush's brightest days either, that is supposing he's ever had any bright days.

 

[WhoWee]

Phoenixy -- Obviously, you only read the first line of my post...I don't blame you...it WAS wordy.

Otherwise, you would probably have something more substantial to say than McCain was a crappy pilot (true)...and he's not very good at getting elected (also true).

I agree with both of those points...now please read the important parts of what I wrote.

 

[NeoDevin]

I personally want the best military leaders we can find...on the job. McCain is the best choice for this reason...everything else is opinion and talk.

What evidence is there that McCain is ``the best military leader we can find''? You agreed yourself that he was a crappy pilot, and you haven't provided any evidence to suggest that any of his other military experience was any better.

 

[WhoWee]

How much (real time) experience does Obama have dealing with the Pentagon or defense programs?

What does Obama know about how the military deploys or how it's structured...did he attend the Naval Academy or grow up on military bases?

Does Obama know anything about our military capabilities or even the extent of resources?

McCain does...he is the best choice based on (how about a different word choice?) familiarity with the military.

Maybe we should give them both a comprehensive test (next debate) based on military knowledge...might be fun?

 

[LowlyPion]

How much (real time) experience does Obama have dealing with the Pentagon or defense programs?

The idea is that maybe we don't need to be so eager taking the military option. Maybe what we really need is someone that can actually do something to solve problems for the American People instead of running around erratically pursuing their own blind ambition, trying to grab power off the politics of divisiveness?

 

[WhoWee]

Obama wants to be more aggressive in Afghanistan.

 

[WhoWee]

The idea is that maybe we don't need to be so eager taking the military option. Maybe what we really need is someone that can actually do something to solve problems for the American People instead of running around erratically pursuing their own blind ambition, trying to grab power off the politics of divisiveness?

What do you think about my comment regarding terrorists...what else can we do? Even if we bring EVERYONE home (and we can agree to blame Bush here and now)...they're NOT going to stop.

 

[LowlyPion]

Interesting article showing McCain palling around with felon Raffaello Follieri.
Delivering the Catholic vote?

Follieri, who posed as Vatican chief financial officer in order to win friends and investments, pleaded guilty Wednesday in a Manhattan district court to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, eight counts of wire fraud and five counts of money laundering. As part of the plea, Follieri admitted to misappropriating at least $2.4 million of investor money and redirecting it to foreign personal bank accounts that were disguised as business accounts.
...
In February 2007, according to a recent article in the New York Daily News, Follieri retained Davis's lobbying firm, Davis Manafort.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/berman_ames

Davis Manafort is of course McCain adviser Rick Davis.

 

[WarPhalange]

I don't want to read through the last page, so I don't know if this has been brought up, but what exactly gives McCain an advantage on knowledge of how to command wars and foreign policy?

He graduated from the Naval Academy, that's a plus, even if he did it on the bottom of his class, and he flew a plane in Vietnam. Then he spent 5 years as a POW. Being locked up in a room for 5 years doesn't give you any foreign policy experience or anything like that. It means that you're tough for surviving, but you don't learn anything that would apply on a global scale.

Besides that, has McCain actually taken a real interest in Foreign Policy or anything like that while in the Senate?

I am honestly asking, because I don't know. I hear him say he has experience, but from where?

 

[LowlyPion]

Obama wants to be more aggressive in Afghanistan.

Sorry, but that doesn't speak to McCain's competence to be Commander in Chief. His erratic behavior just comes off looking dangerous to America and our allies.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't want to read through the last page, so I don't know if this has been brought up, but what exactly gives McCain an advantage on knowledge of how to command wars and foreign policy?

He graduated from the Naval Academy, that's a plus, even if he did it on the bottom of his class, and he flew a plane in Vietnam. Then he spent 5 years as a POW. Being locked up in a room for 5 years doesn't give you any foreign policy experience or anything like that. It means that you're tough for surviving, but you don't learn anything that would apply on a global scale.

Besides that, has McCain actually taken a real interest in Foreign Policy or anything like that while in the Senate?

I am honestly asking, because I don't know. I hear him say he has experience, but from where?

I'm certainly no expert...but read this...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/minimizing_mccains_experience.html

22 years in uniform has to count for something?

Obama is an expert on government (supposedly) because of his background and training (law school?) and on the mortgage crisis because of affiliations with Acorn?

 

[WhoWee]

Sorry, but that doesn't speak to McCain's competence to be Commander in Chief. His erratic behavior just comes off looking dangerous to America and our allies.

Are you saying that Obama is wrong to want to increase efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

 

[WarPhalange]

Who is supposing that Obama is an expert on government?

