John McCain: The Real Story | YouTube Video

[asdfggfdsa]

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.

his job is to come up with a national security strategy (with the help of foreign policy advisors), not come up with a war strategy. Ie, do you ally nation X or nation Y? Invade a country or not? Sign this treaty or not? Each of which are (hopefully) decided in accordance with the president's guiding philosophy concerning international relations (realism or idealism, and if idealism, then either neoconservatism or wilsoniamism).

War strategies are what generals (joint chiefs, etc.) are employed for.

(i'm all ism'ed out for the day)

 

[Astronuc]

General comments to all P&WA participants:

Please do not engage in personal attacks or insults of other members.

Statements of disagreement with a position or statement are OK.

All positions, pro or con, should be supported with evidence.

 

[Amp1]

A lot of argument here.

Suffice to say, IMO, McCain has bankrupted his integrity - (commom knowledge in the public arena). 1) His selection of Palin. 2) Grandstanding in the face of a national economic crisis, and that's just two recent events.

It was fairly well known that Rumsfeld shrunk our military and along with BUSH/CHENEY and WOLFIWITZ stretched very thin our military. There are thousands of troops, airmen, marines, and sailors stationed around the globe on various missions, ie, peace keeping, the DMK, Gitmo base, and others around the world. Most can't be redeployed without seriously compromising their support missions or giving an opening for rouge regimes to consider overrunning their less advantaged neighbors. JMO. Mind you!

 

[mheslep]

A lot of argument here.

Where?

It was fairly well known that Rumsfeld shrunk our military

Then it should be easy to cite a source for that statement.

 

[Amp1]

Argue-who's arguing, I meant rant.../ er.. uhm debating

My bad mheslep, I should have said--IMO, Rumsfeld wanted to make the military smaller and more mobile. anyway here:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/20/061120fa_fact

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/p01s01-usmi.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2084212/

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14524

Since you take issue with my statement, I hope you agree those links are credible.

 

[WhoWee]

So then your position is that Kerry should have been elected instead of Bush?

Always was...I voted for Kerry.

 

[mheslep]

Argue-who's arguing, I meant rant.../ er.. uhm debating

My bad mheslep, I should have said--IMO, Rumsfeld wanted to make the military smaller and more mobile. anyway here:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/20/061120fa_fact

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/p01s01-usmi.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2084212/

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14524

Since you take issue with my statement, I hope you agree those links are credible.

Yes I agree. Rumsfeld's main theme was to make the force more nimble - my take on those links. That is, pick up and deploy significant force some place in a few days/weeks instead of 6 months.

 

[Cyrus]

More relevant to what?

Do you really need me to explain this to you? It's more relevant to *your* claim that his military experience makes him better suited as president to deal with terrorism.

This is not personal...but your assessment is incorrect.

No, it's not.

On 911, most of the people who died from terrorist attacks were attacked from the air...by airplanes. Knowledge of air operations is very relevant.

................. (that's the response I'm going to give to stuff that's just utter and complete nonsense. It's not even worth a reply).

In 2000 a US Navy ship, the USS Cole was attacked by Al Quaida...very relevant.

.....................

I also seem to remember that Naval and air support almost always precede ground combat...to "soften" things up for the ground troops.

.........zzzZzzzz............

I also think the Navy SEAL teams might take serious issue with your assertion that Navy personnel somehow lack the skills to combat terrorists...(they spend a lot of time in the water...and the planet is covered 2/3 by water).

................

The bottom line is you can't dismiss the importance of Naval experience as irrelevant. McCain, did attend the War College and the Naval Academy...class rank however is irrelevant...he attended...Obama didn't. That is VERY relevant.

Clearly, I just did. And I explained *exactly* why it was. So, he attended the war college for exactly one year 35 years ago and he implemented this knowledge and has a real world working experience of it how?

At this point in the WAR, nothing may be MORE RELEVANT than experience in coordinating communication between (the President) Congress and the Pentagon...as you pointed out...McCain has THAT experience...Obama on the other hand, doesn't...very relevant to the election.

You're grasping real hard for things that are not there.

As for ground troops (Army and Marines)...they mostly fight other ground troops...except for the Army Rangers who specialize in deployment from aircraft.

Uh...who do you think they fight when they jump out of those aircraft and land on the ground? Other ground troops, maybe?

Plus, let's not forget those lethal Army attack helicopters...that fly in the air and coordinate with Naval air support and surveillance.

Man, get to a point already. All this wrambling really goes nowhere fast. Ok, and the tanks go vroommmmmmm, and the guns go popopopopo, and the helicopters fly around. What's the point of all this.

The Marines are an amphibious fighting force who often deploy from Navy ships and sometimes from the air.

Yeah, uhuh......