Thanks for the link. It makes much more sense to say you've been in the military for 22 years (as an officer, no less) to support your foreign policy experience. I only ever heard the part about him being a POW, so I was confused.

 

[WhoWee]

Like I said...I'm no expert.

But look at this...he's certainly not inexperienced.

http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0061103You'd think his experience as a beer distributor would win him a few college votes. hahaha

 

[WhoWee]

Here's a link to Obama's page on same site...doesn't appear to be biasedhttp://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=BS030017

Please note Biden is the chair of the foreign relations and Obama a member

Hilary and Dodd are on Health/Education with him and again on Workplace

Last, Obama is Chair to Subcomittee on European Affairs...Biden is at his side.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't hear anyone talking about McCain's military training, knowledge and experience.

Anyone can pull out of Iraq...walk away from all of the $ Billions (certainly wouldn't be the first time) and leave our companies and the new leadership to defend themselves...they should have been paying ($10 B/mos) for protection for the last year or 2 anyway. I'm sure they have contingency plans. They certainly have resources.

The biggest mistake in Iraq AND by far the stupidest thing I ever heard (really) was that our National Guard troops would be sent to Iraq on long deployments...IDIOTIC!

I think Bush's logic was that we needed peacekeepers...not warriors? People who would not shoot first...parents (not their 18 yr old children), professional people who are more even tempered...WE STAFFED A WAR ZONE WITH NON-COMBAT TROOPS and HEAD of HOUSEHOLD PROVIDERS. How many of the deaths in Iraq have been National Guard troops?

In the good old days people (Bush for one) joined the Guard to avoid having to go to war. In the back of my mind I've long thought Bush might be justifying/enhancing his own service...is that possible?

These good/hard working people SHOULD NEVER have been sent there. The National Guard has an important role...it's not overseas deployment...think Homeland Security.

Back to Iraq, we can always send special forces back to deal with isolated situations. Okay, I GET IT, Iraq can be solved...by either candidate.

But, moving forward...we need someone who has a solid framework of what to do (based on training) and will listen to the RIGHT advisers...someone who can't be BS'd about war (remember Johnson and Nixon re war management?). Not a good place to learn on the job...never good for our troops either.

McCain (the son and grandson of Admirals, Naval Academy, Vietnam) is experienced, HE IS NOT.>>>.BUSH (father had experience, but National Guard was his experience) and...(like Clinton) Obama has NO personal military experience.

The reality is the terrorist groups will NEVER give up (ask W. Europe)...THIS WILL NEVER END...Bush made sure of that...and forget about diplomacy.

Iran is a hot spot, Syria (who knows), Africa has open conflicts, Russia is re-establishing it's regional control, Korea is a concern, and Israel becomes more vulnerable to long range attack every year.

With all of that as a backdrop...we have troops in Afghanistan and border incidents with (politically unstable) Nuclear Pakistan (India next?). If I was a terrorist on the run...I'd cross into a neutral country for safety...then cross the border to attack and retreat to a safe place (remember Cambodia and Laos?). History tells us it's hard to defend without expanding the conflict.

Everyone seems to agree Afghanistan is the best front to fight Al Quaida, but remember Russia's experience there? Wasn't good...and let's not forget our "dabbling" in that conflict...they haven't forgotten. Last...look at a map...we're pretty close to China again too.

Our next President better have a very good handle on WAR. Talk is fine when you're selling a product/getting elected...but tough talk and inexperience will get you beat up publicly most every time.

The only way to slow global terrorist recruiting is to 1.) try not re-invigorate them/motivate/impassion them to a cause and, 2.) make the job of being a terrorist unattractive - not something they can see themselves doing...at least not when it involves us, and 3.) give them a reason to want/need to do something else.

Anarchy doesn't work...for most people.

I like to use images...you don't see domestic street gangs (the street terrorists - drug dealers who shoot each other in drive-by's) now expanding into armed robberies of banks and WalMarts.

Why?

Probably because it would drastically change the rules of our engagement with them. They know their limits and operate safely within the comfort of our legal system. Armed bank robberies often result in shootouts and death...the public doesn't usually care if the Police shoot an armed bank robber.

It used to be a mistake for terrorists to target American soil. They started with soft targets around the world...then followed our domestic terrorists lead and tried to blow up the WTC...failed and made sure the next attempt wouldn't. That tells me the next attempt will be a real WMD.

I personally want the best military leaders we can find...on the job. McCain is the best choice for this reason...everything else is opinion and talk.