Marine helicopters and fighters coordinate air operations with Naval systems. Terrorists use car bombs or take shots from safe cover and run...you need a comprehensive military strategy often involving a mix of special forces (often deployed from the air...and/or sea) and surveillance...again from the air. I personally know several former Navy men who are in Afghanistan (on the ground) RIGHT NOW working with the surveillance drones...trying to save the lives of our ground troops. That is relevant also.

Jeezus. What a long post about nothing.

I applaud your long post on explaining how the joint services work together. I fail to see how any of your post deals with steming the problem of terroism.

Since you did not get the point, I'll just make it explicitly clear for you. A battle field commander in Iraq commands men on the ground. He or she is responsible for making sure that his/her troops are aware that they should treat the locals with respect, and when they don't the turn the locals against them and are aiding the terrorists. They also know who the terrorists are in the various communities, who are the local religious/political leaders that are for/against the efforts of the americans and iraqi government. All these are the *relevant things you can only learn while being on the ground and talking to the people there.

Please stop with all these false premises about how airplanes were used in 9-11, and so airplanes are an important part of the strategy. Reading such replies is a continued waste of my time. You have presented me with zero, none, zip, zlich, nada, 0, facts so far about anything. Please post once you have some, and try to be more concise and to the point.

 

[Cyrus]

Here is a perfect example:

Col. H.R. McMaster

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/05/30/1/a-conversation-with-col-h-r-mcmaster

If McCain had *relevant miliary experience like McMaster, then your argument would be right.

If he was the head of the CIA like G. Bush Sr, I would agree. Or DHS like Tom Ridge.

But to say 'oh he flew airplanes, and the terrorists used airplanes' is not an argument.

 

[phoenixy]

But to say 'oh he flew airplanes, and the terrorists used airplanes' is not an argument.

Heh, ever since "My state is right next to Russia, therefore I have foreign experience", these sorts of claims don't even faze me anymore.

War on logic is well underway.

 

[NeoDevin]

Heh, ever since "My state is right next to Russia, therefore I have foreign experience", these sorts of claims don't even faze me anymore.

War on logic is well underway.

Don't forget `My state has oil, so I'm the nation's leading energy expert!'

 

[LowlyPion]

Don't forget `My state has oil, so I'm the nation's leading energy expert!'

Texas is an oil state too.

Look at the tar pit the last Governor from there that became President led the country into.

 

[LowlyPion]

Oct. 7, 2008 | "I've had my fill of partisan excesses, and I don't intend to disgrace myself by indulging in them." -- "Worth the Fighting For," by John McCain with Mark Salter (2002)

The driving narrative of John McCain's political career is not enduring five and a half years in a POW camp, but suffering through four years in the cross hairs of a late 1980s congressional scandal known as the Keating Five. As McCain tells it (and he has discussed it in almost every medium aside from Japanese manga comics), this was a classic tale of sin and salvation as an erring senator makes a grievous mistake in judgment, is hauled before the Senate Ethics Committee and, as a result, is forever changed by the public humiliation.

"I would very much like to think that I have never been a man whose favor could be bought. From my earliest youth, I would have considered such a reputation to be the most shameful ignominy imaginable," McCain writes in his 2002 memoir. "Yet that is exactly how millions of Americans viewed me for a time, a time that I will forever consider one of the worst experiences of my life." (For those who lack an encyclopedic memory of 1988 news headlines, McCain, along with four other Democratic senators, improperly intervened with federal regulators in an effort to save the crumbling savings-and-loan empire of Charles Keating, an Arizona friend and campaign contributor of McCain's.)

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/07/low_road/

 

[karenlau]

anyone has read the RollingStone yet?
Wow.. this guy really one dumb brat..
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

Sorry if someone has posted it already..

 

[LowlyPion]

anyone has read the RollingStone yet?
Wow.. this guy really one dumb brat..
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

Sorry if someone has posted it already..

Thanks for the link.

It is the story of a man who has consistently put his own advancement above all else, a man willing to say and do anything to achieve his ultimate ambition: to become commander in chief, ascending to the one position that would finally enable him to outrank his four-star father and grandfather.

That pretty much summarizes the affinity that McCain has with Palin too I suppose. Looks like they just might be kindred spirits.

Ambition wolves in maverick's clothing.

 

[LowlyPion]

McCain was not only a lousy student, he had his father's taste for drink and a darkly misogynistic streak. The summer after his sophomore year, cruising with a friend near Arlington, McCain tried to pick up a pair of young women. When they laughed at him, he cursed them so vilely that he was hauled into court on a profanity charge.

My that should endear him to women voters.

 

[Gokul43201]

My that should endear him to women voters.

Please! After the gorilla rape joke, after the Janet Reno joke, after picking 3 ex-beauty queens (and dumping one), after all the history of his post Vietnam days ... you think this one thing is suddenly going to get the women voters upset?