I'm sorry. McCain was a naval aviator. That has *nothing* to do with the knowledge of a general in how to lead a war. Your agument is disparate at best, and ignorant at worst.

 

[WhoWee]

Maybe Biden really wouldn't change any of Obama's outlined plans if something happened? They appear to know each other rather well.

 

[WhoWee]

Why don't you read (?General?) Obama's resume again...then re-argue the point..."ignorant at worst"...back at you.

 

[Cyrus]

Why don't you read (?General?) Obama's resume again...then re-argue the point..."ignorant at worst"...back at you.

Why don't you make a valid point?

What do I care about his resume? McCain clearly has *no* resume that says he's a military strategist either.

One was in the military, the other was not. Neither had any experience as a commander (like petraeus for example).

You have no argument.


I would also take the time to learn the duties of the national guard. Historically, they have been called to duty to fight in wars overseas. It's a branch of the miltary. They don't just put sand bags out when a flood is coming.

They were called to duty because they were all out of enlisted troops.

 

[WhoWee]

Are you really going to summarize McCain's entire educational background and 22 years of military experience this way...then dismiss it as not relevant...in comparison to Obama's experience?

 

[Cyrus]

Are you really going to summarize McCain's entire educational background and 22 years of military experience this way...then dismiss it as not relevant...in comparison to Obama's experience?

You really don't seem to comprehend the fact that flying an airplane does not mean you lead ground troops in a campaign.


Again, make a valid point.


*Note: stop crying to me about obama. I don't care about obama. I never said he has an experience either. Neither of them do. Stop bring this up.

 

[B. Elliott]

You don't want to hear about it. McCain was the bottom 5th of his class and made it out with some strings pull. McCain crashed more air craft then George Bush by margin of 5-0. Those weren't John's brightest days.

McCain would likely to run any war into ground, the way he is doing with his campaign. If he can't his manage his own staffs, he is not fit to lead the country.

It's also fun to watch Biden, the senate foreign relation chair, schools him on the difference between tactic and strategy after the first debate. It would had been a bloodbath if these two have a debate on foreign policy.

The crashes happened over a period of nine years. Two of those crashes weren't even remotely his fault, and a third is still questionable due to lack of information. Only two can definitely be said it was due to error on his part.

Biden also definitely has his moments exactly like Palin...

Biden, FDR and the Invention of Television

Biden told Couric: “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed.”

There are several things wrong with that statement. First, the stock market crashed in 1929. FDR wasn’t the president; Herbert Hoover was. He served as president from 1929 until 1933, when Roosevelt, who went on to be elected to the top office four times, was inaugurated to his first term.

Second, if FDR had been president in 1929 and wanted to make a public statement on the state of the economy, it likely wouldn’t have aired on television. Because no one had a television yet. The TV was introduced to the public at the 1939 World’s Fair in New York, almost 10 years after the crash.

http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/09/24/biden-fdr-and-the-invention-of-television/

Funny how the media is quick to point out Palins mistakes, yet you rarely every hear of 'screwups' such as this.

 

[Cyrus]

The crashes happened over a period of nine years. Two of those crashes weren't even remotely his fault, and a third is still questionable due to lack of information. Only two can definitely be said it was due to error on his part.

Biden also definitely has his moments exactly like Palin...

Biden, FDR and the Invention of Television



http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/09/24/biden-fdr-and-the-invention-of-television/

Funny how the media is quick to point out Palins mistakes, yet you rarely every hear of 'screwups' such as this.

'Moments like palin'? ......No.

I agree his pretending to know history in your quote is clearly wrong. That's not nearly on the same level as not being able to say what newspapers you read daily, or what you think about the bush doctrine (and know know what it is).

It's not that she got something factually wrong. It's the magnitude of what she can't answer and how it's todays issues.

 

[WhoWee]

Cyrus,

Did you even read my post...the long one you quoted?

My point was that McCain has more military experience than Obama...that's why I keep "crying" about Obama.

Obama said he wants to increase activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan...I don't think he has enough experience to even suggest a WAR strategy.

 

[B. Elliott]

'Moments like palin'? ......No.

I agree his pretending to know history in your quote is clearly wrong. That's not nearly on the same level as not being able to say what newspapers you read daily, or what you think about the bush doctrine (and know know what it is).

It's not that she got something factually wrong. It's the magnitude of what she can't answer and how it's todays issues.

I find it funny because the facts that he got wrong took place was only ~ten years before he was born! That would be like kids today saying Clinton was in office when 911 took place... it was The Great Depression! lol.

Biden isn't a shining star...

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html