 

[Amp1]

Not with Bubbly "Palin" at his side.

 

[LowlyPion]

Please! After the gorilla rape joke, after the Janet Reno joke, after picking 3 ex-beauty queens (and dumping one), after all the history of his post Vietnam days ... you think this one thing is suddenly going to get the women voters upset?

It would seem that those that would vote for him aren't listening. There was this other disturbing excerpt from the article that seems a little over the top as well:

During his 1992 campaign, at the end of a long day, McCain's wife, Cindy, mussed his receding hair and needled him playfully that he was "getting a little thin up there." McCain reportedly blew his top, cutting his wife down with the kind of language that had gotten him hauled into court as a high schooler: "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c***." Even though the incident was witnessed by three reporters, the McCain campaign denies it took place.

A rather revealing vignette showing the esteem with which he apparently holds his wife.

 

[WhoWee]

anyone has read the RollingStone yet?
Wow.. this guy really one dumb brat..
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

Sorry if someone has posted it already..

I guess we have to hold McCain to much higher standards than Obama...or it wouldn't be fair?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09obama.html

 

[WarPhalange]

I guess we have to hold McCain to much higher standards than Obama...or it wouldn't be fair?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09obama.html

So you're mad because he didn't do drugs?

 

[LowlyPion]

I guess we have to hold McCain to much higher standards than Obama...or it wouldn't be fair?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09obama.html

Looks like you didn't actually read the article in Rolling Stone.

John McCain is just clearly unsuited for any leadership position and the facts about his life outlined there and erratic temperament and his blossomed hypocrisy about not going negative only serve to confirm that.

 

[mheslep]

and the facts about his life outlined there

What makes you think there are any facts outlined there?

 

[Gokul43201]

Because many of them are simple historical facts, described not only by McCain in his own writings (which are quoted in the article), but also backed up by physical records.

Do you dispute McCain's class rank at the Academy? That is a "fact" outlined there.

 

[LowlyPion]

Because many of them are simple historical facts, described not only by McCain in his own writings (which are quoted in the article), but also backed up by physical records.

Do you dispute McCain's class rank at the Academy? That is a "fact" outlined there.

In court many of the negative statements from his book would be totally admissible and credible since they were statements against interest.

I thought the article was worth a thoughtful read, and is the first time that I have read anything that sought to explain McCain the inner man.

And yes the source of the article is certainly Left of Fox. But then you can bet Fox would never look to do anything but mythologize McCain.

 

[LowlyPion]

The one really revealing moment for me was when McCain referred to Obama as "that one". That slip in my mind laid bare what may be a really dark thought. I thought it was a cold and even menacing moment.

McCain's condescending comment shows that he isn't Obama's equal. John McCain diminished himself.

 

[mheslep]

Because many of them are simple historical facts, described not only by McCain in his own writings (which are quoted in the article), but also backed up by physical records.

Do you dispute McCain's class rank at the Academy? That is a "fact" outlined there.

No, I don't dispute that. I dispute that the author knows McCain was 'nervously' going through his preflight for the zillionth time by himself in his aircraft aboard the Forrestal before the explosion, and I dispute that the author knows this because "McCain was trying to live up to his father's expectations". I dispute many such passages, and I assert therefore that the author is in love with his own views, and that the facts are only cover for them. Good luck resolving which is which.

 

[LowlyPion]

No, I don't dispute that. I dispute that the author knows McCain was 'nervously' going through his preflight for the zillionth time by himself in his aircraft aboard the Forrestal before the explosion, and I dispute that the author knows this because "McCain was trying to live up to his father's expectations". I dispute many such passages, and I assert therefore that the author is in love with his own views, and that the facts are only cover for them. Good luck resolving which is which.

Good thing that's not a crime around here.

 

[LowlyPion]

McCain Addresses ‘My Fellow Prisoners’

Elizabeth Holmes reports from Strongsville, Ohio, on the presidential race.

In a campaign with plenty of gaffes to go around, John McCain added one to the mix Wednesday. The Republican vice-presidential candidate addressed a crowd in Pennsylvania as “my fellow prisoners.”

McCain made the slip while discussing his plans for the economy, including health care and energy policies. “Across this country, this is the agenda I have set before my fellow prisoners,” he said. The prepared remarks, which the campaign distributed during the speech, showed he meant to say “citizens.” The Arizona senator was a prisoner of war, spending nearly six years in Vietnam. He often talks about his experiences on the campaign trail, albeit briefly.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/08/mccain-addresses-my-fellow-prisoners/

 

[edward]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/08/mccain-addresses-my-fellow-prisoners/

McCain's Pennsylvania appearance resembled a high school pep rally with Palin as the head cheer leader.

There were a number of times when some members of the audience started to chant McCain, McCain or Nobama, Nobama right on cue.

It was totally obvious that it was all staged.